 WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
ORGANISATION MONDIALE DU COMMERCE  
ORGANIZACIÓN MUNDIAL DEL COMERCIO  WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
29 November 2004 
 (04-5183 ) 
Trade Policy Review Body 11 and 13 October 2004 Original:  English/ 
                 anglais/ 
                 inglés 
  
TRADE POLICY REVIEW 
NORWAY 
Minutes of Meeting
 
Addendum  
Chairperson:  H.E. Mrs. Puangrat Asavapisit (Thailand) 
 This document contains the advance writte n questions, and replies provided by Norway.1 
__________________________________________________________________________________  Organe d'examen des politiques commerciales 11 et 13 octobre 2004  
EXAMEN DES POLITIQUES COMMERCIALES 
NORVÈGE 
Compte rendu de la réunion
 
Addendum  
Présidente:  S.E.  Mme Puangrat Asavapisit (Thailand)  
 Le présent document contient les questions écrites communiquées à l'avance et les réponses 
fournies par la Norvège.1 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Órgano de Examen de las Políticas Comerciales 
11 y 13 de octubre de 2004  
EXAMEN DE LAS POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES 
NORUEGA 
Acta de la reunión
 
Addendum  
Presidente:  Excma. Sra Puangrat Asavapisit (Thailand) 
 En el presente documento figuran las pre guntas presentadas anticipadamente por escrito, 
junto con las respuestas facilitadas por Noruega.1 
 
                                                      
1 In English only./En anglais seulement./En inglés solamente. WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 3 
 
 
 RESPONSES PROVIDED BY NORWAY TO ADVANCE WRITTEN 
QUESTIONS AND TO OTHER QUESTIONS 
  AUSTRALIA 
 
GMOs and biosafety 
 
 We note the references in paras 60 and 65 of the Secretariat's Review to Norway's approach to the importation of GMOs and how that approach is  harmonised with the EU's regulatory framework. 
We further note that Norway prohibited eight EU-approved GMOs. 
  We note that Norway is a Party to the Cartagen a Protocol on Biosafety and that it is currently 
revising its gene technology regulations to in corporate obligations under the Protocol.  
  
 We would be interested in learning how Norw ay intends to implement its obligations under 
the Protocol in such a way as to respect its other in ternational obligations, particularly in relation to 
science-based risk assessment procedures. We would also be interested in Norway notifying the WTO 
SPS Committee of its regulations in respect of GMOs.   Answer:
 
 
 Norway has implemented our obligations under th e Cartagena Protocol in such a way as to 
respect its other international obligations, incl uding science-based risk assessment procedures.  
  The Norwegian Act relating to the producti on and use of genetically modified organisms 
(Gene Technology Act) of 2 April 1993 already corresponds to Norway 's obligations pursuant to the 
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, apart from the obli gation pursuant to Article 8 of the Protocol to 
require the exporter to ensure notification to the comp etent national authority of the Party of import 
prior to the intentional trans boundary movement of a living modified organism. The implementation 
of this obligation is in progress. For the time being there are no exports of GMO from Norway.  
 
 As described in paragraph 90 of the Thir d Party Submission by Norway in "European 
Communities - Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products -DS/291, DS/292, 
DS/293, Section 10 of the Gene Technology Act requires prior approval by the competent authorities 
for the production and marketing of genetically modified organisms (G MO). Risk assessment is the 
basic element in the Norwegian regulatory approach.  Under Section 11 of the Gene Technology Act, 
applications for approval of the deliberate release shall contain an impact assessment setting out the 
risk of any detrimental effects on health and the en vironment as well as other consequences of the 
release. The Gene Technology Act in English trans lation was enclosed in our Third Party Submission 
as Exhibit NOR-21. Examples of risk assessments m ade in connection with applications for approval 
of production and marketing of GMO were en closed as Exhibit NOR-16 and 107. 
 
 The Gene Technology Act was adopted before the entry into force of the Agreement on the 
application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures , and is therefore not covered by the notification 
obligation pursuant to Article 7 and Annex B of t hat Agreement. In 1997, Norway notified a proposed 
Regulation pursuant to Section 10 of the Act under the TBT Agreement (G/TBT/Notif.97.704). 
 WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 4  
 
 Tariffs on agricultural products 
 
 The Secretariat paper notes that the average bound tariff rate for agricultural products (WTO definition) is 150.2 per cent, while the average bound rate for non-agricultural products is just 3.6 per 
cent (WT/TPR/S/138, page 30, para 23). Agricultura l sub-sectors such as live animals, dairy products, 
meat and preparations of meat, and grains are subj ect to extremely high tariff rates, with the live 
poultry and juices and extracts of meat sub-sectors the most highly protected with rates ranging from 500 per cent to 2,356 per cent (WT/TPR/S/138, page 28, para 18).   Norway's tariff policy approach with regard to agricultural goods is at odds with its approach 
to industrial goods. This disparity is particularly st ark when the high average tariff rate for agricultural 
products is compared to the low tariff rates for othe r primary production products such as fish and fish 
products (HS chapter 3) and forestry products (H S chapter 44) which have average bound tariff rates 
of free.  
 Has Norway carried out an independent ec onomic study on the economic welfare gains and 
losses resulting from maintaining such prohibitive ly high tariff rates for agricultural products? 
  If Norway firmly believes that improved ma rket access will significantly benefit all WTO 
Members (particularly developing countries as stated  in WT/TPR/G/138, page 9, para 28), why does 
Norway continue to strongly advocate and implem ent highly protectionist policies for agriculture, 
especially since developing countries are likely to ga in considerable benefits from further agricultural 
trade liberalisation?   Answer:
 
  The subject of this question is under negotiation in the DDA.  Please refer to oral statements. 
 
Agricultural support and non-trade concerns 
 
 The Secretariat paper notes that Norway's Producer Support Estimate, as estimated by the OECD, was 72 per cent in 2003, the second highest of all OECD countries and that total Aggregate 
Measurement of Support amounted to about 70 pe r cent of agricultural GDP (WT/TPR/S/138, pages 
74 & 76, paras 22 & 23). Moreover, the potential for further structural adjustment to the farming 
sector is inhibited, inter alia, by current Norweg ian agricultural policy which includes specific policies 
aimed at safeguarding non-trade concerns  (WT/TPR/S/138, page 71 para 8 - 9). 
 
 Could Norway explain why its current policy appr oach to agriculture is  designed to prevent 
moving from trade and production distorting suppor t to measures which are Green Box consistent? 
  To what extent does Norway see the Doha  Round as an opportunity to address non-trade 
concerns through general government  wide policies or Green Box measures, rather than trade 
distorting domestic support?  
 
 Answer:
 
  The subject of this question is under negotiation in  the DDA.  Please refer to oral statements.  
 WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 5 
 
 
 TRQs 
 
 The WTO Secretariat report notes that “in genera l, quotas are allocated through auctioning”.   
Could Norway explain how it considers that the aucti oning of tariff quotas is c onsistent with  Article II 
of the GATT, given that it involves the imposition of charges in addition to the in-quota tariff rates? 
 
 Answer:  
 
 Norway believes that auctioning of import licenses have certain advantages that should be 
highlighted. Firstly, this method is equitable an d non-discriminatory. Secondly, auctioning is 
transparent. Thirdly, auctioning is by far the mo st efficient way of allo cating quotas. Competition 
among trading companies is stimulated, and the most efficient companies will get the licenses.  
 
 The Secretariat report also provides details on Norway’s tariff quotas and total imports under 
its minimum access commitment, 2002-2003, for agricultura l products (table IV.4).  For a number of 
tariff items, fill rates are very low. 
  What are the reasons for these low fill rates?  In light of these low fill rates, could Norway  explain whether it considers the allocation of 
quotas through auction to be an efficient mechanism?  
Answer:
 
 
In general, the actual import figures within the quotas reflect the commercial interest in 
importing the different products, regardless of the allocation method. The commercial interest is 
influenced by prices in the potential exporting co untries, currency fluctuations, and the domestic 
market conditions.   
 Does Norway intend to modify its tariff quota regime, or move to a tariff-only regime, for 
those products during the Doha round?   Answer:
 
 
 The subject of this question is under negotiation in the DDA.  Please refer to oral statements. 
 
Shipbuilding 
  Has Norway implemented the new European Commission framework for state aid to 
shipbuilding (2003/C 317/06) through its membersh ip of the EEA? What arrangements and budget 
exist for implementing this framework? What assist ance has been provided to shipbuilders through 
this framework?    Answer:
 
 
 The EFTA states members of the EEA has adopted  a framework similar to the new European 
Commission framework for state aid to shipbuilding ( 2003/C 317/06) that entered into force on 1st of 
July 2004. There are, however, no particular arrangeme nts or budgets for this framework in Norway. 
Consequently, no assistance has yet been prov ided to Norwegian shipbuilders through this 
framework.  
 WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 6  
 
 BRASIL 
 A) Import prohibitions, restrictions and licences 
 
 1.  Chapter III (Trade Policies and Practices by Measure), paragraph 39, of the document 
WT/TPR/S/138 states that "Norway applies import prohibitions for environmental, health, safety, 
sanitary and phytosanitary reasons .  Products banned for these reasons  include asbestos and products 
containing asbestos;  products containing CFCs, ha lons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform and 
other ozone depleting substances;  and some live plan ts and plants that host certain diseases.  The ban 
may apply to specific imports from specific countries" .   Is there any kind of register required from 
Norwegian importers prior to import licensing?   If so, which are the required procedures? 
  Answer:
 
 
 Regulations relating to plants and measures against pests of 1.december 2000 as amended 
from 9. January 2004 sets out the Norwegian plan t health regime, specifying the phytosanitary 
conditions, procedures and formalities to which pl ants, plant products and certain other regulated 
articles are subjected when introduced into Norway. 
  Importers of plants, plant products and other re gulated articles mentioned in annex 5, points 
1,2, 4.2, 4.3 and 8 of Regulatio ns relating to plants and measures against pests of 1.december 2000 
shall be listed in the plant health register of the Norwegian Food Safety Authority under a 
registration number by which to identify them . Registered businesses are subject to certain 
obligations to ensure that the conditions in  the plant health regulations are updated. 
  Importers of plants, plant products and other re gulated articles mentioned in annex 5, points 
1,2, 4.2, 4.3 and 8 of Regulations relating to plants and measures against pests of 1.December 2000 
do not have to apply for an import license. (The re gulation relating to autho risation of importers of 
nursery plants and flower bulbs under the authority of the Norwegian Agricultural Authority was 
repealed 2004.01.01.) 
 
 2.  Under chapter III (Trade Policies and Practices by Measure), paragraph 40, of the 
document WT/TPR/S/138, "Norway applies automa tic and non-automatic licensing to imports of 
certain agricultural products.  For surveillance pur poses, automatic licensing is maintained on imports 
of flour, grains, and feedingstuff from LDCs.  N on-automatic licences are required for administration 
purposes of both MFN and preferential tariff quotas (Table III.7).  Non-automatic licenses are maintained to administer 60 tariff quotas on agri cultural products, including minimum access quotas 
resulting from the tariffication process during the Uruguay Round, other global quotas resulting from 
commitments predating the Uruguay Round, and bilate ral quotas".  Could Norway inform the cost of 
the licensing fees charges to cover administrative expenses fro the processing of documents?  Which 
products are subject to non-automatic licensing?    Answer:
 
 
 Of the tariff quotas listed in the Secretariat’ s report, 3 quotas under the Article 19 agreement 
with the EC are not subject to licensing (the fi rst-come-first-served princi ple apply). For other tariff 
quotas non-automatic licensing applies.  
 The quota rent which otherwise would accrue to the importing company is collected by the 
governments in the form of a permit fee (auction fee) . Fees are not charged relat ed to other allocation 
methods. WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 7 
 
 
 B)  Rules of origin 
 
 Under chapter III (Trade Policies and Practices  by Measure), paragraph 12, of the document 
WT/TPR/S/138, "Preferential rules of origin are a pplied under trade agreements to which Norway is a 
party.  Under the EEA Agreement, origin criteri a are generally product specific.  They stipulate 
processes that need to be followed or materials to  be used, and usually fix a minimum threshold for 
value added through transformation in the EEA.  A "t olerance rule" allows the use of non-originating 
materials provided these do not account for more than 10% of the ex-works price of the good.  The tolerance rule does not apply to textiles and clothi ng products".  Why does not the "tolerance rule" 
apply to textiles and clothing products?  
 
 Answer:  
 
 
 Trade in textiles and clothing has been a sensitive sector. This fact is also reflected in the 
origin rules laid down in the EEA agreement, where the rules for textiles and clothing are somewhat 
more restrictive than for other product categories. Therefore, the tolerance rule does not apply to 
textiles. However, it should also be noted that fo r these products some special derogation rules apply, 
ref. Notes 5.1 and 6.1 of Annex I to Protocol 4 to the EEA agreement,  whereby tolerance rules of 10% 
and 8% respectively are given for some specific textil e products. The protocol has been notified to the 
WTO.   
 
