MEP Keller questions EU on its position on extension of WTO TRIPS Agreement transition period for Least Developed Countries

On 28 January 2013, the following question tabled by MEP Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE) to the European Union on the EU’s position on extension of WTO TRIPS Agreement transition period for Least Developed Countries was made available. As the March 2013 TRIPS Council is expected to discuss the LDC Group’s request (IP/C/W/583) for an extension of the transitional period under Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, it would be good to see how the European Union responds to MEP Keller’s question.

Parliamentary questions
28 January 2013
E-000828-13
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 117
Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE)

Subject: EU’s position on extension of WTO TRIPS Agreement transition period for Least Developed Countries
On 5 November 2012, on behalf of the Least Developed Countries group (LDC group) of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Haiti submitted a request (IP/C/W/583) to the WTO TRIPS Council for an extension of the transitional period under Article 66.1 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement. The request proposes the following decision:

‘Recognising that Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement provides that the Council for TRIPS “shall, upon duly motivated request by a least developed country Member, accord extensions of this period”;

Decides as follows:

Least developed country Members shall not be required to apply the provisions of the Agreement, other than Articles 3, 4 and 5, until they cease to be a least developed country Member.’

1. Does the Commission support or oppose the LDC group’s request for an extension to the transition period under Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, as articulated in document IP/C/W/583?

2. In particular, does the Commission agree that least developed country Members of the WTO should not be required to apply the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, other than Articles 3, 4 and 5, until they cease to be least developed country Members?

3. Could the Commission please detail its reasons for its position on the request (IP/C/W/583)?

Uncategorized