RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
4 April 2003 
 (03-1871) 
Working Party on the 
Accession of the Russian Federation Original:   English 
 
 
 
ACCESSION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
 
 
 Attached is a consolidated list of follow- up comments, proposals and requests for specific 
information or clarification 1relating to issues in the revised draft of the Working Party Report on the 
Accession of the Russian Federation to the WT O (document WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 refers), 
together with comments submitted by the Russian Federation.  
_______________ 
 
   
                                                     
 
1 Outstanding issues emanati ng from document WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 are included.  The latest 
responses from the Russian Federation are in bold type.  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 1No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
1.  General  At the March 6 meeting of the Working Part y, the Chairman identified remaining sectio ns of the revised draft Working Party rep ort for further 
review and requested additional inputs be provided in time for consideration by the informal Working Party meeting scheduled fo r April 7-10, 2003.  
The purpose of the review is to develop the factual basis for further revision of the draft Working Party report.    
 We had already submitted additional comments and questions on a number of these topics on February 7:  under “Import Regulatio n,” Other 
Duties and Charges, Fees and Charges for Se rvices Rendered, Customs Valuation, Rules of Origin, and Other Customs Formalities; under “Export 
Regulation, ” Other Customs Formalities; and Transparency, incl uding Notifications.  These comments and questions are included in 
WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 and also below.  We reques t that they be transmitted to the Russian Federation for response as part of the i nputs for the April 
2003 Working Party meeting.  In addition, we are providing new comments and questions on the rema ining two topics:  Trade-Relat ed Intellectual 
Property Regime and the Trade-related Servi ces Régime.  We also request that these inputs be transmitted to the Russian Federat ion, completing our 
submission for the April 2003 meeting.    
 Based on our understanding that the main work of the April WP  meeting will be to improve the factual basis of the draft report , we have limited 
requests for commitment language, and reserve the right to prov ide additional comments on possible commitment language at a lat er time, as well as any 
additional comments and specific drafting suggestions that may be re quired.  We would also note that our previous general comme nts on developing the 
draft WP report text, reflected in WT/ACC/SP EC/RUS/29 and confirmed in WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/31,  remain part of our approach to this exercise.  
2.  8-10 ECONOMY, ECONOMIC POLI CIES AND FOREIGN TRADE 
Economic Policies 
- Fiscal and Monetary Policies 
3.  11-26 - Foreign Exchange and Payments System 
4.  11-26 Questions on the IMF’s Approval   
 
According to the IMF Report (IMF Country Report No. 02/74), “Restrictions on advance import payments (exchange restriction). Th e authorities do not 
freely permit the making of all advance payments that are required under valid import contracts. Fund approval not granted”. Co uld Russian Federation 
explain whether the following regulations are approved by the IMF? 
 
1. Limitation on the period between advance payment and customs clearance 2. Requirement for Russian importers to make a deposit in Rubles corresponding to the amount of the advance payment paid in for eign currency. 
 
Specific questions on the draft law “On Cu rrency Regulation and Currency Control”
 
 
1. Limitation on the period between advance payment and customs clearance   
 After enforcing the draft law, will transactions, for which the period between advance payment and customs clearance exceeds 18 0 days, have 
restrictions imposed only in the three exceptional situations me ntioned on page 8 of “WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29”? Apart from these thr ee situations, can 
companies conduct transactions without permission from the CBR?  
Regarding transactions for which the period between advance paym ent and customs clearance does not exceed 180 days, are no rest rictions imposed? 
 2. Requirement for Russian importers to make a deposit in Rubles corresponding to the amount of the advance payment paid in for eign currency
 
 
After enforcing the draft law, will the requirement (for Russian impor ters to make a deposit in Rubles (which is 20% of the adv ance payment) be only 
imposed when the transactions for which th e period between the advance payment and cu stoms clearance exceeds 180 days in the th ree exceptional  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 2 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
situations mentioned on page 8 of “WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29”? 
 When will this regulation be abolished? 
 
3. The mandatory requirement applicable to exporters of products from Russia to convert a certain percentage (from 50% to 30% i n the draft law) 
of their foreign exchange earn ings into domestic currency  
 
When will this regulation be abolished? 
5.  11-26 We welcome the new information provided by Russia on its draft Federal Law "On foreign exchange control and foreign exch ange regulation".  The 
inclusion of "proposed" elements of Russia's foreign exchange scheme with "existing" elements, however, introduces uncertaintie s as to what provisions 
will apply upon accession. 
 We suggest that, at an appropri ate point, this entire section of the report be re-drafted along the lines suggested in the gene ral comments in 
WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29, i.e., by drawing out clear ly which provisions will be superseded by new legislation, and those that will re main the same. 
 We welcome the statement in Russia's response  that, under draft legislation, current exch ange transactions are to be "free".  I n relation to that statement, 
we seek clarification as to whether the pr oposed requirement that residents must ensu re payments are deposited in accounts with in a 180 day period in 
the case of prepaid imports will replace the current restric tion of 90 days. 
 
- What provisions will be made for circumstances where perfor mance of contract does not occur within that time period? 
- On page 12, Russia states that "it is quite possible" to prolo ng the current term beyond 90 days by obtaining CBR permission.  We concur with 
the views expressed by Members under para 23 (page 6 of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29) that the difficulties involved in obtaining approva l would 
pose unnecessary additional transaction costs on importers (Article III of GATT 1994) and should be removed. 
 
In relation to the proposed mandatory sale of export earnings (up to a limit of 30 per cent of earnings), we strongly disagree with Russia's claim that it 
does not represent a violation of Article III or XI of GATT 1994. - Irrespective of whether exporters can acquire foreign currency on the internal ma rket, this regulation requires exporters to di spose of their 
foreign currency and then re-purchase them at  cost (i.e., exchange rate losses, paymen t of conversion margin), affording protec tion to domestic 
products (Article III). 
- By its very nature this regulation represents a restriction on both the importation and exportation of any product (Article XI) . 
 
Russia has not addressed concerns raised under para 12 (page 5 of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29) on the WTO inconsistency of the requireme nt to deposit an 
amount equal in value to the foreign currency purchased for the purpose of prepayment of imports.  We look forward to a full re sponse to this and other 
outstanding concerns. 
6.  40-52 - Pricing Policies 
7.  51  As it is stated in paragraph 51 of the draft report: “i nternational treaties are binding th roughout the entire territory o f the Russian 
Federation”. However, we are still witnessing violations of commitments undertaken by the Russian Federation under bilateral an d multilateral 
arrangements affecting trade in goods and services. That is why we need the clear commitment to be undertaken by the Russian Fe deration, with 
reflection in the draft report, that it will strictly observe the provisions of international treaties. 
 We would also like to have a clarification from the Russian Federation on the following question: in case if Russia’s domestic  legislation 
provides for conditions different from those stipulated by inte rnational treaties to which Russia is a party, can the legal pri macy of international  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 3No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
treaties over domestic law be enforced without the need for compla inants to seek a judgment of a court? If not, what are exact procedures to be 
followed? 
8.  48-58  This delegation is disappointed with deleting the paragraph 72 from the document RUS/25, which deals with coordination of international 
and foreign economic ties of the subjects of the Russian Federation and asks the Secretar iat to restore this paragraph in the c urrent document together 
with the question posed by our delegation on this very issue which was reflected in document RUS/25/Add.1.  
 Our delegation wishes to reiterate that the provisions of the Law of the Russian Federation on Coordination of International a nd Foreign 
Economic Ties of the Subjects of the Russian Federation are being constantly violated by the subjects of the Russian Federation . That is why we 
need explanations from the Russian Federation how it intends to en sure full observance of this law by its subjects. We also see k clear commitment 
from the Russian Federation that its fede ral or sub-federal entities will act strictly in conformity with the above-mentioned l aw fully respecting 
national legislation and interests of partners’ countries. 
9.  48-49  We are still concerned about the latest information gi ven by Russian delegation that a possibility for discriminatory p ricing for transportation 
on railway freight remains.  
 We would like to express our interest to see what is the deadlin e for the second stage of tariff  unification as explained in p ara 49? 
10.  53-54 Competition Policy 
11.  53-54 -  As is indicated in the Report, the role of Ministry of Anti-monopol y Policy (MPA) is “to implement government competition polic ies and control 
the enforcement of an ti-monopoly legislation.”  Please explain: 
- What is/are the major competition law/laws in Russian Federation? 
- What is the role of MAP in regulatory reform? How MAP resolves conf lict with regulatory agencies, if  there is any?  What is the  role of MAP in 
the transformation of market economy? 
 53-54 Russian Federation: 
 The anti-competitive market structure and unfair business practi ces that impeded competition could be addressed through the app lication of 
the Anti-monopoly legislation. To this end, antimonopoly legislation had been adopted, including Federal Law No. 948-1 of 22 Ma rch 1991 "On 
Competition and Restriction of Monopoly Activity on Commodity Markets" (as amended on 24 June 1992, 25 May 1995 and 2 January 2 000);  
Federal Law  No. 2-FZ of 9 January 1996 "On Making Amendments and Supplements to Federa l Law No. 2300-1 of 7 February 1992 "On 
Consumers Rights Protection" and the Code of the RSFSR On Admi nistrative Offences" (as amende d on 17 December 1999) and Federal  Law 
No 117-FZ of 23 June 1999 "On Protection of Competition in the Financ ial Services Market". The Ru ssian legislation in force con tained, 
therefore, all the basic elements  of state supervision and control over agreement s (Concerted Actions) of economic operators re stricting 
competition, abuse of domi nant position on the market by econom ic operators, and economic concentration. 
The main functions of MAP included the introduction of legislative initiatives in the field of anti-monopoly activity, the deve lopment and 
execution of measures on demonopolization of production and dist ribution, the monitoring of co mpliance with anti-monopoly requi rements in 
the establishment, reorganization and liqui dation of economic enterprises. The Mini stry conducted a preliminary review and cont rol on 
establishment and mergers, the affiliation of  commercial organizations or their associatio n,  transactions of acquisitions of r ights or shares in 
the capital of commercial organization and  receipt by a person (or group of persons) of ownership of fixed and intangible asse ts of another 
person. These functions were realized  through prior approval or notification by an timonopoly organs. He added that under Articl e 71.g of the 
Constitution of the Russian Federation, competition policy did not fall within the jurisdiction of regional authorities.  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 4 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
12.  55-65 FRAMEWORK FOR MAKING AND ENFORCING POLICIES 
Powers of executive, legislative and judicial branches of government; 
Government entities responsible for making and implementing policies affecting foreign trade; 
Division of authority between central and sub-central governments 
13.  55-65 The new information provided in this section is useful.  We encourage Russia to address the substance of the questions r aised by Members in relation to 
appeals procedures across other aspects of Russia's trade regime and how Russia intends to ensure action is taken against non-u niform application of 
trade-related measures. 
14.  66-80 POLICIES AFFECTING TRADE IN GOODS 
Registration requirements fo r import/export operations 
15.  66-80 Comments in SPEC/RUS/31:  
- We request that the Russian Federation provides a revised versio n of document WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/21/Rev.1 – Reference paper 12 on 
Activities subject to licensing covering both goods and services as well as information on the licensing bodies, descriptions o f criteria and the 
fees requested. 
- We thank the Russian Federation for providing an example on medicines describing the basic administrative measures necessary fo r carrying 
out activity in the field of medicines. The information contained in that document should be included under this section. 
- For clarity and transparency purposes, we suggest that the last part of paragraph 73 starting with “regarding importation of ph armaceuticals…” 
and paragraph 74 be included at the end of paragraph 72.  
- We have the same requests/comments as mentioned in document WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/30 on paragraph 72. 
- We appreciate the information provided in RUS/31, especially those relating to paras. 68, 72 and 79. The inclusion of this info rmation in the 
draft report will help to better understand how the Russian syst em for importing pharmaceutical products works and clarify the draft report on 
this issue. We also think that the draft report should be upda ted with reference to the new draft Law on State Regulation of Fo reign Trade 
Activity and other relevant legislation.  
- In § 71 and in answer in RUS/31, the Russian delegation indicated that all Russian participants of foreign trade activities wer e permitted to 
undertake foreign trade activities. What is meant by “all Russi an participants “ ? Is it the legal entities and natural persons  mentioned in § 73 of 
the draft report (= Answer at p. 12 in RUS/31). In addition th e new para. 73 in RUS/31 does not give additional information as it only includes 
paras. 72, end of §73 and §74 together. 
- In addition no answer has been provided to our request regardin g the need to update Reference paper 12 in SPEC/RUS/21/Rev.1. 
16.  66-80 Russian Federation:  
 In order to ensure sustainable economic development of the Ru ssian Federation the draft law “On the Fundamentals of State 
Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity” was elaborated to reflect the latest changes in Russia’s legal system, namely, adoption o f the Civil Code 
of the Russian Federation, the Tax Code of the Russian Federati on, and the implementing legislation.  The law will replace the current Federal 
law No.157-FZ of 13 October 1995 “On State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity” maki ng amendments which are vital in determini ng the 
terms of participation of foreign and domes tic companies in the civil procedures, in particular, in their access to market, and  the nature and 
forms of relationship between the state and business. 
The draft law incorporates the relevant pr ovisions of the GATT 1994, GATS , and Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. The 
principles of the state regulation of forei gn trade activity established by the draf t law include unity of the customs territor y of the Russian 
Federation; state protection of rights and rightful interests of both domestic and foreign participants of foreign trade activi ty; unity of the 
implementation of the instruments of the tr ading policy on the overall territory of Ru ssia; equality and non-discrimination of legal entities and 
individuals involved in  the foreign trade activity; transparency in the el aboration, adoption and im plementation of measures of  state regulation 
of foreign trade activity ; justifiable and objective implementa tion of measures of state regulation of foreign trade activity; prevention of the  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 5No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
unjustifiable interference of the state and it s bodies in foreign trade activity, etc. 
The draft law is structured to ensure full transparency and understanding in appl ying it to international trade in goods, servi ces and 
intellectual property. 
The draft law contains provisions on national treatment for trad e in goods and services which originate from the territories of  other 
WTO members. The provisions were drafted to comply with the respective provisions of the GATT 1994 and GATS.  
The draft law establishes freedom of transit through the territory of the Russian Federation via ai r, sea, railway and road rou tes, which 
are most convenient for internat ional transit. The law makes no distinction based on the flag of vessels, the place of origin, departure, entry, 
exit or destination, or on any circumstances relating to the ownership of goods, of vessels or of other means of transport. Tog ether with the new 
Customs Code which was elaborated recently and is awaiting its first reading in the State Duma the draft law complies with the provisions on 
freedom of transit set in the GATT 1994.  
To ensure transparency the draft law requires official publicatio n of regulations, which relate to  foreign trade activity. The draft law 
also envisages provision of information to legal entities and individuals involved in foreign trade activity. The federal execu tive body 
responsible for the information support sha ll be appointed by the Government of the Ru ssian Federation. The information provide d concerns 
domestic and foreign legal entities and individuals involved in foreign trade activity on the Russian market; Russian and forei gn legal system 
regulating foreign trade activity; regulations of the Russian Federation on standardization and certification; the list of good s whose import and 
export is prohibited on the territory of  the Russian Federation; other information. 
The draft law establishes prohibiting and restricting measures which are applied to international trade in goods, services and 
intellectual property and constituted genera l exceptions which comply with the relevan t WTO provisions and security exceptions which 
envisage measures related to ensuring state security in time of  war or other emergency; particip ation in international sanction s under the 
United Nations Charter; protection of Russia’s external financ ial difficulties and maintaining its balance of payments; currenc y regulation and 
currency control under the relevan t Articles of the Agreement of the Internationa l Monetary Fund. The measures applied shall no t be based on 
arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination be tween the states or be hidden restrictions to international trade in goods, service s and intellectual 
property. 
 The prohibiting and restricting measures established by the dra ft law are applied to the extent of the necessity to protect pu blic 
morals; to protect human, animal or plant life or health; to prot ect cultural valuables; when th ey relate to the importations o r exportations of 
gold or silver; relate to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources if such measures are taken in conjunction with rest rictions on 
domestic production or consumption conformity; etc. The prohibit ions and restrictions shall not serve a means of unjustified di scrimination 
between the contracting parties or be hidden res trictions to international trade in goods.   
 The national treatment of goods implies a no less favourable treatment accorded to th e goods of the territory of any contracti ng party 
and imported to the territory of the Russian Federation than that accorded to like good s of national origin in respect of all l aws, regulations and 
requirements affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase,  transportation, distribution or use. These provisions shall not prevent the 
application of differential intern al transportation charges which are based exclus ively on the economic operation of the means of transport and 
not on the nationality of the product. The national treatment to services implies that the Russian Federation should accord to services and 
service suppliers of any other co ntracting party, in respect of all measures affecting the supply of services, treatment no les s favourable than 
that it accords to its own like services and service suppliers. 
17.  85-90 - Ordinary Customs Duties 
18.  85-90 Need a reference to bilateral market access negotiations on  goods + problem of double MFN tariff rates to goods originat ing from WTO Members. 
Again no answer provided by Russia.  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 6 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
19.  91-96 - Tariff Quotas 
20.  91-96 -  Problem of Russian proposal to introduce new tariff quota to restrict market access + question of qualification to receive a qu ota and WTO 
conformity of type of allocation method used.  
- In SPEC/RUS/31 at page 18 tariff quotas are mentioned for only three products (white sugar, beef and pork). During the last WP (January 
2003), the Russian Federation indicated that a tariff quota would be  introduced on poultry for 4 years. This information is not  reproduced in 
page 18 and we request that it be included like the tariff quotas for beef and pork. 
21.  98-99 - Other Duties and Charges 
22.  99 Russia should confirm th at “other duties and charges” applied to imports will be bound at zero in its Goods Market Access s chedule. 
23.  98-99 The para. 297 or the draf t report states, “For the illegal copies, the ri ght holder could request to take them. ...  Con cerning the Superior Arbitration 
Court's practice, the Court issu ed a decision on confiscation and destruction in cases where the right holder did not request t he goods to be transferred to 
him. ”. In this respect, we would like to ask for more information on whether this provision relates to films and phonograms or  to goods produced with 
violation of rights of holders of trademarks or to all aforementioned? If the provision relates also to films and phonograms, w hat is the arrangement for 
the holder to use or sell these items? Is it stipulated in  a legal document or it is discretion of the right holder? 
24.  98-99 Russian Federation:  
 
We suggest replacing in para. 102 the words “according to the ne w draft Customs Code” with “in accordance with the draft Chapte r 25.1 “Customs Duty 
and Customs Charges” of Part II of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and the draft new version of the Customs Code of the Russian Federation”, 
which would correctly reflect the structure of the legislation of the Russian Federation on taxes and levies and the content of  the above draft laws which 
have been presented by the Government of the Russian Federation to the State Duma. 
25.  98-99 Russian Federation:  
 
There are no requirements in the Russian consulates to have c onsular documents (consular invoi ces and certificates) or consular  visas for performance of 
import/export transactions. Furthermore, no special consular fees connected with the export or import of goods or services have  been instituted. 
 
The activities of consulates are governed by worldwide accepted pr ovisions of international law (in particular Vienna Conventio n 1963). 
 
Thus, the issues on consular fees should be excluded from the Draft Report as they are not connected with importation and expor tation. 
26.  100-107 - Fees and Charges for Services Rendered 
27.  100-102 The text of this Section should be updated to give additional specific information on the unified customs fee: 
 
- whether the unified Customs fee will replace all other Customs char ges on imports except for custom s escort, or if not, informa tion on any 
Customs charges that will continue; 
- the status of the legislation that will establish and administer  the fee and whether further regulation will be necessary to im plement the fee; 
- the scope of application, in terms of goods and exporting countries covered or exempted; 
- the legal basis and level of application; 
- what the revenues collected will be used for; 
- the relationship between the revenues collected and the co st of the services for which the fee is applied; and 
- how Russia will insure that the revenues collected are used solely  for providing these services, and that none of the revenues are used for the 
customs clearance of exempt ed imports or exports.  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 7No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
28.  Tables 10-13 -  Tables 10-13 should be comprehensive.  If they are not, additional information should be provided to make them so.   
- Has the legal authorization for the measures noted in the first and third “notes” to the Table lis ting Consular fees been elimi nated? 
29.  100-107 The table of fees levied for consular purposes (Table 12) includes a number of consular  fees with a potential impact o n trade, in particular (1) fees for 
certification and notarisation of documents, (2) fees for notarisation of agreements subject to evaluation, (3) fees for notari sation of authentication of 
signature, (4) fees for consular service of sea- or aircraft, including for issuing certificates of loading or unloading, for n otarisation of various certificates 
and applications, including the cargo certif icate, and for notarisation of sanitary certificates. Russia needs to respond to th e questions we have already 
posed in order either (a) to demonstrate th at in fact these fees are not in any way connected with trade and therefore are not covered by GATT Article 
VIII requirements, or (b) to specify what steps it is taking to en sure that such fees are levied on a non-discriminatory and WT O-consistent basis. 
30.  100-107 The text of this Section should be updated to give additional specific information on the unified customs fee: 
 - whether the unified Customs fee will replace all other Customs char ges on imports except for custom s escort, or if not, informa tion on any 
Customs charges that will continue; 
- the status of the legislation that will establish and administer  the fee and whether further regulation will be necessary to im plement the fee; 
- the scope of application, in terms of goods and exporting countries covered or exempted; 
- the legal basis and level of application; 
- what the revenues collected will be used for; 
- the relationship between the revenues collected and the co st of the services for which the fee is applied; and 
- how Russia will insure that the revenues collected are used solely  for providing these services, and that none of the revenues are used for the 
customs clearance of exempt ed imports or exports. 
31.  103-107 - Stamp Tax, State Duties, and Consular Fees   
 
Paras 104-6: Russia should expand the text to distinguish stamp taxes from State Duties in terms of their purpose, incidence, a nd application, and 
respond to WP Members ’ questions and state unambiguously in the text whether customs documents are, or are not, considered to be “vital records” or 
“other legally significant actions performed by vital statistic s offices,” i.e., subject to the stamp tax or state duties. 
 Paras 106-7:  The text should include responses to Members’ questions concerning the extent to which consular fees are applied to pay for services 
involving import or export documents, which documents requiring the fees are trade-related, and if their use in importation and  exportation is optional or 
mandatory. 
32.  Tables 10-13 -  Tables 10-13 should be comprehensive.  If they are not, additional information should be provided to make them so.   
- Has the legal authorization for the measures noted in the first and third “notes” to the Table lis ting Consular fees been elimi nated? 
33.  103-104 Russian Federation:  
 
The term “stamp tax” mentioned in the paragraphs 103-104 and Table 11 should be read “state duty”. 
34.  100-107 Russian Federation  
 