C)  General trade policy 
 
 1.  In the Secretariat Report, Chapter III (T rade Policies and Practices by Measure), paragraph 
10, it is stated:  "If customs valuation is delayed, importers with a "credit status" may be permitted to 
release the imported good from customs".  How is the "credit status" defined?  Is it possible to provide 
information about such categorization?  
  Answer:
 
 
 Importers can obtain "credit status" with Cu stoms through an app lication containing 
background information of company status. The appl icant will be screened by a credit rating agency 
and they will give the applicant a rating based on int ernational standards. On this basis, and taking 
into account previous non-payment  or delayed payment to Customs, the Authorities will allow the 
applicant credit status.   Although the screening is thorough, a high p ercentage of companies in Norway importing 
goods do have "credit status". Such a status enab les the companies to postpone their payment of 
customs duties and VAT until the 18th of the month following the actual importation. Customs duty and VAT for two or more shipments can be accumula ted into one single payment. Another benefit is 
that in some instances where the importer is unable to make a complete declaration at the time of 
border passage, he will nevertheless have the goods f ree to his disposal. By filling out a temporary 
declaration at the time of border passage, an im porter with a “credit status” is granted 10 days 
before a final declaration has to be completed.   
 2.  In the Secretariat Report, paragraph 36 of Chapter III (Trade Policies and Practices by 
Measure), it is affirmed that "A food production tax is collected on all foods (except water) at 
different rates.  It applies to raw materials produced  in Norway for use in food;  to all imports of 
foods, semi-manufactured good and raw materials for use in food.  Therefore, the taxation base for 
imported goods is different from the base for locally-p roduced goods".  It is time, as the text seems to WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 8  
 
 indicate, that for Norwegian products, the taxation applies only for raw material, while for imports it 
comprises processed, semi-processed and raw material s?  Could Norway clarify the question?  
  Answer:
 
   The foodstuff tax is imposed on both imported an d domestic products. Its objective is to cover 
costs resulting from the regular inspection made by the Norwegian Food Safety Authority on products 
in the food production chain that are not subject to control fees. The foodstuff tax is lower for 
imported products than for domes tically produced products, sin ce these products already have 
undergone controls and inspections in the export country.  
 
 Foodstuff tax shall not be imposed on the raw material more than once. For domestic 
products the foodstuff tax is imposed on the raw ma terial. For imported products the tax is imposed 
on raw material, semi-processed and processed produc ts. The foodstuff tax is lower for semi-
processed and processed products than for raw ma terial, since these products will undergo less 
processing and therefore fewer inspections in Norway.  
 3.  With regard to Chapter III (Trade Polici es and Practices by Measure), Table III.6 of the 
Secretariat Report, could Norway provide more in formation on the ban on imports of some flowers 
that differentiates regions of origin?   
 Answer:
 
 
 Plants and other regulated articles which are pr ohibited to import if they originate in certain 
areas are mentioned in annex 3 of Regulations relating to plants and measures against pests of 1 
December 2000. Import prohibition of the mentione d plants and articles are due to high risk of 
introduction and spread of quarantine pests mentioned in annex 1 and annex 2 of Regulations relating 
to plants and measures against pests of 1 Decemb er 2000. Permission to import otherwise prohibited 
plants and other regulated articles mentioned in anne x 3 may be granted for scientific purposes, trials 
and breeding under specified quarantine requirements.   Link to English version of the regulation: http://landbrukstilsynet.mattilsynet.no/vedlegg/ 
Plantehelseforskrift2001_eng.doc. 
  The amendments of 9 January 2004 are applicable to Phytophthora ramorum: 
http://landbrukstilsynet.mattilsynet.no/ved legg/midl_forskr_Phyt_ramorum_eng.pdf 
 
D)  Regional trade agreements  
1.  In accordance with document WT/TPR/G/ 138, Chapter III (Trade Policies and Practices 
by Measure), paragraph 49, "Since 2000, Norway has signed free trade agreements with Chile, 
Croatia, Jordan, Lebanon, Macedonia, Mexico, a nd Singapore".  At present, the EFTA network 
consists of thirteen free trade agreements and eight  declarations on co-operation.  Several agreements 
are currently under negotiation, including some with countries in the Middle East and Africa".  What 
have been the main criteria used by Norway to sel ect the countries with which it intends to negotiate 
preferential trade agreements?    Answer:
 
 
 The decision to pursue a preferential trade agreement with another country will depend on an 
overall assessment of the benefits of  such an agreement, which include : the potential improvement in WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 9 
 
 
 market access for Norwegian goods and services; potential increase in trade volume; whether the 
country in question is negotiating or  has negotiated an FTA with our ma in trading partners, such as 
the EU; and broader political considerations. As a ru le the country in question should also be a WTO 
member.  
 
E)  Services 
 
 1. In document WT/TPR/S/138, paragraph 115 of Chapter IV (Trade Policies by Sector), it is stated that "National treatment is accorded only to subsidiaries of compan ies formed in accordance 
with the law of an EEA member state and with th eir registered office, central administration or 
principal place of business within an EEA member state;  Norway's commitments do not extend this 
treatment to branches or agencies established in an EEA member state by a third-country company.  
Moreover, treatment less favourable than that accorded to national enterprises may be given to 
subsidiaries of third-country companies, that one  formed in accordance with the law of an EEA 
member state but have only their registered office in the territory of an EEA member state, unless they 
show that they possess an effective and continuous link with the economy of an EEA member state".  
Which objective criteria determine if national treatment  will be accorded or not to a subsidiary of a 
third-country company, in addition to the EEA law and territory requirements?  Could Norway 
explain under which circumstances a less favourable  treatment "may be given"?  Regarding the 
expression "effective and continuous link", how can a company prove this link?  Which criteria will 
be used in judging the fulfilment of this requirement? 
 
 Answer:
 
 
 Norway generally extends national treatment to  all companies established in Norway or the 
EEA, regardless of foreign ownership.  The purpose of  the horizontal exemption in Norway’s schedule 
of specific commitments, as described in the Secretar iat’s report, is to affo rd preferential treatment 
under the EEA Agreement to EEA subsidiaries on areas Norway would not whish to extend to all 
foreign subsidiaries. The possibility to refuse nati onal treatment to a subsidiary of a third country 
company based on lack of “effective and continuous lin k” has to our knowledge not been applied in 
practice. 
  2.  Paragraph 123 of Chapter IV (Trade Policies by Sector) of WT/TPR/S/138 asserts that 
"The Ministry of Finance is in charge of granti ng licences to engage in banking activities, and issuing 
regulations pursuant to the main acts dealing wi th financial services.  The payment system is 
monitored by the Central Bank.  The Financial Supe rvisory Authority (Kredittilsynet) is responsible 
for the supervision of banks, finance companies, mortgage companies, and insurance companies, as 
well as activities such as securities trading, r eal estate agencies, and accounting and auditing 
undertakings.  Kredittilsynet also supervises two guarantee funds, one for commercial banks and the 
other for savings banks;  banks pay premiums to the guarantee funds based on a combination of total 
deposits.  Kredittilsynet reports administratively to the Mi nistry of Finance;  it is authorized to issue 
rules and regulations in a number of areas, and it prepares draft statutes and regulations for the Ministry of Finance".  In addition to the rules al ready quoted, are there any other criteria to obtain the 
licence?  Is there any subjective judgement by the Ministry of Finance?  
  Answer:
 
  
 A bank needs to meet a number of requirements  to obtain a licence. These requirements are 
set in accordance with the BIS standards for bankin g supervision (i.e. the Basel Capital Accord) in 
the Norwegian banking legislation. The requiremen ts relate to fit and proper ownership, prudent and 
skilful management, capital requirements, other solid ity requirements (e.g. on large exposures) and WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 10  
 
 orderly and transparent organisation. Foreign banks must fulfil similar requirements and be subject 
to prudential supervision in their home state in  order to establish banking activities in Norway. 
Licensing of banks in Norway is not subject to any economic needs test. An important objective of banking regulation in Norway is to facilitate and encourage competition in the financial market. 
  3.  It is stated in paragraph 26 of Chapter IV (Trade Policies by Sector) of the Secretariat 
Report that "Foreign, non-EEA-based service suppliers must obtain permission from Kredittilsynet to establish branches of banks, financing undertaki ngs, securities brokerage firms, and management 
companies for collective investment funds, in acco rdance with the Norwegian legislation regulating 
financial institutions, as amended by Act. No. 46 of 28 June 1996 on establishment in Norway of 
providers of financial services suppliers situated outside the EEA.  To obtain such permission, the 
supplier must have permission to provide equivale nt services in its home state and be subject to 
prudential supervision there.  In addition, the ho me supervisory authority must have established 
satisfactory co-operation with Kredittilsynet".  Ho w is the assessment of this "satisfactory co-
operation" made?  How is the assessment of "satisfa ctory co-operation" in the insurance sub-sector?  
 
 Answer:
 
 
 In practice co-operation on supervision betw een the Norwegian Financial Supervisory 
Authority, Kredittilsynet, and foreign superviso ry authorities are set out in Memoranda of 
Understanding. Such MOUs generally cover co-operation in general.  In cases involving financial 
institutions with a significant impact on the financial stability in Norway, or the other state in 
question, the authorities may conclude an MOU coveri ng the supervision of that particular entity or 
group.    Satisfactory co-operation relies vitally on timel y exchange of information. Furthermore, the 
banking framework in the foreign state in question must materially comply with BIS standards. 
  The requirements above apply similarly to s upervision co-operation in  the insurance field. 
 
 4.  In accordance with document WT/TPR/S/ 138 of Chapter IV (Trade Policies by Sector), 
paragraph 157, "Foreign shipping companies may also register their vessels in the NIS.  They must 
satisfy a nationality condition laid down in the No rwegian Maritime Code, be a limited company or 
partnership with head office in Norway, or have appointed a representative who fulfils the nationally 
requirements.  Ships with more than 40% foreign ownership must be operated by a Norwegian ship-
owing company with its head office in Norway, or by a Norwegian management company.  However, 
nationality requirements my be waived in certain cases, with prior dispen sation from the Norwegian 
Maritime Directorate".  In which aspects may the na tionality requirements be waived?  Is it only in 
the percentage of vessels' ownership?  What are th e "certain cases" mentioned?  Or is it in a case-by-
case basis?    Answer:
 
   The question seems to be based on a misunderst anding in para 157 in the report from the 
Secretariat. The following corrections should be made: 
 
The last sentence in para 157; "However, nationa lity requirements may be waived in certain 
cases, with prior dispensation from the Norwegi an Maritime Directorate" is not relevant for NIS 
vessels.  The sentence is however appropriate in para 155 for NOR vessels.  Waivers for the 
nationality requirements for NOR vessels are grant ed by the Ministry of Trade and Industry and not 
by the Maritime Directorate. Wa ivers are normally granted for vessels in Norwegian domestic trade. WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 11 
 
 
 CANADA 
 
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/138) 
 Part II. Trade and Investment Regimes, (4) Investment Regime, Paragraph 12: 
  The Secretariat Report indicates certain measures that Norway has taken to relax its 
investment regime.  Can Norway please elaborate on how these measures operate with the changes to the ownership regime for the banking sub sect or described on page 96, paragraph 120?   
 
 Answer:
 
 
 The question is covered in Norway’s oral statement. 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure,  (4) Measures Affecting Production and Trade, 
(iv) State-owned enterprises and privatization, Paragraphs 136-141:  
 The Secretariat Report describes Norway’s state-owned enterprises and privatisation 
programme.  In light of Norway’s current policy towards state-owned enterprises and privatisation 
(see paragraph 138), is Norway contemplati ng reducing its 33.6 % stake in DnB Nor?   
 
Answer: 
 
 
 Due to the merger betw een DnB Holding and Gjensidige NOR in 2003, the government will 
reduce its ownership from 47,8 per cent in DnB Hold ing to 34 per cent in th e merged entity at year 
end 2004. There are no further plans to di vest this stake in the near future. 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure,  (4) Measures Affecting Production and Trade, 
(v) Intellectual property rights, Table III.14: 
 
 Under Norway's legislation, a compulsory licen se for a patent may be obtained if it is required 
for the exploitation of an invention representing an  important technical advance of considerable 
economic importance.  Could Norway please give an  example or clarify what would constitute an 
“important technical advance of considerable economic importance”. 
  Answer:
 
  Each case has to be evaluated on its own merits. The language however is the same as in 
TRIPS Article 31, sub-paragraph l (i). Up to no w, no such case has been tried in Norway. 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure,  (4) Measures Affecting Production and Trade, 
(v) Intellectual property rights, Table III.14:   
 Geographical indications (GIs) seem to be protected in Norway under an administrative 
system of non-exclusive marks (which are not IPRs).   Could Norway please explain what is meant by 
“non-exclusive marks” and indicate in what way th ese marks are not considered to be IPRs? Also, 
could Norway provide a description of their administrative system of protection for GIs and indicate how it may differ from GI legislation? 
 WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 12  
 
  Answer:
 
 
 The table on page 62 of the Secretariat’s repor t describes the system for protecting local 
agricultural specialities through an administra tive system of non-exclusive marks. The addition 
“(which are not IPRs)” should have been deleted from the document. A correction has been reported 
to the Secretariat.   
  The regime under Regulation of 5 July 2002 no. 698 is a voluntary regime, which provides legal protection of designations of origin, geographical indicati ons and designations of specific 
traditional character upon application. In addition to  the legal protection against any misuse of the 
protected designation, a successful application allows the use of the corresponding official brand/seal 
on the foodstuff, which has a protected name.  
Protection is granted by a pr oduct regulation, which is laid down for each protected 
designation. The product regulation describes the pr oduct specifications for the foodstuff that has a 
protected designation pursuant to Regulation of 5 July 2002 no. 698. 
 
