39. The representative of Argentina thanked the EC delegation for having given a written compilation of its oral replies of December 2008. Referring to a general comment made by the EC representative regarding the supporters of TN/C/W/52 and the development dimension in that proposal, he said that Argentina and many other developing countries did not share the content of the proposal and considered that some of its elements were against the development dimension. The EC's comment that document TN/C/W/52 should be considered as a whole and the explanations it had given on registration, put together with the reference to extension to other products, were creating serious concerns for his delegation. While recognizing that there had been some evolution in the thinking of the European Communities, which had clarified a few points, he said that in substance the EC approach had not changed regarding the main elements.
40. As regards the explanations given by the EC in relation to certain new terms, he said that the EC had actually not departed from its initial position and that his delegation could not accept a mandatory register. To compare the terms "rebuttal presumption" and "prima facie evidence", he said that, in the case of a presumption, legal proof to the contrary could be given while prima facie evidence would be based on facts as mentioned by the EC. If the entry into a register was to be considered a "fact", then his delegation would have a serious problem. This would deprive his authorities of the authority they currently had under Argentina's legal system to decide whether or not the registered name was a GI. If the respective authorities of two Members arrived at two different decisions regarding the definition of a GI put on the register, there would be some conflict. So, the main problem was the legal nature of the register: what would be the legal status and the actual legal effects of the GIs registered on the register and what should be taken into account as prima facie evidence?
41. As regards the EC's comment that its position on mandatory participation was final, he recalled that, in an earlier proposal made in 2005 in WT/GC/W/547-TN/C/W/26-TN/IP/W/11, the EC had referred to "participating" and "non-participating Members". He also referred to two earlier ideas put forward by the EC: one was to make participation mandatory for those Members above a certain share in the world trade in wine and spirits (idea of November 2007); the second one, reflected in WT/GC/W/547-TN/C/W/26-TN/IP/W/11, was to provide for a transition period for LDCs. Would the new proposal in TN/C/W/52 cover all Members, including LDCs?