 Consular offices in the Russian Federation followed in theirs activity by provisions Vienna Convention “On Consular relation o n 
1963”.  Under paragraph  1  Article 39 menti oned  Convention said that consular offi ces can raise fees and duties for consular acts on territory 
country of stay under the laws and rules of the representative country. 
 The legislation, which determines  the amount of consular fees is Tariff of Consular Fees of Russia on 1993 (applied in foreig n country), 
Tariff of Consular Fees of Russia on 1994 (applied in CIS and Baltic country). The documents said above adopted under Article 5 9 Consular  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 8 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
Charter of the Russian Federation , in accordance with currently legi slation of the Russian Federati on  and approved by Ministry  of Foreign 
Affaires of the Russian Federation in cooperation wi th Ministry of Finance of  the Russian Federation.  
 If citizens of the third countries appeal to the consular offi ces of the Russian Federation in the CIS and Baltic countries, c onsular fees 
are collected in accordance with Tariff 1993. A pplications usually occur on a visa questions. 
 In accordance with the paragraph 106 the Russian Federation do esn’t make consular acts connected with trade operations. The ot her 
consular acts are regulated by other international treaties and national legislation the WTO provisions do not cover them. 
35.  100-110 - Fees and Charges for Services Rendered 
36.  99-100 Our delegation expresses its concern about the double standard policy pursued by the Russian Federation while collectin g the consular fees from our 
nationals, according to which the Russian Fede ration accords the privileges to and exempt s from payment of ce rtain consular fee s specific groups of 
population based on their ethnicity and places  of origin and for example, our nationals  from Abkhazian and South Ossetian regio ns are 
considered/treated as Russian nationals.  Our delegation urges th e Russian Federation to apply the uniform consular fee policy towards all our 
nationals and eliminate the current prac tice prior to its accession to the WTO. 
37.  111-116 Application of Internal Taxes on Imports 
- Excise Taxes 
38.  111-116 (not reproduced in SPEC/RUS/31): In para 115 a Member raised the issue of the calculation of excise taxes on imports o n the customs value plus the 
total of customs duties and levies payable versus the calculation of excise taxes on domestically produces goods on the basis o f the actual value only and 
raised the question of its national treatment implications. 
39.  116 RUS/25 - §127 + RUS/25/Add.2 answer 36  + mention au § 116 du RUS/25/Rev.1: In your answer you mentioned that a new scale of excise taxes on 
cigarettes was scheduled to enter into force from the 1 Januar y 2003. Please provide this new scale to the Working Party. 
40.  111-116 In para 115 a Member raised the issue of the calculation of excise taxes on imports on the customs value plus the tota l of customs duties and levies 
payable versus the calculation of excise taxes on domestically produces goods on the basis of the actual value only and raised the question of its national 
treatment implications. As it does not seem s that the Russian delegation addressed th is concern, we would welcome an answer. 
41.  111-116 Russian Federation  
 
 Ad valorem excise tax was used only for na tural gas. The excise tax was not levied on  natural gas imported  to Russia. The exci se tax 
established in the Russian Federation for na tural gas was in fact a natu ral rent royalty paid to the state by gas extracting co mpanies.  This rent 
made no influence either on the level of expo rt prices for gas or on the export flows of  gas.  In this respect the existing pro cedure of levying the 
excise tax for natural gas was in compliance with WTO rules and disciplines.  He also added that the ad valorem part of combine d rate of excise 
tax for cigarettes was equal to one per cent . The methodology of accruing the tax basi s described in WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 c ould not 
hamper imports. 
 The new scale of excise tax was provided to th e WTO as Table 14 of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1. 
42.  117-125 Value Added Tax 
43.  117-125 In §119 some Members asked the Russian delegation to indicate how and in which time frame Russia intended to convert i ts taxation system with 
Belarus (principle of country of destination instead of country  of origin for domestic taxes). We seek additional specific info rmation on Russia’s plans 
for eliminating this preferential treatment for Bela rus and a commitment to provide full MFN treatment. 
La réponse des Russes concerne le §120 dans RUS/25/rev.1 et repr end une partie de ce texte. La réponse n’est pas très exhaustiv e. 
Table 15: information contained in this table need to be updated to reflect changes implemented in January 2002.  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 9No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
44.  117-125 Russian Federation  
 The Russian Federation and the Re public of Belarus are the parties of the bilate ral Treaty "On the Creati on of the Union State"  of 8 December 
1999 leading, inter alia, to the formation of a unique economic space based on the unified legislation. Both states are negotia ting the issues of 
taxation within this unique economic space. In this regard a dr aft agreement on the procedures of  compensation of losses of the  budgets 
applying indirect taxes in bilateral trade on the basis of country of origin has been placed for consideration. 
45.  126-129 Quantitative Import Restrictions, including Prohibitions and Quotas 
46.  126-129 The Decree of the State Customs Committee of the Russian  Federation No. 531 dated 12 August 1999 defines limited numbe r of customs check-points 
(sea ports only), through which the import of poultry products to the Russian Federation from countries not having inland trans port communications 
with the Russian Federation is allowed.  The provisions of this  Decree do not apply for export op erations carried out by, for e xample, our economic 
entities through existing inland customs check-point, if the country of  origin of poultry products is from our country.  At the  same time Russia does not 
allow the import of poultry products from third countries using our country as a transit country.  In our point of view, the ab ove-mentioned Decree of the 
State Customs Committee represents nothing else but hidden barrier to trade, which diminishes the transit potential of the neig hbouring country.  If 
Russia authorizes our economic entities to export poultry products  of its domestic origin to Russian market through existing cu stoms check-point then 
why it does prohibit third countries to export poultry products of  their domestic origin by transit through our territory?  Bes ides, we would like to recall 
the previous meetings when  our delegation was explained that Russian authorities do not have veterinary inspection unit at our  border.  If such 
measures exist in case of import  of poultry products originated from our country, which does not have yet capacity and capabili ty to export this product 
to Russia, then why they do not apply to imports  from third co untries going by transit through our territory.  What is the rat ionale and the WTO 
justification for limiting number of frontier customs offices for export of poultry products?  We urge the Russian Federation t o simplify above-
mentioned restricted regime and to authorize the customs authorities to handle the export operations of poultry products to Rus sian market at the equal 
footing, notwithstanding the origin of these products. 
47.  126-129  We would welcome updated information on the status of the legislation that eliminates the ban on import of alcohol.  We value the efforts of 
the Russian Federation to make the necessary amendments to the Federal Law "On State Regulation and Turnover of Ethyl Alcohol, Alcoholic and 
Alcohol Containing Products" currently being considered in the State Duma.  At the same time we would appreciate if the Russian  Federation could 
provide us with more detailed information and if possible prelim inarily on a timetable for enactment of this legislation.  Besi des, we welcome and 
encourage the desire of the Russian Federa tion to use automatic import licensing regime for ethyl alcohol while ensuring full W TO compliance in this 
respect. 
 A few years ago, on the request made by our side to allow the export of alcoholic beverages to  Russian market through existing  legal customs 
check-point the Russian Federation responded that due to the ab sence of necessary facilities at the customs post it cannot allo w our producers to export 
alcoholic beverages to Russian market through this channel.  Regrettably, nothing has been changed in this respect so far.  Acc ordingly, we would like 
to request the Russian Federation to provide relevant information and future plans on preparedness of the legal customs check-p oint in order to allow the 
export of alcoholic products from our country using the only legal channel.  We would like to state that the formalities mainta ined by the Russian 
Federation in this respect towards our exporters represent nothing  else but restrictive measures and hidden barriers to trade.  Accordingly, we seek 
commitment language from the Russian side on this matter and ask the Russian Federation to eliminate these discrepancies prior to its accession to the 
WTO. 
48.  126-129 Russian Federation:  
 
Recently the Russian Federation introduc ed measures in the following areas: 
 
1.  The import quotas were introduced by the Governmental Resolution of Russian Federation № 48 of January 21, 2003 “On measures to 
protect the poultry farming of the Russian Fe deration” for the period of 4 years with the purpose of protection of economic int erests of  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 10 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
the Russian poultry farming on the basis of articles 4 and 6 Federal Law  № 63-FZ  of April 14, 1998 “On the measures for protection 
of the economic interests of the Russian Federation in fo reign trade in goods” following respective investigation. 
 
Product specification  
Quotas are imposed for import of fresh, chilled and frozen poul try under HS Code 0207 including deboned poultry (020714100 and 0207271000 
HS Code). 
Reference: at the present time an offer of excl uding of line of rolling meat from th e total amount is under examination. 
 Bodies responsible for issuance of the licenses
 
Licenses for import of poultry are issued by the representatives of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russi an Federation 
in the regions of the Russian Federation to importers: 
⇒ that are mentioned in the list pl aced at the site of the Ministry and within th e quota allocated on importer to importer basis  
⇒by the representative, on the territory  of which importer is registered as le gal entity or private entrepreneur. 
The list and addresses of representatives, and the information about allocation of quota may be found at www.economy.gov.ru  
 
Time limits and document requirements  
The licenses will be issued by representatives from April 1, 2003 after receiving  the following documents: 
an application for the license, 
a copy of a certificate confirming th at the applicant is regist ered by a regional tax au thority as a tax-payer. 
Issuance of the licenses will be do ne automatically and will be  finished on April 29, 2003. 
 
Validity of the licenses  
Import licenses are to be issued for every commercial contract for import of poultry classified at  10 digit level of HS Code of  Russia. 
The licenses will be valid  till December 31, 2003. 
 Criteria for refusal
 
There will be no refusals for issuance of the licenses pr ovided importer has submitted two necessary documents. 
 Fees
 
The fee for issuance of the license is th ree thousand roubles. It will not be reimbur sed in case the importer will not use the license. 
 Other limitations
 
The licenses cannot be transferred.  
 Disputes and responsible bodies
 
Any disputes connected with issuance of the licenses may be referred by the importer: 
⇒ to the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian  Federation, Department of non- tariff regulation, head – Mr. Y . Bujkin, 
tel. (7095) 9501928, fax (7095) 9509782, e-mail: andreev_aa@gov.ru 
⇒to the court. 
  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 11No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
Use of quota  
Quotas stayed non-chosen due to cessation of activity of some importers, non-address for license or because of other reasons wi ll be passed to 
acting participants of the market. ( Machinery of transference of non-chosen quotas is under elaboration and concordance).  
Decision of application of quotation of poultry on 2004 will be taken on the basis of observations and offers, that present to the Government of 
Russia in the 4-th quarter of 2003.  
2.  Tariff quotas were introduced by the Governmental Resolution of the Ru ssian Federation of January 21, 2003 № 49 and № 50 “On 
amendments to the Customs Tariff of the Ru ssian Federation” are established quotas for import of frozen meat of bovine animals (HS 
Code 0202) and fresh, chilled and frozen pork  (HS Code 0203)  for the period of one ye ar with the purpose of protection of nati onal 
interests of the Russian Federation. 
 Bodies responsible for issuance of the license s for import of 90% of  the volume of meat
 
 
Licenses for import of 90% of the volume of meat are issued by the representatives of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the 
Russian Federation in the subjects of the Russian Federation and certain regions of the Russi an Federation to importers: 
⇒ that are mentioned in the list placed  at the site of the Ministry and 
⇒within the quota allocated on  importer to importer basis 
⇒by the representative, on the territory  of which importer is registered as le gal entity or private entrepreneur.  
The list and addresses of the representa tives, and the information about allocation of quota may be found at www.economy.gov.ru . 
 
Time limits and document requirements  
The licenses will be issued by the representatives from April 1, 2003 after receiving  the following  documents: 
⇒an application for the license, 
⇒a copy of a certificate confirming that  the applicant is registered by a regi onal tax authority as a tax-payer. 
Issuance of the licenses will be done automatically. 
 
Validity of licenses  
Import licenses are to be issued for ever y commercial contract for import of meat.  
The licenses will be valid  till December 31, 2003. 
 Criteria for refusal
 
There will be no refusals for issuance of the licenses provided importer has presente d two required documents. 
 
Fees  
The fee for issuance of the license is th ree thousand roubles. It will not be reimbur sed in case the importer will not use the license. 
 
Other limitations  
The licenses cannot be transferred.  
Allocation procedure of 10% of volume of meat
  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 12 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
The remaining 10% of volumes of meat will be auctioned by Dutch method. 
The auction will be carried out at a Russian stock exchange approve d by the Commission on stock exchanges of the Ministry for A nti-
Monopoly Policy and Support of Entrepreneurship of  the Russian Federation on the following terms: 
free resale of lots is not allowed; 
in case the lots are not sold completely  or the winner of the auction does not pay the lot it will be auctioned again. 
Every importer registered in Russia may participate in the auction. 
For pork there will be 33 lots 1000 tons each and one lot of 750 tons. 
For meat of bovine animals volume of total amount (31,5 thousa nd tons) of the tariff quota will be divided into 63 lots. 
 
Bodies responsible for issuance of the license s for import of 10% of  the volume of meat  
Licenses for import of 10% of the volume of meat are issued by the representatives of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the 
Russian Federation in the subjects of the Russian Federation and certain regions of the Russi an Federation to importers: 
⇒ to the winner of the auction 
⇒by the representative, on the territory  of which importer is registered as le gal entity or private entrepreneur. 
Time limits and document requirements  
The licenses will be issued by representatives from June 1, 2003 after receiving  the following documents: 
certificate of the winner of the auction; an application for the license; 
a copy of a certificate confirming th at the applicant is regist ered by a regional tax au thority as a tax-payer. 
Issuance of the licenses will be done automatically. 
 
Validity of licenses
 
Import licenses are to be issued for ever y commercial contract for import of meat.  
The licenses will be valid  till December 31, 2003. 
 Criteria for refusal
 
There will be no refusals for issuance of licenses prov ided importer has submitted all necessary documents. 
 Fees
 
The fee for issuance of the license is th ree thousand roubles. It will not be reimbur sed in case the importer will not use the license. 
 Other limitations
 
The licenses cannot be transferred. 
 Responsible departments and disputes
 
Any disputes connected with issuance of the licenses may be referred by the importer: 
⇒ to the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russi an Federation, Department of non-tariff regulation, head – Mr. Y . Bujkin, 
tel. (7095) 950-19-28, fax (7095) 950-97-82, 
e-mail: andreev_aa@gov.ru 
⇒to the court.  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 13No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
Any disputes connected with ca rrying out the auctions may be referred by the importer: 
⇒to the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation, Depart ment of tariff regulation, head – Mr. 
A. Kushtnirenko, tel. (7095) 950-96-49, fax (7095) 950-19-95, 
e-mail: dtreconomy@mail.ru. 
⇒to the court.  
 Use of quota
 
Quotas stayed non-chosen due to cessation of activity of some importers, non-address for license or because of other reasons wi ll be passed to 
acting participants of the market. ( Machinery of transference of non-chosen quotas is under elaboration and concordance).  
Decision of conditions and methods of the following application of tariff regulation of beef and pork will be taken on the basi s of observations 
and offers, that present to the Government of Russia in the 4-th quarter of 2003. 
 
3.  The quantitative restrictions for import  of limited list of narcotic  means are established by the Governmental Resolution o f the Russian 
Federation of August 03, 1996 № 930 “On the approval of nomenclature of narcotic drugs, psychotropic and poisonous substances 
which are covered by the procedure for import  to the Russian Federation and export from  the Russian Federation approved by the 
government resolution of the Russian Federation of March 16, 1996 No. 278 as well as import (export) quota of narcotic substanc es”  
with the purposes of performance by Russian Federation of the international ob ligations, and its applic ation corresponds with t he 
article XX ( в) GATT "General exceptions ". 
 
The following quantitative export restrictions and prohibitions applied in the Russian Federation:  
 
1.  Quantitative restrictions for export of sturgeon species of  fish and products made there of  including caviar are establishe d annually by 
Governmental Resolution of the Russian Fed eration with the purpose of performance by Russian Federation the Convention of March  3, 1973 
“On international trade by kinds of wild flora and fauna whic h are under threat of disappearan ce including sturgeon” and their application 
corresponds with the article  ХХ (в) GATT "General exceptions ". 
2.  Palladium and metals of the palladium group and raw material of colour metals co ntaining precious metals are established an nually 
according to the President Decree of the Russian Federation of June 21, 2001 № 742 “On the importation into  and exportation from the 
Russian Federation of precious metals, precious stones and raw-ma terial goods containing precious metals” with the purposes of protection of 
national values and it s application corresponds with the article ХV:9 (в) GATT. 
3.  Diamonds are established by the President D ecree of the Russian Federation of November 30, 2002 № 1373 “On approval of the 
regulation on import to the Russian Federati on and export from the Russian Federation  of natural diamonds and brilliants”  with  the purposes 
of protection of national interests. 
4.  The prohibition for export of wast es and scrap of the precious metals and  precious metals ores and concentr ates is established by  the 
President Decree of the Russian Federation of June 21, 2001    № 742 “On the Importation into and export ation from the Russian Federation of 
precious metals, precious stones and raw-mat erial goods containing precious metals”  and connected with impossibility of exact definition of 
containing precious metals, that creates th e preconditions for abusing and drawing of damage to economic interests of the Russi an Federation 
and its application corresponds with article  ХХI (в) (ii) GATT. 
Reference:  The question for the abolition of a prohib ition or quoting of the goods mentioned in  paragraphs 2-4 will be considered after 
adopting of a new edition of the Federal La w of the Russian Federation of October 9,  1992 No. 3615-1 “On currency regulation an d currency  
control. The given draft law is on consideration in the State Duma of Russian Federation.  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 14 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
49.  130-141 Import Licensing Systems 
50.  130-141 In § 132 Members expressed many concerns and ques tions about licensing requirem ents for pharmaceutical products, i.e. the periodic re-r egistration 
requirement that is not automatic. 
Once again we thank the Russian Federation for providing a table explaini ng the import procedure app licable to pharmaceutical p roducts. In connection 
with §72, it seems that in order to import pharmaceutical products in Russia, the appl icant must get an activity license, a pre liminary import permit 
(from the ministry of Health ( §134) and an import license (§137) . The procedure to import pharm aceuticals in Russia is not simp le and could act as a 
non-tariff measure. Thus we request that the Russian import regime fo r pharmaceutical products be streamlined and simplified in  line with the 
Agreement on import licences.  
Please explain the rationale of the preliminary permit in § 134 and how is it consistent with the Import licensing Agreement  ( article 1.6 LIC: 
Application procedures shall be as simple as possible), in which way this preliminary permit is different from an import licens e ? What is the period of 
validity of such a permit ? 
In § 134  the 0.05% fee on the contract value of goods is not compliant  with article VIII GATT because it does not correspond to the cos t of service 
rendered. In § 140 the Russia delegation indicated that legislative and regulatory framework to modify procedures on imports of  pharmaceutical 
products was currently ongoing. Please indicate what are the modifi cations foreseen and if they will repeal also the 0.05% fee of the contract value of 
goods for issuance of a preliminary permit. How will the import procedur es for pharmaceutical produc ts be simplified and stream lined ? 
§ 136 mentions that Members expected the Russian Federation to make a commitment that any import licen ces on ethyl alcoholic beverag es and 
pharmaceutical products should be granted auto matically on the basis of a regime compatib le with WTO requirem ents including art .2 LIC. We urge the 
Russian delegation to take such a commitment.  
§139 : Please indicate what have been undertaken to amend or repeal Law No 86 “On Medicines”. Has the new draft Laws on Foreign trad e and 
Import/Export Licensing Law been adopted yet ? What will be the main changes introduced by this law ? 
We also associate with the comments contained in SPEC/RUS/30 page 7 regarding § 134-140 and in SPEC/RUS/31 p.22. 
(Une licence ne permet pas de garantir que le produit est sûr= safe)) 
As regards the table on the basic administrative measures  for carrying out activity in the field of medicines  that the Russian Delegation gave us at our 
last meeting, we consider this document very useful and request that the information contained in this table be included in the  revised draft report. In 
addition we seek clarification on the following points: 
At page 3 of the table , under V (Import medicines and pharmaceuti cal substances in the Russian Federation , it is indicated that the Ministry of Health 
issues the document of approval. The Federal Law no 86-FZ On Medicines of June 1998 and the Order of the Government no 1539 do not fix the 
duration of issuing of the document of approval which can take up to15 days, but can be shorter which is a factor causing uncer tainty and additional 
costs. As regards costs, the table indicates that the fee to be paid to get the document of approval is equal to 0.05% of the v alue of the contract. Once 
again, we underline that this fee is not consiste nt with Article VIII GATT as it does not correspond to the ap proximate cost of  the service rendered. 
Thus, we request that this fee is modified in order to be consistent with Article VIII GATT. 
At page 4  (licensing of imports of medicines ), the same situation is with the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade as there is no fixed period of 
time for consideration of documents. According to our information, the duration of the consideration can be up to 30 days. We s eek clarification on this 
point from the Russian Federation, i.e. does the Russian legislation set a specific period of time for the consideration of doc uments ? If yes, please 
indicate the relevant article of the legislation as Article 3.5 f of the Agreement on licences mentions specific periods for pr ocessing applications in the  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 15No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
case of non-automatic import licensing. In addition, the Russian delegation indicated on Monday that the time needed to issue a n import or export 
license was 21 days starting from the day of application. As the table we got from the Russian delegation indicates that the ti me needed is 25 days, we 
would like to know how we can be sure that it is 21 days and not any other period of time. 
At page 4  (Registration of the license in customs bodies ), we have been informed that the customs require 28 days for registration of an import license, 
this is more than the double mentioned in the table. We have the same concern has regards the ad valorem fee as mentioned previ ously. Finally, the 
storage fee is not mentioned. This fee is 0.1 US$/kg/24h –0.42 US$/kg/24h. We would like to know how the amount of the fee to b e paid is determined, 
In which cases is 0.1US$ and in which cases is it more, are there only two different rates or more ? 
Finally, if, starting from the moment of application for an activity  license, we add up all the time period required to get all  the documents needed to 
import pharmaceuticals in Russia, we end up with a total of a little more than 9 months (30 days for an activity license, up to  6 months to get a certificate 
of registration of a medicine, up to 19 days for a certificate of conformity, up to 15 days for a document of approval, 25 days  for an import license, 10 
days for the registration of the license by the customs). 
51.  130-141 Russian Federation:  
 
- Licensing of import of Ethyl Alcohol and Alcoholic Beverages 
There are no quantitative restrict ions on import of ethyl alco hol and Alcoholic Beverages. 
In accordance with Federal Law No. 171-FZ of 22 November 1995 "On State Regulation of Production and Turnover of Ethyl Alcohol,  
Alcoholic and Alcohol-Containing Products" Ministry of Taxes of the Russian Federation with the purpose of the control for the turnover of 
this production on the territory of the Russian Federation issu es licenses to organizations, registered on the territory of the  Russian Federation 
as legal entity for the following activities: import, storage and deliveries of Alcoholic Pro ducts. There are two kinds of lice nses: one-time 
(specific) and general. One-time license shall be issued for a term of up to 6 months and to certain amount of Alcoholic Products. 
General license shall be issued to organiza tion only after check-up of its activities  for previously issued one-time licenses. The validity of general 
license is up to 3 years. In accordance with Federal Law No. 157 FZ of 13 October 1995 "On State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity", Government Resolu tions of 
the Russian Federation No. 77 of 28 January 1997 and No. 114 of February 02 1998 the Ministry for Economic Development and Trad e issues 
licenses for import of only certain it ems strong alcoholic beverages (of an alcoholic strength of >28% Vol.). 
Reference
: only vodka and equal alcoholic beverages are subject  to licensing according to HS code of Russia. 
The Ministry of economic development and tr ade of Russian Federation  issues the licenses after receiving the following documen ts: 
⇒an application for the license, 
⇒ copy of the contract, 
⇒a copy of a certificate confirming that  the applicant is registered by a regi onal tax authority as a tax-payer, 
Application of the licensing of import of aforesaid products conducts for National Securi ty and corresponds to Article XX (c) G ATT. 
With the purpose of leading of above-mentioned legislative acts to conformity with standards and rules of WTO has been prepared  and is 
submitted for consideration to the State Duma of the Russian Federation the draft of Federal Law "On introducing of changes and  
supplements to Federal Law No. 171-FZ" (proposed to  exclude from kinds of activity "import").  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 16 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
52.  142-150 - Customs Valuation 
53.  142-150 This Section should be updated to describe how the provisions of the draft Customs Code and draft Chapter 25.1 of Part  II of the Tax Code will bring 
Russia into conformity with WTO provisions once they are enacted. 
 