The Norwegian Food Safety Authority (Mattilsyn et) is the competent authority for granting 
protection of a GI or designation of origin. Th e Norwegian Food Branding Foundation (Matmerk) is 
authorized by the Norwegian Food Safety Authority to process applications and make 
recommendations regarding the outcome of the app lication. The administrative decision granting 
protection by laying down a produc t regulation is however made by  the Norwegian Food Safety 
Authority, with the possibility of appeals to the relevant Ministry.  
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure,  (4) Measures Affecting Production and Trade, 
(v) Intellectual property rights, Paragraph 153: 
 
 Canada notes that registration of foreigners’ trade marks is s ubject to a reciprocity condition 
contrary to Article 4 of the Agreement on Trade-Re lated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the 
“TRIPS Agreement”).  Although Norway stipulates th at this provision is not applied in practice, 
Canada would like to know if Norway intends to amend the Trade Marks Act to fully comply with 
Article 4 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
 
 Answer: 
 
 
 A foreigner who wants to register his trade mark wi ll in effect not be asked to prove that he 
has a corresponding right in his home country, provided that he is a national of a party to the Paris 
Convention or the WTO.  The cited reciprocity conditi on is thus only effective for countries not party 
to the Paris Convention or the WTO. In order to  correctly reflect the legal practice on the area, a 
proposal to amend the relevant provision of  the Trade Marks Act has been tabled.  
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure,  (4) Measures Affecting Production and Trade, 
(v) Intellectual property rights, Paragraph 163: 
 
 It appears that Norway has extended its pr otection of domestic and foreign GIs to all 
agricultural and fish food products in February 2 004.  Could Norway provide a description of the 
amendments made to Regulation No 698 and expl ain the scope of protection for GIs used in 
association with agricultural and fish food products? 
 WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 13 
 
 
  Answer:  
  Regulation of 5 July 2002 no. 698 established a regime, which provides legal protection of the 
names of certain foodstuffs upon application. Initia lly, the Regulation applied to foodstuffs that are 
produced from plants that are growing wild, or food stuffs produced by means of animal husbandry or 
plant production. An amendment of 24 October 2003 in cluded fish and fish products in the scope of 
the Regulation. The amendment of 13 February  2004 included technical amendments only. 
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector, (4) Fishing and Aquaculture, (ii) Policy developments, 
Paragraph 68: 
 
 The Secretariat Report states that under the uni t quota system, the owner of two vessels is 
allowed to transfer part of a quota from one vessel to  another.  Please explain what limitations exist on 
the proportion (e.g., percentage) of the part of the quota that can be transfe rred under this system from 
one vessel to another and what happens to the re -allocated quota after the 13 and 18-year periods.  
Also, what mechanisms are in place to monitor what happens to the vessels that are sold out of the 
fleet rather than scrapped?   Answer:
 
  An owner of two vessels may transfer the quota of one of the vessels to the other. He then 
may fish two quotas with one vessel for 13 years if the vessel is removed from fishing or 18 years if 
the vessel is scrapped. Paragraph 68 states that only a part of the quota can be transferred. This is only 
the case when a vessel is bought in one of the nor thernmost counties with the purpose of its quota 
being transferred to a vessel resident to the southe rn areas. The whole quota will be transferred when 
using the Unit Quota System (only available for vessels more than 28 meters). After 13 or 18 years, 
depending on whether the vessel is scrapped or not, the additional quota once transferred will return to 
the regulation group the vessel once be longed to and be re-distributed. 
  Most users of the Unit Quota System scrap the vessel removed from fishing. However, if the vessel is sold domestically, this vessel will have to  replace another vessel in the same regulation group 
and fish the quota of this vessel if it is to enter No rwegian fishing again. If the vessel is sold abroad, it 
can only be sold to states that have ratified th e UNCLOS agreement (the sales agreement must be 
approved by the authorities).  
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector, (4) Fishing and Aquaculture, (ii) Policy developments, 
Paragraph 74: 
 
 The Secretariat Report indicates that the Transport Support programme is at least partly driven by changes in export pri ces and exchange rates.  Does this program thus provide a degree of 
market price support?   Answer:
 
 
 There is no link between the Transport support programme, which is a cost reducing subsidy, 
and market price report. Norway does not ope rate any market price support programme.  
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector, (8) Services, (ii) Financial services, Paragraph 120: 
 
 Regarding the ownership limits for the financ ial sector, as described on page 96, paragraph 
120, can Norway elaborate on whether the fit and proper tests underlying the operation of the new WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 14  
 
 limits contain any nationality requirements?  Is ther e any requirement that financial institutions be 
widely held?    Answer:
 
  This is covered in the Norwegi an delegation’s oral statement. 
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector, (8) Services, (ii) Financial services, Paragraph 128: 
 
 The Secretariat Report indicates on page 98 that insurance firms incorpor ated in Norway must 
establish either as joint-stock companies or mutual  insurance companies.  Can Norway explain the 
economic policy basis for such a requirement?   Answer:
 
  The requirement to establish insurance com panies as joint stock companies or mutual 
insurance companies, are made in order to en sure a proper company law framework for such 
institutions. The company laws regarding these fo rms of entities are suited to secure prudent 
management of the institutions, prudent supervisi on of capital requirements and other prudential 
regulation, and to facilitate proper crisis management, responsibilities for the managing bodies, 
replacement of the board or management etc. 
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector, (8) Servi ces, (iii) Telecommuni cation and postal services, 
Paragraph 137: 
 
 Canada is pleased to see that since its l ast TPR, Norway has further liberalized its 
communication services. Canada notes that the Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority 
(NPTA) may impose access and interconnection pr icing obligations on a telecommunication operator 
with significant market power where the NPTA cons iders that denial of access or unreasonable terms 
and conditions with a similar effect would hinder the emergence of a sustai nable competitive market 
at the retail level, or would not be in the end-users’ interest.  
 A) Could Norway explain specifically the NPTA guidelines when imposing access and 
interconnection pricing oblig ations on a provider? 
  Answer: 
 
 
A new Act on electronic communications entered  into force on 1 July 2003, implementing the 
new regulatory framework within the EU for electronic communications networks and services.  
Pursuant to the Act, the NPTA is required to  establish guidelines for  imposing access and 
interconnection obligations. These guidelines are ex pected to be completed during 2005 and will 
cover the whole process of 1) defining relevant market s, 2) carry out market analyses of each of the 
relevant markets, with a view to reveal whether any providers have significant market power (SMP), 
as well as 3) imposing obligations on th ose providers identified as having SMP.  
  The NPTA takes part in the work of the Th e European Regulators Group for electronic 
communications networks and services (ERG). It is expected that the NPTA when issuing its 
guidelines will look to the recommendations laid down in the ERG-document: “Common Position on 
the approach to appropriate remedies in the new regulatory framework”.  
There are a number of considerations that the NPTA is required to take into account while imposing 
access and pricing requirements, such as the feasib ility of the action, the viability of using or WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 15 
 
 
 installing competing infrastructures and the mainte nance of the initial investment decision so that 
long-term competition is safeguarded to the greatest extent possible.    
 
 B) Canada understands that the regulatory frame work also allows controls of retail services, 
e.g. price caps, of an undertaking identified as having significant market power. Canada would like to 
know the definition of “significant market power” under the NPTA’s guidelines?  
  Answer:
 
 
 The definition of “significant market po wer” in the act is as follows:  
 
 “A provider has significant market power when th e provider alone or together with others 
has economic strength in a relevant market that  means that the provider may act mainly 
independently of competitors, customers and cons umers. Significant market power in one market may 
result in a provider having significant market power in an adjacent market.”  
 
 As to the adoption of guidelines, see answer to a) above.  
Also, could Norway please explain the guidelines for the NPTA to conclude that measures at the 
wholesale level would not promote competition effectively?  
 Answer: 
 
 
 In the preparatory works to th e Act on electronic communications, it is stated that price-
regulation first and foremost shall take place at the whole-sale level. Price- cap and other measures at 
the retail level, is meant to be a last-resort remedy in case the prices at the retail level get to high.  
 
 As to the adoption of guidelines, see answer to a) above. 
 
 c. Canada notes that the NPTA may impose sp ecific reporting obligations, including financial 
information and technical specifications, and the use of specific systems for running cost accounts. In 
the Secretariat Report, it is mentioned that pri ce guidelines have not yet been established by the 
NPTA. Would Norway be able to provide Canada with a general update on the NPTA’s process of 
establishing price guidelines?   Answer: 
 
  The NPTA is still in the process of establishing  price guidelines. It is expected that the 
guidelines will be adopted during the course of 2005. 
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector, (8) Servi ces, (iii) Telecommuni cation and postal services, 
Paragraph 140: 
  Canada is pleased to see that Telenor, Norw ay’s principal telecommunications operator, was 
partially privatized in 2000. Does the Norwegian G overnment have any plan in fully privatizing 
Telenor? If not, would Norway please explain what concerns keep it from doing so?   Answer:  
 
 
 There are currently no plans to fully privati se Telenor. The company has been partially 
privatised. In 2001 the Government obtained authority from the Parliament to reduce the state’s stake WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 16  
 
 in Telenor from 77,6% to 51% by  government selldown and/or reduce the stake to 34% in event of a 
structural transaction. In 2003 and in 2004 the Government in accordance with its policy sold 
approximately 440 million shares in Telenor, reducing the state’s stake from 77,6% to 54%.   
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector; (8) Services; (iv) Transport, Paragraphs 155-158: 
 
 We note that ships registered on the Norwegian International Ship Register (NIS) registry are 
forbidden from engaging in cabotage. We also not e that only Norwegians or EEA individuals or 
majority-owned corporations can join the Norwegian Ordinary Register, whose ships are allowed to 
engage in cabotage. We therefore are wondering if in  the future there will be a move to allow those 
vessels on the NIS to engage in unrestricted cab otage or if non-EEA members will be able to 
eventually perform cabotage?   Answer:
 
  The Government has announced that NIS registe red vessels will be allowed to engage in 
petroleum related activities in Norwegian domestic  maritime transport. Norw egian domestic maritime 
transport is not restricted for foreign flag vessels. Norway has tabled an offer containing commitments in the domestic mar itime transport sector (mode 3).  
 
Report by the Government (WT/TPR/G/138) 
 
Part II. The Economic Environment: (4) Stru ctural Reforms: Keeping Norway Competitive, 
(i) Deregulating the markets and cutting subsidies, Paragraph 17: 
 
 Paragraph 17 of the Government  Report (and Paragraph 68 of th e Secretariat Report, Part IV. 
Trade Policies By Sector: (4) Fishing and Aquaculture, (ii) Policy developments) notes that a 
customized version of the unit quota system was in troduced in 2004 for Norway's coastal fleet (the 
structural quota system).  Please explain how th e system introduced in 2004 differs from the unit 
quota system for the offshore fleet.   Answer:
 
 
 The Structural Quota System applies only to  vessels between 15 and 28 meters holding an 
annual permit. If one fisherman owns two vessels with in the same length group  (the length groups are 
15-21meters and 21-28 meters), he can transfer the quota of one vessel to the other vessel after deducting 20 per cent of the quota. These 20% will be returned to the vessel group. Unlike the Unit 
Quota System, there are no time limits on the extra quota and the deduction requirement applies 
regardless of regional residency. 
 
