VZCZCXYZ0031
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHRL #0598/01 0821536
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 231536Z MAR 07
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7623

UNCLAS BERLIN 000598 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR ISN/MTR AND EUR/AGS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETTC MNUC MTCRE PARM KSCA TSPA GM FR
SUBJECT: GERMANY'S REVISED DISCUSSION PAPER ON MTCR DENIAL 
NOTIFICATIONS 
 
REF: A. BERLIN 541 
 
     ¶B. STATE 28937 
     ¶C. BERLIN 281 
     ¶D. 06 STATE 188791 
 
¶1. (SBU) German MFA Export Control Division Desk Officer 
Andreas Kauke passed the following English-language Missile 
Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Discussion Paper to Global 
Affairs officer March 20.  Kauke said Germany also planned to 
submit the Discussion Paper on Denial Notification and 
Related Procedures to MTCR partners via the electronic Point 
of Contact (ePOC).  Germany would like to discuss the paper 
at the April 12-13 Reinforced Point of Contact (RPOC) meeting 
in Paris and put it on the agenda for the MTCR Plenary later 
this year. 
 
¶2. (U) Begin text of English-language paper: 
 
DE 
March 2007 
 
Missile Technology Control Regime 
 
Discussion Paper 
Denial Notification and Related Procedures 
 
 
In 2006, MTCR Partners exchanged their views on how to 
improve the denial notification ystem and related procedures 
via a survey conductd by Germany.  A summary of the 
responses to thesurvey was presented at the Copenhagen 
Plenary 206 (POC 232/2006).  Partners agreed to further 
eplore the matter at the RPOC 2007 on the basis of 
discussion paper with proposals for improvement f denial 
notification. 
 
¶1.  This paper propose to agree on basic and additional 
elements for dnial notification and use of denial 
information (see ANNEX I).  These elements derive from 
experiences in exchanging such information by Partners and 
from preferences expressed by Partners in the "Survey on 
Denial Notification and Related Procedures". 
 
¶2. The MTCR Aide Memoire provides that Partners will review 
the basis for their denials three years after the 
distribution of a denial notification and advise the other 
subscribing Governments of its conclusions.  To facilitate 
the management of the periodical denial review for Partners 
and enhance transparency, Germany proposes to further improve 
the current MTCR denial database. 
 
A further version of the ePOC notification database could 
allow Partners to renew notifications online.  The date of 
the latest renewal would appear in the database together with 
the notification concerned.  This way, Partners could search 
the data base for those of their denials that are due for 
review. 
 
 
ANNEX I 
 
 
MTCR 
 
Best Practices for Sharing and Using Denial Information 
 
 
MTCR Partners, having affirmed that they apply strict 
national export controls in accordance with the MTCR 
Guidelines, agree on the importance of the timely exchange of 
information on denial of export authorisations. 
 
The following practices derive from experiences in exchanging 
such information by Partners and from preferences expressed 
by Partners in the "Survey on Denial Notification and Related 
Procedures".  The Best Practices are intended to strengthen 
the denial notification process by summarising the sense of 
the Partners as to appropriate ways to share and use denial 
information.  They are consistent with the MTCR Guidelines 
and all relevant MTCR consensus decisions.  This document 
confers no greater obligations upon Partners than they have 
assumed under the MTCR Guidelines. 
 
The practices recommended for denial notifications and for 
information notifications are identical, except as they 
relate to the "no-undercut" and consultation policies related 
to denials of transfers of listed items, as set out in the 
MTCR Aide Memoire. 
 
BASIC ELEMENTS 
 
In sharing and using denial information Partners take into 
account the following list of basic elements: 
Decision on Transfers 
¶1. Partners should advise the Point of Contact of a denial in 
response to a formal inquiry or a request for export license 
within four weeks after the final decision, or as soon 
thereafter as practicable.  However, Partners may, in order 
to early detect procurement efforts and where national 
legislation permits, provide a denial notification 
irrespective of whether an appeal is pending or anticipated. 
Information to the effect that an appeal is pending or 
anticipated may be included in the notification. 
 
Content of Denial Notification 
¶2. In order to maximize the utility of notifications to 
recipients, and in an effort to accumulate information that 
could suggest patterns of procurement behaviour, Partners are 
encouraged to provide as much detail relating to reasons for 
denial as feasible.  Such information is particularly useful 
in catch-all denials to understand and act properly on them. 
 
Consultation Procedure 
¶3. Consultations between Participating Governments on an 
export application, when a notification of denial of export 
for an essentially identical transfer is in effect, should 
take place in a timely manner.  Unless otherwise agreed, the 
Government which provided the notification should respond 
with substantive information within a period of four weeks of 
consultations having been initiated.  In the event that 
information is not forthcoming within this period, the 
consultation process will normally be regarded by the 
Government considering the export as complete. 
 
¶4. Verification whether a notification of a denial for an 
export of an essentially identical transfer is in effect 
should take place on a case by case basis in the context of 
national discretion.  As a rule, the term "essentially 
identical transfer" should be considered in comparison to the 
transfer denied, as one that comprises cases that concern an 
item with the same specifications and performance which is 
destined for the same consignee. 
 
Complementary Information 
¶5. It is affirmed that catch all-denials can significantly 
contribute to an understanding of procurement behaviour and 
programs of concern.  Partners are encouraged to share such 
information to the greatest extent possible. 
 
 
ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS 
 
In sharing and using denial information, Partners may 
additionally take into account the following elements: 
 
Decision on Transfers 
¶1.  While denials are subject to appeal in many Partner 
states, Partners can, for the sake of early detection of 
procurement efforts, and where national legislation permits, 
provide a denial notification irrespective of whether an 
appeal is pending or anticipated.  Information to the effect 
that an appeal is pending or anticipated may be included in 
the notification, and the absence of a subsequent 
communication or revocation will be construed as indicating 
that the denial was upheld. 
 
Voluntary Consultation 
¶2. Partners may consult one another before granting a license 
for a transfer of an Annex item that is not identical, but 
similar to one denied in pursuit of the objectives of the 
Guidelines, and destined for the same consignee. 
 
¶3. Partners may consult one another before authorizing an 
export of a non-listed item that is identical or similar to 
those indicated in an information notification, and destined 
for the same consignee. 
 
Evaluation of Denials in the Licensing Process 
¶4. In the evaluation of transfer applications for an Annex 
item, Partners may take into account, as appropriate, denials 
for the same consignee that do not concern an essentially 
identical transfer.  This may be useful in cases where the 
item of the transfer application can technically be used for 
sensitive MTCR-related activities that were the reason for 
denial in question. 
 
End text of English-language paper. 
KOENIG