- Please include information on what will be required concerning ch anges to regulations in place and issuing further regulations to fully 
implement the new customs valuation regime. 
- The draft report should also include reference to Member requests for commitments on the use of the two WCO decisions on valuat ion. 
- Please elaborate in the revised draft Workin g Party Report text on the need and opera tion of the “special technique of customs control” to 
prevent commercial valuation fraud.  What precisely is the “speci al technique,” how is it applied, and does Russia intend to ke ep using it in 
future?   
- Please provide a list of products by HS item number currently subject to the “sp ecial technique,” e.g. flat glass. 
- Please include information on how Russia’s regime addresses the right to import merchandise under bond. 
- Please include information in the text on th e scope for use of transaction value in related party transactions, the need to inc lude the 
Interpretative Notes in Russia’s customs valuation legislation, and respond to the specific concerns noted regarding the determ ination customs 
value under transaction value, value of identical merchandise, deductive value, and the fallback method. 
54.  142-150 Russian Federation : 
 
In order to simplify the Russian tariff sy stem and ensure full conformity of the Cust oms Code with the relevant WTO provisions as well as to 
ensure strict execution of the customs legi slation on the overall territory of Russia the following normative legal acts are no w thoroughly 
worked upon.  
 Draft Customs Code
 
 
 The draft Customs Code has been elaborated  to reflect generally accepted internationa l rules, including th e Kyoto Convention o n 
Simplification and Harmonization of the Customs Procedures, the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin and the WTO Agreement on TRIPS .  
 To make the activity of customs authorit ies more effective the better pa rt of the provisions of the new Customs Code has been 
elaborated to ensure direct implementation of the draft code. To ensure the transparency the Cust oms Code envisages official pu blication by 
the competent authorities of legal acts of the customs regulation. 
 The draft Customs Code contains a list of customs payments, a list of persons to make  these payments, as well as the legal gro unds for 
avoidance of such payments. The draft code also stipulates the grounds for deferment of payments and making payments in install ments. The 
draft also provides a list of circumstances when deferment of pa yments and making pay ments in installments  shall not be exclude d.  
 The draft code establishes the right of th e participant of foreign trade activity when  securing a customs payment to use any s ort of 
security envisaged by the code, provided  that the security used is recognized by the customs authority as reliable.  
The draft code provides a detailed descriptio n of the procedure for the recovery of the customs payments that  have not been pai d. 
The draft code envisages the terms for return of those customs payments which have been overpaid or overrecovered. The customs authority 
shall inform the payer on the overpaid or  overrecovered customs payments within one month since the detection of this fact. 
The draft code provides a reduced list of op erations on which customs fees are impose d. The customs fees shall not exceed the a pproximate cost 
of the expenses of the customs authorit ies for performing certain operations. 
A simplified procedure for the customs registration is envisage d for those importers and exporters who perform their actions in  full conformity 
with the established procedure. The registration is reduced from 10 to 3 days, which also becomes possible due to the use of mo dern 
information technologies.  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 17No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
 To accelerate the customs procedure and ra ise the efficiency of the customs control Chapter “Information Systems and Informati on 
Technologies” has been included in the draft code.  The draft code contains the improved provisions of the right for appeal so as to ensure conformity of the practice of the cust oms 
administration and its officials with the legal requirements related to making d ecisions, actioning and non-actioning. The righ t of appeal may 
be realized by lodging an appeal to the higher custom s authority and/or by init iating a legal procedure. 
 The project envisages a simplified procedure for appealing against actions by the customs authorities. The procedure allows an  oral 
claim to a senior official of the customs authority which will enable to effectively so lve the issues in case of a conflict.  
 The draft Customs Code provides detailed provisions which comply  with the WTO rules also includi ng those related to the protec tion 
of intellectual property rights and the rules of origin. 
55.  151-158 - Rules of Origin 
56.  151-158 Please provide sp ecific and updated information on the new Rules of Or igin provisions with respect to WTO obligations,  e.g., as provided for in the new 
Customs Code, and the need or existence of any relevant implementing regulations, with particular attention to the requirements  of Article 2(h) and 
Annex II, paragraph 3(d) of the Agreement on Rules of Origin. .  
Do Russia’s preferential rules of origin for the CIS, for Yugosla via, and for the EAEC, reflect the interim rules of the WTO Ag reement in Annex II of 
the Agreement? 
57.  151-158 We submitted a number of specific questions on Rules of Origin in May 2002, to which no response has yet been made.  W e invite Russia to respond 
now. 
58.  151-158 On the basis of the an swer from the Russian delegation during the Decem ber 2002 meeting paragr aph 153 should be modifi ed, as the requirement of the 
written statement by the consignor will be repealed by the draf t tax code. We seek a confirmation and a commitment from the Rus sian delegation on this 
issue. 
59.  151-158 Please provide sp ecific and updated information on the new Rules of Or igin provisions with respect to WTO obligations,  e.g., as provided for in the new 
Customs Code, and the need or existence of any relevant implementing regulations, with particular attention to the requirements  of Article 2(h) and 
Annex II, paragraph 3(d) of the Agreement on Rules of Origin. .  
Do Russia’s preferential rules of origin for the FTAs with CIS, Yugoslavia, or other such agreements, reflect the interim rules  of the WTO Agreement in 
Annex II of the Agreement?  Pleas e provide specific legal citations. 
60.  151-158 Normally the country of origin will most often be stated in the  trade documents/ invoices. A certificate of origin is normally not necessary, unless 
requesting preferential treatment. Para 152 , as in para 163 of th e former document,  uses the wo rd ”might” e.g. ”might request  a certificate of origin” 
or ”might be no mandatory requirement to submit a certificate of origin”  
 Our exporters are confronted with uncertainties as Russian practice can be  unclear and opens for high tariffs (double the MFN- rate). This again means 
that for all practical purposes an exporter needs a certificate of origin even thou gh it shouldn’t be neces sary when not reques ting preferential treatment 
and when the origin is reflected in the documentation for customs clearance. The non-clarity and unnecessary bureaucratic burde ns should be solved by 
the time of WTO-accession. First there is a need for more information on practice. 
61.  152-156 1. Our delegation wishes to reiterate the importance of problems described in paragraph 153 regarding the customs regu lation and 
simplification of border control measures and necessity of bringing all these inconsistencies under the WTO legal umbrella. 
 
We regret that the Russian Federation instead of understanding the problem raised by the member tries to circumvent the questio n, which has the 
utmost importance and serious economic consequences for the member’s national economy. Accordingly, the problems listed in para graph 153 of the  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 18 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
draft report still remain unresolved and open. Therefore, we s eek the commitment from the Russian Federation to prevent the ill egal flow of 
smuggled goods from its territory. We also urge Russian side to remove all customs formalities, which represent hidden barriers  to trade and major 
trade distorting measures, prior to its accession to the WTO. 
 
2. Our delegation would like to reiterate that the provisions of decrees of the State Customs Committee of the Russian Federati on No 961-r 
dated 4 October 2001 and No 1002 dated 19 October 2001 run counter the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation  and 
namely Article 15 which states that: ”if an international treaty to which the Russian Federation is party provides for other ru les than those 
set forth by Russian Federation domestic law, the ru les of the international treaty should apply”.  
 
It should be stated that the two above-me ntioned decrees of the State Customs Committ ee violate the provisions of the bilateral  agreement between 
this member and the Russian Federation on Customs Check Points.  
Accordingly, our delegation urges the Russian Federation to immediately eliminate these discrepancies and to ensure the consist ency of these 
legislative acts with the provisions of the international treaty. 
62.  152 We refer to the reference in paragraph 152 to country quotas and “other methods for regulation of foreign economic activiti es”.  
- We seek the inclusion in the draft Report of  explanations of the circumstances under  which these two measures are applied. 
63.  151-158 Russian Federation:   
 
The new draft Customs Code of the Russian Federation as well as The Agreement on Rules of Origin de fine the country of origin o f a 
particular product as either the country where the product was pr oduced wholly or was subject to  sufficient re-ma ke in accordan ce with the 
criteria established by the draft code or the procedure determine d by the draft code the two of them complying with the Agreeme nt on the 
Rules of Origin. 
The draft code supplies an exhaustive list of goods, which are considered to be produced wholly in the country. 
The Draft establishes the criteria of suffi cient re-make and lists the operations, wh ich do not fall under these criteria. The list is not 
exhaustive, additions to it may be made by  the Government of the Russian Federation. 
In case the goods are supplied in the dismantled or not assemb led state; by several shipments, when due to the industrial or 
transportation problems it is impossible to  deliver the whole lot at one time; when th e lot of goods was divided to parts by mi stake, the draft 
establishes a number of peculiarities in de termining of the country of origin of go ods (the indicated goods may be considered a s one whole unity 
upon the declarer’s will).  
Preferences  
The procedure for the application of criteria of substantial re-make for particular goods or a particular country to whom the R ussian 
Federation grants tariff preferences shall be estab lished by the Government of the Russian Federation. 
 The document confirming th e country of origin of goods shall be the Certificate on the origin of goods or the Declaration on th e origin 
of goods. 
In case the information about the origin of goods which was ci ted in the certificate or the declaration was based on the criter ia different 
from those which are currently in force in the Russian Federation the country of origin of goods shall then be determined on th e basis of the 
criteria applied in the Russian Federation.  
The draft code establishes the cases when it is mandat ory to provide the certificate of the origin of goods. 
In other cases customs authorities shall have  the right to require to provide the certific ate on origin only in case of detecti on that the 
information on the country of origin of goods which determines the application of the customs duty rates, taxes and (or) non-ta riff measures of 
regulation is false. The requirement shall have motives behind it.  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 19No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
When the origin of goods has not been duly confirmed in accordance with the draft code and wh en such goods are not prohibited f rom 
importation to the Russian Federation, such  goods shall be released upon payment of customs duties to the rates applied to the goods which 
originate from the countries the trade political relations with which do not envisage the MFN treatment. 
Provided that the certificate on the origin  of goods does not meet the established fo rm or that the customs authorities have de tected 
that the certificate is not properly set or contains false information on  condition that the country of origin of goods is the one which enjoys a 
MNF treatment and the declarer has submitted other documents to confirm the country of origin, the goods shall not be granted t ariff 
preferences and shall be subject to  payment of customs duties to the rates applie d to the goods the trade political relations w ith which envisage 
the MFN treatment. 
A MNF treatment or a preferential regime is granted to the goods said above in the cour se of one year since the adoption of the  customs 
declaration by the customs authority, provided that their country of origin is confirmed. 
The Draft of Chapter 25.1 of the Draft Tax Code of the Russian Federation  “Customs Duty and Customs Fees ”provides the procedure 
for levying the customs duty a nd customs valuation which are in  conformity with WTO requirements , and establishes a predictable  and 
transparent regime in this sphere. 
This draft was elaborated with regard to Article VII of the GATT 1994 and the Agreemen t on the Application of Article VII of th e 
GATT 1994. The draft envisages that the price of a deal shall form  the basis for the customs valuati on of the imported goods. T he price of the 
deal is understood as the price for the good s sold for export to the importing country which has been paid or is to be paid. Ap plication of other 
methods complies with the Agreement on the Customs Evaluation. Th e calculation methodology of the customs evaluation shall be r eflected in a 
separate document. The draft also pays due regard to the better part of the explanator y notes, which are contained in Annex 1 o f the mentioned 
above Agreement. 
The draft includes the provisions: 
- which bring the system of the customs evaluation of goods in conformity with the relevant WTO provisions; 
- which establish the mechanism of tariff quo ting of agricultural products and foodstuffs in conformity with the relevant WTO 
norms and rules; 
- which envisage protection of declarers’ rights  when determining the amount of the cust oms duty and customs fees which shall be 
paid on transportation of the goods across the customs border of the Russian Federation. 
Adoption of this draft along with the adoption of the draft Customs Code of the Russian Federation will eliminate the existing 
discrepancies between the tax legisl ation and the cust oms legislation. 
The draft also bridges the gap in the legal regulation of tariff quoting. At present there is no legal definition of the tariff  quota which 
essentially impedes the application of this  mechanism of customs tariff regulation. 
The draft of Chapter 25.1 of th e Tax Code of the Russian Federation enables to determine the terms of application of tariff quo ting 
which will allow the effective use of customs tariff regulation by the Go vernment of the Russian Federation. 
64.  159-163 and 
200-201 - Other Customs Formalities 
65.  159-163 Para 163: Russia should respond to WP Member requests for a commitment addressing the issue of reduced access to the R ussian market through 
selectively closed and opened borders. 
66.  161-163 We continue to seek a specific commitment by the Russian side regarding non-application of discriminatory country-spec ific customs procedures in 
order to avoid practices referred in paragraph 161 of the draft Working Party Report and assure full compliance with Articles I  (1) and VIII of the GATT 
1994. 
67.  200-201 Please identify and describe any other export measures like the one described in these paragraphs. 
68.  163 Russia should respond to WP Member requests for a commitment addr essing the issue of reduced access to the Russian market through selectively  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 20 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
closed and opened border crossings. 
69.  200-201 Please identify and describe any other export measures like the one described in these paragraphs. 
70.  159 and 200-
201 We are still concerned about the operation of customs check-points, which are from time to time promptly closed for certain pro ducts under different 
reasons. This uncertainty over operation of  customs checkpoints is co nsiderably limiting market acce ss for some products. We wo uld like to see a 
commitment from Russian side to bring its practices in conformity with WTO rules. 
71.  166-175 - Trade Remedy Measures 
72.  166-175 Concerns by Members about import surcharge (§ 167), about duration of ADP (§171), about SG. §173: new legislation unde r preparation. => section 
should be updated and modified accordingly once new legislation adopted. 
Comment :  We thank the Russian Federation for the answer provided and especially for the information on the new draft law dealing with  trade 
remedies and the tables listing the measures in place and the inve stigations underway. It would be  very useful to indicate eith er the duration of the 
measures or the date of expiration of the measures. 
73.  173  As indicated in the Draft Report, a new draft Federal Law “on Safeguard, Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures” had be en prepared by 
the Government with the objective of introducing full conformity with the relevant WTO provisions in these areas. This new law would be submitted to 
the State Duma shortly.  
 We consider that the working Party should be given an opportunity to review the content and coverage of these new legislative acts as well as 
any implementing regulations so as to confirm the full conformity  of the new Law and regulations and their modalities of applic ation with relevant 
WTO Agreements. 
74.  175 As indicated in the Draft Report, th e representative of the Russian Federation co nfirmed that the Russian Federation would  not apply such measures, 
including Articles VI and XIX of GATT 1994.  We consid er that Article XVI should  be referred as well. 
75.  166-175 Russian Federation:  
 
The draft Federal Law "On Safeguard, An tidumping and Count ervailing Measures" was elaborat ed by the Government of the 
Russian Federation in order to bring this part of the Russian legislation in full conformity wi th the relevant WTO provisions.  
The draft law establishes a more precise procedure  for the app lication of safeguard, antidumpi ng and countervailing measures, and is 
aimed at improving the mechanism this app lication of such measures. The draft law inva lidates similar rules set in the Federal Law No. 63-FZ 
of 14 April 1998 "On Measures to Protect the Economic Interests of the Russian Federation in Fo reign Trade in Goods". The offer ed draft law 
will allow conformity with WTO Agreements: Agreement on Subsid ies and Countervailing Measures, Agreement on Safeguards, Agreeme nt on 
Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994.  
The provisions of the draft law specify th e definitions of basic terms depending on the measure applied (safeguard, antidumping  and 
countervailing), in particular: serious and ma terial injury of branch of the Russian ec onomy, subsidies of the foreign state, c ountervailing 
measures, similar goods in a contex t antidumping and countervailing.  
The main difference between draft law and the Federal law in force consist in specifica tion of the investigation procedure with  the 
purpose of determine whether increased imports and serious injury, caused by it, of bran ch of the Russian economy or threat of causing of such 
injury, and also dumping of import or import  subsidies of the goods and presence of th e material injury, caused by it, of branc h of the Russian 
economy or threat of causing of such injury. Thus a number of provisions of the draft law is directed on perfection of the mech anism of 
introduction, application, reconsideration and cancellation sa feguard, antidumping and countervailing measures. The provisions determining 
the procedure for the  application of vari ous form of safeguard, antidumping and co untervailing measures (i ncluding temporary d uties, 
obligation) are framed in a more detailed and intelligible manner. 
The draft law specifies the goals of invest igations, and also empowers the federal ex ecutive body responsible for their conduct  to not 
only propose the application of safeguard, antidumping or coun tervailing measures, but also  to  propose their introduction, rev iew and  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 21No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
cancellation. The propositions are made to the Government of the Russian Federation as a result of the investigation. 
At the end of January 2002, the Government of the Russian Federation approved and intr oduced to the State Duma this draft law. The draft 
law was passed by State Duma in the fi rst  reading on 14 of March 2003. 
76.  176-181 Export Regulations 
- Export Duties 
77.  176-181 Comment : During December meeting, problem of pro ducts subject to export duties (JPN, UE; AU S). Members requested list of products subj ect to 
export duties in report + elimination of those duties.  Russia indicated that high value products have been removed from this l ist and that the list have 
been shortened 2X from 1.1.2003 an d will provide an updated list.  
We request the Russian federation to provide an updated list of products subject to export duties by HS number together with th e applied rates and 
request that they be eliminated. 
78.  164-165 Pre-shipment Inspection 
79.  164-165  As indicated in the above-mentioned Draft report, Russian Federation stated that the pre-shipment inspection system, if still in force at the time 
of accession, would be in consistence with the Agreement on Pre- shipment Inspection and the Agre ement on the Implementation of Article  of the 
GATT 1994. 
 We would appreciate knowing what is the legal basis for pre-sh ipment inspection in Russian Federation? Will Russian Federation  provide a 
copy of the newly restructured Laws/regulations in official website? 
80.  188-194 - Export Licensing Procedures 
81.  188-194  In a previous document (RUS/25/ Add.2 answer 58) Russia indicat ed that Pharmaceutical product s should be omitted compl etely. However, the 
revised draft report seems to say that pharmaceutical products  are still subject to non-automa tic export licences (§189). If we  look at table 17a, only 
pharmaceutical raw materials of animal  and vegetable origin are subject to non-automatic export licences. 
 What is the rationale to omit the phar maceutical products from the non-automatic export licences and not the pharmaceutical ra w materials ? 
What are the amendments foreseen in §191 for Government Resolution no 1299 of 31 October 1996 on the procedure for holding tend ers and auctions 
for the sale of quotas when introducing quantitative restrictions and licensing the export and import of goods ? 
82.  188-194 Russian Federation:  
 
Licensing of export of previo us metals and precious stones:  
 
According to the President Decree  of  th e Russian Federation of June 21, 2001 № 742  on the importation in to and exportation from the 
Russian Federation of precious metals, precious stones and raw-ma terial goods containing precious metals  the export  of below listed goods 
only is carried out on the basis of the li censes of Ministry of economic development and trade of Russian Federation and withou t quantitative 
restrictions: 
-  high gold and silver; -  the raw and processed precious stones (sapphires, rubies, emeralds). 
The export of jewelry products and products for production and technological purposes from preci ous metals and stones is not li censed. 
 Licensing of import of med icines and pharmaceuticals.
 
 
1.  In accordance with Government Resolution No. 854 of 06 Nov ember 1992 the export of medicine raw materials is provided on th e basis 
of licenses, issued by the Ministry of Ec onomic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation in agreement with the Ministry of Health of  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 22 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation . Application of non- tariff regulation re medies of the 
present category of products has been dictated by the defense of  national interests, including bo th guarding animal and vegetab le environment 
and necessity of preventing of exhausti ng of non-recovered  natural resources. 
At present the Ministry of Economical Development and Trade has prepared a draft Government Resolution on excluding of aforesai d 
category of products from the list of products, subject to  licensing within providing of foreign trade operations. 
2.  At present the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Russian Federati on jointly with interested in Federal bodies o f 
executive power has prepared the draft of federal law "On intro ducing of changes and supplements to Federal Law No. 86-FZ "'On 
medicines", directed on liberalization of importing order of medicines. 
 At the same time the draft of federal law "On Principles of Stat e Regulation of Foreign Trade Ac tivity", corresponded with sta ndards 
and rules of WTO has been directed to the State Duma of Federal Meeting of the Russi an Federation. Realiz ation of above-mention ed draft 
laws will afford to take into  consideration requirements of WTO, concerned to import of medicines. It will create conditions of  providing 
issuing of licenses by the Ministry of Economical Development and Trade automatically. 
 According to Government Regulation No. 1299 of 31 October 1996 the decision on issuing of license shall be taken within 25 day s of the 
day of receipt of necessary documents fr om the subject of economic activity. 
3.  For the question of necessary term for providing import of medicines into Russian Federation for organization it is ought t o notice that 
summing up of maximum terms on each stage is  not quite critical. Adduced term (9 months) to some extent is based only in case o f the 
beginning of pharmaceutical activity of organization, which inte nds to import into Russian Fed eration unknown and unregistered in Russian 
Federation medicine. However this cases are rare. 
 In limits of the term, established by legi slative acts (30 days) an organization will receive  an activity license in the Mini stry for Health 
of Russian Federation on kind of activity  corresponding (pharmaceutical activity, prod uction of medicines). The validity of act ivity licenses is 5 
years. 
 For all that organization has right to begin registration in Russian Federation of unregistered medicine before receipt an act ivity 
license. Than organization will sign a contract and in establishe d terms (approval of the Ministry  for Health of Russia - 15 da ys). Ministry of 
Health of the Russian Federation is the federal body, authorized by Government of the Russian Fe deration to provide control of quality, 
efficiency and safety of medicines. Accordin g to Government Resolution No. 1539 of 25 December 1998 the Ministry of Health of t he Russian 
Federation provides conformi ty of license issue on import of medicines in Ru ssia. The conformity is not a preliminary permissio n on import, 
but is intended for carrying out for documen tary professional findings of importing med icines from the poin t of view of require ments presented 
and conformity (producer, form of output, dozing, packing and so on) to medicines registered on the territory of the Russian Fe deration. 
Issuing of license of the Ministry for Economic Development and Tr ade of Russia - 25 days, registration of an import license in  the Customs - 10 
days) receives permitting documents and  impo rt of medicines by individual contract. 
4.  Customs warehouses are used with the purpose of the security of products, pla ced under regime of customs warehouse. The fee  for 
keeping of products, placed on warehouse is  established in limits from 0,10 to 0,42 US  dollars. It differs in dependence of the  level of given 
services, volume of product or en gaged room. For instance, keepin g of product in premises with the temperature of environment o r in 
refrigerator requires different costs. It is known that maximum fee for safety of pharmaceuticals  in refrigerator competed 0,31  US dollar for 24 
hours of keeping.  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 23No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
83.  195-199 - Export Financing, Subsidy and Promotion Policies 
84.  199 As indicated in the Draft Report, th e Representative of the Russian Federation co nfirmed that, from the date of accession,  it would not maintain 
subsidies within the meaning of Article 3 of the Agreement on Su bsidies and Countervailing Measures. We consider that definitio n of subsidies should 
be referred to Article XVI of the GATT 19 94 as well. Furthermore, the Russian Fede ration should commit that upon its accession,  it shall abide by this 
Article. 
85.  195-199 Russian Federation:  
 In accordance with Decision No. 538 of 15 May 1999 of the Government of the Russian Federation "On Provisions of Budgetary Loan s to 
Finance the Implementation of High-Return Co ntracts for Production and Supply of Products, Including Export Supplies” loan equa l to 50.0 
million rubles was granted from federal budget to OAO "Rostselma sh" in 1999. In 2000-2002 this D ecision was not in force and no  funds were 
granted from the federal budget. 
 
