30. The representative of the European Communities said that it was essential to bear in mind that Members wanted to be sure that the system would be reliable and only contained terms that were geographical indications. Paragraph 2.1(a) of the EC's proposal required that the indications notified meet the definition specified in Article 22.1 of the Agreement. As pointed out by the Chairman in his statement on notifications, such a requirement should not prejudice Members' rights to independently assess whether, according to their rules, the notified geographical indication met the definition in Article 22.1. At the same time, Members had all implemented that same definition in their respective legislation, so the result of that assessment should in principle converge with the assessment of the Member notifying the geographical indication. The intention of the EC proposal on this aspect was certainly not to take away from the hands of the examining Member the right to render the final decision on whether or not the geographical indication met the definition.
31. He said that the other part of this element related to Article 24.9 of the TRIPS Agreement, and was also connected to the need to make sure that what would be contained in the system was indeed a geographical indication, particularly given the legal effects that would flow from it. This was in the interest of all Members because all proposals had legal effects, although in different degrees, including the joint proposal, which foresaw an obligation for national authorities to consult the register and take account of the geographical indications listed therein.