Part III. Trade Policy Objectives and Development:  (1) The World Trade Or ganization, Paragraph 
31: 
  Paragraph 31 states that Norway is seeking real  liberalization in trade in services over a broad 
range of sectors, with specific mention of environm ental services.  Could the Government of Norway 
please address the manner in which this objective fo r improved liberalization is met by its initial 
General Agreement on Trade in Services offer?    WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 17 
 
 
  Answer:  
  Norway has tabled a high quality initial offer to the Services Negotiations, covering a broad 
range of sectors, including extensive commitments on transport services, telecommunication services, energy services, financial services and environmenta l services.  Norway urges other members to table 
offers of a similar quality in order to ensure real liberalisation in trade in services and the successful 
conclusion of the Services Negotiations in the Doha Round.        
Part III. Trade Policy Objectives and Development:  (1) The World Trade Or ganization, Paragraph 
33:  
 
 Paragraph 33 notes that non-tariff measures for industrial goods, including fish and fish products, must be addressed.  Please indicate which non-tariff measures Norway is most concerned 
about in the fish and fish products trade.  
 Answer:
 
  Trade in food and foodstuff is among the most protected areas in international trade, and 
trade in fish and fish products is no exception. Today, Norway exports as many as 2000 different fish and seafood products to more than 150 countries. One of the major challenges/obstacles to 
trade in fish and fish products is the great variet y of requirements related to fish health, seafood safety 
and quality. 
 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
 
Trade in Goods  
 
 Doing away with unnecessary external as well as in ternal impediments to trade is vital for the 
promotion of trade and prosperity. To this end, th e EC should like to pose the following questions to 
Norway.    Discussions are currently ongoing in the WTO on fu rther liberalisation of trade in agricultural 
and processed agricultural goods. However, in both ar eas, exporters have complained about obstacles 
to trade, particularly with regard to the industr ial component of protection for processed agricultural 
products.    How does Norway appraise such complaints, and can one foresee further liberalisation or 
simplification in this respect in the future? 
  Answer:
 
 
 The subject of this question is under negotiation in the DDA. Please refer to oral statements.  
 
Government procurement 
 
 It seems that the award of supply contract s for the oil and gas sector are made almost 
exclusively to Norwegian companies.  The EC shoul d like to receive further information / statistics 
with respect to the awarding of the contracts in this particular sector. The EC should also be pleased to 
receive explanations from Norway as to any possible concentration in this field.  
 WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 18  
 
 Answer:
 
 
 The Government does not require licensees in the pe troleum sector to report such contracts 
and consequently has no statistics to provide in th is respect. Licensees are oblig ed to report contracts 
awarded to the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA). 
  
Trade strategy  
 
 The EC considers that the WTO and multilatera l liberalization is the most certain way for 
small countries to promote their interests. How do you judge the relative importance and weight of 
bilateral/FTA policies and further development of th e WTO system in terms of your own trade needs 
and the trade needs of developing countries?   Answer: 
 
 
 A strong rules-based multilateral system is  the best guarantee against unilateralism and 
protectionism. Norway sees regional and bilateral trade arrangements as being complementary to the 
multilateral regime.  
HONG KONG, CHINA 
 
Documentation, and Customs Procedures and Valuation 
(WT/TPR/S/138, P. 25, Para. 7) 
 
1.  We note that Norway is considering an overhaul of the national customs legislation to 
further simplify and modernise its legal structure,  as well as to increase transparency.  Most of the 
simplified procedures resulting from earlier pilot projects are expected to enter in to force on 1 January 
2005.  We are interested in knowi ng more details of the procedures that will be modified and their 
corresponding implementation dates.   Answer:
 
  This is covered in the Norwegi an delegation’s oral statement. 
 
Financial services  
(WT/TPR/S/138, P. 96, Para. 120; and P. 98, Para. 132) 
  2.  It is noted that in respect of the financial sector, includi ng commercial banks, other 
financial institutions and the securities market, a 10% ownership limit in Norwegian financial 
institutions was replaced in 2003 by a fit and prop er test of owners exceeding certain ownership 
thresholds.  Permission is required from Kredittilsyn et for ownership exceeding the thresholds of 
10%, 20%, 25%, 33%, and 50%.  It is also stated  that a general 10% ownership limitation is 
applicable to securities registration. 
 
 In Norway’s services initial offer, it is in scribed that no single or coordinated group of 
investors may acquire or hold more than 10% of the share capital of a Norw egian insurance company, 
a commercial bank or financing undertaking, or more  than 10% of the equity certificates of saving 
banks and that foreign financial institution may, subj ect to approval, acquire and hold up to 25% of 
such shares or equity certificates when this is part of a strategic alliance agreement. 
 WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 19 
 
 
 We are grateful if Norway could clarify: 
  (a) whether securities registration is curre ntly still subject to the 10% ownership 
limitation in contrary to what has been set out in the Secretariat report;  
 (b) whether the 10% ownership limitation is  still applicable to Norwegian insurance 
companies, commercial banks or financing undertakin gs as inscribed in Norway’s initial offer.  If not, 
we would like to encourage Norway to consider reflec ting its freer regime in its revised offer so as to 
bring its commitments in line with its actual regime and to increase the predictability of the regime;   
 
 (c) whether permission from Kredittilsynet is  required for ownership exceeding both the 
10% and 20% thresholds (which are not found in  the initial offer) before reaching the 25% level 
inscribed in Norway’s initial offer; and    (d) whether 50%, instead of 25%, is the share/ equity ceiling currently in force.  If so, 
would Norway consider reflecting the exis ting freer regime in its revised offer? 
 
Answer:
 
 
 Securities registries in Norway are subject to a general 10 percent ownership limitation. 
Securities registration is considered to be a k ey function in the financia l infrastructure. The 
ownership limitation is set to ensure the independ ent functioning of such institutions. The current 
regulation of securities registries is set out in legisl ation that came into force  in 2003. It lifts the 
former legal monopoly held by the Norwegian Secu rities Registry (Verdipapirsentralen) established 
under the former act relating to th e Norwegian Securities Registry. 
 
 As regards questions b) through d), these a re covered by the Norwegian delegation’s oral 
statement. 
 
Maritime transport 
(WT/TPR/S/138, P. 103, Para. 157) 
  3.  It is noted that foreign shipping comp anies may register their vessels in the Norwegian 
International Ship Register (NIS) on the conditi on that they have appointed a representative who 
fulfils the nationality requirements.  We however no te that no such nationality requirements exist in 
Norway’s existing services schedule.  But in its initial services offers Norway has added such a 
domicile requirement for the representative.  Could Norway share with us the rationale for introducing 
this additional mode 3 national treatment limitation? 
  Answer: 
 
  The previous requirement was for the re presentative to be Norwegian, which means 
citizenship and domicile in Norway. This has been  modified to allow the representative to be from 
any EEA country, but the requirement to be domicil ed in Norway has been retained. The modification 
does not restrict any previously accorded right, but  liberalizes to some extent the requirement for 
citizenship.  WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 20  
 
 INDONESIA 
 
Free Trade Agreement 
 
 1.  Paragraph 24 (p. 18) of the Secretaria t Report (WT/TPR/S/138) and paragraph 52 (p. 13) 
of the Government Report (WT/TPR/G/138) notes that Norway's trade policy objectives is 
extensively expanding network of free trade arra ngement.  Indonesia would appreciates if Norway 
could explain that future direction of the policy would not undermine the importance of bilateral trade 
relationship of non-party member noting that free trade arrangement tend to become exclusive in 
manner.  
 
 Answer: 
 
 
 As a first priority, Norway wants to see further liberalisation based on multilateral rules 
under the auspices of the WTO. Norway therefore atta ches great importance to the early conclusion 
of the DDA. The decision to pursue a preferential trade agreement with another country will depend 
on an overall assessment of the benefits of su ch an agreement, which include: the potential 
improvement in market access fo r Norwegian goods and services; poten tial increase in trade volume; 
whether the country in question is negotiating or has negotiated an FTA with our main trading 
partners, such as the EU; and broader political co nsiderations. As a rule the country in question 
should also be a WTO member.  
 
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) 
 
 2. Paragraph 43 (p. 23) of the Secretariat Report (WT/TPR/S/138) notes that imports of 
industrial products of developing countries enter duty-free, with the exception of certain finished 
textiles and clothing products.  Indonesia would be interested to know if Norway has any plan to 
include certain finished textiles and clothing products  within GSP scheme for developing countries.   
  Answer:
 
 
 The products concerned include some woven f abrics, fishing nets, some women's and men's 
clothes, blankets, some linen and footwear.  MFN rates up to 14% apply to these products. The 
Government is in the process of reviewing our GSP scheme.   In its budget proposal presented last week, the Government proposes to include men’s 
apparels in the Norwegian general system of preferences . 
 
JAPAN 
 
II. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(3) MAIN TRADE LAWS AND REGULATIONS (WT/TPR/S/138, page 13, para. 9) 
 
 Japan recognizes that Norway has adopted ov er 4,000 EU rules, in many areas, as a 
participant in the EEA after the EEA came into effe ct. At the same time, Japan also recognizes that 
the common agricultural policy and the common fish ery policy of the EU are excluded from the EEA. 
 
 Are there any policies or areas in which EU ru les have not been adopted by Norway other 
than in the agricultural and fish ery areas? If so, please indicate such policies or areas with the reason 
why EU rules have not been adopted in such policies or areas. WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 21 
 
 
 Answer:  
 
 Please refer to the oral statement.  
 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(2) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS 
(iii) Tariffs (WT/TPR/S/138, page 29, Table III.2 and page 118, Table AIII. 2) 
 
 According to Table III.2 and Table AIII. 2 of th e Secretariat Report, the tariff of 588.5% has 
been imposed on some of the fish and fishery produc ts.  Please indicate the specific items of the fish 
and fishery products upon which the tariff of 588.5% has been imposed.   Answer: 
 
  Norway has never imposed a tariff of 588,5% for any fishery product.  We would like to 
emphasize that all fish and fishery products are duty free when imported into Norway. The only 
exceptions are certain products derived from fish in chapter sub-headings 15.04, 16.03 and 23.01 
when used for animal feed.  
 
(4) MEASURES AFFECTING PRODUCTION AND TRADE 
(v) Intellectual property rights  (WT/TPR/S/138, page 66, para. 160)  
 According to the Secretariat Report, a proposal  for amendments of the Copyright Act will be 
submitted to the Storting during 2004, in order to  allow accession to the WIPO treaties of 1996.  
Please indicate the specific content of the amendm ents.  Regarding the pr otection of intellectual 
property rights, does Norway have any plans for am endments other than the Copyright Act? If so, 
please indicate the specific plans for amendments.  
Answer: 
 
  The Norwegian government is now in the process  of finalizing a proposal for amendments to 
the Copyright Act to be presented to the Storting this fall.  The proposal is based on the WIPO-
treaties as well as the EU Copyright Directive of 2 001.  The draft legal amendments circulated during 
the process of public hearing in 2003 contained the following elements:   
 
1) Producers of phonograms and films as well as performing artists are given the exclusive 
right of making their performances/products available to the public. The right of public performance 
and broadcasting of phonograms is   however still maintained as a mere right of remuneration. 
2) The right of making available to the public for authors, is clarified to include on-demand 
communication. This is not a substantive am endment, only clarifies existing provisions. 
 3) Certain temporary acts of copying whose sole purpose is to enable lawful use or the 
transmission in networks, are not covered by the exclusive right of reproduction. 
 4) The basis for copying under exemptions to c opyright must be a copy of the work which has 
not been produced through infringement of exclusive rights.  5) Exemptions for the benefit of the disabled are adjusted to allow for digital distribution of 
copies of works adapted for specific use for disabled persons. 
 6) Exemptions to the right of reproduction for specific purposes for libraries, museums and 
archives include the option to regulate the enabling of digitization of their collections WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 22  
 
  7) Provisions are introduced on the prohibitio n of circumvention of technological measures 
used by rightholders to control access to and use of  a protected work. The prohibition also includes 
the distribution, production, importation and marke ting of devices or services whose purpose is to 
circumvent such technological protection measures.  Provisions also include an obligation on the 
rightholder to enable use under certain exemptions wh en the user has legal access to the work in 
question. 
 8) Provisions are introduced on the prohibition of the removal or altering of electronic rights 
management information when the perpetrator know s or has reasonable grounds to know that this 
will enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement of copyright.  9) Existing provisions on the collective licensing mechanism for certain uses, are extended to 
cover also other means of reproduction than phot ocopying, and to cover libraries. The extended 
collective licence means that clearance for limited use within educational institutions, for internal use 
in other institutions, for certain uses in librari es, and for broadcasting and retransmission, can be 
done through an agreement between the user and or ganizations representing the various groups of 
rightholders affected. 
 
(WT/TPR/S/138, page 66, para. 161) 
 
 According to the Secretariat Report, the Copyright Act allows limited use for specific purposes.  Does the current proposal for amendments  of the Copyright Act in clude the proposal for 
additional limited use for specific purposes on co pyright and neighbouring rights? If so, please 
indicate the specific content of the proposal for additional limited use for specific purposes.  
  Answer:
 
 
 See the answer to the previous question.  No  other proposal for additional limited use has 
been introduced.  
(WT/TPR/S/138, page 66, para. 162) 
 
 According to the Secretariat Report, the pr oduction and import levies on analogue video and 
audio blank cassettes were eliminated from 1 Dece mber 2000.  Are there an y existing production and 
import levies in Norway? If so, please indicate the speci fic content of the levies, including the sum of 
the levies, the procedures to collect the levies a nd the objects of the levies (in particular, please 
indicate whether the digital audio and visual reco rders and recording media are included or not.). 
 
