58. The Chairperson suggested that the review of South Africa's enforcement legislation would be undertaken at the Council's first meeting in 1998, which was scheduled for 24 and 25 February 1998; that completion of the review of the legislation of Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and the Slovak Republic, and continuation of the review of Poland, whose legislation had only partly been the subject of the Council's review exercise in 1996 and 1997, would be part of the agenda of the Council's meeting scheduled for 12 and 13 May 1998; and that the review of the legislation of Ecuador, Mongolia and Panama, who had acceded to the WTO during the 1996/1997 review exercise and who, while not applying a TRIPS transition period, had not yet been subject to the review, would be taken up in the autumn of 1998 and be part of the agenda of the Council's meeting scheduled for 18 and 19 November 1998.
59. As regards the review of legislation of Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania and the Slovak Republic, she proposed that the Council use the same basic procedures as employed so far and suggested the following dates for the advance notice of questions and the submission of responses:
-submission of advance notice of questions to the Member concerned and to the Secretariat: 1 March 1998;
-submission of responses to questions: 15 April 1998.
As regards the areas of intellectual property to be covered by this review, legislation in the area of copyright and related rights would be on the agenda for all five countries concerned. In addition, Bulgarian and Romanian legislation in the areas of trademarks, geographical indications and industrial designs would also be reviewed. Polish legislation in the area of industrial property would be reviewed at a later stage once Poland had brought that legislation into conformity with the Agreement.
60. Turning to the review of the legislation of Ecuador, Mongolia and Panama in November 1998, she suggested that the Council not decide on dates for the submission of advance notice of questions and responses until early next year but first establish a date by which the Members in question would be expected to have notified their national implementing legislation, in accordance with the procedures established by the Council for the notification of such legislation. She suggested that the Council remind the Members in question of their obligation to notify their implementing legislation and urge them to do so, in accordance with the procedures, without delay and, at the latest, by 1 March 1998, since otherwise the notifications would lose much of their purpose as a tool for the preparation of the review of legislation.
61. Finally, she provided an update on the status of her informal consultations concerning the early review of legislation with a number of Members, whose legislation was not subject to the review of national implementing legislation in 1996/1997 but whose legislation had already, in whole or in part, been brought into conformity with the TRIPS Agreement. As agreed by the Council at its meeting in November 1996, such consultations were desirable in order to explore the possibilities for spreading out the future workload that the Council would face in the year 2000 and for using the period between the completion of the 1996/1997 review exercise and the year 2000 for voluntary early reviews of the Members referred to. She recalled that she had reported to the Council at the last meeting that, although possible ground rules for such advance reviews had been developed in the consultations, they had not yet yielded the necessary consensus. Her further consultations on this matter had clarified the readiness of at least five Members to be taken up in such an early review in late 1998 or early 1999, on the conditions laid down in the draft ground rules, but they had, unfortunately, still not resulted in a consensus among all Members on these ground rules.