Years  1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 
Million rubles 10,382.7 6,469.0 5,257.9 10,000.0 7,967.4 8,080.1 6998,4 
In 2001 – 2002 federal budget provided federal credit arrangements on a competitiv e basis for realization of investment project s in coal 
industry. Thereupon the Ministry of Finan ce of the Russian Federation concluded trea ties, at the amount of 1,234 billion rubles , on realization 
of investment projects in coal industry on a competitive basis. In 2001 – 2002 out of this sum it is actually used 426,8 millio n rubles: in 2001 – 80 
million rubles, and in 2002 – 346,8 million rubles. 
86.  202-208 Industrial policy, including subsidy policies 
87.  202-208 Russian Federation:  
 
"Main Directions of Forestry Industry Development", which determin e main goals and objects of development of this branch, were adopted by 
the Decision of the Government of the Russian Federation № 1540-D on 1st November 2002. This concept cannot be applied as directive 
document, but establishes main guidelines for development of fo restry industry. At present time the Draft Program of Forestry I ndustry 
Development is not approved. 
 According to "Main Directions of Forestry Industry Develop ment" main goals of Forestry Industry Development are: 
- complete satisfaction of domestic market needs in high-quality and competitive timber and paper products of Russian production;  
- step-by-step integration of Russia to world timber and paper market; 
- efficient use of forest potential of country; 
 For achievement of mentioned goal s it is necessary to provide th e solution of following tasks: 
- attraction of investments for modernization of operating industry; 
- increase of labour productivity; 
- strengthening of positions of timber and paper products' domestic exporters on  world markets and new markets development; 
- realization of efficient customs and tariff policy, directed to the optimization of ex port structure, and also to the protectio n of domestic 
producers on Russian market; 
- increase of scientific and technologica l potential of the branch, innovation activity of timber and paper industry. 
 Basic measures, conducive to the bran ch development, will be directed to: 
- perfection of the legislation in the fiel d of timber and paper industry for creation of conditions for increase of investment a ctivity;  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 24 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
- reorganization of forest production complex pr oviding improvement of its effective function; 
- -realization of effective in ternational trade policy; 
- activization of innovative activity; 
- improvement of standardization and cer tification of pa per production; 
- cooperation in development of financial leasing of  machinery applied in fo rest production complex; 
- harmonization of  a number of technical standards applied in  forest production according to international standards; 
- cooperation in realization of in vestment projects conducted on the territory of  the Russian Federation including those with 
international investors participation. 
- -implementation of the most important  scie ntific research projects related to estab lishment of new highly effective production s of 
paper production into working or being elaborated federal special purpose programs. 
88.  209-225 Technical Regulations and Standards, Including Measur es Taken at the Border with Respect to Imports 
- Technical Barriers to Trade 
89.  209-225 Some of the Members in dicated their concerns about the different marking systems in Ru ssia, such as market access mark , certification mark and 
voluntary certification marks that might constitute technical barrier s to trade.  The response provided by the Russian Federati on described in 
WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29 did not seem to answer the concerns raised by Members in this respect. 
90.  209-225 On page 33 of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29, the Russian Federatio n responded that “import of products into the territory of the Russian Federation were 
restricted if the products in question di d not meet the legislative requirements; were not accompanied by a certificate, did no t bear the required marking 
in the instances envisaged by federal laws and other legal acts of the Russian Federation; or were banned for use as harmful co nsumer goods”.  We 
would like to know detailed information about such laws and le gal acts, certification and markin g procedures for electrical and  electronic products at 
federal and local government levels.  Besides, we would like to  know whether the certificati on results are mutually accepted am ong local governments 
in Russia. 
91.  209-225 Under section IV of the document on “basic administra tive measures necessary for carrying out activity in the field of  medicines” it is not clear if the 
certificate of conformity of the medicines de livered by the Ministry of Health or Goss tandard of Russia or both and what are th eir respective 
competence. It would be useful to get more information on their respective competence.  
 In addition, it is mentioned that the cost for getting a certificate of conformity is determined on agreement between an applic ant and a body of 
certification. Considering Article I and VIII GATT and Article 5.2.5 of the TBT Agreement, we have serious doubts on the consis tency with WTO rules 
of way the fee requested for a certifi cate of conformity is determined.  
 
According to Paragraph 209 , Gosstandard of Russia is operating in the regulatory as well as in the commercial fi eld. Such combination of 
responsibilities is problematic with regard to impartiality and independence of Gosstandard. Is it intended to separate certain  tasks from Gosstandard? 
Who will in future be responsible for the opera tion of a reliable accredita tion system in Russia? 
 
Paragraph 212  mentions that Government Resolution No. 287 of 29 April 2002 substantially reduced the list of goods subject to mandatory 
certification. We request that an updated list be annexed to th e draft report. Are further revisions of this list planned in th e near future? 
 Paragraph 214  in principle refers to the list of products whose conformity may be confirmed by conformity declaration. We do not understand why the 
Russian Federation also mentions the mandatory certification procedure in this context. Hence, what would be the difference bet ween this list and the 
list mentioned in paragraph 212 above? It would be very useful if the Russian Federation could list and explain in a separate p aper what conformity 
assessment procedures must be completed fo r what types of products, a nd how the required procedures will look like. Such paper should refer to all 
possible conformity assessment procedures laid down in Russian law, from mandatory certification to supplier’s declaration of c onformity.  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 25No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
 
Also mentioned in paragraph 214 is the recognition of certificates issu ed in the supplying (forei gn) country. Such recognitio n will take place in case the 
supplying country has concluded an interstate agreement or if is participating in an international certification system to whic h the Russian Federation has 
acceded to. We would like to know  in what international certification systems th e Russian Federation already participates. Is a  participation in other 
certification systems planned?  
Paragraph 214  refers also to the appeal commission of Gosstandart. As Gosstandard itself supplies ma ny of the services that the appeal commi ssion has 
to decide upon, we would like to know how independence and impar tiality between Gosstandard and the appeal commission will be g uaranteed. 
 
Paragraph 215  mentions the Draft Federal law "on technical regulation". On Nove mber 18 2002, we sent written qu estions referring to this Dra ft law to 
the Russian mission in Geneva. Up to now, we have not receive any answer to this letter. We would like to ask the Russian deleg ation until when the 
Russian answers and comments to the Swiss paper can be expected. 
 
Paragraph 217  states that the overall level of harmonization of domestic with international standards is currently about 35 per cent. Is the re a specific 
reason why only 35% of domestic standards are harmonized with international standards? We would like to ask if the harmonizatio n of state standards 
with international standards is even below the 35 per cent leve l for some product sectors. For which specific product sector(s)  is this the case? 
In the comments provided by Russia in SPEC/RUS/29 it is indicated  that over 50% of state standa rds were already harmonized with  international 
standards and that the overall level of harmonization of domestic  standards with international standards was currently 35%. Wha t is the difference 
between domestic and state standards ? How many categories of standards do you have a part from state standards ? 
92.  re: 
Federal 
Law 
No.27 1. General remark  
 
The English translation of the federal law “Framework Provisions on Technical Regulation in the Russian Federation” contains se veral terms and 
definitions that seem not to be in line with the agreed termi nology under the WTO-TBT Agreement (hereinafter the TBT Agreement) . The Russian 
Federation is asked to make broader use of globally agreed TBT terminology and of internationally harmonized definitions (e.g. ISO Guide 2) 
 
2. Preparation, adoption and application of technical  regulations of (central/local) governmental bodies  
 
- Article 3 of the law on technical regulating lays down the prin ciples of technical regulating in the Russian Federation. One of  these principles is 
the “compatibility of technical regulating to the performance of national economy, condition of technical infrastructure and ac hieved level of 
technological development”. Nothing is said in this article about the compatibility of national technical requirements with int ernationally 
harmonised standards. We would like to know why the principle of  compatibility of national technical regulations with internati onal standards 
as laid down in Article 2.4 of the WTO TBT Agreement is not in cluded in Article 3 of the Russian law on technical regulating. 
- In the same context, Article 9 paragraph 10 stipulates that in  the case of non-compliance of te chnical regulation with the inte rests of the 
national economy, the Government of the Russian Federation may cancel this technical regulation or may amend it to make it comp atible with 
these interests of the national economy. How will the Government of the Russian Federation decide in the case of such conflict between an 
international harmonised standard and the interests of the national economy? According to agreed principles, the protection of interests of 
national economy is in general not a legitimate objective to devi ate from international standards (see Articles 2.4 and 2.2 of the WTO TBT 
Agreement). 
- Article 11 of the law “Framework Provisions on Technical Regulation in the Russian Federation” deals with the adoption and appl ication of 
technical regulations in case of urgency. Article 2.10 of the TBT Agreement however requires adequate consultation of member st ates and  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 26 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
interested parties also in those cases wher e technical regulations must be adopted rapidly. Does the Russian law also consider adequate 
consultation procedures for stakeholders in case of urgency (possibly after adoption of the regulation)? 
 
3. Procedures for Assessment of Conformity  
 - Article 20 paragraph 1 differentiates on the one hand between mandatory and voluntary conformity confirmation. We would be very  much 
interested in some further information about the ongoing review of the list of products requiring mandatory certification. We w ould like to 
express again that past lists have been too extensive. Mandato ry certification shall only be required for products with a consi derable hazard 
potential. 
- Furthermore, Article 20 paragraph 3 defines the two possibilities for mandatory conformity confirmation: Supplier’s declaration  of conformity 
/”declaring of conformity” (SDoC) and mandatory certification. What criteria are relevant in order to determine whether a produ ct falls under 
the SDoC- or the mandatory certification scheme?  
- With regard to SDoCs (Article 24), we are concerned that the respective proposals in  the Russian Draft law would create unneces sary barriers 
to trade. First, we would like to know in  what cases the declaration of conformity based on own proofs must be completed by pro ofs or 
certificates of a third party (Article 24 pa ragraph 3). According to our understanding of SDoCs, the participation of conformit y assessment 
bodies shall only be necessary in exceptional cases. Therefore, we propose that the involvement of accredited test labs or cert ification bodies 
should only be required for products with  high hazard potential. Second, according to Article 24 paragraph 6, the properly issu ed SDoC must be 
registered at the federal executive body in the field of technical  regulation. We think that such a requirement is not necessar y. For the purpose 
of market surveillance, the SDoC must be available where the pr oduct is delivered. Normally this  will be the manufacturer or th e distributor but 
certainly not the authorities as required in the Russian law. 
 
We are of the view that the SDoC-procedure proposed in the Russian Draft law is too complicated and not in line with the intern ationally agreed purpose 
and the intention of SDoC, i.e. to keep the main responsibility at the manufacturer himself. Th erefore, the Russian Federation should modify the 
proposed SDoC procedure with a view to delegate more respons ibilities in the field of conformity assessment to the manufacturer . 
 - Article 22 deals with the issue of volunt ary conformity markings. How will it be guaranteed by the Russian government that volu ntary 
conformity marks are not created as a means to discriminate foreign products against domestic products? 
- Article 30 deals with the recognition of results of conformity assessment. Article 6.1 of the WTO TBT Agreement obliges member states under 
clearly defined circumstances to accept results  of conformity assessment procedures perf ormed in other member states even when those 
procedures differ from their own. According to Article 30 of th e Russian law, recognition of resu lts of conformity assessment i n the Russian 
Federation may only be possible according to international treaties of  the Russian Federation in this field. We would like to k now if recognition 
of results of conformity assessment is al so possible, lacking a specific bilateral agreement with the Russian Federation. In th is context we 
would like to ask the following questions: 
- Can a foreign test lab act as a subcontr actor of a Russian certification body? Un der what preconditions is this accepted? 
 - Under what circumstances can foreign ce rtification bodies issue certificates for the Russian market? Would an accreditation in a 
foreign country be sufficient if this country is engaged in in ternational cooperative work in the field of accreditation (e.g. ILAC, IAF, EA)?  
- Previous versions of the law on technical regulating contained provisions with regard to independence and impartiality between accreditation 
and certification bodies. This provision has be en deleted in the latest version of the law. We would like to know the reasons f or this 
modification. In this context, we would like to know whether or not such impartiality and independence problems have been resol ved at 
Gosstandard.  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 27No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
93.  209-225 a) According to Russia's explanation given at the last WP meeting, following the entry into force of the federal law " On Technical Regulation" 
(hereafter "umbrella law"), each technical regulation will be revi ewed over a 7-year transition period. With regard to this rev iew, please 
indicate the "Responsible Authority" and the "Time-Frame" of each  Technical Regulation (including the "Interstate Sanitary Regu lations and 
Norms").          
 
 Furthermore, we would appreciate it if Russia could update the document "Interdepartmental Program of Measures to Ensure Full Compliance 
with the Requirements of the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures in 2002-2005Job No. 4930)", which was submitted by Russia to the WTO Secretariat in June 2002.  
  b) With regard to Article 6 "The Purposes of Technical Regulations" of the umbrella law, the "protection of state or municipal  property" is 
included as one of the purposes. Please explai n how this purpose conforms with the purposes specified in Article 2.2 of the TBT  Agreement, 
which are legitimate objectives.   
 
 c) Russia's current "Interstate Sanitary Regulations and Norms" includes 12 categor ies of conformity assessment for technical regulation such as 
that for noise, vibration (general/local), infrasonic, etc. However, we have never known cases where the existing WTO Members a dopt such 
categories for the conformity assessment of tec hnical regulations for el ectronics products.   
  We are thus concerned how these categories can justify being a dopted as a technical regulation fo r electronics products.   Ple ase explain in 
detail the contents of the "Interstate Sanitary Regulations and Norms", together with the justification for imposing this techn ical regulation, 
giving such evidence as scientific and technical information and so on. 
 
 d) Russia also explained that the EU technical regulations and standards system will be applied widely in the Russian Federati on. Are we to 
understand that the products subject to Russia's "Declaration of Conformity (DOC) system" will cover such products under the EU  technical 
regulations and standards system, as "Telev ision Receivers", "Audio Products", and "P ersonal Computers and their peripherals"?   
 
e)  After the umbrella law comes into effect, will the proced ures for the acquisition of a certification on technical regulatio n be modified or not?  
If so, what kind of modification to procedures is envisaged? 
94.  209-225 Russia's response to this section is lengthy, and includes large sections from the existing draft of the WP report.  W e ask that Russia re-draft this 
section in a format of specific answers to questions and concerns raised by Members, so  as to allow an assessment to be made of  what issues remain 
in dispute. 
95.  209-225 Russian Federation:  
 Certificate of conformity of th e medicines is delivered by certification body, ac credited by Gosstandart of Russia in GOST R ce rtification 
system. 
 Gosstandart of Russia had agreed with the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation and adopted “Rules of Certification. Fe es for 
Certification of Products and Services” which were subsequently registered with the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federati on on 29 
December 1999 (reg. No. 2031). The document prov ides a uniform fee-payment structure for national and foreign applicants, and i s based on 
the costs effectively incurred by certification authorities and te sting laboratories in carrying  out the conformity assessment procedures. 
  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 28 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
But of course the cost of certification work depends on the territory of certificat ion body (in Russia or abroad) and can diffe r.  
 The central Committee  of Gosstandart of Russia does not provide commercial work and was not paid for the certification and acc reditation. 
But in future we are planning to creat e unify national accreditation system ba sed on non governmental organization. 
 The Gosstandart is planning to revise the list of products subject to mandatory certification and declarat ion of conformity by the 1 july of 2003.  
 
Under Article 4 of Law 5151-1 of the Russian Federation “On Certification of Products and Services” dated 10 June 1993 as amend ed by 
Federal Law 154-FZ of 31 July 1998, Russia recognises the results  of conformity assessment proce dures by all international syst ems Russia has 
acceded to (Geneva 1955 Treaty on  Mechanical Vehicles, Brussels Convention for Mu tual Recognition of Test s of Brands of Handgun s and 
Cartridges, The International Electrotechnica l Commission's Quality Assessment System for Electronic Components (IECQ), the IEC  
International System for Confirmati on of Test Results and Certification of Elect ric Equipment, the IEC Scheme for Certification  to Standards 
for Explosive Atmospheres (IECEx). In other cases, recognition of the results of confo rmity assessment procedures is provided u nder 
multilateral or bilateral agreements.  
The central Committee  of Gosstandart does not supply services because the federal bo dies in Russia have no permission to provi de commercial 
work. Appeal commission resolve the problems concerning the activities  of accredited certification bodies. 
 
The number of domestic national (GOST R) standards is about 3000 and their level of harmonization is approximately 50%.  The in terstate 
standards (of CIS countries) are adopting as national standards. The overall number of national standards is above 22000 (and o nly 3000 
standards of 22000 are domestic).  The level of ha rmonization of overall national standards is 35%. 
 Technical regulatiohs must correspond to int erests of the national economy and also to  the international norms and rules. If th e international 
standards are effective for nation al economy they can be used as a basis for th e technical regulation and such technical regula tion corresponds 
to interests of the national economy. 
 
Article 2 “Basic Concepts” gives the followi ng basic concept of technica l regulation are used for th e purposes of this Federal law: 
Technical regulation – is the docu ment, which is adopted either by the Russian Federation international treaty ratified in acco rdance with the 
legislation of the Russian Federa tion, or by the federal law, or by decree of Pr esident of the Russian Federation, or by decree  of the Russian 
Federation Government, a nd which establishes the obligatory requirements for technical regulati ng objects (for products, includ ing buildings, 
structures and constructions, for processes of production, operation, storage, transportation, marketing and utilization).  
Article  7 “The Matter and Applicatio n of Technical Regulations” says 
6. The technical regulations shall be applied in identical way and in equal measure irrespective of the country and (or) place of product origin, 
realization of processes of production, opera tion, storage, transportation, marketing and utilization, types or peculiarities o f bargains and (or) 
natural and (or) legal persons being manufa cturers, executors, sellers, purchasers, taking  into account the provisions of Claus
e 9 of this Article. 
 Thus Local Government Bodies can no t establish mandatory requirements.  
 
Article   3 “Principles of Technical Regulating” of the Law says 
 The technical regulating shall be carried out in accordance with the principles of:  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 29No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
application of uniform rules for establis hing of the requirements for products, pro cesses of production, operation, storage, tr ansportation, 
marketing and utilization, executing of  works or rendering of services. 
 
A r t i c l e   31 “Accreditation of Certificatio n Bodies and Test Laboratories (Centers)” says 
2. Accreditation of certification bo dies and test laboratories (centers), executin g the works on conformi ty assurance, shall be  carried out on the 
basis of the following principles: 
inadmissibility of limitation of a competitio n and creation of barriers to use of servi ces of certification bodies and accredit ed test laboratories 
(centers); ensuring of equal conditions for the person s applying for getting of accreditation; 
inadmissibility of combinin g the accreditation and conf ormity assurance powers; 
inadmissibility of establishing the limits for validity of accreditation do cuments in separate territories. 
3. Accreditation of certification  bodies and test laboratories (centers), executi ng the works on conformi ty assurance, shall be  carried out in the 
order established by the Governme nt of the Russian Federation. 
 A r t i c l e   30  “Recognition of Conformity Assurance Results” says 
Conformity assurance documents, marks of co nformity, reports of researches (tests) and measurements of product, obtained outsid e the 
Russian Federation territory, may be recognized according to  the international treaties of the Russian Federation. 
 
Thus, if any certification body or test la b was accredited as certification body or test lab in Russian accreditation system, t hen accreditation 
documents are valid in all territo ries and accredited certification body or test  lab can issued a Russian certificate in territ ory they belongs to. As 
far as the results of certification body or  test lab which has no accreditation in Russian system concerns there results may be  recognized 
according to the intern ational treaties of the Russian Federation. 
 
Preparation, acceptance and applicatio n of the technical regulations (cen tral / local) governmental bodies
 
 1.  The law " On technical regulating in Russian Federation in Clause 2 provided for that “Tech nical regulation - is the docume nt, which 
is adopted either by the Russian Federation international treaty ratified in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Fed eration, or by the 
federal law, or by decree of President of the Russian Federation , or by decree of the Russian Fe deration Government, and which establishes the 
obligatory requirements for technical regulating objects (for prod ucts, including buildings, struct ures and constructions, for processes of 
production, operation, storage, tr ansportation, marketing and utilization), and Clau se 7 items 3 provided for that “The require ments for 
products, processes of pr oduction, operation, storage, transportation, mark eting and utilization, the rules and forms of confor mity assessment, 
the rules of identification, the requirements for terminology, pa cking, marking or labeling and the rules of their affixing, no t included into 
technical regulations, may not be the obligatory ones" 
Therefore establishment of the obligatory requi rements in the documents anyone not of th e central bodies of authority is forbid den, 
and any infringement of the law will be punish ed according to the current legislation.  
2.  Clause 7 items 2 provided for that “the requirements of t echnical regulations may not serve as a barrier to realization of business 
activity in the greater degree, than it is  minimally necessary for execution of the pur poses specified in Clause 1 of Article 6  of this Federal ", 
And Clause 6 projects of the law provided for that 
" 1. The technical regulations sha ll be adopted for the purpose of: 
protection of life or health of people, property of na tural or legal persons, state or municipal property; 
protection the environment, life or health of animals and plants;  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 30 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
prevention of actions misleading the purchasers. 
2. Adoption of technical regulations for other purposes is not allowed.  
Clause 7 items 5 is specified  
" International and (or) the national standards can be used comp letely or partially as a basis for development of the projects of the technical 
regulations", And in Clause 12 Principles of Standardization are told 
«Standardization shall be carried ou t according to the principles of  
application of the international standards as a basis for develop ment of the national standards, except for the cases when such  application is 
recognized to be impossible as a result of noncompliance of requi rements of the internat ional standards with climatic and geogr aphical 
peculiarities of the Russian Federation, with  technical and (or) technolo gical peculiarities, or by other reasons, or if the Ru ssian Federation 
opposed against adoption of the international standard or its se parate provision in accordance wi th the established procedures» . 
Therefore use of the intern ational standards as bases for deve lopment of the technical regulatio ns is established by procedure of development of 
the technical regulations. 
3.  In Clause 7 items 6 provided for that “the technical regula tions shall be applied in identical way and in equal measure irr espective of 
the country and (or) place of product origin, realization of processes of production, operation, storage, transportation, marke ting and 
utilization, types or peculiarities of barg ains and (or) natural and (or) legal pers ons being manufacturers, executors, sellers , purchasers, taking 
into account the provisions of Clause 9 of this Article ", and in Clause 9 is specified " The technical regulation may contain the special requirements for products, processes of production, operation, storage, tran sportation, 
marketing and utilization, terminology, packing, marking or la beling and the rules of their affi xing, applied in separate place s of the products 
origin, if the absence of such requirements can result, taking into account the climat ic and geographical peculiarities, in non -reaching of the 
purposes specified in Clause 1 of Article 6 of this Federal law". 
Any non-observance or infringement of the re quirements of the technical regulation, and also provisions of Clause 2 and Clause 7 items 
3 (see item 1 of the answers) project of the law should be pursued acco rding to the current legislation ". 
4.  Clause 14 items 1 provided for that “national standards bo dy of the Russian Federation (h ereinafter referred to as national  standards 
body) shall participate, according to charts  of the international organizations, in development of the in ternational standards and shall ensure 
the taking into account of interes ts of the Russian Federation in process of their adoption ". 
  Russia is the active member of the international organiz ations on standartization, a nd first of all ISO, IEC and МСЭ , takes part in 
work practically of all tech nical committees. Since 2000 till 2001 Russia was the member of IS O council. Russia votes under all  projects of the 
international standards.  
 
Preparation, adoption and application of standards
 
1. Russia already carries out the Code of Good Practice on Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards. The given sectio n is 
included into the Inter-Agency Program of measures to ensure full compliance with the requirements of WTO Agreement on Technica l 
Barriers to Trade and WTO Agreement on the A pplication of Sanitary and Phytosanitar y Measures in 2002-2005 (section II). 
2.  A technical regulation contains as we ll procedures of conformity a ssessment. As to an opportunity of use voluntary standard s for 
procedures of conformity asse ssment Article 16.9 of the Fede ral Law dated December 27, 2002 № 184-FZ "On Technical Regulating" says: 
"The national standards body shall affirm and publish in the prin t of federal executive body on technical regulating and in gen eral-purpose 
information system in electronic- digital format the list of national standards which may be applied on a voluntary basis for ob servance of the 
requirements of technical regulations", and he nce of the procedures of conformity asse ssment which are a part of a technical re gulation. Thus, 
complying with these voluntary standards a manufacturer will automatically meet the obligatory requirements of the technical re gulations.  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 31No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
Therefore, use of standards as a proof of conformity is not oblig atory, though their application can be considered as a presump tion of 
conformity to the requirement s of technical regulations. 
 
