6.2.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities L 35/53 COMMISSION DECISION of 23 January 2001 terminating the examination procedure concerning measures affecting the trade of cognac in Brazil (notified under document number C(2001) 129) (2001/97/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 328694 of 22 December 1994 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Community's rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation ('), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 356/95 (%), and in particular Articles 11(1) thereof, After consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: A. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND (1)  On 17 February 1997 the Bureau national interprofes- sionnel du cognac (hereinafter BNIC) lodged a complaint under Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 (hereinafter ‘the Regulation’) on behalf of those of its members which export to Brazil or wish to do so. (2)  The complainant alleged that Community sales of cognac in Brazil were hindered by three obstacles to trade within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Regula- tion, ie. ‘a practice adopted or maintained by a third country and in respect of which international trade rules establish a right of action’. The alleged obstacles to trade were the following. (i) Lack of protection of the cognac appellation of origin (AOC) and discrimination vis-a-vis other foreign and local geographical indications: the complainant alleged that the Brazilian legislation allowed Brazilian brandy and other types of spirits to be called cognac or conhaque, these being the terms officially and commercially used to define such spirits, regardless of their geographical origin. It was claimed that this practice was in breach of several provisions of the WTO Agreement in trade related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs); ot the Paris Convention for the Protection of Indus- () O] L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 71. () O] L 41, 23.2.1995, p. 3. trial Property (Paris Convention); of the Madrid Agreement for the Repression of False or Deceptive Indications of Source of Goods (Madrid Agreement) as well as of the 1992 Framework Cooperation Agreement between the Community and Brazil (Framework Agreement). (i = Excessive administrative requirements for import: the complainant claimed that the requirements for the marketing of cognac in Brazil, such as the cumbersome  registration procedure and the compulsory visit of a Brazilian agronomist to the production site in France at the exporter's expense are largely excessive and unique so as to constitute a disguised restriction to trade. It was claimed that these measures violate Articles III and VIII of GATT 1994 and to Articles 1 and 2 of the WTO Agree- ment on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosani- tary Measures (SPS). (iii = Discriminatory taxation: BNIC complained that the rate of tax on industrial products discriminates against Cognac vis-a-vis locally produced spirits. It was alleged that cognac is ex officio classified in the most heavily taxed category, while local spirits are never classified in that category. According to the complainant, this would be a breach of Article III.1 and 112 of GATT 1994. (3)  The complainant also claimed that these practices were causing adverse trade effects within the meaning of Article 2(4) of the Regulation and that they were in danger of being more adversely affected in the near future, as they blocked the access of cognac to the Brazilian market, which represent an important export market to an industry which is substantially export oriented. (4 The Commission decided therefore, after consultation of the Advisory Committee established by the Regulation, that there was sufficient evidence to justify initiating an examination procedure for the purpose of considering the legal and factual issues involved. Consequently, an examination procedure was initiated on 2 April 1997 (3). () O] C 103, 2.4.1997, p. 3.