E

PCT/MIA/20/13 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH ENGLISH ONLY

DATE: DECEMBER 21, 2012

Meeting of International Authorities under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)

Twentieth SessionMunich, February 6 to 8, 2013

REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTMENT OF OFFICES AS INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AND PRELIMINARY EXAMINING AUTHORITIES UNDER THE PCT

Document prepared by the International Bureau

SUMMARY1. During the 25th session of the CTC1 and the 43rd session of the PCT Assembly, the Delegations of Spain, Portugal and the Russian Federation and the representative of the European Patent Office stated that there was a need to review the requirements and procedures for appointment as an International Authority. As background information for such a review by PCT Member States, this document sets out the current requirements and procedures together with information on how the procedures have been applied in the past.

1 The following abbreviations are used in this document:

CTC: PCT Committee for Technical CooperationISA: International Searching AuthorityIPEA: International Preliminary Examining AuthorityPCT: Patent Cooperation TreatyRWC: Records of the Washington Conference, WIPO Publication Number 313(E)Summary Minutes: The Summary Minutes of Main Committee I of the Washington Conference at

pages 527 to 605 RWCWashington Conference: The Washington Diplomatic Conference on the Patent Cooperation Treaty

Furthermore, references to Articles and Rules refer to those provisions of the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT, respectively.

PCT/MIA/20/13page 2

2. In addition to addressing the issue at the present Meeting of International Authorities, the International Bureau intends to also address the issue at the next session of the PCT Working Group, tentatively scheduled to take place from May 21 to 24, 2013.

BACKGROUND3. The requirements and procedures for appointment as an International Authority are provided for in PCT Articles 16 and 32 and Rules 36 and 63, which are set out in Annex I for ease of reference.

Positions at the Washington Diplomatic Conference4. Both Articles 16 and 32 as well as the more detailed Regulations concerned with the appointment, role and responsibilities of International Authorities are drafted in a way which assume that more than one International Authority is tasked with carrying out international searches and international preliminary examinations.

5. That notwithstanding, at the Washington Diplomatic Conference leading to the conclusion of the PCT, a majority of delegations agreed to a proposal by the Delegation of Canada2 to write into the Treaty a specific reference to the goal of creating a single International Searching Authority, by adding the opening words of Article 16: “If, pending the establishment of a single International Searching Authority…”.

6. Correspondingly, the CTC was given the following tasks (Article 56(3)):

“(3) The aim of the Committee shall be to contribute, by advice and recommendations:

“(i) to the constant improvement of the services provided for under this Treaty,

“(ii) to the securing, so long as there are several International Searching Authorities and several International Preliminary Examining Authorities, of the maximum degree of uniformity in their documentation and working methods and the maximum degree of uniformly high quality in their reports, and

“(iii) on the initiative of the Assembly or the Executive Committee, to the solution of the technical problems specifically involved in the establishment of a single International Searching Authority.”

7. Furthermore, a proposal3 was accepted that, before appointment of an International Authority, the Assembly should “seek the advice of the Committee for Technical Cooperation referred to in Article 56 once that Committee has been established” (Article 16(3)(e)).

8. However, even at the time of the Diplomatic Conference, it was clear that not all States considered the goal of a single International Authority to be both desirable and realistic. For example, the Delegation of Brazil had presented an alternative proposal4 that “any contracting party whose national Office fulfills the minimum requirements, especially as to manpower and documentation, may be designated as the seat of an International Searching Authority”.

2 Document PCT/DC/31 at page 234 RWC. The proposal was introduced as follows (paragraph 406 of the Summary Minutes at page 539 RWC): “… It was desirable that the PCT make clear that the multiplicity of International Searching Authorities was merely a temporary solution and that the ultimate goal was to have only one such Authority. …”3 Document PCT/DC/21 at page 230 RWC.

PCT/MIA/20/13page 3

9. The Brazilian proposal had been supported by various delegations either very generally5 or because various practical problems meant that a solution involving a single Authority would be a very long way in the future6.

Developments Since Entry into Force of the Treaty10. Annex II contains a list of the appointments of Offices as International Authorities, including the sessions of the CTC where recommendations were made and of the Assembly where appointments were made.