Procedures of conformity assessment  
1.  Article 23.2 of the Law provided for that “the form and schemes of obligatory conformity assurance may be established only by 
technical regulation taking into acco unt the risk degree of non-reaching the purposes of technical regulations, 
Article 46.3 "Transition provisions" provided  for that “the Government of the Russian Federation, before coming into force of t he 
appropriate technical regulations, shall ye arly define and supplement the list of separate types of products, in relation to wh ich the obligatory 
certification is substituted for declarin g of conformity realized in the ord er, established by this Federal law". 
Now the list of products falling under the ob ligatory certification is redu ced by 25 % after the accep tance of the Order of the  
Government of the Russian Federation dated April 29, 2002 №287 "About modification in the list of the goods subject to obligatory 
certification, list of works and services su bject to obligatory certificatio n, and in the list of products which conformity can  be assured by the 
declaration of conformity". 
 Further only products with hi gh level of danger will fall under obligatory certificat ion, as it is told in above-stated Articl e 23.2.   
2.  Article 24 items 1, 2, 3 and 4 provided for that 
"1. Declaring of conformity shall be carri ed out using one of the following schemes: 
assuming of supplier's declaration on the basis of own proofs; assuming of supplier's declaration on the basis of own proofs, the proofs obtained with participation of certification body and  (or) accredited 
test laboratory (center) (hereina fter referred to as third party). 
When declaring the conformity an applicant may be both legal or natural person, registered according to the legislation of the Russian 
Federation in its territory, or being a manufacturer or a seller,  or executing the functions of a foreign manufacturer on the b asis of a contract 
with it regarding the conformity assuranc e of delivered products to the requirements of technical regulations and regarding the  responsibility 
for nonconformity of delivered products to the requirements of technical regulations (the person executing the functions of a f oreign 
manufacturer). 
The range of applicants shall be establis hed by appropriate technical regulation. 
The scheme of declaring of conformity with participation of a third party shall be esta blished in technical regulation in case when the 
absence of the third party results in non-reachi ng of the purposes of conformity assurance. 
2. When declaring the conformity on the basis of own proofs the applicant shall independently form the evidentiary materials fo r the 
purpose of conformity assuran ce of products to the requirements of technical regulations. The technical documentation, the resu lts of own 
researches (tests) and measurements and (or) other documents, which can serve as the mo tivated basis for conformity assurance o f products to 
the requirements of technical regulations, sh all be used as evidentiary materials. The set of evidentiary materials shall be de fined by 
appropriate technical regulation. 
3. When declaring the conformity on the basis of own proofs and those obtained with participation of a third party, an applican t, at his 
own will and in addition to his own pr oofs formed in the order provided for in Clause 2 of this Article, shall: 
include in evidentiary materials the reports of researches (tests ) and measurements carried out in  accredited test laboratory ( center); 
grant the certificate of quality system, in  relation to which there is provided for th e control (supervision) of certification body, which 
has issued the given certificat e, over certification object. 
4. The certificate of a quality system may be used together with the proofs when assuming the supplier's declaration for any pr oducts, 
except for the case when technical regu lations stipulate for such products ot her form of conformity assurance." 
 Concerning registration of a declaration, Article 24 it ems 6 and 7 provided for that  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 32 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
“6. The supplier’s declaration made out according to the establis hed rules is subject to registr ation by the federal executive body on 
technical regulating within three days. For registration of the supplier’s declaration the applicant shall submit to federal executive body  on technical regulating the  supplier’s 
declaration made out according to the re quirements of Clause 5 of this Article. 
The order of maintenance of the supplier’s declarations register,  order of granting the informat ion contained in the specified register, 
and order of payment for granting of th is information shall be defined by the Government of the Russian Federation. 
7. The supplier’s declaration and attached evidentiary documents shall be stored by the applicant within three years from the m oment 
of termination of period of validity of th e declaration. The second copy  of the supplier’s declaratio n shall be stored in feder al executive body on 
technical regulating. 
   
3. Article 27. "A mark of ma rket access" provided for that 
"1. Products, whose conformity to the requi rements of technical regulations is confirmed  in the order provided for by this Fede ral law, 
shall be marked with a mark of market access. The image of the mark of market access shall be established by the Government of the Russian 
Federation. The given mark is no t special protected mark and is affixed for information purposes. 
2. Marking with a mark of market acces s shall be carried out by the applicant independently by any convenient way. 
Products, whose conformity to th e requirements of technical regulations is not conf irmed in the order established by this Feder al law, may not 
be marked with a mark of market access." 4. Article 7.2 provided for that  
"The requirements of technical regulations ma y not serve as a barrier to realization of business activity in the greater degree , than it is 
minimally necessary for execution of the purposes specifi ed in Clause 1 of Article 6 of this Federal law." 
Article 23.2 of the Law provided for that  
"The form and schemes of obligat ory conformity assurance may be established only  by technical regulation taking into account th e 
risk degree of non-reaching the pu rposes of technical regulations." 
Thus, procedures of conformity assessment cannot be more burdenso me than it is minimally necessary to meet the requirements of a 
technical regulation and should be applied equally (non-discrimination), and the provi sions of the Federal law are obligatory w ithin the whole 
territory of the Russian Federation. 
 
5.  Certificates issued by foreign certification bodi es are accepted only if: 
• it is stipulated by an appr opriate international agreement;  
• Russia has joined the internatio nal certification systems within the framework of which these tests ha ve been carried out; 
• the given certification body (or a test labo ratory) is accredited in the system of accreditation of the Russian Federation. 
Russia actively cooperates within the fra mework of international systems of certifica tion (see information in RUS/13) and in th e nearest 
future is going to become a member of ILAC and IAF. In this case Russia will be in complete conformance with the rules of these  organizations. 
6.  In the Law it is stipulated that th e procedures of conformity assessment will be  provided by appropriate technical regulati ons. 
Therefore Gosstandart of Russia will not furt her establish any requirement on conformity  assurance (including certification), a
nd its activity 
will be concentrated only on  accreditation procedure.  
  In light of this provision of the Federal law Gosstandart of  Russia is already wi thdrawing certification bodies from the syst em of its 
institutions which function is the realiz ation of state control and surveillance. 
  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 33No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
96.  226-245 - Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
97.  226-245 General comments 
 
Valid and well justified comments and requests for further inform ation are raised in Doc WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29. Unfortunately Russ ia fails to provide 
clear replies. 
 The Russian response is mainly copied from the Draft Working Party report WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 and includes few new element s. Therefore, 
it does not provide replies for most of the questions raised. The necessary clarification for a very confusing description of t he various 
procedures/authorities involved in authorising imports  of commodities under the SPS rules is still lacking. 
98.   Import authorisations in general 
 
A “state registration” seems to be an essential part of import authorisations although its exact  contents remain unclear. Howev er, Russia now states that 
the “state registration” would only apply from 2006 (page 40, first paragraph). Does this mean that all points where Russia ref ers to “state registration” 
would only apply from 2006?  
 
The connection between the state registration and the import permits issued by the Chie f Veterinary Officer (MOA) remains uncle ar. Russia explains 
that the Ministry of Health, in conjunction with the Ministry of Agriculture, is responsible for the state registration of impo rted food products of animal 
origin. On the other hand, Russia states that a permission from the Chief Veterinary Officer (MOA) is required for all imports of products of animal 
origin (Article 14 of the Federal Law on Veterinary Services, No 4979-1 of 14 May 1993). Is the Ministry of Agriculture compete nt only for animal 
health aspects or does it also cover veterinary public health?  
 In conclusion, there appears to be a duplicate administrative procedure for authorising imports of food products of animal orig in as both a state 
registration and an import permit is required. This could create an administrative barrier to trade. Therefore, Russia should f urther clarify this point.
 
99.   Imports of live animals and products of animal origin 
 
Russia provides a new description on the system for authorising imports of live animals and products of animal origin (page 44 of 
WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29). 
 As regards the list of “controlled products” (para 2) a reference is made to the Government Resolution of 29 October 1992, No 8 30. This contradicts 
earlier statement which says that the list of  “controlled cargoes” is contained in the letter of the Veterinary Department, No1 3-8-01/3009 of 16 May 
2000. In any case, if the list of products is the one presente d in WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/21/Rev.1 (reference paper 10) it is overwhel ming
. It includes items 
for which there should be no need for veterinary controls, e.g. products of purely vegetable origin. Certain products on this l ist also appear on the list of 
goods subject to quarantine and phytosanitary control (reference paper 11) of the same document indicating that the controls ar e sometimes overlapping. 
We have established a list of products which have to undergo ve terinary border inspection when imported to the EU. This list is  laid down in 
Commission Decision 2002/349/EC2.  We invite Russia to study this decision. 
 
In paragraph 3 Russia states that the import conditions to be fu lfilled by the exporting countrie s are laid down in the “Veteri nary requirements in respect 
of imports to the Russian Federation of animal cargoes, approve d by the Veterinary Department  on 23 December 1999”, letter No 1 3-8-01. However, in 
                                                      
2 OJ L 121, 8.5.2002, p. 6  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 34 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
the second paragraph on page 42 Russia states that this letter applies only to imports from countries which do not have bilater al agreements with Russia. 
Russia should clarify this issue and pr ovide a translated copy of this letter.  
 
In paragraph 4 Russia states that “finished products of animal origin that have undergone a thermal treatment” do not require a n import authorisation 
from the Chief Veterinary Officer. Instead, in para 6 it is stated that “imports of finished products are administered by the C hief State Veterinary 
Inspector of the Region in his own discretion”. Russia should clarify the definition of a “finished product”  and specify which rules apply for their 
imports. How is it guaranteed that the regional services apply uniform SPS measures for imports of “finished products”?  
 In paragraph 5 it is stated that the regional veterinary servi ces consider the application of an importer on condition that the  importer is able to provide 
proper conditions for storage and processing of products. Russia should further explain which criteria is applied for evaluatin g these conditions and how 
it is guaranteed that uniform criteria is applied in different regions and for imported and domestic products.  
 
In paragraph 6 it is stated that the Chief Veterinary Officer considers the submission of the regional services by reference to  the epizootic situation in the 
exporting country, and issues permission or prohibition to import. In general, a system of individual import permits, although not necessarily against the 
SPS Agreement, risks being non-transparent, non-coherent, non-consistent  and discriminatory. Theref ore, Russia should clarify w hether the criteria (the 
import requirements) for issuing import permits is published as legally binding legislation and uniformly applied to all applic ants. Moreover, 
amendments to the import requirements must be subject to prior notification in accordance with the SPS Agreement. 
 
In paragraph 9 Russia states that the requirements concerning imports of products of animal origin were modified in 1999 so tha t they became science 
based and reflect the OIE recommendations. This is contradicting the information in the Non-Paper of 17 June 2002 (Interdepartm ental Program to 
ensure compliance with the TBT and SPS Agreements) where in points 1.3.5. and 1. 3.6. it is mentioned that the SPS measures shou ld be aligned with 
the international guidelines and be science based only by 2005. Russia should clarify this issue.  
100.   Framework laws 
 
The situation with regard to framework legislation remains uncle ar. Russia states that after entr y into force of the Federal La w No 184-FZ of 27 
December 2002 “On Fundam entals of technical Regulat ion in the Russian Federation” all requ irements of the WT O SPS Agreement wou ld become 
mandatory (page 44, second paragraph). It seems unlikely that this law would overrule the vertical framework laws on veterinary  and public health 
matters. 
 Indeed, in the Non-Paper of 17 June 2002 (Interdepartmental Program to ensure compliance with the TBT and SPS Agreements) in po ints 1.3.2. and 
1.3.9 it is mentioned that amendments are also needed in the Federal Law on Sanitary and Epidemiological Well-Being of Populati on (No 52-FZ of 30 
March 1999) in the Federal Law on Veterinary Services (No 4979 -1 of 14 May 1993). Russia should explain the foreseen amendments  more in detail
, in 
particular their relevance to the compliance with the SPS Agreement. 
101.   Permanent Russian inspectors in the EU 
 
We maintain our position that the requirement for pre-shipment inspection of fresh meat by the Russian veterinary services in t he exporting countries is 
not in accordance with  the SPS Agreement . Therefore, we invite Russia to abolish this system a nd to rely on the certificates signed by the authorities of 
the exporting countries at latest by the WTO accession. 
 
Russia fails to address this issue in its response in Do c WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29 although this is specifically asked. 
  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 35No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
In paragraph 237 of the Draft Working Part y Report (WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25, Re v.1) Russia insists that th is system is in accordance  with the OIE 
Animal Health Code. This is not a correct statement since Chapter 1.2.2 of that Code concerning the certification procedures do es not recognise a system 
where officials of importing country sign export certificates in the exporting country. Instead, Article 1.2.2.3. of the Code c learly states that “Certifying 
veterinarians should be authorised by the Veterinary Administration of the exporting country  to sign international veterinary certificates”. 
102.  226-245 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29 contains what appears to be a revision  of the SPS  chapter of the WP Report.  While we welcome new information provided, 
we have the following concerns:  
It does not directly address many of the questions raised by Members on the previous draft. 
- It introduces information on new legislation in the SPS sphere, without an adequate description of which aspects of the existin g policy regime 
will become redundant and which will remain in effect. 
- It does not assist the Working Party to track and eventually resolve outstanding concerns, or move towards the drafting of comm itment 
language in the Working Party report. 
 
The steps we feel are needed to take  this process forward are as follows: 
 - Russia needs to restructure and augment the information provided in WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29 by tabulating specific answers against e ach 
comment/question made by Members. 
- This chapter of the report needs to be re-drafted to: 
- capture outstanding concerns and explain clearly how Russia’s new legislation in the SPS/TBT sphere addresses those concerns;  
- include commitment language designed to address concerns. 
 
Working Party Report Chapter on SPS Issues 
- As it stands, this section of the draft report represents a de scription of Russia’s SPS policy framework, relevant laws and reg ulations, and some 
detail on requirements for the export of products to the Russian market.   
- It has a number of problems and gaps that need to be addressed.   Members have sought to rectify these shortcomings, but insuffi cient responses 
from Russia have meant that there has been little progress in resolving outstanding concerns. 
- There are a number of aspects of the draft th at need to be addressed for this aspect of the accession to move ahead, and approp riate 
commitments to be identified.  The information provided on new legislation in the SPS sphere is useful, but does not adequately  address how 
Russia’s system will meet key as pects of the SPS agreement.  
- Below is a list (not exhaustive) of the key concerns we consider  should be reflected in additional paragraphs for the report.  We ask that Russia 
provide a full response to each of these issues and explain how they  will be addressed.  We reserve the right to provide more d etailed text for 
future discussions on SPS issues as the draft report evolves. 
 
Basic Rights and Obligations 
- A key requirement of Article 2 of the SPS Agreement is that SPS measures should be applied only to the extent necessary to prot ect human, 
animal, or plant life or health.  Russia describes a list of mu ltiple certification requirements associated with exporting prod ucts of animal origin 
to Russia, with insufficient explanation of the need for these various layers of certification in protecting human, animal, or plant life and health. 
- Members are concerned that Russia applies discriminatory measures , including requirements affecting imports that are more restr ictive than 
those affecting domestic production, despite similar or identical  conditions.  For example, more stringent testing or conformit y assessment is 
required of some imported products than is applied to the domestic product despite similar risks to plant, animal or human life .   These 
constitute disguised restrictions on internati onal trade (Article 2:3 of the SPS Agreement).  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 36 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
For example, in relation to dairy products, Russia requires exporting countries to certify freedom from certain diseases that a re prevalent on its 
own territory (and have been notified to the OIE). 
 
Transparency 
The draft report currently does not address how Russia will meet the various requiremen ts of the SPS Agreemen t in relation to T ransparency and 
Notification of measures.  Members are concerned about insufficient periods of notification of new or amended measures, which i n effect do not allow 
time for producers in exporting Members to adjust to new conditions.  
 
Recognition of Disease-Free Status 
The draft report does not address Members’ concerns that Russia do es not fulfil Article 6 of the SPS Agreement in relation to t he importation of some 
products of animal origin.  In particular, Russia continues to make the export of some products conditional upon testing for di seases which are not 
prevalent in the exporting Member’s territory.  In the case of wool, Russia requires national registration and full-time monito ring of production of wool 
in the territories of some Members, despite the ab sence of diseases that could contaminate product. 
 
Assessment of Risk 
The draft report does not address Members’ co ncerns that Russia does not ensure SPS m easures are based on a true assessment of the risks to human, 
animal or health life, taking into account risk assessment techniques developed by the relevant international organisations.  F or example, in the case of 
fish exports, Russia requires that the fisher ies products contain no preservatives.  This is despite the fact that the use of a  form of salt preservation is 
used throughout the world in prawn industries and is an international standard.   
 
Equivalence 
Members are concerned that Russia does not have adequate policie s and measures in place to accept the sanitary and phytosanitar y measures of other 
Members as equivalent in achieving Russia’s level of sanitary and phytosanitary protection.  In particular, Members are concern ed that Russia requires 
more frequent access to establishments with in exporting Members fo r the purposes of inspection a nd testing, but with little att empt to eventually 
recognise the equivalence of those Members’ SPS measures.  
 
Transit Provisions 
The draft report does not address Members’ concern about Russian non-comp liance with WTO rules on tran sit trade.  In particular , a requirement that 
the transit of product through third countries to Russia be conditional on obtaining a “permit” and agreement on the itinerary of the cargo does not 
comply with Article V(3) and V(1)  of GATT 1994.   Furthermore, details of the requirements underpinning such “permits” is requi red to assess 
consistency with the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.   
 
Import Licensing 
Russia appears to apply a form of non-automatic licensing to the importation of products of animal origin.  Members are concern ed that Russia may not 
apply that scheme in accordance with the pr ovision of the WTO Agreement on Import Li censing Procedures and other relevant GATT articles.  In 
particular, Russia requires impo rters to demonstrate adequate facilities for stor age/processing imported product such as meat, but it is not clear that the 
same requirement is applied to purchasers of domestically-produced product in compliance with GATT Article III.  
Other Issues 
Change of Buyer Status
:  Members have concerns that Russian procedures that are app lied where is a change in Russi an consignee for a shipment, 
involving the reconsideration by Russian authorities of veterinary certificates, do not comply with relevant WTO provisions.  T his issue, including full  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 37No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
procedures involved, will need to be addressed in the Working Party report. 
103.   State Trading Enterprises 
104.   Russian Federation:  
 
Pursuant to Article 50 of the Civil Code  of the Russian Federation Russian legal entities are divided into commercial and non-
commercial organizations. 
The organizations whose key activity goal is making profit are recognized as com mercial. One of the forms of a commercial legal  entity 
is a state unitary enterprise. The only di stinction between the state unitary enterpri se and other forms of commercial organiza tions is that it 
possesses no ownership right for the property that has been assigned to it by the proprietor. The property of the state or muni cipal enterprise 
is, thus, regarded as state or municipal prop erty and the right of such enterprise to this property is limited to economic mana gement or 
operational management. 
The Law of the RSFSR No.948-1 of 22 March 1991 (in the edition of 09 October 2002) “On Competition and Restriction of Monopoly 
Activity on Commodity Markets” determines organizational and legal basis of prevention and cutting up monopoly activity and unf air 
competition on commodity markets in the Russi an Federation as well as restriction on competition by federal executive bodies, g overnmental 
bodies of the subjects of the Russian Federation, local government, other authorities or organizations vested with functions or  rights of said 
bodies of power. 
The managing subjects which hold a dominant position on the market shall be prohibited from actions (non-actions) that result o r may 
result in prevention, restriction or elimin ation of competition and (or)  limitation of int erests of other managing subjects. Su ch actions include: 
• withdrawal of goods from turnover, the purpose or the result of which is the creation or maintaining the situation of deficit o n 
the market, or raising of the prices; 
• imposition on a contracting party of the t erms of the contract which are not profitab le for the contracting party or have no 
relation to the subject-matter of the cont ract (unjustifiable demands for the tran sfer of financial resources, other assets, 
property rights, the workforce of the contract ing party, the consent to sign a contract  only on condition of introducing theret o 
the provisions which concern the commodities th e contractor is not interested in, and others); 
• creating conditions for access to the commodity market, exchange, consumptio n, acquisition, production and sale of 
commodities which place one or more managing  subjects in a non-equitable position, as compared to other managing subjects 
(discriminating terms); 
• creating impediments to other managing  subjects in their access to the ma rket (withdrawal from the market) 
• violation of the price formatio n procedure established by the relevant legislation, etc. 
The dominant position is the excl usive position of a managing subject or several managing subjects on the commodity market when  
there is no substitute for commodities or  no intersubstitutional co mmodities (further referred to as “a certain commodity”), wh ich enables it or 
them to exert decisive influence on the common terms of the circu lation of commodities on the res pective commodity market or hi nder the 
access for other managing subjects to the market. 
The position of a managing subject shall be  recognized as dominant, if its share of a certain commodity on the market amounts t o 65 
per cent and more, except for the cases when  the managing subject proves that, despit e the excess of the said percentage amount , its position is 
not dominant on the market. 
The position of a managing subject shall al so be recognized as dominant, if its certai n commodity share on the market amounts t o less 
than 65 per cent, provided that this fact has been recognized by the antimonopoly body  on the basis of the stability of the sha re of the managing 
subject on the market, the relative amount of the competitors’ shares on the market, the possib ility of access of new competito rs to this market 
or other criteria characterizing the commodity market. The positi on of the managing subject wh ose share of a certain commodity on the  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 38 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
market does not exceed 35 per cent ma y not be recognized as dominant.  
In order to state control the observance of the antimonopoly legislation the antimonopoly authority shall keep a record of the managing 
subjects which possess a share of a certain commodity  on the market amounting to over 35 per cent. 
In case of systematic exercise of the monopo ly activity by the managing subject which hold a dominant position on the commodity  
market the antimonopoly authority shall be entitled to issue an order on the compulsory division of a profit-making organizatio n or a 
nonprofit-making organization, or on the singling out from them of one or several organizations. 
The establishment, merging, joining of profit-making and nonprofit-making organizations, alteration of their participants’ 
membership which is done in defiance of the procedure established by the Law leads to the restrictio n of competition, including  that which 
occurs as a result of appearance or increase of domination, as  well as failure to execute the order of the antimonopoly authori ty, shall be 
regarded as grounds for their liquidation judicially at the suit of the antimonopoly authority. 
The profit-making and non-profit making or ganizations (their heads), the federal executi ve bodies, the executive bodies of the subjects of 
the Russian Federation, the local government, other bodies or organizations vested with the functions and rights of said bodies  of power (their 
officials), natural persons, incl uding individual entrepreneurs, sh all be obliged to commit the actions provided for by a decis ion or an order of 
the antimonopoly auth ority within the term established therein. 
 Violation of the antimonopoly legislation the officials of the federal executive bodies, the exec utive bodies of the subjects of the Russian 
Federation, local government , and other bodies and organizations vested with functions and rights of said bodies of power, the profit-making 
and non-profit making organizations or their heads, as well as natural persons, including individual entrepreneurs, shall bear civil , 
administrative or criminal liability (a fine, comprehension or im prisonment to up to 7 years wi th or without confiscation). 
105.   Free Economic Zones 
106.   Russian Federation:  
 
