transferwise.com/gb/blog/opening-a-bank-account-in-estonia So the question is: what chance does an EU country have to shape a common commercial policy? Answer: A pretty good answer. Of course, the Member States have not simply entrusted an important policy area to the Commission in order to act at their discretion. The Commission may not open or conclude trade negotiations without the consent of the Member States; today, the European Parliament also plays an important role as a co-decision-maker. In addition, Member States will also lead the Commission during the negotiations. Before starting negotiations, the Commission will report to Member States on its plans and tactics, agree on a mandate and report on the results at a later date. In this way, Member States have an overview of the progress of the negotiations and the possibility of influencing things in the desired direction, even if the Commission is alone at the negotiating table on the EU side. Companies need to recognize that intellectual property rights are protected differently in Estonia than in the United States, and that U.S. trademark and patent applications will not protect intellectual property rights in Estonia. The registration of patents and trademarks is done on the basis of the first in time, first of the law, so companies should consider applying for trademark and patent protection before selling goods or services on the Estonian market. Intellectual property rights are primarily a private right, and the U.S. government generally cannot enforce the rights of individuals in Estonia.

It is the responsibility of right holders to register, protect and enforce their rights, where appropriate, by hiring their own lawyers and consultants. Companies can seek advice from local lawyers or IPR consultants. But what does trade policy mean for an EU member country? Can a « separate » trade policy be pursued? At first glance, the answer is no, because the EU has a single trade policy – otherwise it would be very difficult to ensure the functioning of the internal market, which is the cornerstone of the Union, on the basis of the customs union and equal treatment. Consequently, the Treaty of Rome, in force since 1958 and establishing the European Economic Community, confers the common commercial policy on the exclusive competence of the EU. Article 113 of the Treaty required the future Commission to negotiate trade with third countries and, if necessary, to protect the internal market, for example in cases where a third country exports goods at a price below cost (so-called `dumping`). This is now provided for in Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in the chapter on the EU`s external action. Given the increasing complexity of trade agreements, it should be added that the common commercial policy is based not only on the movement of goods, but also on services, the commercial aspects of intellectual property and foreign direct investment. From now on, however, Estonia needs to do more to make its voice heard for a number of reasons. First, when the UK – the liberal trade spokesman – leaves the EU, all like-minded member states will have to make their voices heard. Second, if we are in a world where protectionism and disregard for multilateral trade rules are on the rise, we need to talk more about the benefits of rules-based free trade. Of course, the EU must respond to these threats, both in its own interest and to maintain the multilateral trading system, which is very important for Estonia.

However, it was far from a bad day for Estonian trade policy and for Estonian entrepreneurs and consumers. Almost overnight, we found ourselves embroiled in a much larger, more global game than it had been before. First, one of the world`s most powerful trade negotiating teams, led by the European Commissioner for Trade and supported by the European Commission`s Directorate-General for Trade (DG Trade), has started working on our behalf. Perhaps only the US government is able to hold several full-fledged bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations with the EU at the same time. This means that the EU has the world`s largest network of bilateral trade agreements (41 covering 72 countries) and also plays a leading role in multilateral trade negotiations within the framework of the WTO. On the other hand, Estonia has become part of a market of 500 million consumers, integrated into many global supply chains. Figuratively speaking, everyone acts with us, so no one can ignore the EU as a trading bloc. This will better serve the objectives of the main trade policy: more diversified imports and access to raw materials, better export conditions and the dissemination of our values and standards. Estonia and Japan already have close trade relations. The trade agreement between the EU and Japan will give it a big boost. In this case, there is a gap between those who favour open trade and increased competition and those who prioritise market protection. Estonia, which sits at the EU table on an equal footing with other Member States, has the opportunity to have a say on all issues.

On the one hand, it must therefore deal with issues that would otherwise not be in its interest (e.g. . B, if Italian wine names are protected in Australia), while on the other hand, we have the opportunity to gain all the weight of the EU behind Estonia`s own interests (for example.B. in trade disputes with Russia). Here too, Estonia has done a very good job during its Presidency of the Council of the EU, during which, in addition to seeking compromises in trade negotiations, it has also helped to agree on a new regulation on trade defence measures that is up-to-date and does not unnecessarily restrict trade. Estonian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) are drafted by the Estonian Accounting Standards Board (EASB). Estonian accounting policies, which have been in force since 2013, are based on IFRS for small and medium-sized enterprises (IFRS for SMEs), with limited differences from IFRS for SMEs in terms of accounting policies and disclosure requirements. More information: investinestonia.com/business-in-estonia/establishing-company/accounting-requirements/ bankruptcy is not criminalised in Estonia. Insolvency proceedings in Estonia are subject to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, which entered into force in February 1997. Estonian Bankruptcy Act focuses on the protection of the rights of debtors and creditors. According to the law, bankruptcy proceedings may be mandatory in Estonia, in which case a court decides to initiate debt collection proceedings, or voluntarily through a corporate restructuring.

For more information on insolvency proceedings: www.lawyersestonia.com/bankruptcy-procedures-in-estonia www.doingbusiness.org/en/data/exploreeconomies/estonia/registering-property#DB_rp A list of agreements with the United States can be found at: www.vm.ee/en/countries/united-states-america?display=relations#agreements Estonian Customs Act allows the government to establish free trade zones. Goods in a free trade area are considered to be outside the customs territory. VAT, excise duties, import and export duties and any fees for customs services do not have to be paid on goods brought into the free zones for subsequent re-export. In practice, this means that EU Member States will waive the right to negotiate and do business on trade with third countries within the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The common commercial policy brought both visible and legal effects to Estonia after its accession to the EU. Visually, this means that in May 2004, the Estonian diplomat no longer took her place at the WTO in the usual alphabetical order, but took the nameplate and went to the end of the room, where the EU countries and the Commission sat in groups. And since that day, Estonia (with a few exceptions) has not spoken at the WTO, as the Commission speaks by convention for the whole of the EU. Of course, Estonia is still a full member of this organization, so there is every reason to celebrate our 20th anniversary, but things have not changed for us in the same way as at the UN.

From a legal point of view, the change was the most important compared to the bilateral trade agreements that Estonia had concluded, which had to be terminated because our trade relations began to be governed by the agreements that these countries had concluded with the EU. .