Answer:
 
 
 There are currently no production and import levies  in Norway on any products related to the 
private copying exemption under copyright.  
 
KOREA 
 
III.  Trade policies and practices by measure (page 56, para. 126, 127)    
 
 The Secretariat’s report commends Norway’s public procurement regime for the non-discrimination and national treatment it provides to EEA members and parties to the GPA.  However, 
we understand that foreign exporting companies ca n have some difficulties because they have to 
submit a series of application forms in the Norwegian language before a deadline.  What is the view 
of the Norwegian government on the suggestion that su ch applications can be filled out in English?  WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 23 
 
 
 Answer:  
 
 The Norwegian Government would appreciate to receive more information about the practical 
difficulties encountered and will be happy to address these difficulties accordingly. 
 
(Page 84, para. 60)  
 It is said to be the Norwegian Seafood Expor t Council (NSEC) that is responsible for the 
marketing of seafood in and from Norway.  The Secr etariat reports that the NSEC operates under the 
Fish Export Act of 1990 and the Fish Export Regula tion of 1991 and that the Board of the NSEC is 
composed of representatives from the Norwegia n Federation of Trade Unions, the Norwegian 
Fishermen’s Association, and the Norwegian Federa tion of Fish and Aquaculture Industries.  Could 
the Norwegian government provide us with more  information about how the NSCE operates?  
  Answer:
 
 
 The Norwegian Seafood Export Council (NSEC) is the Norwegian seafood industry's 
combined marketing and information council. The goal of its operations is to increase the interest for 
and awareness of Norwegian seafood.  The indus try finances NSEC's activities through a separate 
statutory fee on the export of Norwegian fish and seafood. 
 
 Key areas of interest comprise:   Marketing; Joint marketing under the direction of  NSEC should function as a support for the 
exporters' own sales promotions. Advisory marke ting groups have been created for various product 
categories.  
 
 Market information; NSEC prepares sta tistics and conducts market analyses for seafood. 
NSEC has set up a system whereby industry partici pants can collect information about import quotas, 
tariff rates and trade conditions in various markets.  
 
IV. Trade policies by sector 
(page 99-100, para. 134-136)  
 The Secretariat reports that Norway introduced legislation on e-commerce and that the Electronic Communications Act, adopted on 4 July  2003, replaced the Telecommunications Act of 
1995.  Does the legislation on e-commerce include electronic signature provisions?  
 
 Answer:
 
  The Act on Electronic Commerce and other Information Society Services (the eCommerce Act) is an implementation of the EU Directive on Electronic Commerce. This Act contains provisions 
regarding requirements of business when marketi ng and selling products over the Internet. The Act 
does not include electronic signature provisions. 
 
(page 100, para. 141) 
 
 The Secretariat indicates that  the Electronic Signature Act of 2001 also regulates online 
commercial activities in Norway.  Does th e Act regulate online content as well?  
 WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 24  
 
  Answer:
   
 
 The act on Electronic Signature is an implementation of the EU Directive in Electronic 
Signatures. The Act contains pr ovisions regarding requirements for a certification service provider 
issuing qualified certificates and the content of such  a certificate. The act does not regulate on-line 
commercial activities nor does it regulate online content. 
 Report by the Government of Norway (page 9, para. 23, 24)    
  The government of Norway reports that st ate ownership has also undergone a number of 
structural and legislative reforms and, as a princi pal rule, state ownership of commercial activities is 
organized as limited liability companies. With resp ect to telecommunications sectors, it is reported 
that Telenor ASA, the incumbent telecom operator, was partly privatized in December 2000 and that 
the state now holds 53.1%.  Could the government of Norway inform us more about the status and 
legal implications of the limited liability companies?  
  Answer:
 
 
 Around 90 state owned enterprises are organized  as companies with limited liability. These 
companies are mainly organised as joint stock comp anies, seven of them are listed on the Oslo Stock 
Exchange (OSE).  
 In limited liability companies the owner’s res ponsibility is limited to the invested equity 
capital. Such companies can suffer bankruptcy.  Co uld the government of Norway inform us more 
about the ownership breakdown of Telenor ASA?  Is there any limitation on foreign ownership for 
telecommunications service providers?  
  Answer:
 
  There are no limitations on foreign ownership for telecommunication providers in Norway . 
 
Table (breakdown of shareholders) 
Shareholders No. of shares 30/09/04 Country % of total 30/09/04 
Norwegian Government* 944 626 908 NOR 54,00 % 
State Street Bank 89 889 298 USA 5,14 % 
Folketrygdfondet 59 364 000 NOR 3,39 % 
JPMorgan Chase Bank S/A 30 657 026 USA 1,75 % 
JPMorgan Chase Bank Clients Treaty Account 27 389 338 GBR 1,57 % 
Mellon Bank AS Agent 26 653 839 USA 1,52 % 
The Northern Trust Co 16 433 256 GBR 0,94 % 
Vital Forsikring ASA 15 797 380 NOR 0,90 % 
JPMorgan Chase Bank Omnibus 15 060 553 USA 0,86 % 
Telenor ASA 14 939 900 NOR 0,85 % 
Skandinaviska Enskil A/C Clients 12 818 918 SWE 0,73 % 
State Street Bank & Client Omnibus 12 787 084 USA 0,73 % 
The Northern Trust Co 12 126 347 GBR 0,69 % 
Orkla ASA 12 000 000 NOR 0,69 % 
Skandinaviska Enskildabanken 10 441 694 NOR 0,60 % 
JPMorgan Chase Bank 9 287 600 USA 0,53 % 
Bank of New York 9 000 000 USA 0,51 % 
Nordea Bank Sweden 8 750 708 SWE 0,50 % 
Credit Agricole Indosuez 8 547 600 FRA 0,49 % 
Storebrand Livforsikring 7 854 600 NOR 0,45 % WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 25 
 
 
 NEW ZEALAND 
 
Tariffs 
 
 Norway’s 2004 tariff schedule contains 89.6% ad valorem duties and 10.4% non-ad valorem 
duties.  The non-ad valorem duties apply mostly to agricultural products.  Does Norway intend to 
move more tariffs towards ad-valorem duties and if so, when? 
 Answer:
 
  The subject of this question is under negotiation in the DDA.  Please refer to oral statements. 
 Generalised System of Preferences 
 
It is good news that Norway expanded its GSP scheme so that by 1 July 2002 quotas and 
tariffs were eliminated for all products from least de veloped countries.  Does it see the need to retain 
the special safeguard for flour, grains and feedstuffs  if this has not been used since the scheme was 
enacted? If so, why?   Answer: 
 
 
 The safeguard mechanism may be invoked wh en products are being imported at such 
increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to domestic 
producers of like or directly competitive products. Li ke other safeguards mechanisms, this mechanism 
is not intended to be invoked on a regular basis. Th e fact that the safeguard mechanism has not been 
used during the short two year-period it has been in  place is therefore not in itself a reason to abolish 
it. It should also be noted that the Norwegian G overnment has embarked upon a review of all aspects 
of the Norwegian Generalised System of Preferen ce, including the special safeguard mechanism for 
flour, grains and feedstuffs.  
Regional Assistance 
  The Secretariat’s report (WT/TPR/S/138, Page 47) states that “Innovation Norway … is in 
charge of export promotion and marketing assist ance, internationalization, and transfer of 
technology”.  What activities does Innovation Norway  undertake to support the transfer of technology 
and how much funding is dedicated to this?  
Answer: 
 
 
 The export promotion and marketing activities of Innovation Norway, including transfer of technology, is described in our answer to a ques tion from the USA. In 2003 NOK 21 million was 
allocated to technology related activities. For 2004 these activities are covered by the block grant to 
internationalisation and tourist promotion. The Boar d of Innovation Norway is responsible for the 
allocation of funds to specific activities. 
  The estimated subsidy provided by the Re gional Development Grant is NKr 773.5 million in 
2002 (WT/TPR/S/138, Page 50).  What are the econo mic development criteria for determining which 
firms receive funding?  What are the criteria for establishing which sectors are eligible for receiving 
assistance under this programme?  
 WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 26  
 
  Answer: 
 
 
 Regional Development Grants are available fo r all sectors except for agriculture. Firms 
receiving support from the Regional Development Grant mu st be located within the area eligible for 
regional aid. This area has been notified under the Regional State Aid Rules for the EEA-area and is 
based on a population density criterion. For an area to be eligible it must have a population density 
of less than 12,5 persons km2. 
 
 Are there plans to phase out the “Scheme for Restructuring Regions Dependent on a Single Industry” (WT/TPR/S/138, Page 50)?  If not, please advise why this is the case? 
 
 Answer:
 
 
 The Scheme for Restructuring Regions Dependent  on a Single Industry has been phased out. 
Aid from the scheme that was granted before the sch eme was terminated in 2002 is still being paid 
out. No new projects receive aid from the scheme.   
 The report states that “expenditure for regional assistance totalled NKr 963.5 million in 2002, up from NKr 838.2 million in 1998.  Support is g eared mainly to Norway’s northern regions” 
(WT/TPR/S/138, Page 50).  What is the reason for this large increase and why are the northern 
regions targeted? 
 
Answer:
 
  The nominal increase in expenditure totals around 15 per cent from 1998 to 2002, primarily due to inflation. The northern regions are targ eted because of particularly low population density, 
arctic climate and high transportation costs. The total expenditure for regional assistance has 
decreased since 2002 and amounted to about 794 million NOK in 2003.   
Agriculture – Market Access 
 
 We note Norway’s ambition to see the elimination of all tariffs on industrial goods 
(WT/TPR/G/138, page 10).  When does Norway in tend to apply a similar level of ambition to 
agricultural goods?  We also note the Secretariat’ s observation (WT/TPR/S/138, page 72) that due to 
the high border protection in place, consumer prices  for agricultural products are higher in Norway 
than in neighbouring countries.  Has Norway c onsidered significantly lowering its tariffs on all 
agricultural products to provide bene fits to its domestic consumers in  the form of lower food prices 
and more variety of products available? 
  Answer:
 
 
 The subject of this question is under negotiati on in the DDA. Please refer to oral statements. 
  New Zealand would be interested in receivi ng further information about the implementation 
of Norway’s “tariff reduction regime” (WT/TPR/S/138,  page 73).  What particular products benefit 
from such reductions?  How can Norway ensure that these are available on an MFN basis?  In relation 
to general tariff reduction: how are the decisions to reduce tariffs communicated to importers?  How 
are these decisions communicated sufficiently in adva nce to allow utilisation of the tariff reductions 
by suppliers who are faced with longer transportation time frames? 
 WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 27 
 
 
 Answer:  
 
 Administrative tariff reductions are granted  on MFN basis, and preferences granted in 
bilateral free trade agreements or through the GSP-system are maintained. A decision on general 
administrative tariff reduction is published in advance at the website  of the Agricultural Authority, 
and is also mailed directly to subscribers.  
  Administrative tariff reductions are mainly gr anted to meat, plants and vegetables. products 
for preparations of vegetables, fruit, nuts or other parts of plants.  
Agriculture – Domestic Support  
 We are pleased to see Norway’s statement (WT/TPR/G/138, page 7) that during the period 1992-2002 support to agriculture was reduced 20% in real terms and that budgetary subsidies to farmers have shifted from price support to support w ith less impact on production.  Nevertheless, as 
the Secretariat notes, Norw ay’s agricultural sector receives more than two thirds of all budgeted state 
support, and, more specifically, in 2001 the total AMS (i.e. trade distorting, non-exempt support) notified to the WTO amounted to about 70% of ag ricultural GDP (WT/TPR/S/138, page 70 and page 
74).  While New Zealand does not dispute Members’  right to address non-trade concerns, as Norway 
will be aware we consider that there are non-trade distorting ways to achieve this objective.  Has 
Norway considered moving away from providing non-exempt support to its farmers and shifting to 
“green box” policies instead?  If so, when is this likely to occur? 
  Answer: 
 
 
 The subject of this question is under negotiati on in the DDA. Please refer to oral statements. 
 
Agriculture – Export Subsidies 
 
 While Norway has reduced its agricultural expor t subsidy outlays by more than 45% between 
1998 and 2003, export subsidies for dairy remain subs tantial.  We welcome No rway’s acceptance that 
the Doha Round will lead to a set end date for th e elimination of export subsidies.  We welcome 
Norway's acceptance that there will be an agreed date for the elimination of all forms of export 
subsidies.  In that light, what policy changes ar e currently underway in order to facilitate this 
elimination in a timely manner?   Answer:
 
 
 The subject of this question is under negotiati on in the DDA. Please refer to oral statements. 
 SWITZERLAND 
 
Recent economic developments 
 
 § 9: Tax load is very high in Norway (49% of mainland GDP compared to an OECD average 
of 37.5%). Are there further reductions of taxes (i nclusive of income taxes) foreseen for the period 
after 2005 (tax reductions are an objective of the government's policy during the parliamentary term 
ending in 2005)? Or reductions of expenditures? 
 WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 28  
 
  Answer:
 
 
 Taxes as part of mainland GDP overestimates the total tax level in Norway. This is due to 
difficulties isolating activities in the petroleum sector. Accordingly, Norway has developed an 
estimate that is corrected for the economic rent in  the petroleum sector, both in taxes and GDP. This 
corrected estimate is 42.4 pct. in 2003. Total accrued  taxes are estimated to 43.7 pct. of total GDP. 
 