Russian legislation provided for the establishment of free-trade zo nes: Special Economic Zone in the Kaliningrad Region in the 
Magadan region and in Nakhodka. Actually only one Special Economic Zone (SEZ) is operative due to the specific geographical loc ation of the 
Kaliningrad region.  
The Free Economic Area "Nakhodka " was formed in October 1990, as  the Russian Federation's first free economic area. Its free 
economic regime is regulated by Resolution of the RSFSR Supreme Co uncil of 24 October 1990 "On Creation of a Free Economic Zone  
Centred on the Town of Nakhodka in Primorsky Krai", and Governmen t Resolution No. 1033 of 8 September 1994 "On Certain Measures  of 
Development of the Free Economic Zone of Na khodka".  Exports and imports of goods to and from the Free Economic Area "Nakhodka"  are 
regulated by the ordinary customs regime.  
Magadan  Special Economic Zone is created under Federal Law No. 104-FZ of 31 May 1999 "On the Special Economic Zone in 
Magadan Region", and Law of Maga dan Region No. 80-FZ of 5 July 1999 "On Changing the Administrative and T erritorial Structure o f 
Magadan Region".  The procedure for determini ng that goods originated fr om the Special Economic Zone  in Magadan Region is provi ded 
under Order No. 829 of 30 November 1999 of the SCC "On the Procedure for the Determinati on of the Origin of Goods from the Spec ial 
Economic Zone in the Magadan Re gion", and the "Guidelines for De termining Goods as Originating fr om the Special Economic Zone i n 
Magadan Region" contained in a joint Letter of the State Customs Committee and the Administration of Magadan Region No. 01-11/1 0593 of 
25 April 2000.  The territory of Magadan Re gion is a free customs zone, which means th at foreign goods are imported to the terr itory of the 
Special Economic Zone free of customs duties  and taxes.  Foreign goods ex port from the territory of Magadan Region within or ou tside of the 
customs territory of the Russian Federation  are liable to customs duties in full amo unt. Foreign goods undergoing a certain amo unt of 
processing and which would qualify for the definition of sufficient processing, are deemed to be Russian goods and are not liab le to import 
customs duties and other taxes wh en entering the rest of the customs territory of the Russian Fe deration.  The criteria of suff icient processing 
of goods in the Special Economic Zone are as follows: change of  commodity classification (HS co de); implementation of certain p roduction and  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 39No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
technological operations sufficient  for the goods to be deemed to originate from the Sp ecial Economic Zone;  and change of cos t of goods, 
provided the value added by processing amounted to no less th an 30 per cent of the goods (no less than 15 per cent for electron ics or 
sophisticated home appliances).  Tax and cu stoms benefits are to be maintained unt il 31 December 2014 – th e last effective date  of the Law "On 
the Special Economic Zone of Magadan Region". 
Under Federal Law No. 13-FZ of 22 January 2000 "On The Special Economic Zone in the Kaliningrad  Region" (as amended on 27 
December 2000) all goods (excluding  goods covered by quantitative restrictions), imported into the Kaliningrad Region are exemp ted from 
customs duties and payments (excluding charges).  Under Article 7 of Federal Law No. 13–FZ of 22 January 1996 "On a Special Eco nomic 
Zone in the Kaliningrad Region", goods manu factured in the Special Economic zone and exported to other countries or transported  to the rest 
of the Russian Federation should be exempt from customs duties and other charges payable upon the customs registration of goods  (except 
customs fees).  The goods stated should no t be subject to economic policy measures (m easures on non-tariff  state regulation of foreign trade).  
Goods imported to the Special Economic Zone from other countries and then transported to the rest of the Russian Federation as well as to the 
territory of the Customs union (e xcept goods which have been recycled in the Speci al Economic Zone and are considered to have b een 
manufactured in this zone), should be su bject to import customs fees  and other fees payable upon the customs registration of go ods. Economic 
policy measures could be implemented to the goods stated. Under Federal La w No. 13–FZ of 22 January 1996 "On a Special Economic  Zone in 
the Kaliningrad Region", Russian and foreign investors and entrepreneurs are granted privileges under fiscal law of the Russian  Federation 
and the legislation of the Kaliningrad Regi on.  The administration of the Kaliningrad  Region with the ag reement of the Governme nt of the 
Russian Federation and the Central Bank of the Russian Federati on has the right to set privileges for Russian and foreign banks  in regard to 
their work on the carrying out of  the federal state program of th e development of the Special Econ omic Zone.  No value added ta x should be 
levied on profits from transportation services, loading and unloading services, reloading and storage in the course of the tran sportation from 
the Special Economic Zone to the rest part of the customs territo ry of the Russian Federation an d from the rest part of the cus toms territory to 
the Special Economic Zone. 
The legislation in force (Federal Law No. 176 -FZ of 24 December 2002 "On th e Federal Budget for 2003") abrogated the excise and  
VAT exemptions for imports of excisable goods under free customs zo ne regime of the territory of the Kaliningrad SEZ in the yea r 2003.  
However, if such goods are later exported to other regions of the Russian Federation, customs import duties are payable in full , with the 
exception of goods processed or deemed to ha ve been processed in the Kaliningrad Region .  Under Federal Law No. 13-FZ of 22 Jan uary 1996 
"On the Special Economic Zone in the Kaliningrad Region", a produc t is deemed to be manufactured in the Special Economic Zone p rovided 
that the value added in the processing amou nted to no less than 30 per cent, or no less than 15 p er cent in electronics and sop histicated home 
appliances, and its processing resulted in a change of the HS code of such product according to the customs classification.  Th e procedure for 
determining a product as originat ing from the special economic zone is establishe d by a Joint Resolution of the Administration of 
Kaliningrad Region and the SCC of Russia No . 296-r/01-14/1365 of 31 D ecember 1998 "On Approval of the Procedure for Determinati on of 
Goods as Originating from the Sp ecial Economic Zone of Kaliningrad Region", regis tered by the Ministry of Justice in Regulation  No. 1892 of 
9 July 1999.   
 The main social - economic problems of the Kaliningrad Region  occur because of its specific geographical location. The region’ s 
economy is mainly oriented to import substitution indu stry and basically functions due to customs and tax pref erential regime o f the SEZ. 
107.  268-271 - Government Procurement 
108.  268-271 Russian Federation:  
 
Draft Federal Law “On Placement of Orders for Deliveries of Goods, Performance of Works and Provision of Services for Public Ne eds” is addressing 
the following key tasks: 
 
- to systematize the legislation of the Russi an Federation on state procurement; create a framework normative legal act to regula te civil law and  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 40 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
procedural aspects of such procurement; 
- to ensure transparency of the mechanism of procurement of products for public need s; to stimulate good competition and effectiv e use of 
budgetary funds; 
- to eliminate regulatory loopholes enco uraging malpractices by stricter regulation of procurement procedures; 
- to bring the Russian state procurement legislation into confor mity with international laws, to profit by positive regulatory ex perience of foreign 
states in state procurement and to  implement regulatory and legal acts of international organizations. 
 
The draft federal law:  
- lifts the existing forbidding limitations for engagement of fo reign suppliers for product deliveries for public needs, and syst ematizes the 
procedure for participation of such foreign suppliers in tenders; 
- allows qualifying mediation agencies to participate in  tenders and deliveries of products for public needs; 
- clearly distinguishes tender and non-tender procurement methods (buying from single source); 
- extends the powers of the relevant execu tive authority in respect of  control of  compliance with procurement procedure; 
- provides a mechanism of bid processing; 
- establishes generally recognized criteria of evaluation of bids and determination of the winning bidder; 
- provides for protection of rights and lawful interests of affected persons in respect of placement of orders for deliveries for  public needs; 
- the scope of the draft law includes all product procurements and deliveries on the territory of the Russian Federation financed  with the funds of 
the Federal Budget of the Russian Federation, regional budgets and non-budgetary funds of the Russian Federation and Russian Fe deration 
Regions.  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 41No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
109.  272-275 - Regulation of Trade in Transit 
110.  272-275 Our delegation would like to thank the secretariat for acc urate drafting of questions in th is section. We also appreci ate response provided by the 
Russian Federation, however it should be mentioned that the response is not sufficient one and needs to be further broadened in  order to address 
specific issues raised by members. 
 
Our delegation once again would like to ask the Russian Federation to provide detailed information on questions that are still outstanding in this 
section, including those on: transit of goods of dual usage, circumstances under which the Russian Federation may impede transi t of other countries’ 
exports through its territory, etc.  
 We would also welcome the clarif ications from the Russian Federation what is the rationale for making the distinction between t he humanitarian cargoes 
if they consist of the same goods but they have different reci pients - governmental or non-governmental institutions, as it is provided by the Decree of 
the State Customs Committee of the Russian Federation No 1055 dated 6 November 2001. For example, if clothes or other goods are  destined for 
institutions financed by state budget they are treated as humanita rian cargo but if the same category of goods is destined for non-budgetary organizations 
they are not considered as humanitarian car go. Do these provisions apply to humanitarian cargoes destined to other countries an d going in transit 
through the territory of the Russian Federation? 
111.  285-287 TRADE-RELATED INTEL LECTUAL PROPERTY REGIME (TRIPS) 
General 
112.  285-287 -  Regarding Article 44 of the TRIPS Agreement,  please explain the current legislative situ ation on establishment of the system fo r the injunction 
of imported goods including the infringement of Intellectual Property Rights.  
- At the experts meeting on TRIPS in September of 2002, we were informed by Russia that further expanding the power of custom aut horities is 
discussing in DUMA.  
- Please explain the updated situation on expanding the power of custom authorities. 
- We understand that Russia is to amend its law related to Intellectual Property Rights, including copyright law in order to full y meet the 
obligations of TRIPS Agreement  and Berne Convention.  Please clarify which points of current these laws have been or need to b e amended.  
Please provide the schedule of amen dments of these laws as well. 
- We recognize that counterfeited goods and pirated works of foreign countries are widely distributed in Russia. Please provide u s with detailed 
explanation as to what kind of measures the Russian Government will take in order to combat infringement.  In addition, please explain the 
articles which ensure effective remedies a nd enforcement system stipulated in TRIPS Agreement.  Moreover , please provide the de tailed data 
concerning the market scale of counterfeited goods and pirated works and the number of cases that criminal penalties have been applied. 
113.  285-287  We would like to underline the importance of adapting the Russian legislation, especially the legislation being revis ed at the moment, to the 
TRIPS requirements, for the accession of the Ru ssian Federation to the WTO. We would al so like to mention our concern regarding  the distribution of 
counterfeited and pirated goods in Russia, particularly in the health-care domain and the optical  media industry, and the need to find a solution to this 
growing problem.   Furthermore, we would like to stress the fact that in order to assess the legislative situation in the field of intellectual p roperty, it is necessary to 
be in possession of English translations of the pending draft laws and to be updated regularly on the progress of the enactment  procedure of those laws. 
Furthermore, information regarding the manner in which those laws are going to be implemented in practice in order to fulfil th e TRIPS requirements 
would be very welcome. 
114.  285-304 In general, this entire section w ill need updating based on the new legislation.   It should also be amended to record members’ concerns as expressed in 
WP deliberations and recorded in WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/31 (at page 35), and WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 (pages 18-26), particularly with regar d to 
overarching concerns with enforcement.  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 42 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
115.  285-287 These paragraphs do not record sufficient general information on Russia’s intellectual property (IP) regime, e.g., a c lear listing of the key legislation in 
force or pending, on the responsible agencies for intellectual property protection in Russia, on Russia’s membership in IP Conv entions, on where the 
application of National and MFN treatment can be found in Russian law, or on the fees and taxes charges.  This information was first provided in 
WT/ACC/RUS/7 and Add.1, and should be updated, as necessary, and included in the WP report. 
116.  285 the last sentence should be deleted,  as it is redundant with paragraph 292. 
117.  285-304 The TRIPS Agreement allows Members some discretion in the measures that are implemented.  For example, Article 27(3) pr ovides exclusions from 
patentability. - What exclusions from patentability will Russia be applying? 
Russia has commented on the legal provisions that will be in place to combat infringements of intellectual property rights.  Ho wever, these provisions 
will only be effective if the owners of intellectual property rights and the public are aware of the intellectual property syst em and those rights. 
- We ask Russia to provide information on what action the Russian authorities are taking to increase awareness of intellectual pr operty rights 
among the public, the judiciary, education and research institutions, industry and businesses. 
WTO Members are bound by the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement which subject their pharmaceutical industries to 20 years of pat ent protection.  We 
would expect this minimum patent protection to be implemented by Russia. 
- Will Russia subject its pharmaceutical industry to a term of patent protection of not less than 20 years? 
118.  285 Russian Federation:   
 
The representative of the Russian Federation said that the national system of protection of intellectual property rights compli ed with the basic 
international standards adopted in this field, including  the provisions of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS.   The framework of the Russian Federation's 
policy on intellectual property was determined by the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 44, item 1) which in part icular guaranteed freedom 
of literary, artistic, scientific, technical and other types of  creative activity, and provided protection for such activities.   The whole system of the Russian 
legislation in force supported the implementation of this constitutional right.  A  number of international agreements signed b y the Russian Federation 
constituted an integral part of this system.  He also informed that the new Arbitration Procedure Code (Federal Law No. 95-FZ o f 24 July 2002 on 
"Arbitration Procedure Code") would enter into force on 1 September 2002. The draft law on amendments to the Patent Law set for th that plants, 
animals, layout-designs of integrated circuits, decisions that we re contradictory to public interests, principles of humanity a nd moral were excluded from 
patentability.  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 43No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
119.  285-287 Russian Federation:  
 
Pursuant to the amendments made by Federal Law 22-FZ of February  7, 2003 “On Making Amendments and Supplements to the Patent La w of the 
Russian Federation” the following are now considered to not be patentable: types of plants, species of animals; layout designs of integrated circuits; 
solutions incompatible with public interests, principles of hum anity and morals. This amendment is entirely consistent with the  requirements of para. 2 
and 3 of Article 27 of  the TRIPS Agreement. 
 
Russia currently strongly emphasizes media coverage of issues related to intellectual property rights, and keeping citizens, ju diciary and business 
informed of the IP rights. Training programs are run regularly un der the auspices (or with participation) of Rospatent to provi de training and skills 
upgrade to experts in intellectual property protection, and other events to encourage invention process (conferences, seminars)  are held. The underlying 
legal acts, information on the activity of Rospatent and other information are published on th e official Rospatent website. 
 
Evidencing the attention given by the regulators to public awar eness of intellectual property ri ghts, a special meeting of the Russian Federation 
Government was convened on 3 October 2002 devoted to means of supporting legal dealing in products containing intellectual prop erty objects and 
protection of the consumer market from the spread of counterfeit goods in Russia. The meeting took a number of important decisi ons concerning 
measures to enhance and coordinate the efforts of the competen t authorities in prevention and combat of IP rights infringements  and in increasing public 
awareness of the measures undertaken. E.g. the Ministry of Pres s, TV and Radio Broadcasts and Mass Media was instructed to prov ide mass media 
coverage of any actions taken against IP infringements. 
 
Under the Patent Law, including amendments made by Federal Law 22 -FZ of February 7, 2003 “On Making Amendments and Supplements to Patent 
Law of the Russian Federation”, the validity term of patents for a ll types of inventions without exception is 20 years from the  date of  application, which 
is consistent with Article 33 of the TRIPS Agreement. The new law provides for possible extension of this term. The validity te rm of the patent for an 
invention that is a medicine, a pesticide or an agrochemical the use of which requires statutory permission, may be renewed by the federal executive 
authority for intellectual property based on the patentholder’s application, for a term calculate d as the period between the da te of application for 
invention and the date of permission for use being first granted less five years. The term of such renewal cannot exceed five y ears. 
120.  286 the “World Convention on Copyright” should be changed to the “Universal Copyright Convention”. 
121.  286 Russian Federation:  
 
He noted that the Russian Federation applied national treatment to the legal entities and individuals of those countries which had signed the treaties 
providing for such treatment (in particular, the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the World Conventi on on Copyright, and the 
Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works) both directly pursuant to such covenants (Clause 4 of Articl e 15 of the Constitution 
of the Russian Federation provided for the direct application an d prevalence of international agreements) in accordance with th e obligations undertaken 
under these treaties and in accordance with applicable provisions  of legislative acts of the Russian Federation (in particular,  Articles 36 and 37 of the 
"Patent Law of the Russian Federation" No. 3517-1 FZ of 23 Sept ember 1992; Articles 47 and 48 of Federal Law No. 3520-FZ of 23 September 1992 
"On Trademarks, Service Marks, and Appellations of Origin";  Article 3, Article 5:1 and Article 35:4 of Federal Law No. 5351-1 FZ of 9 July 1993 "On 
Copyrights and Related Rights";  Article 7 of Federal Law No. 3523-1 FZ of 23 September 1992 "On the Legal Protection of Comput er Programs and 
Databases"; and Articles 13 and 14 of Federal Law No. 3526-1 FZ of 23 September 1992 "On the Legal Protection of Layout Designs  of Integrated 
Circuits").  The application of  most-favoured-nation treatment (subject to exceptions regarding certain preferences granted by the Russian Federation 
under certain treaties including those with CIS countries) as to intellectual property was additionally provided for under the treaties signed with the 
European Union and ourselves.  As a party to the Euroasian Patent Convention the Russian Federation granted no advantages and p rivileges to other 
parties under this Convention.  Any party to this Convention which used the procedure set out in the Convention could obtain th e benefits of being a  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 44 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
party to the Convention within the territory of any signatory. 
122.  287 Russian Federation:  
 
Commenting on specific aspects of ongoing legislative work in the area of TRIPS and in response to specific enquiries by member s, the representative 
of the Russian Federation provided the following information. 
123.  285-287 Russian Federation:  
 
The federal executive body, competent in th e field of customs legislation (the Stat e Customs Committee – SCC), keeps for purpos es of 
the customs supervision the state Register of the objects of intellectual property rights.  
Objects of the intellectual property shall be included in the Register upon the applic ation of the right holder (or his trustee ) when the 
right holder believes that his rights for the object of the inte llectual property are infringed or  may be infringed. The time p eriod of the 
protection of the right holder’s rights  by  the customs authorities shall not exceed 2 years (it may be prolonged by the SCC); the general time 
period of protection of intell ectual property shall not exceed the time period of the validit y of the ownership right.  
If upon the customs registration or the customs control of goods which contain the objects of intellectual property and are inc luded in 
the Register, the customs authority detects that the goods are counterfei ted, the goods are put to the customs warehouse and th eir release is 
suspended (to up to 10 days with the possibility of prolonging the suspension for 20 days). This complies with the WTO Agreemen t on TRIPS.  
The Draft provides the legal grounds for the revoking of the decision to suspend the rel ease of the goods with their subsequent  
registration and release.  
The customs authorities shall have the right to suspend the relea se of goods which contain object s of intellectual property not  included 
in the Register when the goods are identified as counterfeited  without the application of the right holder made under the estab lished procedure. 
In this case the customs authorities shall have the right to req uest the right holder any informati on which may be useful to co nfirm the 
counterfeited nature of the goods. If in th is case the release of the goods is suspen ded (for not more than 10 working days wit h prolonging to 
another 10 days upon the right holder’s application) the customs authorities shall immediately inform the right holder or the d eclarer 
thereupon.  
No remedies related to the protection of intellectual property rights shall be impl emented by the customs authorities in relati on to 
goods which contain objects of intellectual property and are transp orted across the border by natu ral persons or are sent by in ternational mail 
service, provided that such goods shall not be used for making profit and are imported/exported from the territory of the Russi an Federation 
with avoidance of all duties and taxes.  
 Damages inflicted by the customs authorities to any person as a result of the suspension of the release of the goods not inclu ded in the 
Register shall be reimbursed only if the related actions of the customs authority or its officials are recognized as intended t o the illegal infliction 
of damage or are the result of negligence.  Other cases shall not entail reimbursement for damage by the customs authorities. 
124.  285-287 Russian Federation:  
 
In order to bring the Russian legislation on  copyright and related rights in conformi ty with the WTO Agreement on TRIPS the dra ft 
federal law “On Amending the Law of the Russian Federation “On Copyright and Related Rights” submitted to the State Duma envisa ged:  
• introduction of retroactive protection of copyright in order to  comply with paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the WTO Agreement on 
TRIPS and paragraph 1 of Article 18 of the Bern Conventi on for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works; 
• granting of the exclusive rental  right in regard to the originals in order to comply with Article 11 of the WTO Agreement on 
TRIPS;  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 45No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
• introduction of retroactive protection of related rights in order to comply with paragraph 6 of Article 14 of the WTO 
Agreement on TRIPS. 
 
Refer to WT/ACC/RUS/29 – paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (d), (e). 
Remedies against infringement of intellectua l property rights were introduced by Fed eral law No.166-FZ of 11 December 2002 "On 
Amending the Law "On Trademarks, Service Marks and Appellations of Origin", namel y, the possibility of de struction of counterfe ited 
products, their transfer to the State or to  the right holder (as a means of reimburs ement), the possibility co mpensation of los ses instead of 
reimbursement for inflicted damages.  
The representative of the Russian Federation said, that the national system of protection of intellectual property rights compl ied with 
the basic international standards adopted in this field, including  the provisions of the WTO Agreement on  TRIPS. The Constitution of the 
Russian Federation determined the basic political trends in the field of intellectual property in  Russia. Article 44, paragraph  1 of the 
Constitution of the Russian Federation gu aranteed freedom of literary, artistic, sc ientific, technical and other types of creat ive and educational 
activity and provided their legal protecti on. The whole system of the Russian legisl ation in force supported the implementation  of that 
constitutional righ t. A number of international agreements signed by the Ru ssian Federation constituted an integral part of thi s system. 
Pursuant to Article 1 of the Federal law No.96-FZ of 24 July 2002 “On Enforcement of th e Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russ ian 
Federation” the new Arbitration Procedure Code No. 95-FZ of 24 July  2002 on "Arbitration Procedur e Code" entered into force on 
1 September 2002.  
 
The provisions of the Russian legislation relating to the protect ion of trademarks and service marks conformed to the provision s of the 
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and th e relevant provisions of the WT O Agreement on TRIPS, including  those 
which governed protection of well-known ma rks with respect to non-homogeneous goods.  Those provisions were included in the Fede ral law 
No. 166-FZ of 11 December 2002 "On Amending the Law "On Trademarks, Service Marks and A ppellations of Origin". The updated Russ ian 
legislation in force allowed for pr otection of well-known trademarks.  The legal basis was Articles 2, 7, 19.1, 19.2 of the Law No. 3520-1 of 
23 September 1992 "On Trademarks, Service Marks and Appellations of Origin" as well as the Regulation No.38 of 17 March 2000 “O n 
Establishing the Rules of Recognizing a Well-Known Trademark in the Russian Federation”. The Law included the definition of a w ell-known 
trade-mark which was based on the provision s of the updated law and tota lly conformed to the Joint Re commendation on the Provis ions of the 
Protection for Well-Known Trade Marks of th e Paris Union Assembly and General Assembly  of WIPO: “a well-known trade mark and se rvice 
mark (further referred to as “trademark”) in  the Russian Federation could be recognized  as the trade mark which was protected o n the 
territory of the Russian Federation under st ate registration, the trade mark which was protected on the territory of the Russia n Federation 
without registration in accordance with the international treaty to which the Russian Federation was a party, and an indication  which was used 
as a trade mark but had no legal protection on the territory of the Russian Federation, if such trade marks or indications had become well-
known among respective consumers in relation to products by a certain manufacturer as a result of their frequent use in the Rus
sian 
Federation”.  The legislation did not require the registration of well-known trademarks.  Nevertheless, any trademark claiming to be well-kn own should be 
recognized as such by a competent authority,  i.e. the Higher Patent Chamber of Rospaten t. This procedure for granting protectio n was fully 
consistent with the Paris Convention.  The provisions of criminal and civil legislatio n applicable to "ordinary" trademarks wer e also applicable 
to well-known trademarks. Among the remedies ta ken were recognition of the right, preventi on of infringement, compensation of l osses, 
criminal and administrative liability.  
Prior to 1992, geographi cal indications in the Russian Fede ration were protected mostly as a result of considering any false  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 46 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
geographical indications a form of unfair competition or a violation of consumer rights (this was done by antimonopoly agencies  or courts, 
respectively). In addition to this, since 1992 one important category of geographical indications - appellations of origin - wa s accorded special 
protection through their state reg istration under the procedure set forth in the Law No. 3520-1 of 23 September 1992 "On Tradem arks, Service 
Marks and Appellations of Origin". Protection of such types of geographical indications was envi saged by Article 6 of the foreg oing law which 
prohibited the registration of trademarks containing indications of appellations of origin of goods as well as trademarks conta ining false 
indications or indications which might mislead the customer as to the manufacturer of goods. Protec tion of appellation of origi n was valid for 
both food and manufactured goods.  Pursuant to Article 47 of the same law, the righ t to register an appellation of origin in the  Russian 
Federation was granted to indivi duals and legal entities from those states whic h provided similar rights to Russian individuals  and legal 
entities. 
 
