According to the general rules of interpretation as laid down in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties there shall, according to paragraph 3, be taken into account as a primary means of interpretation

(a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty and

(b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation.

Mutual agreement procedures conducted under Art. 25 para 3 of the OECD-MC which are only making visible the concurring treaty application practice used by the treaty partners are to be classified as a "subsequent practice" in the meaning of subparagraph (b). Under such circumstances they do not constitute a binding agreement in the sense of subparagraph (a). However, this does not really diminish their legal value in the present context, because according to the Vienna Convention an identified common "subsequent practice" has to be respected as a means of treaty interpretation in the same way as a "subsequent agreement".