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

Ms Irene Young (Hong Kong, China)
Afrique du Sud
107. On this item, I think, my delegation has been consistent in the past and has indicated some sort of flexibility to have an open-ended discussion, specifically in our last intervention in this particular house. We indicated that, as articulated by the TRIPS Council Chairperson in May 2003, there are four possible outcomes to discussion of NVSCs. Some Members have had the opinion that such complaints should not apply as India has indicated, other Members have indicated that these types of claims should apply. 108. To this delegation's thinking, there may be some basis for discussion as to possibly identifying how modalities could apply, should we get to a situation once again in 2019 that we have had two years to discuss the matter and at the last Council meeting we still do not have any recommendations to make to our Ministers. In this respect, discussions should be at least amongst those delegations that are situated and that are able to do so to identify possible modalities and what they would mean. From this delegation's perspective, it would seem that proponents of the application of NVSCs under the TRIPS Agreement have not provided concrete examples of the kind of scenarios under which an otherwise TRIPS consistent measure would impair or nullify benefits beyond those arising from the obligations set out in the Agreement. Thus, it may be useful to clarify what situations proponent Members wish to avoid by having a non-violation remedy available under the TRIPS Agreement and, on the other hand, to ensure that non-violation remedies in the TRIPS context would not be so broad as to have the effect of expanding the existing TRIPS obligations or nullifying flexibilities that have accrued to Members in this regard.
The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matter at its next meeting.
18. The Chairperson recalled that, although the Council had not been able to agree on a recommendation on this matter, Ministers at the Eleventh Ministerial Conference (MC11) had decided that the Council should 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 to be held in 2019. It had also been agreed that, in the meantime, Members would not initiate such complaints under the TRIPS Agreement. The decision of the Ministerial Conference had been circulated in document WT/L/1033.

19. With this renewed instruction, she invited Members to share their views on how the Council should examine the scope and modalities for non-violation and situation (NVS) complaints. It appeared to her that repetition of the well-known arguments on whether or not such complaints should apply to TRIPS at all would not assist the Council in formulating the concrete recommendations that Ministers had asked for. She, therefore, welcomed any suggestions on how to break the impasse.

20. The representatives of India; South Africa; China; Brazil; the Plurinational State of Bolivia; the United States; Argentina; Haiti, on behalf of the LDC Group; Switzerland; Japan; Ecuador; and Canada took the floor.

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

IP/C/M/88, IP/C/M/88/Add.1