Overall, the provisions ensuring the prot ection of geographical indications in the Russian Federation complied with the Paris 
Convention for the Protection of Industria l Property and the relevant provisions of th e WTO Agreement on TRIPS. The amendments made to 
the Law of the Russian Federation  No.3520-1 of 23 September 1992  "On Trademarks, Service Marks and Appellations of Origin" were  
consistent with those provisions of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS wh ich related to additional prot ection of geographical indicatio ns of wines 
and spirits and spread on the geogr aphical indications protected by the WTO members. Pursuant to an intern ational trea ty to whi ch the 
Russian Federation was a party, it was prohibited in the Russian  Federation to register as trad e marks those indications which were protected 
in one of the member-states of the internatio nal treaty as indications which indicated wines and spirits as coming from its ter ritory (produced 
within the boundaries of a region or locality of this state) and possessing special quality, reputation and other characteristi cs which were mainly 
determined by their origin, in case the tr ade mark was applied for the indication of  wines and spirits which did not come from the territory of 
that region or locality. 
 
Considering the specific character of appellations of origin of goods the national treatment envisaged by the Law of the Russia n 
Federation  No.3520-1 of 23 Septem ber 1992 "On Trademarks, Service Marks and Appellations of Origin" was restricted by the reciprocity 
principle. According to that pr inciple, the right for the registration in the Russi an Federation of the appellation of origin o f goods was granted 
to legal entities and individuals from those states which provided similar rights to Russian individuals and legal entities. Th e procedure for the 
application for registration of appellation s of origin by foreigners was similar to  a number of other countries where registrat ion systems were 
implemented. 
 
Pursuant to the provisions of the laws mentioned above (the Civil Code of th e Russian Federation and the Law of the Russian 
Federation No.948-1 of 22 March 1991 “On Competition and on Restriction of the Monopoly Activity on the Commodity Markets”) the  
information related to the production that had yet to be  patented could be prevented from being disclosed.  
To prevent unfair competition th e laws mentioned above determined the terms of pr otection of confidential  information, establis hed liability 
for acts of unfair competition, terms  and procedure for its application. 
 
The updated Russian legislation established civil, administrative and criminal liabilit y for unauthorized use of those appellat ions of 
origin of goods which were protected in th e Russian Federation. Among the remedies im plemented against unauthorized use of appe llations of 
origin were: prevention of unau thorized use, reimbursement, publication of the verdict in order to res tore the defendant’s repu tation, removal 
of labels, packages with the appellations of origin which were unl awfully affixed to counterfeite d goods or indications which w ere similar to the 
original ones to the extent of their conf usion with the original ones, destruction of counterfeited goods, labels, packages, po ssibility of 
compensation instead of reimbur sement for inflicted damages. 
The Code of the Russian Federation on Ad ministrative Offences (Articles 7.12, 7. 28) determined administrative liability for  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 47No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
infringement of copyright and related righ ts, invention and patent rights, violation of the established procedure for patenting  of objects of 
industrial property in foreign states.  
This legislation came into force just several months ago and therefore had not yet been fully implemented. 
Discussion of the issues on legislative settlement of relations in media optical disc  industry was being done by the Government  
Committee on Combating Infringements in the Sphere of Intellectual Property.   The new Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federati on which came into force on 1 September 2002 introduced new 
preliminary safeguard measures applied prior to  submitting a statement of claim (Article 99). The safeguards comply with the pr ovisions of 
Article 44 “Injunctions” of the WTO Agreemen t on TRIPS. Pursuant to Article 99 of th e Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian  
Federation, the arbitration court, upon a statement of claim submitted by an organization or an individual, has the right to ta ke preliminary 
safeguard measures aimed at s ecuring the claimant’s property  interests prior to suing. 
- Envisaged by the draft Customs Code expansion of the scope of competence of customs authoritie s in relation to the protection  of intellectual 
property upon customs registration and cust oms control is not to be discussed in the Committee of State Duma on Budget and Taxe s.  
The draft Customs Code includes a new section which is related to protection of intellectual rights  and contains an effective r egulation of the 
relevant issues. After the goods have been detained the customs authorities have 10 working days for the inspection of all the goods detained. 
Special attention is granted to the goods which have been indi cated by the right holder. The draft code envisages the possibili ty of selecting 
samples and models of goods for subsequent testing. This provision relates to those goods whose release has been suspended upon  demand of 
the owner of the intellectual property rights  for their testing. This period may be prolonged to up to 20 working days or 31 ca lendar days. In 
case of detection of infringement of intell ectual property rights within this period  the customs authority makes a record of th e administrative 
offence. If a crime is detected the customs authority hands ov er the relevant documents to the em powered authority of the Minis try of Internal 
Affairs and the procurator’s office. For the past two years the customs authorities have already detected 700 cases when the go ods which 
contained objects of intellectual property and were submitted for customs registration  infringed the owners’ intellectual prope rty rights. There 
were instituted about 100 cases rel ated to violation of customs rules. The info rmation concerning the cri mes envisaged by Artic les 146, 180 of 
the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, there were instituted  15 criminal and 20 administrative proceedings as a result. I n 2002 the 
activity of the customs authorities on protection of intellectua l property was taken under control. As a result, the customs au thorities detected 
over 200 incidents of transportation of counterfeited goods which were subject to certain measures under the current legislatio n. 
 The draft law on amending Arti cle 146 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Fede ration was passed in the third reading by the St ate 
Duma on March 7, 2003. The draft law en visages strengthening criminal liability for illegal use of objects of copyright and rel ated rights as well 
for purchase, storage, transportation of co unterfeited works of art or phonograms for the purpose of their sale in large quanti ties. The draft 
law strengthens the penalty to up to 5 years of imprisonment with or without confiscation of property. No other and further ame ndments to the 
Criminal Code of the Russian Federation which strengthen criminal liability for crimes related to intellectual property have be en or are 
expected to be introduced.  The main objectives of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia are toughening the combat against infringements and improvem ent of 
the legislation in the sphere of protectio n of intellectual property. The criminal st atistics, which indicates steady increase 
in the number of 
disclosed crimes, shows th e Ministry’s concern.  
 Over 2000 crimes were disclosed in 2000, over 2500 crimes  in 2001, 1500 crimes were disclose d for the first six months of 2002 . The 
disclosed crimes included swindling, smuggling, legalizing of money means. As a result of the combating activities against dist ribution of 
counterfeited and fake production initiated by the Ministry of Internal  Affairs in 2002 over 30 000  enterprises were inspected,  the illegal 
activity of 350 enterprises was suspended.  2800 criminal cases were inst ituted against the organizers of the crimes, 7234 peopl e were brought to 
liability under the Code of the Russian Fed eration of Administrative Offences. The num ber of counterfeited goods confiscated fo r the past year 
amounted to about 276, 7 million roubles, the number of confiscate d equipment and articles of mat erial value amounted to 50, 6 million 
roubles.  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 48 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
 
 The Patent law of the Russian Federation No.3517-1 of 23 September 1992 (edited 07 February 2003) establishes civil and legal liability 
for illegal use of patents, useful models and inventions. 
Administrative Liability  
Pursuant to the provisions of the Code of the Russian Federati ons on Administrative Offences illegal use of the invention, usef ul model or 
industrial design, disclosure of the essentials of the invention, useful model or industrial design without the inventor’s or t he claimant’s consent 
prior to the official publication of this information sh all be penalized by exacting an administrative fine. 
Criminal Liability  
Pursuant to Article 147 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Infri ngement of the Invention and Patent Rights” illega l use of an 
invention, useful model or industrial design, disclosure of the es sentials of the invention, useful model or industrial design without the 
inventor’s or the claimant’s consent prior to the official publication of this information, misappropriation of authorship or c oercion to co-
authorship are regarded as a criminal offence and are punished by fine or up to 5 years of imprisonment, provided that these ac tions have 
inflicted serious damage.   
The Law of the Russian Federation  No.3520-1 (edited on 11 Decem ber 2002) “On Trademarks, Servi ce Marks and Appellations of Orig in of 
Goods” establishes civil, administrative and criminal liability for illegal use of a trademark and appellations of origin of go ods. 
 
Civil Liability  
In addition to discontinuance of infring ement or reimbursement for the inflicted dama ge, protection of ci vil rights against ill egal use of a 
trademark is carried out by means of: 
- publication of the judicial decision in ord er to restore reputation of the aggrieved party; 
- removal at the offender’s expens e of labels, packages with th e appellations of origin which were unlawfully a ffixed to counte rfeited goods or 
indications which were similar to the original ones to the extent  of their confusion with the or iginal ones, destruction at the  offender’s expense 
of counterfeited goods, labels, packages, when it is impossible to remove the unlawfully affixed trademark or the indication si milar to it to the 
extent of their confusion, except cases wh en it is impossible to remove the unlawfully  affixed trademark or the indication simi lar to it to the 
extent of their confusion, except cases wh en the counterfeited goods, labels, package s are added to the revenue of the state or  when they are 
handed over in possession of the right ho lder upon his application as a means of re imbursement for the inflicted damage or for their further 
destruction (No.166-FZ of 11 December 2002). 
The person who illegally uses a re gistered appellation of origin of goods or an indication which is similar to this appellation  of origin is bound 
upon demand of the owner of the certificate for the use of the appellation of or igin, the government authority, a procurator, o r a non-
government organization to:  
- cease to use this appellation of origin or the indication sim ilar to it and also to reimburse  for the inflicted damage under the civil legislation; 
 - publish the judicial decision  in order to restore the reput ation of the aggrieved party; 
- remove the labels, packages with the appella tions of origin which were unlawfully affi xed to counterfeited goods or indicatio ns which were 
similar to the original ones to the extent of their confusion with the original ones, or dest roy counterfeited goods, labels, p ackages, when it is 
impossible to remove the unlawfully affixed appellation of origin or the indicati on similar to it to th e extent of their confus ion.  
Administrative Liability  
Pursuant to the provisions of the Code of the Russian Federati ons on Administrative Offences illegal use of another person’s tr ademark, service 
mark, appellation of origin or similar indications for homogeneou s goods is punished by exacting an administrative fine with co nfiscation of 
objects containing illegal reproduction of the trademark,  service mark or appellation of origin of goods;  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 49No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
  
Criminal Liability  
Illegal use of another person’s trademark, service mark, appellation of origin or similar indications for homogeneous goods whe n committed 
repeatedly and having inflicted serious damage is regarded as a criminal offence which is punished by exacting a fine or up to 5 years of 
imprisonment (Article 180 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). - Refer to the relevant section of the repo rt to find the requested information.  
- The federal executive authorities whose co mpetence spreads on protection of intell ectual property rights are Ministry of 
Antimonopoly Policy of the Russian Federation, State Customs Committee of the Russian Federation, and Ministry of Internal Affa irs of the 
Russian Federation. The provisions of the Law of the RSFSR “On Competition and Restrictions on Monopoly Activity on Commodity 
Markets” Ministry of Antimonopo ly Policy of the Russian Federation and its terri torial divisions consider cases of violation of  the 
antimonopoly legislation related to illegal use of results of in tellectual activity and the equated to them means of individual ization of a juridical 
person, production, works, services since th ey are regarded as unfair competition. Th e antimonopoly authority has the right to order the 
managing subjects to stop the violation of the antimonopoly legi slation and eliminate the conseque nces of such violation.    
Pursuant to Article 19.5 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences, failu re by the managing subject to c arry 
out such order within the stated period leads to exacting an administrative fine. 
The key objectives of the Ministry of Intern al Affairs of the Russian Federation in the field of the turnover of object of inte llectual 
property rights are combating the related offences and crimes and improving the legisl ation related to protection of the owners  of intellectual 
property. For this purpose the Headquarters on Combating Economic Crimes of the Ministry of Int ernal Affairs of the Russian Fed eration and 
the regional branches established special di visions whose function is to combat crimes  related to intellectual property. If as a result of the 
investigation the crime is detected and a criminal record is star ted, the related information is passed to the procurator’s off ice or the internal 
affairs authorities. 
One of the main functions of the customs authorities is cutting  off the illegal turnover of goods containing objects of intelle ctual 
property across the border of the Russian Federation. In case of detection of the offence by the customs authorities, a record illustrating the 
administrative offence shall be started. In  case of the detection of a crime the inform ation related to it shall be passed to t he procurator’s office 
or the internal affairs authorities. 
 
The draft Customs Code includes a special s ection which is related to protection of in tellectual rights by the customs authorit ies and concerns 
regulation the relations in the field of pr otection of intellectual property by the cu stoms authorities when  executing export-i mport related 
operations of the relevant issues (border measures). In accordance with the stated provisions the customs authorities are empow ered with 
additional rights related to protection of intellectual property rights, for example, the right to suspend the release of goods  which possess the 
characteristics of counterfeited ones.  
The draft Customs Code includes a new section which is related to  protection of intellectual rights and contains an effective r egulation 
of the relevant issues. After the goods have been detained the customs author ities have 10 working days  for the inspection of a ll the goods 
detained. Special attention is granted to the goods which have b een indicated by the right holder.  The draft code envisages the  possibility of 
selecting samples and models of goods for subsequent testing. Th is provision relates to those goods whose release has been susp ended upon 
demand of the owner of the intellectual proper ty rights for their testing. This period may be prolonged to up to 20 working day
s or 31 calendar 
days.  
In case of detection of infringement of in tellectual property rights within this peri od the customs authority institutes a case  of the 
administrative offence and makes a record of the administrative offence. The record id then passed to the court.  
 If a crime is detected the customs author ity pass the relevant information to the empow ered authority of the Ministry of Inter nal Affairs and  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 50 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
the procurator’s office. 
 
The civil and legal means of protection of right holders of the intellectual property are stipulated by the following laws: the  Patent Law, 
the Law of the Russian Federation “On Trademarks, Service Marks and Appellations of Origin of Goods”, the Law of the Russian Fe deration 
“On Copyright and Related Rights”, the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Legal Protection of Topologies and Integrated Micr ocircuits”, 
the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Legal Pr otection of Computer Prog rammes and Databases”. 
The Patent law envisages certain civil and le gal remedies for the protection of invention,  useful model or i ndustrial designs r ights. Thus, 
the right holder has the right to require di scontinuance of the patent infringement,  reimbursement for the inflicted damage by a person guilty 
of violation of rights in accordance with the civil legislation;  publication of the judicial decision  to restore his  business reputation;  take other 
statutory measures envisaged by the legislation of the Russian Federation . 
  
As to their competence the courts shall cons ider disputes related to the invention, usef ul model or industrial design authorshi p; 
identification of the patent holder; infr ingement of the exclusive righ t for the invention, useful model, industrial design; si gning and executing 
the treaties on passing the excl usive right (patent concession) a nd licensing treaties on the use of the invention, useful mode l, industrial design; 
the right of early use; the righ t of after use; the amount, term and procedure fo r paying reward to the au thor of the invention , useful model or 
industrial design in accordance with the Law’ the amount, term and procedure for paying the compensations envisaged by the curr ent Law; 
other disputes related to pr otection of patent rights. 
Disputes arising as a result of the use of objects protected by the Patent Law as well as of th e refusal in the issuance of the  patent may be 
considered by appealing to the Chamber on Patent Di sputes of the federal exec utive body (Rospatent). 
The Law “On Trademarks, Service Marks and Appellations of Origin of Goods  envisages legal and administrative ways of protection of rights. 
Disputes concerning the implementation oh the Law are considered in  competent courts following th e procedure established by the  legislation 
of the Russian Federation. The disputes concern:  
- violation of the exclus ive right for a trademark; 
- discontinuance of legal protection of a co llective mark  ahead of schedule as a resu lt of its use in relation to goods which do not possess like 
qualitative or other like characteristics; 
- signing and execution  of a licensing treaty and a treaty on making over the exclusive rights for a trademark (treaty on conc ession of a 
trademark) - illegal use of an appellation of origin of goods. 
In addition to requirements for discontinuance of the infring ement or reimbursement of inflicte d damage, protection of civil ri ghts against 
illegal use of a trademark shall be  also effected  by means of: 
-  publication of a judicial d ecision to restore the business rep utation of the aggrieved party; 
- removal at the offender’s expens e of labels, packages with th e appellations of origin which were unlawfully a ffixed to counte rfeited goods or 
indications which were similar to the original ones to the extent  of their confusion with the or iginal ones, destruction at the  offender’s expense 
of counterfeited goods, labels, packages, when it is impossible to remove the unlawfully affixed trademark or the indication si milar to it to the 
extent of their confusion, except cases wh en the counterfeited goods, labels, package s are added to the revenue of the state or  when they are 
handed over in possession of the right hold er upon his application as a means of reimbur sement of the inflicted damage or for t heir further 
destruction. 
The person who illegally uses the registered appellation of origin  of goods or the indication similar to it, shall, upon demand  of the owner of the  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 51No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
certificate for the right to use the appellati on of origin of goods, a government auth ority, or a non-governmental organization , or a procurator: 
- cease to use it and reimburse the inflicted damage under the Civil Code of the Russian Federation ; 
- publish the judicial decision to restore the business reputat ion of the aggrieved party; 
- remove the labels, packages with the appellati ons of origin which were unlawfully affixe d to counterfeited goods or indications  which 
were similar to the original ones to the extent of their confus ion with the original ones, or destroy counterfeited goods, labe ls, packages, 
when it is impossible to remove the unlawfully  affixed appellation of origin or the indi cation similar to it to the extent of t heir 
confusion.  
The right holder or the owner of the right to use the appellation of origin of goods shall have the right to demand the person illegally using the 
trademark or the appellation of origin of goods a compensation established by the court and amounted to between 1000 and 50 000  of the 
minimal wages set by the relevant federal law. The demand shall be  claimed as substitution for the reimbursement of the inflict ed damage. 
If the claimant does not agree to the decisi on taken as a result of the formal expertis e of the statement of  claim; refusal to consider the 
statement of claim; or as a result of the expertise of the i ndication claimed; or the recognition of the claim as recalled the claimant may also 
appeal to the Chamber on Pate nt Disputes in the course of 3 months si nce the receipt of the respective decision.   
The Law “On Copyright and related rights”  establishes the following civil, legal and other measures of protection of copyrights and related 
rights”: 
The holders of exclusive copyrights and related rights may demand that the violator thereof: 
- recognize such rights; - restore such situation as existed before the violation and discontinue actions violating their rights or posing a threat of s uch violation; 
- reimburse the losses, including lost profit; 
- recover the profits received by the violator as a result of the violation of copyrigh ts and related rights  instead of reimbur sement of 
losses; 
- pay compensation amounting to between 10 and 50,000 minimum mo nthly wages established by Russian legislation, the amount of 
which shall be determined by a court of law or a court of arbi tration, instead of reimbursement of losses or recovering profit;  and 
- take other statutory measures so that rights will be upheld. 
Holders of the exclusive copyrights and relat ed rights may, under the established proce dure, seek protection in the competent c ourt of 
law, the arbitration court, the inquiry author ity, preliminary investigation authorities. 
 
Pursuant to the Law “On the Le gal Protection of Topologies and Integrated Microcircuits
” the rights may be protected by means of: 
- the recognition of his rights; 
- the restoration of the situation existing before the infringement of his rights and the discontinuance  of the actions infringi ng his right 
or which create a threat of their infringement; 
- the reimbursement of the inflicted damage by a person guilty of violation of rights in accordance with the civil legislation; 
- other measures stipulated for by the legislatio n and related to the protection of their rights. 
 The author or other right hold er may, under the established procedure, seek the protection of their rights in a court of law o r an 
arbitration court. 
In accordance with the Law “On the Legal Pr otection of Computer Pr ogrammes and Databases ” in order to protect their intellectual 
rights the author of the computer programme or the database  and other right holders sha ll have the right to demand:  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 52 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
- the recognition of his rights; 
- the restoration of the situation existing before the infringement of his rights and the discontinuance  of the actions infringi ng his right 
or which create a threat of their infringement; 
- the reimbursement of the inflicted damage by a person guilty of violation of rights in accordance with the civil legislation; 
- other measures stipulated for by the legislatio n and related to the protection of their rights. 
 The author or other right holder may, und er the established procedure, seek the protect ion of their rights in a court of law o r an arbitration 
court. 
 
Law Enforcement  
 
 The information on enforcement of legislat ion in force on intellectual property is ba sed on statistical data summarizing the r esults of 
the activity of the relevant state exec utive and judicial authorities in 2000 and during the first half of 2002. 
 
Patents on inventions  
 
        2000 2001 2002 2002 to 2001 (%)  
Applications for patents filed with Rospatent directl y  28688 29989 29225 97,45 
includin g those filed b y national applicants    23377 24777 23712 95,7 
including those filed by foreign applicants    5311 5212 5513 105,77 
Granted patents on inventions, total    17592 16292 18114 111,18 
to national patent holders      14444 13779 15140 109,87 
to forei gn patent holders      3148 2513 2974 118,34 
Valid patents on inventions by the end of the year   144325 149684 102568 68,5 
 
Industrial designs  
 
         2000 2001 2002 2002 TO 2001 
(%) Applications for industrial designs filed     2290 2544 2344 92,13 
By national applicants       1918 2106 1799 85,42 
By foreign applicants       372 438 545 124,42 Number of patents granted for industr ial designs    1 626 1507 1920 126,42 
Number of valid patents for industrial designs by the end of the year  8573 9007 1 0686 118,64 
 
Trademarks and service marks
 
 
         2000 2001 2002 2001 to 2000 (%) 
Filed applications for TMs and service marks, total   42809 53124 43258 81,4 
By national applicants       30338 39801 29279 73,6 
By foreign applicants       12471 13323 13979 1,06  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 53No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
international registration      8043 8815 8088 0,92 
Trademarks and service marks registered , total    21725 16920 34818 205,7 
national applicants       11421 7657 21776 284,4 
foreign applicants       10304 9263 13042 140,8 
 registrations valid by the end of the year      130674 119283 145470 121,9  
*taking no account of international applications  
 
669 appeals concerning the objects of industrial property were file d to the Chamber of Appeal of Rospatent in 2000, there were filed 867 
appeals in 2001 and 1579 appeals in 2002. As  a result 117 appeals were satisfied in 20 00, 221 appeals in 2001 and 357 appeals i n 2002.  
  
The Higher Patent Chamber of Rosp atent received 554 claims in 2000, 693 claims in 2001 and 599 clai ms in 2002 (429 of which con cerned non-
use of trademarks for 5 years (292 claims of which were fully or  partly satisfied); 7 claims re quested the recognition of trade marks well-known 
in the Russian Federation (3 of them were satisfied)).  
 
Civil proceedings  
  In 1997 courts of general jurisdiction determined 565 civil proceedings on protection of intellectual property, including: 
- resolutions made in 347 cases (273 cases sustained exacting the amount of 4,580,535,000 Rubl es (hereinafter – non-denominated  
Rubles) including moral damage awards). 
- revoked - 93 cases; 
- dismissed -109 cases; 
- filed with other courts - 16 cases.  
 During the first half of  1998 courts determined 205 proceedings, including: 
 - resolutions made in 148 cases (104 cases sustained exacting th e amount of 2,262,487,000 Rubles including moral damage awards) ; 
- revoked - 31 cases; 
- dismissed - 20 cases; - filed with other courts - 6 cases. 
 
