Compte rendu ‒ Conseil des ADPIC ‒ Afficher les détails de l'intervention/la déclaration

Ambassador Mothusi Palai (Botswana)
Bolivie, État plurinational de
7 NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS
95. This is a matter that was dealt with under GATT. Therefore non-violation complaints are not relevant to TRIPS and this should be our decision in order to bring an end to the moratorium as has been suggested. The TRIPS Agreement is a sui generis agreement which is not relevant to other areas of the WTO. There is a delicate balance between rights and obligations, and that is why Bolivia reiterates its position that non-violation complaints are not relevant to IP. This is a position that we and many others have declared in IP/C/W/385 of October 2002. We will provide substantial comments on the US proposal that we just received at the next meeting of the Council. In the interests of moving forward, we do think that Brazil has made some helpful suggestions.
The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matter at its next meeting.
7.1. The Chairman recalled that, at the Ninth Session of the Ministerial Conference, Ministers had directed the TRIPS Council to continue its examination of the scope and modalities for complaints of the types provided for under subparagraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of Article XXIII of GATT 1994 and make recommendations to their next Session, which they had decided to hold in 2015. It had been agreed that, in the meantime, Members will not initiate such complaints under the TRIPS Agreement. At its meeting in February 2014, the Council had had its first discussion of the matter after the Ministerial Conference. The United States had just submitted a paper entitled "Non-Violation Complaints under the TRIPS Agreement" (being circulated in document IP/C/W/599).

7.2. In opening the floor for comments, he said that he would particularly welcome any thoughts on how the Council could best move forward on this matter in order to be in a position to agree in a timely manner on its recommendations to the next Ministerial Conference. He recalled that the Council's original mandate under Article 64 of the Agreement was to provide recommendations on scope and modalities of such disputes to the Ministerial Conference by 1999, and that the Council had most recently been asked to work towards establishing recommendations for the Ministerial Conference that would be convened at the end of 2015.

7.3. The representatives of the United States, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Switzerland, South Africa, Brazil, China, Bangladesh, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, India, Japan, Egypt, the European Union, Korea, Cuba, Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Canada, the Russian Federation, Chinese Taipei, Ecuador, Colombia and Peru took the floor.

7.4. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matter at its next meeting.

IP/C/M/76, IP/C/M/76/Add.1