The tax reform is covered in the Norw egian delegation’s final statements. 
 
Government procurement 
 
 §130: Why are permanent lists of suppliers only allowed for utilities?  
Answer:
 
  According to Directive 93/38/EEC article 21(c ) implemented into Norwegian law in the 
Utilities Regulation of 5 December 2004 nr. 1424 § 25, the opportunity to establish and make use of a 
qualification list is only available for the utilities se ctor.  However, a new procedure similar to a 
qualification system is included in the new legisla tive package on public procurement, cf. Directive 
2004/18/EC art 33: "Dynamic purchasing system". Th is is most likely to be introduced into 
Norwegian legislation in 2006. 
 
Intellectual property rights 
 
 §142: Regarding undisclosed information, it is me ntioned in table III.14, that Norway protects 
undisclosed data and tests from unfair commercial use by administrative practices and that, in the case 
of medicines, the protection expires six years af ter the marketing approval has been granted. 
Switzerland would like to know how Norway's administ rative practice ensures th at undisclosed test or 
other data submitted by an applicant to the respon sible State agency in the procedure for market 
authorisation of pharmaceuticals or agricultural chemical products is protected against unfair 
commercial use (Article 39.3 of the TRIPS Agreement):  
 a) Does this administrative practice for example prohibit a second applicant from relying on, 
or from referring to the original data of the firs t applicant, when applying subsequently for market 
authorisation for his own product?   Answer: 
 
 
 Undisclosed information of co mmercial value are in genera l protected against unfair 
commercial use by the provisions on business secret s in Section 7 and 8 in the Norwegian Marketing 
Act 16 June 1972 No. 47. Undisclosed information are protected against disclosure according to section 13 paragraph 1 (2) of the Norwegian Public  Administration Act of 10 February 1967 by the 
duty of any person rendering services to, or working for, an administrative agency, to prevent others 
from gaining access to, or obtaining knowledge of, any matter disclosed to him in the course of his 
duties concerning "technical devices and procedures , as well as operational or business matters 
which for competition reasons it is important to keep  secret in the interests of the person whom the 
information concerns". Also this duty to not discl ose matters indirectly prevents unfair commercial 
use of test data. By these provisions Norway has fulfilled its obligations according to TRIPs 
Article 39 (3). 
 WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 29 
 
 
  When it comes to market authorisation of pharmaceuticals or agricultural chemical products 
test data is given a broader protection. In the case of pharmaceuticals a second applicant is 
prohibited from relying on or referring to the test data of the first applicant when applying for a marketing authorisation for a period of 6 years 10 years. In the case of agricultural chemical 
products approval is not based upon test dat a submitted by other producers in cases where the 
applicant cannot verify the existence of an agreemen t with the other producers allowing the applicant 
to make use of the test data. There is no time limit in this regard. 
 
 b) If this is the case, does your practice or le gislation provide for exceptions to this? If yes, 
under what conditions would such exceptions apply? 
 
 Answer:
 
  
 Exceptions from the regime described in a) would only apply where the second applicant has 
entered into an agreement with the first applicant that  allows him to rely on or referring to the test 
data.     
 c) If this is not the case, how does this admini strative practice protect test and other data 
against unfair commercial use?   Answer:  
 
 
 Does not apply, see answer to b). 
 
 The Swiss Delegation would also be interested  to know whether the protection period of six 
years applicable to medicines is applicable to agricultural chemi cal products as well. If not, what 
would be the period of prot ection for such products? 
  Answer:
 
 
 The period of exclusivity for test data is unlimited. 
  Furthermore, the Secretariat Report does not contain a general paragraph on the “Protection 
of undisclosed information, including trade secret s and test data” as is usually provided in TPR 
reports. However, the protection of undisclosed info rmation is important for Switzerland. Therefore, 
we would be grateful if Norway could deliver mo re relevant information on this subject matter. 
 
 Answer:
 
 
 See answer to question a). 
 
TURKEY  
 
II. Trade and investment regime  
 Norway is a founding member of Europ ean Free Trade Area (EFTA) and the European 
Economic Area. EFTA  has preferential agreements with several countries and since last TPR, EFTA 
has also concluded bilateral FTAs with six countri es. We know that, as Norway liberalized most of 
the industrial products, preferential margins of th ese agreements were not so significant. Could 
Norway elaborates on how it sees its EFTA experien ce within the context of general global FTA 
trends.  WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 30  
 
  Answer: 
 
 
 As a first priority, Norway wants to see further liberalisation based on multilateral rules 
under the auspices of the WTO. Norway therefore atta ches great importance to the early conclusion 
of the DDA. The decision to pursue a preferential trade agreement with another country will depend 
on an overall assessment of the benefits of such  an agreement. Norway sees FTAs as a useful 
supplement to the liberalization taking place within the WTO.  
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
Trade and investment regimes Investment regime 
 
 1.  Paragraph 12 of the Secretariat’s Report reported that in October 2002, Norway abolished 
a 7% investment tax on purchases of business assets.  How have Foreign Direct Investment flows 
changed since the abolition of this tax? 
  Answer:
  
 
 The investment tax was levied on the purchase of business assets for use in businesses liable 
for VAT. There were a number of exemptions from th e tax i.a. manufacturing industries and most 
other sectors exposed to interna tional competition. The investment tax was thus mainly paid by 
sectors not exposed to international competition,  like retail and wholesale trade and commercial 
services.  
 
 Only about 1/3 of the investment tax was paid on capital and investment goods. Most of the 
tax was paid on intermediate goods and work on and repair of capital goods.  
  To a certain extent the removal of the investment tax could contribute to a higher return on investment in sectors where the tax was applicabl e, but the potential effect on foreign direct 
investment is uncertain.  
 Foreign direct investment (FDI) flows to Norway vary greatly from year to year. An isolated 
effect from the removal of the investment tax is  therefore not easily identifiable in the FDI-data. 
 
Trade policies and practices by measure 
Overview 
 
 2.  Paragraph 5 of the Secretariat’s Report mentions a new Competition Act.  Please elaborate on how the new Competition Act, which entered into  force in May 2004, differs from the previous 
Competition Act and discuss what impact, if any, the new Act will have on the Agricultural Sector? 
  Answer: 
 
 
 The New Competition Act vs. the previous Competition Act 
  The new Competition Act brings Norwegian competition law in line with the anti-trust 
principles of the EC competition rules. The new Act furthermore strengthens the merger control 
regime. Norwegian merger control has not, however,  as such been harmonized with EC merger 
control. In addition the procedural powers of the Norwegian Competitio n Authority has been 
strengthened, in particular with regard to the ado ption of fines. The new Act also empowers the WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 31 
 
 
 Norwegian Competition Authority to apply Articl es 53 and 54 of the EEA Agreement. Articles 53 and 
54 EEA mirrors Articles 81 and 82 EC.   Anti-trust:  
 The previous dual system, consisting in part of  provisions prohibiting certain practices and in 
part of provisions providing the Norwegian Comp etition Authority (NCA) with the authority to 
intervene against anti-competitive practices, is repl aced by a system of much broader prohibitions. 
The Act harmonizes the Norwegian anti-trust rules with the anti-trust regime of the EU and EEA. 
Thus, the Act lays down wide prohibitions on an ti-competitive cooperation and on the abuse of 
dominant positions, identical to the prohibition provis ions in articles 81 and 82 EC and Articles 53 
and 54 EEA. In line with the EU/EEA provisi ons, anti-competitive practices fulfilling the exemption 
criteria laid down in the Act are automatically exe mpted from the prohibition. This means that the 
undertakings no longer neither shall nor may no tify agreements to the Norwegian Competition 
Authority to obtain individual exemptions. Al so mirroring the EU/EEA system, the new Act 
furthermore empowers the King in Council to ad opt block exemptions. Block exemptions are 
exemptions for certain types of agreements (as oppo sed to exemptions in individual cases), which, 
although having anti-competitive effects, by experience  are known to have sufficient positive effects to 
outweigh the anti-competitive concerns.   Under the new Act, the Norwegian Competiti on Authority may award leniency to ‘whistle 
blowers’ by reducing – in some cases up to 100%  - the fines imposed for cartel behaviour.  The 
measure is expected to increase the number of infringements detected. 
  Infringements of competition law are subject to stricter sanctions under the new Act. In 
addition to the existing penal provisions, the new Act introduces a new civil law sanction of 
administrative fines similar to the sanctions imposed by the Commission and ESA under the EEA 
Agreement. The administrative sanctioning system is  set to be the primary instrument of the 
Norwegian Competition Authority in ensuri ng compliance with the competition rules. 
 
Merger control: 
 
 Under the new Act Competition Authority is obliged to intervene against any merger if it finds 
that it will “create or strengt hen an appreciable restriction of competition”. The previous Act only 
empowered the Competition Authority to intervene against such mergers. The new Act introduces a 
system of mandatory notification to the Competition Au thority of all mergers above certain thresholds 
(NOK 20 million). The merger control provisions of the Competition Act will, however, not apply to 
mergers falling within the merger c ontrol regime of the EEA Agreement. 
  The new Act also introduces shorter and fixed time limits in merger cases. Under the new 
rules, the Competition Authority is required to a dopt a decision within a maximum of 100 working 
days. If the parties submit proposals for commitm ents, however, this period may be extended by 
another 25 working days. 
 
 Impact on the Agricultural Sector   The new Competition Act will have minor – if any – impacts on the Agricultural Sector. The previous act exempted the fish and agricultural sectors from most of the prohibitions. The 
Competition Authority could however, to a certai n extent, intervene against other anti-competitive 
conduct. By Royal Decree of 23 April 2004 the fis h and agricultural secto rs where granted similar 
exemptions from the new Competition Act. WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 32  
 
 Measures Directly Affecting Imports – Other T axes and Charges – Control Fees and Foodstuffs 
Tax 
 
3.  Referring to paragraph 35 of the Secretaria t’s Report, U.S. wheat exporters report Norway 
charges a control fee on U.S. wheat imports of 1.8 percent of invoice value because Karnal Bunt 
exists in some areas of the US.  This charge is not commensurate with normal inspection costs and 
applies even if certificates speci fy that the wheat does not come from a region affected by Karnal 
Bunt.  Norway applies a health control fee of 0.9 percent of invoice value on all imported food wheat.  
Please explain why U.S. wheat exported from regions not affected by Karnal Bunt is assessed the higher control fee? 
 
 Answer:
 
 
Wheat for non-food use, from countries whe re a phytosanitary certificate is required in 
accordance with Regulation relating to plants and measures against pests of 12. January 2000 No. 
1333 (i.a. Karnal Bunt), is charged a control fee at  1.8% of invoice value. For consignments over 
5000 tons delivered in bulk the control fee is set at 0.9%.    For wheat for food use there are no control fees. But the wheat is subject to foodstuff tax set 
at 1.43%. The objective of the foodstuff tax is to  finance the regular inspections made by the 
Norwegian Food Safety Authority on the products in the food production chain, which are not subject 
to control fees.  
 
 4.  Paragraph 36 of the Secretariat’s Report states that “a food production tax is collected on all foods (except water) at different rates.  It a pplies to raw materials produced in Norway for use in 
food; to all imports of foods, semi-manufactured goods  and raw materials for use in food.  Therefore, 
the taxation base for imported goods is different from the base for locally produced goods.”  U.S. 
wheat exporters have advised that when import quo tas are opened for food wheat, a variable import 
duty is charged which is basically the difference between the domestic price and the world market 
price CIF Oslo.  The have asserted that the import du ty collected is used the following year to lower 
flour prices to bakers to help the baking industry to compete with certain imported bakery products. 
 
 A) Please advise whether the charge described by U.S. exporters is the food production tax 
described in paragraph 36 or some other program?   B) Please describe in detail this taxation and subsidy program U.S. wheat exporters report, 
including the period of time between the announcement of  the variable tax rate and its application to 
imports.  
 Answer:
 
 
 The foodstuff tax is imposed on both imported an d domestic products. Its objective is to cover 
costs resulting from the regular inspection made by the Norwegian Food Safety Authority on products 
in the food production chain, which are not subject to control fees. The foodstuff tax is lower for 
imported products than for domes tically produced products, sin ce these products already have 
undergone controls in the export country.  
Norwegian production of grain is not sufficient to meet domestic consumption. Quotas with 
reduced tariffs are therefore established on an aut onomous basis to prevent domestic price from 
exceeding target prices.  In-quota tariffs for grain for food, oilseeds and other input factors to feeding 
stuffs are set at a level necessary to prevent that domestic prices exceed target prices.  WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 33 
 
 
 In order to reduce consumer prices of flour, a price subsidy is granted to consumers of food 
grain both domestic and imported. The price subsidy is financed over the State Budget.  
 