11. Since the Treaty has entered into force, the number of International Authorities has risen from the initial seven (five as both ISA and IPEA; one each as ISA or IPEA only) to eighteen (fifteen active and three appointed but not yet having begun operations). The only Office to have given up its status was the United Kingdom Patent Office, whose original appointment was for fifteen years (rather than the 10 years of the other Authorities), but whose appointment was understood from the outset to be non-renewable as a result of its obligations in the context of the European Patent Convention.

12. The CTC met most years up until 1995 in the context of its role in securing “the maximum degree of uniformity in [the International Authorities’] documentation”, but has rarely met as a true expert body, able to give meaningful advice to the PCT Assembly on the appointment of International Authorities. Only in the case of the appointment of the Korean Industrial Property Office (now the Korean Intellectual Property Office) has the CTC been convened separately from the PCT Assembly in order to give such advice. In all other cases, the CTC has either not been convened (at the time of the first seven appointments it had not been created; the Assembly explicitly decided that it did not need to hear such advice for three further appointments) or else it has been convened essentially as a formality during the same period as the WIPO Assemblies. In the latter case, the participants have been largely, if not exclusively, the same delegates as those attending the PCT Assembly and few questions have been considered other than when the Office expects to obtain outstanding parts of the PCT minimum documentation which it has noted as not yet being available. In effect, the Contracting States have been content to appoint Authorities on the basis of a self-certification that the minimum

requirements have been met (or in a number of cases an undertaking that deficiencies will be corrected before beginning operation) and a political assessment of the desirability of the appointment.

13. The CTC has never met to give advice on the extension of existing appointments and the PCT Assembly has never asked the CTC to look into the matter of technical problems specifically involved in the establishment of a single ISA.

4 Document PCT/DC/34 Rev. at page 235 RWC and paragraph 446.1 of the Summary Minutes (Main Committee I) at page 541 RWC. The position and proposal were described as follows: “… it might very well happen that in practice decentralized searching worked better than centralized searching. Even if there was only one International Searching Authority, it was probably going to be necessary that it have several branches in different parts of the globe. …” (paragraph 428 of the Summary Minutes at page 540 RWC) and “The request to become an International Searching Authority was, in a certain sense, a political matter since it was in the interest of the State or the region in question to have an International Searching Authority within its boundaries” (paragraph 453.3 of the Summary Minutes at page 541 RWC).5 For example, the Delegation of Spain supported the proposal “because it made clear that any national Office fulfilling the stated requirements had the right to become an International Searching Authority” (paragraph 450 of the Summary Minutes at page 541 RWC).6 For example, the Delegation of Israel gave the example that “… as long as the Spanish and Portuguese languages could not be handled by the International Patent Institute, the Latin American countries might wish to institute their own regional Searching Authorities…” (paragraph 455 of the Summary Minutes at page 541 RWC).

PCT/MIA/20/13page 4

14. The minimum requirements for appointment as an International Authority (Rules 36 and 63) have been modified on the following occasions:

(a) (effective July 1, 1992) It was clarified that physical possession of the PCT minimum documentation was no longer required if it could be accessed through electronic media.

(b) (effective January 1, 2004) As a result of the introduction of the written opinion of the ISA it became necessary to be appointed as both an ISA and an IPEA.

(c) (effective April 1, 2007) A requirement was introduced to have in place a quality management system and internal review arrangements.

REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTMENT15. The requirements for an Office to be appointed and to operate as an International Authority are7:

(a) at least 100 full-time employees with sufficient technical qualifications to carry out searches and preliminary examinations;

(b) possession of, or (since July 1, 1992) access to, the PCT minimum documentation, properly arranged for search and examination purposes;

(c) a staff which is capable of searching the required technical fields and which has the language facilities to understand at least those languages in which the minimum documentation referred to in Rule 34 is written or is translated;

(d) (since April 1, 2007) the Office must have in place a quality management system and internal review arrangements in accordance with the common rules of international search; and

(e) (since January 1, 2004) the Office must be appointed both as an International Searching Authority and as an International Preliminary Examining Authority.

16. The Office must also conclude an agreement with the International Bureau setting out rights and obligations of the parties and formally undertaking to apply and observe all the common rules of international search and preliminary examination, this being taken to mean the PCT Articles and Rules relating to international search and preliminary examination as well as the PCT International Search and Preliminary Examination Guidelines. These agreements all follow a standard format; the main differences lie in the Annexes which indicate the States and languages for which the ISA agrees to act and the fees and refund policies which will apply.

