Minutes - TRIPS Council - View details of the intervention/statement

H.E. Ambassador Dr Walter Werner
138.   As delegations have stated before, the position of Ecuador has not changed, so we would like our statement at the previous meeting of this Council to appear in the minutes. (See minutes of the eighty-eighth session of the Council held on 27 February 2018: IP/C/M/88/Add.1 para 140). 139.   We would like to acknowledge the Buenos Aires Ministerial decision approving an extension of the moratorium. Our delegation maintains its well-known position that non-violation complaints are not applicable to the TRIPS context, as indicated in document IP/C/W/385/Rev.1 co-sponsored by Ecuador. However, our delegation will continue to participate proactively with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory agreement in the run-up to MC12.
22.   The Chair recalled that, at the Eleventh Ministerial Conference (MC11), Ministers had renewed their instruction to the TRIPS Council to continue its examination of the scope and modalities" for non-violation and situation complaints and to make recommendations to MC12". This was in line with the original mandate in Article 64.3 of the TRIPS Agreement, which required such recommendations to be submitted in 1999. This issue had thus been with the TRIPS Council for almost two decades.
23.   At the Council's meeting in February, there had been some signs that seemed to indicate certain delegations' readiness to engage in a constructive discussion of scope and modalities in case non-violation and situation complaints were to apply to TRIPS. This had also been confirmed during the consultations that took place the previous week. Therefore, he was interested to hear from delegations whether they had any suggestions regarding possible ways for the Council to ensure a meaningful debate that would ultimately fulfil the Ministers' instruction to examine the matter, and enable the Council to prepare the ground for the adoption of recommendations to the Ministerial Conference envisaged for next year. He was aware of the challenge, as it required delegations to reconsider their well-known and longstanding positions. He relied on delegations to come up with concrete proposals that would permit the Council to move beyond positions of principle and engage substantively in the examination of possible scope and modalities for such complaints. He invited delegations to share their ideas on any new approaches for the Council to take this issue forward.
24.   The representatives of South Africa; India; Benin, on behalf of the LDC Group; the United States; Ecuador; Bangladesh; Switzerland; Brazil; the Republic of Korea; China; Argentina; and Canada took the floor.
25.   The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matter at its next meeting.
IP/C/M/89, IP/C/M/89/Add.1