109. The representative of Egypt, speaking on behalf of the six delegations that had tabled a joint proposal,7 introduced the proposal by summarizing the main elements of the paper. He first stressed that the TRIPS Agreement exempted the applicability of non-violation complaints for a period of five years (Article 64.2) and that the scope and modalities for such complaints were currently under consideration by the Council (Article 64.3). It was also a fact that the non-violation remedy was designed under GATT to protect agreed tariff reductions and reciprocal tariff concessions in the area of trade in goods. It was a complicated issue to assess the implications of the application of the non-violation remedy to obligations under the TRIPS Agreement; this required a careful and detailed consideration due to the limited experience in this field. In this context, he welcomed both the Secretariat's and Canada's contributions in this regard, sharing Canada's concern that the application of the non-violation remedy in the area of intellectual property might constrain Members' ability to introduce new and perhaps vital social, economic, developmental, health, environmental and cultural measures and might have an impact on existing policies in these areas. Taking into consideration that developing countries were currently enjoying transitional periods, most of them were not in a position to assess the implications of the application of the non-violation remedy in the area of intellectual property. Therefore, the six delegations on whose behalf he spoke proposed an extension of the time-period referred to in Article 64.2 for an adequate time until the implications of such a remedy in the area of intellectual property were better understood and the possible scope and modalities had been adequately addressed in accordance with Article 64.3 of the TRIPS Agreement.