17. The decision to appoint an Office as an International Authority is made by the PCT Assembly, having heard the interested Office and, in principle, the advice of the CTC. However, as noted above, the advice of the CTC has in practice been regarded as a formality.

ACTIVITY OF INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITIES18. The large majority of international searches are carried out by the European Patent Office (specified as ISA for 37.7% of international applications in Q1 2012), the Japan Patent Office (24.4%), the Korean Intellectual Property Office (13.6%), the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China (9.1%) and United States Patent and Trademark Office (8.9%) (the distribution is very similar for international preliminary examination) – the remainder form 6.2% in total. The distribution of international searches requested from different Offices between 2005 and the start of 2012 is shown below.

7 As set out in equivalent terms in Rule 36 for ISAs and Rule 63 for IPEAs.

PCT/MIA/20/13page 5

19. Most of the International Authorities work predominantly for “their own” applicants, that is, ones which are nationals or residents of the State for which the national Office acts, or a Member State of the regional organization for which the regional Office acts. The exceptions are:

(a) Australian Patent Office: around 38% of international searches are performed for applicants from other countries in the Asia-Pacific region and 12% for applicants from the United States of America;

(b) Austrian Patent Office: acts exclusively for applicants from developing countries;

(c) European Patent Office: around 23% of international searches are performed for applicants from the United States of America; acts as International Searching Authority for a large proportion of international applications from many Contracting States around the world;

(d) Korean Intellectual Property Office: around 57% of international searches are performed for applicants from the United States of America;

(e) Federal Service for Intellectual Property, Patents and Trademarks (Russian Federation): around 47% of international searches are performed for applicants from the United States of America;

(f) Spanish Patent and Trademark Office: While the largest part of its work comes from Spain, the Office provides international searches for around 85% of international applications filed in Spanish around the world;

(g) Swedish Patent and Registration Office: Around 20% of international searches are performed for applicants from neighboring countries, rather than Sweden.

ISSUES20. During the 25th session of the CTC and the 43rd session of the PCT Assembly, the Delegations of Spain, Portugal and the Russian Federation and the representative of the European Patent Office stated that there was a need to review the requirements and procedures for appointment as an International Authority.

21. Clearly, the procedures and requirements provided for in the Treaty and the Regulations were set up in the context of the situation in 1970.

22. At that time, the fact of allocating the resources which were required to necessary to amass the entire PCT minimum documentation on paper and to arrange it and continually update it in a manner allowing it to be searched was in itself testament to a commitment to

PCT/MIA/20/13page 6

conducting searches at a high level of quality. Today, with the availability of electronic databases from a wide variety of sources, the patent part of the minimum documentation is effectively available for search by anyone and the challenge of searching the non-patent literature part is gradually reducing.

23. While the reason for the requirement of 100 examiners is not explicitly stated in the Records of the Washington Diplomatic Conference, it appears clear that this requirement is not relevant to the workload of the Office in its role as an International Authority, which might require the equivalent of one or two examiners or else several thousand examiners depending on the number of international applications for which the Authority is competent. Rather, it is usually assumed to have been an estimate of the minimum number of examiners required to understand the full range of technology in a depth sufficient to conduct a high quality search or preliminary examination. Even accepting this number as a reasonable initial assumption, it is not clear whether this has changed either as a result of improvements in searching technology (which might reduce the required number) or as a result of the ever increasing range and complexity of technology (which might increase the number).

24. The requirement under Rules 36.1(iii) and 63.1(iii) in relation to having a staff “which has the language facilities to understand at least those languages in which the minimum documentation referred to in Rule 34 is written or is translated” has generally been taken to mean that a good range of language skills are expected in examiners, facilities are available to examiners for translation on demand and that abstracts in appropriate languages are provided to assist searching as far as possible. However, it is not clear how this type of requirement ought to be considered in the light of the combination of the greatly increased linguistic diversity within the PCT minimum documentation and the improvement in cross-language searching tools available to assist examiners who do not themselves understand all of the relevant languages.

25. The requirement for a quality management system was introduced in response to a proposal by the United Kingdom to the PCT Assembly, stating that “Quality standards for search and examination should be set out for International Search Authorities and International Preliminary Examination Authorities to meet.”8 However, this was implemented as a requirement for International Authorities to provide a more effective self-assessment of the extent to which they met the existing criteria for appointment and followed the “common rules of international search”.