Measured Directly Affecting Imports – Impor t Prohibitions, Restrictions, and Licensing 
 
5.  According Paragraph 42 of the Secretar iat’s Report, Norway allocates food import quotas 
through auctions.  U.S. exporters have also advi sed that they believe actual imports under many of 
these quotas are considerably below (on average amounting to only about a third of) the quota tonnage sold.  
 A)  Does the Norwegian Agricultural Authorit y have a system for reallocating unused import 
quotas, similar to the system for domestic production quotas?   Answer:
 
  The quota administration system is aimed at fa cilitating utilisation of the various import 
quotas. In order to encourage increased quota fill Norway has autonomously decided to reduce the 
in-quota-tariffs for the WTO minimum access quotas with 25% of the bound in-quota-tariffs as of 1 
July 2003 (exceptions are made for the sheep meat  quota and the cabbage quotas). To stimulate quota 
holders to import, the auctioning fee is not reim bursable. Furthermore, the tariff quota shares are 
tradable. To some extent quota holders make use of th is opportunity to sell their quota share in 
situations where they are not in a position to utilise the quota themselves.  
Measures Directly Affecting Exports – Export  Subsidies, and Duty and Tax Concessions  
 
 6.  Please provide further information regardi ng the verification system for the duty drawback 
program described in paragraph 78 of the Secret ariat’s Report on Norway’s Trade Policy Review? 
  Answer:
 
 
 Upon importation of materials to be used in a manufacturing process in Norway for the 
production of goods, which are later going to be ex ported, customs duties and taxes shall be paid in 
the normal manner. After export clearance of the final products concerned, repayment of customs 
duties may be granted both when the products are ex ported abroad directly or as well if placed in a 
customs warehouse for subsequent exportation. Th e amount to be refunded shall be equal to the 
customs duty that has been levi ed for the used materials. 
 
Measures Directly Affecting Exports – Export Promoting and Marketing  
 
 7.  Paragraph 84 of the Secretariat’s Report describes the activities of Innovation Norway.    A) Please provide further information regard ing the specific type of export promotion and 
marketing assistance provided by Innovation Norway? 
 
 B)  Please provide information regarding th e specific requirements for companies to qualify 
for assistance under this program.   Answer:
 
 
 The export promotion and marketing assistan ce offered by Innovation Norway (IN) are 
available for all companies although they are designed to meet the needs of SMEs. WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 34  
 
  The main services provided are: 
  1) General market information: Customised  information on international trade, export 
markets and Norwegian companies as potential suppliers to the international market. Ready available 
market information on foreign industries, products , technology, distribution and competition. This 
information is customised to SMEs but is avail able to all companies using INs web-site and service-
telephone.    2) Individual market and technology services like market research, technology search, product tests, analyses of competitors and entry stra tegy formulation (distributor search, partner 
search, establishment assistance, market and technol ogy monitoring). This service is available to all 
companies.   3) Market activities like trade fairs, semi nars, business forums, business delegations and joint 
promotional activities. These servic es are targeted for SMEs but so me activities are open to all 
companies provided that they pay their own costs.    
 8.  Please explain how products are able to qu alify as having a “high export potential” under 
the Entrepreneur Programme described in paragraph 85 of the Secretariat’s Report? 
 
Answer:
 
 
The evaluation of whether a product has “high export potential” is undertaken by Innovation 
Norway as part of the pre-qualification for the programme. The product’s competitive advantage is 
evaluated using the traditional competitiveness crite ria: price, quality, service, design, competition, 
distribution etc. Innovation Norway employees usually  based in the countries that are the target 
markets for the product in questi on, undertake the evaluation. 
 
Measures Affecting Production and Trade – State Owned Enterprises and Privatization 
 
 9.  According to Para 137 of the Secretar iat’s Report, State ownership remains extensive 
throughout Norway’s economy and it is expected to remain an important feature of the Norwegian 
economy for the foreseeable future.  The Secretar iat’s report relates in paragraphs 137-140 that 
government policy is to divest State assets, either fully or partially, to strengthen the regulatory regime by clearly separating ownership and regulatory functions of the State, and to insure that State 
Owned Enterprises (SOEs) comply with WTO rules to operate on a commercial basis.  
  
 A) Please explain how the transfer of ownership of some SOEs to the Ministry of Trade and 
Industry, while leaving regulatory authority over th e SOEs to sectoral ministries (Secretariat Report 
paragraph 140), is insuring that these firms operate on a commercial basis.  
Answer:
 
  The main purpose is to avoid intermingling between the State’s different roles; ownership 
management focusing on economic performance and industrial devel opment on the one hand and, 
sector political aims and business regulations on the other. In addition companies should be 
organized in such a way that the same rules and regulations will apply for state companies as for private companies. The state as any owner sets econom ic performance measures for the companies.   
 
 B)  Please provide an exhaustive list of which SOEs are still owned and regulated by the same 
ministries. WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 35 
 
 
  Answer:  
 
A complete list of companies owned by the diff erent ministries is presented in the Ministry of 
Trade and Industry’s “Ownership Report” for 2003. There are very few companies that are regulated 
and owned by the same ministry unless it has some  special role, and does not operate in full 
competition with others. Examples here are the state hospitals, state railway, etc. 
 
C)  Does Norway intend in the future to establish autonomous regulatory bodies (Secretariat 
Report paragraph 140)?  
 Answer:
 
 
 At the present time we do not envisage any development of this nature. 
 
 D)  What annual reports do Norwegian governme nt regulators require SOEs to file to validate 
their operating on a commercial basis? 
  Answer:
 
 
 Like all other commercial companies SOEs are required to file a full annual report which 
should contain a description of the business environment they are operating in an annual account 
describing profit and loss, assets and liabilities and cash flows. Some of the major companies also 
publish annual reports based on US-GAAP sin ce they also are listed in the US. 
 
 E)  If reports are filed, are they available to shareholders of partially private SOEs, the public, 
and other WTO member states? Are the reports revi ewed by independent a uditors who publish their 
findings? 
  Answer:
 
 
 They are publicly available and are audited by independent auditors. 
  10.  Paragraph 138 of the Secretariat’s Report indicates that the Government's current policy 
towards state-owned enterprises and privatizati on is contained in the April 2002 White Paper, 
"Reduced and Improved State Ownership".   Yet, pa ragraph 137 notes that state control of the Oslo 
Stock Exchange's capitalization rose from 17% in 1999 to approximately 41% at the end of 2003.  Please explain this apparent contradiction between privatization policy and practice. 
  
 Answer:
 
 
 The question is covered in Norway’s oral statement. 
 
 Please provide evidence that government i nvestments in SOEs and other Norwegian 
industries are made on a commercial basis. 
  Answer:
 
 
 The Ministry of Trade and Industry publis hes a yearly ”Ownership Report” on the 
management of its portfolio.  According to the 200 3 report, the return on equity was 10% as an 
average for the total portfolio.  Average for the listed companies w ere 12% compared to 8 % for the 
companies not listed. WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 36  
 
  11.  The Secretariat’s Report (para 138) stated that “the Storting has authorized further 
reduction of the State's stake in a number of enterpri ses; ending of state ownership in others is being 
considered.”  A)  Please provide a list of the enterprises that have been approved for full or partial privatization and the schedule for these divestments.   
 
 Answer: 
 
 
 All companies that have been approved for sa les have been sold with the exception of 
Grødegaard. The government will consider further sal es in Telenor and Statoil within the given limits. 
 
 B)  Please also provide a list of companies under consideration for state divestiture.   Answer:
 
  Such a list does not exist. State divestments have to be approved by the Parliament before the 
government is authorized to sell. Such decisi ons will be handled on a case by case basis. 
 
 12.  The Secretariat’s Report (para 140) st ates that sub sectors in which “competition is 
foreseen or has been introduced include postal services, rail services, road construction, health care, 
and higher education.”  Has Norway submitted, or  does Norway intend to submit, Doha Development 
Agenda GATS offers on any or all of these service sectors?   
  Answer: 
 
 
 Norway’s initial offer can be found in Norw ay’s offer TN/S/O/NOR. Norway is presently 
reviewing its initial offer with a view to tabling a revised offer before May 2005.  The review includes 
all sectors of the Services Negotiations. 
 
Measures Affecting Production and Trade – Intellectual Property Rights – Patents and 
Undisclosed Information 
  13.  In WTO Document IP/Q3/NOR/1, Norway indicated that it had no provision of law 
specifically permitting nationals of countries other than Norway or a member country of UPOV to obtain plant breeder rights in Norway.   A)  Has Norway since implemented a specific legal provision allowing such persons to obtain 
plant breeder rights in Norway?  
  B)  If not, how does Norway's law on plant va rieties satisfy its national treatment obligation 
as set forth in TRIPs Article 3?    Answer: 
 
 
 The relevant regulation, dated 6 August 1993, has been amended to entitle nationals of a 
member of the WTO to obtain plant breeder rights in Norway. 
 
 14.  In several responses provided in WTO Do cument IP/Q3/NOR/1, Norway indicated that it 
satisfied the reversal of burden of proof obliga tion set forth in TRIPs Art. 34 by reference to 
Norwegian legal tradition.   WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 37 
 
 
  A) Has this tradition since been codified?  
  Answer:  
 
 
 No. 
 
 B) If not, have any cases been adjudicated that affect the interpretation of this tradition as it 
applies to the TRIPs Art. 34 requirement, and does No rway have any plans to codify this tradition? 
  Answer: 
 
 
 No, we are not aware of cases affecting the in terpretation of this tradition, and there are no 
plans to codify it. 
 
 15.  In document WT/TPR/S/138, Norway mentions that it has implemented a disclosure of 
origin requirement for inventions that involve biological material.  
  A) Please provide an English language copy of  the 2004 amendments to the Patent Law that 
implement these provisions.    Answer:
 
 
 A copy of the English translation of the Norweg ian Patent Act with its latest amendments has 
been provided to the US delegation.  It will also  be made available shortly  on the web page of the 
Norwegian Patent Office (www.patentstyret.no).  The relevant provisions are Sections 8 b and 33 of 
the Norwegian Patent Act and Section 166 of the Norwegian General Civil Penal Code (see below). 
 
 Section 8 b of the Norwegian Patent Act reads as follows:  
  "If an invention concerns or uses biological ma terial, the patent application shall include 
information on the country from which the inventor collected or recei ved the material (the providing 
country). If the national legislation of the providing country requires that access to biological 
material shall be subject to prior consent, the app lication shall specify whether or not such consent 
has been obtained.    In cases where the providing country is not the sa me as the country of origin of the biological 
material, the application shall also specify the c ountry of origin. The country of origin means the 
country from which the material was collected fr om in-situ sources. In cases where the national 
legislation of the country of origin requires that acces s to biological material shall be subject to prior 
consent, the application shall specify whether or not  such consent has been obtained.  In cases where 
the information required pursuant to this paragraph is not known to the applicant, the applicant shall specify this.  
 The duty to provide information under the first and second paragraphs applies even if the 
inventor has altered the structure of the received material. The duty to provide information does not 
apply to biological material derived from the human body.   Any person who violates the duty to provide info rmation is liable to a penalty in accordance 
with section 166 of the General Civil Penal Code . The duty to provide information is without 
prejudice to the processing of patent applicati ons or the validity of granted patents." 
 WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 38  
 
  Section 33 second paragraph of the Patent Act reads as follows:
 
  "The provisions of sections 8 b and 8 c do not  apply to international patent applications." 
 
Section 166 of the General Civ il Penal Code reads as follows:
 
 
 "Any person shall be liable to fines or impr isonment for a term not exceeding two years who 
gives false testimony in court or before a notary public  or in any statement presented to the court by 
him as a party to or legal representative in a case, or who orally or in writing gives false testimony to 
any public authority in a case in which he is obliged  to give such testimony, or where the testimony is 
intended to serve as proof. 
  The same penalty shall apply to any person w ho causes or is accessory to causing testimony 
known to him to be false to be given by a nother person in any of the above-mentioned cases." 
  B) If failure to disclose the source of origin is  "without prejudice to the grant of the patent," 
what are the consequences of a failure to disclose?   Answer: 
 
 
In the last period of Section 8 b of the Norwegian Patent Act it is explicitly stated "duty to 
provide information is without prejudice to the processing of patent applications or the validity of 
granted patents". However, according to Section 8 b, paragraph 4, first sen tence in the Norwegian 
Patent Act "[a]ny person who violates the duty to  provide information is liable to a penalty in 
accordance with section 166 of the General Civil Pe nal Code". The maximum penalties prescribed in 
Section 166 of the General Civil Penal Code are fines or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two 
years.  
 