26. As noted in paragraphs 14 and 15, above, the minimum requirements for appointment have been reviewed on three occasions in the past, but two of these were simply making necessary consequential changes to the reality of the fact that searching was increasingly conducted using electronic systems and the fact that International Searching Authorities were being called on to establish written opinions in addition to search reports.

27. However, on none of these occasions was serious consideration given to the questions as to:

(a) whether the existing Rules and Guidelines truly reflect what is necessary to provide the high quality of international search and preliminary examination envisaged by the PCT; and

(b) whether the implementation of the processes for appointment and extension of appointment of International Authorities are appropriate to the current wishes of the Contracting States, whether in terms of the number, regional and linguistic distribution of Authorities or the level of scrutiny which is considered appropriate of their ability to perform international search and preliminary examination to the necessary standard.

28. The Meeting is invited to comment on the questions raised in paragraph 27 of this document.

8 Paragraph 8 of document PCT/A/31/8.

PCT/MIA/20/13page 7

[Annexes follow]

PCT/MIA/20/13ANNEX I

PCT ARTICLES AND RULES RELATING TOAPPOINTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITIES

Article 16The International Searching Authority

(1)  International search shall be carried out by an International Searching Authority, which may be either a national Office or an intergovernmental organization, such as the International Patent Institute, whose tasks include the establishing of documentary search reports on prior art with respect to inventions which are the subject of applications.

(2)  If, pending the establishment of a single International Searching Authority, there are several International Searching Authorities, each receiving Office shall, in accordance with the provisions of the applicable agreement referred to in paragraph (3)(b), specify the International Searching Authority or Authorities competent for the searching of international applications filed with such Office.

(3)(a)  International Searching Authorities shall be appointed by the Assembly. Any national Office and any intergovernmental organization satisfying the requirements referred to in subparagraph (c) may be appointed as International Searching Authority.

(b)  Appointment shall be conditional on the consent of the national Office or intergovernmental organization to be appointed and the conclusion of an agreement, subject to approval by the Assembly, between such Office or organization and the International Bureau. The agreement shall specify the rights and obligations of the parties, in particular, the formal undertaking by the said Office or organization to apply and observe all the common rules of international search.

(c)  The Regulations prescribe the minimum requirements, particularly as to manpower and documentation, which any Office or organization must satisfy before it can be appointed and must continue to satisfy while it remains appointed.

(d)  Appointment shall be for a fixed period of time and may be extended for further periods.

(e)  Before the Assembly makes a decision on the appointment of any national Office or intergovernmental organization, or on the extension of its appointment, or before it allows any such appointment to lapse, the Assembly shall hear the interested Office or organization and seek the advice of the Committee for Technical Cooperation referred to in Article 56 once that Committee has been established.

Article 32The International Preliminary Examining Authority

(1)  International preliminary examination shall be carried out by the International Preliminary Examining Authority.

(2)  In the case of demands referred to in Article 31(2)(a), the receiving Office, and, in the case of demands referred to in Article 31(2)(b), the Assembly, shall, in accordance with the applicable agreement between the interested International Preliminary Examining Authority or Authorities and the International Bureau, specify the International Preliminary Examining Authority or Authorities competent for the preliminary examination.

(3)  The provisions of Article 16(3) shall apply, mutatis mutandis, in respect of International Preliminary Examining Authorities.

PCT/MIA/20/13Annex I, page 2

Article 56Committee for Technical Cooperation

(1)  The Assembly shall establish a Committee for Technical Cooperation (referred to in this Article as “the Committee”).

(2)(a)  The Assembly shall determine the composition of the Committee and appoint its members, with due regard to an equitable representation of developing countries.

(b)  The International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authorities shall be ex officio members of the Committee. In the case where such an Authority is the national Office of a Contracting State, that State shall not be additionally represented on the Committee.

(c)  If the number of Contracting States so allows, the total number of members of the Committee shall be more than double the number of ex officio members.

(d)  The Director General shall, on his own initiative or at the request of the Committee, invite representatives of interested organizations to participate in discussions of interest to them.

(3)  The aim of the Committee shall be to contribute, by advice and recommendations:(i) to the constant improvement of the services provided for under this Treaty,(ii) to the securing, so long as there are several International Searching Authorities

and several International Preliminary Examining Authorities, of the maximum degree of uniformity in their documentation and working methods and the maximum degree of uniformly high quality in their reports, and

(iii) on the initiative of the Assembly or the Executive Committee, to the solution of the technical problems specifically involved in the establishment of a single International Searching Authority.

(4)  Any Contracting State and any interested international organization may approach the Committee in writing on questions which fall within the competence of the Committee.

(5)  The Committee may address its advice and recommendations to the Director General or, through him, to the Assembly, the Executive Committee, all or some of the International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authorities, and all or some of the receiving Offices.

(6)(a)  In any case, the Director General shall transmit to the Executive Committee the texts of all the advice and recommendations of the Committee. He may comment on such texts.

(b)  The Executive Committee may express its views on any advice, recommendation, or other activity of the Committee, and may invite the Committee to study and report on questions falling within its competence. The Executive Committee may submit to the Assembly, with appropriate comments, the advice, recommendations and report of the Committee.

(7)  Until the Executive Committee has been established, references in paragraph (6) to the Executive Committee shall be construed as references to the Assembly.

(8)  The details of the procedure of the Committee shall be governed by the decisions of the Assembly.

PCT/MIA/20/13Annex I, page 3

Rule 34Minimum Documentation9

34.1   Definition

(a)  The definitions contained in Article 2(i) and (ii) shall not apply for the purposes of this Rule.

(b)  The documentation referred to in Article 15(4) (“minimum documentation”) shall consist of:

(i) the “national patent documents” as specified in paragraph (c),(ii) the published international (PCT) applications, the published regional applications

for patents and inventors’ certificates, and the published regional patents and inventors’ certificates,

(iii) such other published items of non-patent literature as the International Searching Authorities shall agree upon and which shall be published in a list by the International Bureau when agreed upon for the first time and whenever changed.

(c)  Subject to paragraphs (d) and (e), the “national patent documents” shall be the following:

(i) the patents issued in and after 1920 by France, the former Reichspatentamt of Germany, Japan, the former Soviet Union, Switzerland (in the French and German languages only), the United Kingdom, and the United States of America,

(ii) the patents issued by the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation,

(iii) the patent applications, if any, published in and after 1920 in the countries referred to in items (i) and (ii),

(iv) the inventors’ certificates issued by the former Soviet Union,(v) the utility certificates issued by, and the published applications for utility certificates

of, France,(vi) such patents issued by, and such patent applications published in, any other

country after 1920 as are in the English, French, German or Spanish language and in which no priority is claimed, provided that the national Office of the interested country sorts out these documents and places them at the disposal of each International Searching Authority.

(d)  Where an application is republished once (for example, an Offenlegungsschrift as an Auslegeschrift) or more than once, no International Searching Authority shall be obliged to keep all versions in its documentation; consequently, each such Authority shall be entitled not to keep more than one version. Furthermore, where an application is granted and is issued in the form of a patent or a utility certificate (France), no International Searching Authority shall be obliged to keep both the application and the patent or utility certificate (France) in its documentation; consequently, each such Authority shall be entitled to keep either the application only or the patent or utility certificate (France) only.

(e)  Any International Searching Authority whose official language, or one of whose official languages, is not Japanese, Korean, Russian or Spanish is entitled not to include in its documentation those patent documents of Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the former Soviet Union as well as those patent documents in the Spanish language, respectively, for which no abstracts in the English language are generally available. English abstracts becoming generally available after the date of entry into force of these Regulations shall require the inclusion of the patent documents to which the abstracts refer no later than six months after such abstracts become generally available. In case of the interruption of abstracting services in English in technical fields in which English abstracts were formerly generally available, the Assembly shall take appropriate measures to provide for the prompt restoration of such services in the said fields.

9 This Rule is expected to be amended by the PCT Assembly in September 2011 to also include Chinese patent documentation.

PCT/MIA/20/13Annex I, page 4

(f)  For the purposes of this Rule, applications which have only been laid open for public inspection are not considered published applications.