 16.  In WTO Document IP/C/W/427, Norway set forth its regulations for implementing the 
August 30, 2003 General Council Deci sion on paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration.  The following 
questions pertain to those regulations:    
 A)  The language of Section 107 of the Regulations states that a compulsory license may be 
granted for export to a "State" meeting specified  conditions.  Later in the same provision, both a 
"State" and a "customs territory" are mentioned.  Is export limited to an eligible "State" or may 
exports also be made to "customs territories?"  If "customs territories" are included, please explain 
how the criteria for qualification as an eligible im porting party, as outlined in Section 107(1), are 
consistent with either para graph 1(b) or paragraph 6 of  the General Council Decision. 
 
Answer:
 
 
 The authentic Norwegian version of the Regulatio n to the Patent Act,  Section 107 paragraph 
1, clearly defines an eligible State as a state or a custom territory.  The English translation provided 
in WTO Document IP/C/W/427 is unfortunately less clear on this point.  Norway may thus also grant 
a compulsory licence for exports to customs territori es (if the criteria otherwise have been met).  
  We consider this to be clearly consistent  with paragraph 1(b) of the General Council 
Decision, since both states and customs territories may be members of the WTO.   
 
 B)  Section 108(4) of the Regulations provid es that the compulsory license for export is "to 
cover the [importing State's] need for the produc t for health purposes."  The phrase "for health WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 39 
 
 
 purposes" appears to be very broad.  Would "for health purposes" be interpreted as the public health 
concerns recognized in paragraph 1 of the Doha Decl aration, as incorporated by paragraph 1(a) of the 
General Council Decision?   
Answer:
 
 
 Yes. 
 
 C)  Section 108, second paragraph (3), states that the export license sh all cease if the license 
holder learns the products are being used "to an ap preciable degree" for purposes inconsistent with the 
conditions for granting the license.  What is meant by "to an appreciable degree?"  Is an importing 
country permitted to resell the imported pharmaceuti cal to other countries under this provision?  Can 
the government of Norway terminate the export licen se sua sponte if it, rath er than the licensee, 
becomes aware that the products are being used "t o an appreciable degree" for purposes inconsistent 
with the grant of the license?  
 
 Answer:  
 
 Section 108 paragraph 2 (3) regulates compulsory licences (not export licences) and provides 
that  "export shall cease" if the products to an appreciable degree are used for purposes inconsistent 
with the conditions for granting the licence. C ontinued exports under the scheme would thus be 
considered to be a violation of the patent holders right and be subject to prosecution. 
 
 It is presumed that "to an appreciable de gree" would cover a situation where more than a 
minor amount of the products were used for oth er purposes than those covered by the compulsory 
license.   No cases have arisen as of yet to test the content of the criterion.  
  
 17.  In several responses provided in WTO Do cument IP/Q3/NOR/1, Norway indicated that 
test or other data related to a pproval of agricultural chemical pr oducts are protected in accordance 
with TRIPs Art. 39(3) by an administrative agency 's duty not to provide access to such data. TRIPs 
Art. 39(3), however, requires that such data be protected against unfair commercial use, not merely 
against disclosure.  
 
 A) How does Norway satisfy TRIPs Art. 39(3) in this regard?    Answer:
 
  See answer to question 3 from Switzerland. 
 
 B) Does Norway provide for a period of ex clusivity for test or other data submitted for 
agricultural chemical marketing approval?  
Answer:
 
 
See answer to question 3 from Switzerland. 
 
 18.  In several responses provided in WTO Document IP/Q3/NOR/1, it was unclear whether importation of a product into Norway would satisfy  the working requirement for the grant of a 
compulsory license on failure-to-work grounds.  Please clarify whether importation satisfies the 
working requirement, and if so, explain any conditions that apply?  WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 40  
 
 Answer: 
 
  The amended Patent Act Section 45 makes it clear  that importation into Norway would satisfy 
the working requirement.  Measures Affecting Production and Trade – Intellectual Property Rights – Designs 
 
 19.  Please provide an English language copy of the Designs Act of March 2003. 
  Answer:  
 
 
 An English language translation of the Designs Act will be provided .  It will also be available 
on the web-page of the Norwegian Patent Office (www.patentstyret.no).  
 
 20.  In Document WT/TPR/S/138 it is noted that design protection for spare and component 
parts is available for 5 years.  Do spare and component parts constit ute industrial designs that are new 
or original under Norway's law?     Answer:
 
 
 Yes, if the spare and component parts are visi ble under normal use of a complex product that 
the part is a component of and the spare and comp onent parts themselves have individual character 
and sufficient novelty. 
 
 Is this 5-year period extendable?    
Answer:
 
 
 Design protection for spare and component parts  is in general available for maximum 25 
years. However, for spare parts the scope of protecti on is limited. After a period of  5 years a design 
registration will not prevent others from making and selling copies of spare parts provided that the spare parts are used to repair a complex product to give the complex product back its original 
appearance, for example a car door. This period of  5 years is not extendable. However, a design 
registration will for a period up to 25 years prevent others from making and selling copies of spare 
parts if the purpose of the spare part is not to re pair a complex product to give the complex product 
back its original appearance. The scope of protection that subsists in the actual designs registration 
will in other words vary from what purpose the us e of the product has. Let us  provide the following 
example: A car manufacturer STING has multiple d esigns registrations for the whole car and its 
visible spare parts. A competitor RAXX produces al so cars and spare parts.  RAXX cannot offer for 
sale its own car partly composed of STING's protect ed spare parts the whole protection period i.e. up 
to 25 years, but RAXX can offer for sale spare par ts for repair purposes for STING cars after the 
initial five-year protection period. 
  If not, and if spare and component parts are cons idered to constitute new or original industrial 
designs, how does this 5-year term of protection sa tisfy TRIPs Art. 26(3), which requires a term of 
protection of at least 10 years for protectible industrial designs?   
Answer:
 
 
 The limited scope of protection for spare parts  satisfies TRIPs art. 26(3), because this 
represents a limited exception which is allowed accordi ng to TRIPs art. 26(2).  The design protection WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 41 
 
 
 for spare and component parts is under consideratio n in the EEA-Area and any further developments 
with regard to substantive design law will have to  be awaited.  The proposal of 14 September 2004 
from the European Commission (COM(2004) 582 final) states that protection as a design shall not 
exist for a design which constitutes a component part of a complex product used for the purpose of the 
repair of that complex product so as to restore its original appearance.  
 
Measures Affecting Production and Trade – In tellectual Property Rights – Geographical 
Indications 
 
 21.  According to Paragraph 163 of the Secr etariat’s Report [Document WT/TPR/S/138], the 
protection of geographical indicati ons is implemented through the Ma rketing Act of 16 June 1972 and 
the Trade Marks Act of 3 March 1961.  However, it is unclear from these laws whether trademark 
owners are protected from confusingly similar and later in time geographical indications.  
  A)  In what manner does the law of Norway preserve the rights of trademark owners 
consistent with Articles 16(1) and 24(5) of the TRIPs Agreement?  
  Answer:
 
 
 Article 16(1) of the TRIPS Agreement is implemented through Chapter 1 of the Norwegian 
Trade Marks Act, 3 March 1961.  
 
 The trademark owner is protected from conf usingly similar and later in time geographical 
indications by the general rule in section 4 of the Norwegian Trade marks Act, cfr. in particular 
paragraph 1, 3. sentence, which states that ""the same sign" shall be underst ood to mean a sign that 
is so similar to another sign, that is liable to be  confused with this sign in the ordinary course of 
trade..". In section 4, paragraph 3 it is stated that "[ t]he right to a sign in accordance with sections 1 
to 3 has the effect that no one other than the hold er may in the course of trade use the same sign for 
his goods...". This establishes a protection which is  in accordance with TRIPs Article 16 (1).  
  The provisions in the Trademark Act implem enting Section 3 of the TRIPs Agreement do not 
apply to trademarks that have been registered or have been acquired through use before the date of 
application of these provisions, ref . also Section 25 of the Norw egian Trademarks Act which that 
states "[i]f a trademark has been registered in cont ravention of the present Act, the registration may 
be invalidated by a court ruling...".  Before the provisions implementing section 3 of the TRIPs 
Agreement entered into force it would not necessarily  be in contravention of the Trademark Act if a 
trademark were registered where this would be forb idden according to TRIPs Article 23.  The 
registration of trademarks containing a geographical i ndication for wine or spirit that was granted 
before the implementation of TRIPs, can therefore not be  invalidated because the registration is not in 
accordance with TRIPs art. 23. This establishes an  arrangement that is in accordance with TRIPs 
Article 24(5).  
 
 B) What are the civil and criminal penalties for wrongful use of a geographical indication?   
 
Answer:
 
 
 According to Section 17 paragraph 1 of the Marketing Act the penalties for intentionally 
wrongful use of a geographical indication are fines or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six 
months or both. The wrongful user may also be  liable to pay damages to the owner of the 
geographical indication provided that the wrongful user is guilty of negligence. If the wrongful use of 
a geographical indication represen ts an infringement of a trademark the ordinary measures of WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 42  
 
 enforcement in chapter 7 of the Trademark Act may apply. These are fines or imprisonment for a term 
not exceeding 3 months, damages and other measures, fo r example confiscation of goods.        
 
C)  Who enforces judgments related to the wr ongful use of a geographical indication?   
 
Answer:
 
 
 The Police and the Public Prosecutor Authority enforce judgments when it comes to criminal 
penalties. When it comes to civil penalties judgme nts must be enforced with the help of the 
Enforcement of Claims Authority, which in some cases is an administrative authority and in other 
cases the Courts of First Instance.         
 D)  In cases of infringement, how are damages calculated?   Answer:
 
 
 If the infringement concerns a geographical indication the damages shall compensate the 
economic loss of the owner caused by the infri ngement. The same applies when the infringement 
concerns a trademark, but in these cases the compensation shall at least be corresponding to a fair 
licence fee for the use of the trademark.        
  22.  In Table III.14, pg. 62 of the Secretar iat’s Report under Geographical Indications, it 
states that coverage for “local agricultural specialties” has been extended “through an administrative 
system of non-exclusive marks (which are not IP Rs).”  What is meant by “non-exclusive marks 
(which are not IPRs)?”  
Answer: 
 
 
 See answer provided to question 4 from Canada. 
 
Measures Affecting Production and Trade – Intellectual Property Rights – Enforcement 
 
23.  According to Paragraph 168 of the Secr etariat Report, "[i]n general, the maximum 
penalties prescribed for infringement of intellectua l property rights involve fines and three-months 
imprisonment.  However, the maximum penalty for copyright and lay-out design infringement is three-years imprisonment."  Please indicate with regard to trademark counterfeiting whether three-
months imprisonment is a deterrent. 
 
Answer: 
 
 
We consider that this is sufficient det errent. The main sanctions when it comes to 
infringement of trademarks are civil penalties, for example compensation for loss. The criminal 
penalties for infringement of intellectual property rights will however be harmonised in the future. In 
the proposal for a new Trade Mark Act it is proposed  to raise the upper limit for imprisonment to one 
year, for severe cases. 
 
 24.  The Business Software Alliance July 2 004 piracy study indicates Norway’s software 
piracy rate is 32 percent, resulting in a loss of  $155 million.  Please describe efforts to decrease the 
level of business software piracy in Norway. 
 WT/TPR/M/138/Add.1 
Page 43 
 
 
 Answer:  
 
 The Norwegian copyright Act has specific prov isions on penal sanctions as well as civil 
remedies.   
 Both wilful and negligent infringement of c opyright or neighbouring rights carry penalties of 
fines or imprisonment.  For wilful infringement penalties can increa se to three years imprisonment if 
the consequences are severe. On eva luating the severity of the conse quences, relevant circumstances 
are first and foremost the amount of damage the infr ingement has caused the rightholder and others 
and the infringer’s profit.  As regards investigative steps, these follow the regular provisions of the 
penal code and include for instance the seizure of infringing goods. 
 
As far as civil remedies are concerned, the rightholder can claim damages for the negligent 
infringement of copyright or neighbouring rights. If the infringement is carried out wilfully or with 
gross negligence, damages for non-pecuniary damage can be awarded. Even if there is no culpability 
at the hands of the perpetrator, the rightholder can always demand the disbursement of the net profit 
of the illegal act.  A specific provision of the copyright act also prohibits the circumvention of 
technological measures used to control access to and use of computer programs. 
  Temporary injunctive measures are availabl e which includes the option to apply for an 
injunction in audita altera parte. 
 
 The Norwegian National Authority for In vestigation and Prosecution of Economic and 
Environmental Crime has established a special computer crime unit to handle computer  related crimes including copyright infringements.  The un it detects, investigates and prosecutes such cases.    
 
__________ 