Rule 36Minimum Requirements for International Searching Authorities

36.1   Definition of Minimum Requirements

The minimum requirements referred to in Article 16(3)(c) shall be the following:(i) the national Office or intergovernmental organization must have at least 100 full-

time employees with sufficient technical qualifications to carry out searches;(ii) that Office or organization must have in its possession, or have access to, at least

the minimum documentation referred to in Rule 34, properly arranged for search purposes, on paper, in microform or stored on electronic media;

(iii) that Office or organization must have a staff which is capable of searching the required technical fields and which has the language facilities to understand at least those languages in which the minimum documentation referred to in Rule 34 is written or is translated;

(iv) that Office or organization must have in place a quality management system and internal review arrangements in accordance with the common rules of international search;

(v) that Office or organization must hold an appointment as an International Preliminary Examining Authority.

Rule 63Minimum Requirements for

International Preliminary Examining Authorities63.1   Definition of Minimum Requirements

The minimum requirements referred to in Article 32(3) shall be the following:(i) the national Office or intergovernmental organization must have at least 100 full-

time employees with sufficient technical qualifications to carry out examinations;(ii) that Office or organization must have at its ready disposal at least the minimum

documentation referred to in Rule 34, properly arranged for examination purposes;(iii) that Office or organization must have a staff which is capable of examining in the

required technical fields and which has the language facilities to understand at least those languages in which the minimum documentation referred to in Rule 34 is written or is translated;

(iv) that Office or organization must have in place a quality management system and internal review arrangements in accordance with the common rules of international preliminary examination;

(v) that Office or organization must hold an appointment as an International Searching Authority.

[Annex II follows]

PCT/MIA/20/13ANNEX II

LIST OF APPOINTMENTS OF INTERNATIONAL SEARCHINGAND PRELIMINARY EXAMINING AUTHORITIES

Office Capacity CTC PCT/A EffectiveAT ISA+IPEA - 1st session

Apr 10 to 14, 1978Jul 1, 1978

EP ISA+IPEA - 1st sessionApr 10 to 14, 1978

Jul 1, 1978

GB IPEA - 1st sessionApr 10 to 14, 1978

Jul 1, 1978(ceased 1993)

JP ISA+IPEA - 1st sessionApr 10 to 14, 1978

Jul 1, 1978

SE ISA+IPEA - 1st sessionApr 10 to 14, 1978

Jul 1, 1978

SU (now RU)

ISA+IPEA - 1st sessionApr 10 to 14, 1978

Jul 1, 1978

US ISA - 1st sessionApr 10 to 14, 1978

Jul 1, 1978

AU ISA+IPEA - 3rd sessionApr 25 to May 1, 1979

Mar 31, 1980

US IPEA - 14th sessionSep 8 to 12, 1986

Jul 1, 1987

CN ISA+IPEA 13th sessionSep 22 to 23, 1992

20th sessionSep 21 to 29, 1992

Jan 1, 1994

ES ISA 16th sessionSep 21 to 22, 1993

21st sessionSep 20 to 29, 1993

Sep 22, 1993

KR ISA+IPEA 19th sessionMay 26 to 30, 1997

24th sessionSep 16 to Oct 1, 1997

Dec 1, 1999

ES IPEA - 30th session23 Sep to Oct 3, 2001

Jun 1, 2003

CA ISA+IPEA 20th sessionSep 23 to Oct 1, 2002

31st sessionSep 23 to Oct 1, 2002

Jul 26, 2004

FI ISA+IPEA 20th sessionSep 23 to Oct 1, 2002

32nd sessionSep 22 to Oct 1, 2003

Apr 1, 2005

XN ISA+IPEA 22nd sessionSep 25 to Oct 3, 2006

35th sessionSep 25 to Oct 3, 2006

Jan 1, 2008

BR ISA+IPEA 23rd sessionSep 24 to Oct 3, 2007

36th sessionSep 24 to Oct 3, 2007

Aug 7, 2009

IN ISA+IPEA 23rd sessionSep 24 to Oct 3, 2007

36th sessionSep 24 to Oct 3, 2007

-

EG ISA+IPEA 24th sessionSep 22 to Oct 1, 2009

40th sessionSep 22 to Oct 1, 2009

-

IL ISA+IPEA 24th sessionSep 22 to Oct 1, 2009

40th sessionSep 22 to Oct 1, 2009

Jun 1, 2012

CL ISA+IPEA 25th sessionOct 1 to 9, 2012

43rd sessionOct 1 to Oct 9, 2012

-

[End of Annex II and of document]