Arbitration proceedings
 
 
 The application of legislation on intellect ual property by arbitration courts in th e Russian Federations is illustrated by the  following: 
 Disputes on protection of intellectual property   1997  6 months of 1998 
Considered       121  91 
Total amount of claims, (Rubles)     42,534,000 15,552,000 
Number of claims sustained     69  46 
to the amount (Rubles)      7,512,000 525,000 Appealed in court      21  20 
including overruled      8  2  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 54 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
 
Note: The disputes are related to  protection of trademarks, registration of trademarks, application of the law on copyright and  related rights, 
patent law and other laws on prot ection of intellectual property. 
 
Administrative proceedings  
 
 In 1997 courts have considered under Articl e 150-4 of the RSFSR Administ rative Offence Code (illegal use of copies of works or  
phonograms) administrative laws uits against 883 individuals, ad ministrative penalties were incu rred on 743 individuals, includi ng 742 fined 
and 1 warned. 329 decisi ons on seizure of infringing goods were made. 
 
 In 1997 the Russian State An ti-Monopoly Committee brought 65 ac tions on unfair competition wi th respect to infringement of 
exclusive rights. On results of in vestigation 43 orders on terminati on of illegal actions were issued. 
 
 During the first half of 1998 the State Anti-Monopoly Committee brought 35 actions and 23 orders were issued. 
 
Criminal proceedings  
  The Ministry of Internal Affairs mostly concentrated on revealing and suppressing crime, for which the liability is stipulated  in 
Articles 146, 147 and 180 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.  Special attention was paid to revealing organized cr iminal groups, 
engaged in production and dist ribution of infringing goods. 
 
 Thus, in 1997 the militia revealed 293 infringements of copyri ght and related rights implying criminal liability, including: 9 1 completed 
with investigation, 30 filed wi th courts and 50 terminated. 
 
 During the first half of 1998 the militia revealed 425 crimes  under Article 146, 16 crimes under Article 147, and 267 crimes u nder 
Article 180 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.  
 
 Infringing goods valued at over 400 million Rubles were seized by the militia. Crimin al actions were brought against 80 indivi duals. 
 
 Statistical data on court proceed ings in 1997 show that no sent ences were imposed  under Article 146 of the Criminal Code of t he 
Russian Federation.  Five individuals were convicted for infringement of inventors’ and patent rights (Article 147 of the Crimi nal Code of the 
Russian Federation), 73 individuals were co nvicted for illegal use of trademarks under part 1 of Article 180 of the Criminal Co de of the Russian 
Federation and 3 individuals - under pa rt 2 of Article 180 of the Criminal  Code of the Russian Federation). 
125.  288 - Copyright and Related Rights 
126.  288 Russian Federation:  
 
Overall, the provisions of the Russian legislation on copyright (including those relating to protection of computer programmes and databases) were in 
conformity with the provisions of the Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (including Article 6 bi s) and the relevant 
provisions of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS.  In particular, the Russian legislation protected not only personal non-proprietary r ights of authors, such 
as authorship right, right to name, publication right, right to protect reputation of the author, but also property rights of a uthors which could be inherited.  
Thus copyrights were valid during the life of the author and during 50 years after his/her death.  In certain cases stipulated by the law, the term for  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 55No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
protection was calculated on the basis of other dates ( for instance from the date of latest death of a co-author where a work had been created in 
co-authorship).  The draft law under consideration by the Duma intended to extend the term for protection to 70 years after the  death of the author. At 
the same time, further to the declaration made by the Government of the Russian Federation when joining the Bern Convention, th e provisions of the 
latter did not applied to literary and artistic works which were of public property when the Convention came into force for the  Russian Federation.  In 
accordance with Article 28 of Federal Law No. 3531-1-FZ of 9 July 1993 "On Copyright and Related Ri ghts", works for which the t erm of copyright 
had elapsed as well as works which had never been protected in th e Russian Federation were considered to have become public pro perty.  The Russian 
authorities intended to further amend this law so as to bring it in full conformity with the respective requirements of the Ber n Convention and WTO 
Agreement on TRIPS.   
127.  288 please update the information on the status of the copyright law amendments pending before the Duma, with particular atten tion to the following issues: 
 
(1) protection for pre-existing works and sound recordings (minimum of 50 years) as required by TRIPS and the Berne Convention;  
(2) copyright term extension (life of  the author plus 70 years); and 
(3) implementation of the WIPO “Internet” treaties, including th e “making available” right, tec hnological protection measures a nd rights 
management information proscriptions. 
 Information should also be provided reflecting the statements of this delegation on the need for an optical media law to addres s piracy in this area, and 
include Russia’s substantive response on the ODM piracy problem and Russia’ s views on ODM licensing. 
 
We would also appreciate an indication that  Russia is prepared to implement the WIPO  “Internet” treaties and the “making availa ble” right. 
128.  289 - Trademarks 
129.  289 Russian Federation:  
 
Overall, the provisions of the Russian legislation relating to th e protection of trademarks and service marks were in conformit y with the provisions of the 
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS, except fo r those which 
governed well-known marks protection with respect to non-homogeneous goods.  Additions reflecting these provisions of the WTO A greement on 
TRIPS were contained in the draft federal law submitted to the Du ma "On amending the Federal Law "On Trademarks, Service Marks and Appellations 
of Origin".  The Russian legislation in force allowed for prot ection of well-known trademarks.  The legal basis was Articles 2 and 7 of the Federal law 
No. 3520-FZ of 23 September 1992 "On Trademarks, Service Marks and Appellations of Origin" as well as the Regulation on recogni tion trademark as 
well-known in the Russian Federation.  The legislation did not require the registration of well-known trademarks.  Nevertheless , any trademark 
pretending to be well-known should be recognized as such by a competent authority, i.e. the Highe r Patent Chamber of Rospatent.   Such a procedure of 
granting protection was fully consistent with Paris Convention.  The provisions of criminal and civil legislation applicable to  "ordinary" trademarks were 
also applicable to well-known trademarks.  Among the remedies there were the recognition of the right, prevention of the violat ion, compensation of 
losses, criminal and administrative liability.  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 56 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
130.  290-291 - Geographical Indications 
131.  290 Russian Federation:  
Prior to 1992 geographical indications in the Russian Federation were protected mostly by considering any false geographical in dications as a form of 
unfair competition or a violati on of consumer rights (this was done by antitrust -antimonopoly- agencies or courts respectively ).  Since 1992 one 
important category of geographical  indications - appellations of origin - was acco rded special protection through their State r egistration in line with the 
procedure set forth in the Federal Law No. 3520-FZ of 23 September 1992 "On Trademarks, Service Marks and Appellations of Origi n".  Protection for 
such types of geographical indications was provided for under Article 6 of the said law which prohibited to register trademarks  containing indications of 
the place of production of goods as well as trademarks containing false indications or  indications which might mislead the cust omer as to the identity of 
the producer of goods.  Protection of appellation of origin exis ted for all kind of goods – food and manufactured goods alike.  According to Article 47 of 
the same law, the right to register an appellation of origin in the Russian Federation was granted to persons and legal entitie s of those states that 
provided similar rights to Russian persons and legal entities. 
132.  291 Russian Federation:  
 
On the whole, the provisions in accordance to which geographical indica tions were protected in the Russian Federation were in c onformity with the 
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS.  The draf t law "On 
amendments to Federal Law No. 3520-FZ "On Trademarks, Service Marks and Appellations of Origin" would allow protection not only  for appellation 
of goods duly registered in the Russian Federation but for geog raphical indication of wines and spirits as well, in line with t he provisions of Article 23.3 
of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS.  Such additional protection was not maintained for any other goods.  
133.  290 The text reflects the continuing concern about the reciprocity requirement for the right to register an appellation of ori gin and need response based on the 
new legislation “On Trademarks, Service Marks and Appellations of Or igin.”   Has this requirement been removed?  If not, please  indicate what 
Russia’s plans are to do so. 
134.  292 - Inventions and Industrial Designs 
135.  292 Russian Federation:  
 
On the whole, the provisions of Federal Law No. 3517-FZ of 23 September 1992 "Patent Law of the Russian Federation on the prote ction of inventions 
and industrial designs" were in conformity with the Paris Conv ention and the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS.   The amendments 
to the Patent Law of the Russian Federation (Federal Law No. 22 dated February 2003) reflected the provisions of Article 31 of the WTO Agreement on 
TRIPS by extending the scope of currently existing provisions on "compulsory licensing".  Under this law, a patent might not be  obtained in relation to 
the following: plant varieties, animal breeds, solutions violating social interests or humanitarian and moral principles. This amendment corresponded to 
Article 27.3 of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS.  Under the amended Pa tent Law in force, the validity term of patents for all kind o f inventions was 20 
years, starting from the date when the application was submitted. This term corresponded to the relevant provisions of Article 33 of the WTO 
Agreement on TRIPS. Moreover, th e amended law provided for the possibility of exte nding such term for ph armaceutical products ( medicines), 
pesticides and agricultural chemicals, if their use had been ba sed on a consent of an authorized state body. In these cases, th e general 20 year term might 
be extended for up to 5 years.    
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 57No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
136.  293 - Plant Variety and Animal Breed Protection 
 
137.  293 Russian Federation:  
 
Plant varieties and animal breeds were protected in accordance with Federal Law No. 5605-1 FZ of 6 August 1993 "On Selection At tainments".  The 
provisions of this Law, in the Russian Federation's view,  were  in conformity with the WTO Ag reement on TRIPS and the UPOV Conv ention 
(International Union for Protecti on of New Varieties of Plants) to which the Russian Federation became a member in 1998. 
138.  294 - Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits 
139.  294 Russian Federation:  
 
Layout designs of integrated circuits were  protected in accordance with Federal Law No. 3526-1 of 23 September 1992 "On Legal P rotection of Layout 
Designs of Integrated Circuits".  In general, the provisions of this Law were in conformity with the provisions of the Treaty o n Intellectual Property in 
Respect of Integrated Circuits (Washington Treaty) despite the f act, that the Russian Federation is not a party to this agreeme nt. In addition the Federal 
law No.82-FZ of 9 July 2002 “On Amending the Law on Legal Protection of Topologies and Integrated Designs” contains provisions aimed at bringing 
in compliance with the WTO Agreement which supplement the Washingt on Treaty.  In addition, the Federal Law No. 82-FZ of 9 July 2002 "On 
amendments to the Law "On Legal Protection of Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits" contained provisions aimed at satisfying t he requirements of the 
WTO Agreement which were additional to those of the Washington Treaty. 
140.  295 - Requirements of undisclosed information,  including trade secrets and test data 
141.  295 Russian Federation:  
 
Protection of undisclosed information, as in Section 7 of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS, was ensured in the Russian legislation by  virtue of Article 139 
of the Civil Code.  In particular, this article stipulated le gal protection of undisclosed information which constituted offici al or commercial secrets.  In 
addition, the acquisition, use, or disclosu re of scientific, technical, production, or  commercial information, including commer cial secrets, without the 
owner's consent were not permitted by virtue of Article 10 of  Federal Law No. 948-1 of 23 March 1991 "On Competition and Restri ction of Monopoly 
Activity on Commodity Markets".  The provisions of the above-mentioned laws prohibited the use of undisclosed information witho ut the consent of the 
right holder.  All these provisions were applicable to the protection of confidential (undisclosed) information related to phar maceutical and argochemical 
products containing new chemical substances.  Following the opinion of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation the ter m of six years was 
sufficient to protect undisclosed information obtained during clinical tests of new medicines.  In the event that protection of  undisclosed information 
could endanger the human life and health such informati on could be published before the expire of this term. 
142.  295 - Requirements on undisclosed information,  including trade secrets and test data 
143.  295 Russia should provide information on its regime for the protection of undisclosed test data.  Is the protection available for products even if they are not 
patented?  What protection extends to prevent reliance by third pa rties on test data submitted by the original applicant in ord er to prevent unfair 
commercial use?  Please provide a copy of the opinion of the Ministry of Heath referred to in para 295 for WP review.  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 58 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
144.  296-297 - Enforcement 
 - Criminal Measures 
145.  296 What amendments or other elaboration has been undertaken in  the Criminal Code to establish a wider scope of liability?  Th e text should reflect the 
concerns of the WP regarding the very high threshold for criminal enforcement under Article 146 (i.e., the “grave” standard), a nd information on what 
has been/is being done to specifically address this concern. 
146.  297 What steps has Russia taken to increase the number of cases in which fines and jail time are actually imposed or served fo r IP violations.  Please provide 
information on the frequency with which courts issue destruction or ders for infringing goods and materials and implements in ci vil and criminal cases 
147.  297 criminal enforcement statistics should be updated. 
148.  296 (§296) Please describe in detail the cr iminal actions and remedies that are ava ilable in your current legislation and "de lege ferenda" to combat 
counterfeiting of geographical indications and patented products. Please cite the relevant provisions of your legislation in fo rce. Concerning the 
legislative initiatives to further improve the relevant legal provisions, please indicate their content, update on the progress  of enactment of the legislation 
and describe how these laws will be implemented.  
Please list the different provisional measures provided for in your  current legislation and, if possible, in new draft laws in this field.  Please describe the 
procedures that must be followed, and cite the relevant provisions of law. Concerning the Draft Arbitration Procedure Code, ple ase update on the 
progress of the enactment of the Code and describe how it will be implemented. 
 
(§296ff)  Please indicate the authorities responsible for the appli cation of the measures to combat counterfeiting and piracy.  Please explain whether the 
competent authorities are empowered to act ex officio and, if so , please indicate the enforcement actions that may be taken and  the procedures that must 
be followed. Concerning the Draft Custom Code, please update on the progress of the enactment of the Code and describe how it w ill be implemented. 
 
Please describe any new initiatives that are planned to improve th e enforcement of intellectual property rights in your country , particularly initiatives to 
combat counterfeiting and piracy in the public-health domain and in the optical media indus try. Is there a particular action pl an in place?  
149.  296 Russian Federation:  
 
Since 1999 there had been a special department dealing with inte llectual property crimes within the Main Economic Crime Divisio n of the Ministry of 
Interior (and its regional departments).  As for criminal sanctions, the Criminal Code of 13 June 1996 included three articles specifically dealing with 
intellectual property: Article 146 (Copyright and Related Rights Violations); Article 147 (Patents Violations); and Article 180  (Trademark Violations).  
While copyright violations were punishable by fines and imprisonment, for other intellectual property violations no imprisonmen t had been provided 
until December 2001 where a new paragraph was introduced to the Criminal Code providi ng for liability for illegal use of tradem arks. In addition to 
fines, this paragraph stipulated that sanctions up to five years of imprisonment.  The legislators continued their work on the Criminal Code with a 
general intention of establishing an even wider scope of liability. 
On 13 June 2002 the project of the Federal law “On Amending Article 146 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Fderation” was adop ted in the second 
hearing by the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russi an Federation. The project law suggests specifying the objective part of respective 
corpus delicti by introducing the notion “heavy proportion” instead of “heavy damage”, the former establishing the amount of 20 0 minimal wages. The 
law also suggests increasing the liability to up to 6 years of im prisonment with and without confiscation of property. Abandoni ng the assessment 
criterion “heavy damage” will, on the one hand, enable to unify the criteria of protection of constitutional rights of composer s and performers and, on 
the other hand, to increase the effectiveness of the applicat ion of the mechanism of criminal liability for the offence.    
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 59No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
150.  297 Russian Federation:  
 
Since intellectual property crimes were not considered to be "g rave" crimes, enforcement bodies used other articles of the Crim inal Code where 
appropriate such as smuggling, c onsumer fraud, etc.  In 1997, there were 720 intellectual property violation cases; in 1998, 95 0; in 1999, 1300; in 2000, 
2000 including 1,117 cases on copyrights and related rights violations.  In 1999, 125 illegal manufacturing facilities were clo sed down and 30 million 
illegal units were confiscated.  In 2000, 334 manufacturing facilitie s were closed down and 50 million units were confiscated.  Confiscation of illegal 
goods, materials and equipment used for their manufacturing was not directly stipulated under Articles 146, 147 and 180 of the Criminal Code.  It was 
normal practice, however, to confiscate these goods and machiner y as material evidence.  For the illegal copies, the right hold er could request to take 
them. For machinery, the matter had to be decided by courts.  Concerning the Superior Arbitration Court's practice, the Court i ssued a decision on 
confiscation and destruction in cases where th e right holder did not request the goods to be transferred to him.  Where a court  did not order confiscation 
of illegal goods in civil proceedings, the right holder might appeal. 
Pursuant to the project of the new Customs Code of the Russian Federation protection of intellectual property rights may be pro vided by customs 
authorities upon a written request of a right holder. The suspension of launch of goods which cross the border of the Russian F ederation and are 
recognized as counterfeit may be done upon the customs procedure and customs control. The project was discussed by the committe es of the State Duma 
of  the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. Devoted to the protection of the intellectual property rights by the custom s authorities no 
amendments were made to it that would be inconsistent with the TRIPS Agreement. 
151.  298  - Criminal Procedure 
152.  298 Russian Federation:  
 
In accordance with the legislation in force, the enforcement bo dies had no responsibility for discovering or identifying crimin al violations.  Since 
intellectual property violations were within the category of pr ivate accusation, criminal procedure could not be initiated with out a complaint by the right 
holder.  The time limits for investigation in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code was initially 10 days and 30 days for  the final decision in 
complex cases.  Normally, the statement that the goods were counterfeit was made by th e right holder.  Official state examinati on might be done by the 
Centre for Expertise of the Ministry of Interior.  At the request from an anti-trust or law enforcement body and on the basis o f a relevant court order, 
Rospatent experts provided an opinion regarding a trademark, invention or another intellectual property issue.  An investigator , prosecutor or court 
would then make a decision based on the results of the examina tion.  The examination initiated by the law enforcement bodies wa s free of charge.  
153.  298 Have the Criminal Procedures Code and the Customs Code been amended to provide proper ex officio  authority to take enforcement actions?  If so, the 
text should be expanded to include information on how proper ex officio authority is provided under the Customs Code and the Cr iminal Procedures 
Code. 
154.  299  - Administrative Measures 
155.  299 Russian Federation:  
 
A new Code of Administrative Offences was in force since 1 July 2002. Articles 7.12, 7.28 and 14.10 of this Code established li ability for violation of 
copyrights and related rights, rights to inventions, useful m odels and industrial designs, service marks and appellation of ori gin.  The administrative 
sanctions, in addition to fines, included confiscation of coun terfeit products.  In addition, anti-monopoly legislation provide d certain sanctions that were 
administered directly by the Ministry of Anti-monopoly Policy and Support for Business. Any business entity whose rights of int ellectual property were 
violated by another business entity could apply to the Ministry to start the proceedings against the offender.  The Ministry co uld issue a decision 
imposing fines or demanding certain actions or prohibiting infringing actions.  The procedure normally took between one and two  months, and in 
complicated cases between three and six months.   
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 60 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
156.  300-301 - Border Measures 
157.  300 Russian Federation:  
 
Article 10 of the Customs Code referred intellectual property pr otection to the competence of th e Customs authority. Since 1998 , the State Customs 
Committee accepted applications from right holders for the customs measures.  The following documents had to be presented: conf irmation of the 
intellectual property rights, power of attorney (when necessary) and information on the violation (description of goods) as wel l as any additional 
information available from the right holder.  The Code of Administrative Offences in force since 1 July 2002 introduced adminis trative liability for 
import of goods violating intellectual property rights.  
158.  301 Russian Federation:  
 
At present, the Customs Code did not allow the Customs bodies to  act fully in accordan ce with the all provis ions of the WTO Agr eement on TRIPS in 
terms of supplying the right holder as a third party with information and of providing the right holder with an opportunity to inspect detained goods and 
take samples.  The draft new Customs Code included a new secti on dealing with intellectual property protection which effectivel y addressed these issues 
as well.  When goods were detained, the Customs had ten working da ys to inspect all goods.  Particular attention was paid to th e goods indicated by the 
right holder.  The term could be extended for another 20 working days or 31 calendar days. According to the existing practice, if during this period a 
violation of intellectual property was confirmed, the Customs tr ansferred the evidence to the Po lice and prosecutors, and, sinc e 1 July 2002, the Customs 
would also draw up a protocol of administrative offence. The righ t holder could then bring a civ il law case to the court.  As f or the possibility of 
obtaining from the Customs bodies information about the infringing company, its history and activity, the new draft Customs Cod e stipulated that such 
information would be available in relation to importers as well as imported goods.  
159.  300 Please provide the number of applications filed by rights holders for suspension of release of suspected counterfeit trade mark or pirated copyright goods 
since 1998 and the number th at are currently active. 
160.  301 The text should include a description of the enforcement provisions of the draft Customs Code, the “protocol of administra tive offense” under it, and 
note the status of both, including border en forcement mechanisms cu rrently implemented, as well as planned, to stop the flow of  infringing goods across 
Russia’s borders. 
161.  302-304 - Civil Law Remedies and Procedures 
162.  302 the text notes “section 3 of Article 44” of TRIPS.  There is no section 3 under Article 44 in the TRIPS Agreement, and thi s Article pertains to goods that 
have cleared Customs.  Article 50 pertains to broader inju nctive relief authority.  Please substitute the accurate citation. 
163.  302 Please describe in detail the civil judicial procedures and civil remedies available to right holders "de lege ferenda" in  the different fields of intellectual 
property covered by Part II of the TRI PS Agreement, which allow for effective actio n against acts of counterfeiting and piracy.   Please cite the relevant 
provisions of the legislation providing for those civil procedures and remedies. 
164.  304 Concerning the issue of enforcement of intellectual property rights in general, could you please provide us with English t ranslations of the Regulations 
in this field and information regarding the manner in which the Russian Federation is going to implement those Regulations in o rder to fulfil the 
requirements of Articles 41 to 61 of the TRIPS-Agreement.  
165.  302 Russian Federation:  
 
The Higher Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation had drafted a Code of the Arbitration Procedure Code which was currently  under examination 
by the Duma.  This draft code reflected the latest internatio nal developments in the organisation and administration of economi c justice, and established 
new mechanisms essential for an effective application the WTO Agreements. For example,  these mechanisms in cluded preliminary in terim measures 
which would promote realisation of Section 3 of Article 44 of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS.  The draft code also contained an upd ated section on 
consideration of economic disputes with participation of a foreign party which introduced application of the principle of recip rocity in the enforcement  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 61No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
of court orders and awards; national treatment for foreign participants in respect of the procedure; and the abandonment of the  principle of absolute 
immunity.  Remedies available under the Civil Code included confirmation of rights;  prohibition of actions violating rights;  imposing fines;  
compensation of damages caused to the right holder;  and compensa tion of income received by the infringer and statutory compens ation. The last two  
measures were available only for copyrights.    
166.  303 Russian Federation:  
 
Regarding claims for damages and assessment of damages, civil law cases provided for the general principle of full recovery of damages.  The amount 
of damage was calculated in accordance with the general norms of the Civil Code based on the prices of corresponding legitimate  goods adjusted for 
actual damage and forgone profit of the right holder.  As for the statutory compensation, it was initially defined by the plain tiff who had the burden to 
prove the fact of damage caused without calculating the amount.  Then it was further assessed by the court based on the nature of infringement, income 
received by the infringer, etc.  The final decision on the amount of compensation rest ed with the court. Regarding provisional measures under Article 75 
of the Arbitration Procedure Code, the court could issue an order for preliminary injunction based on the plaintiff's petition.   Such measures should be 
aimed at securing the claim. Provisional measures included: prohibition of infringing actions, arrest of property including bac k accounts, seizure of 
documents and other evidence.  The judge handling the case should make a decision the next day after the petition was filed wit hout the representatives 
of the parties.  Under the current legislation, any petition for provisional measures could be filed after the civil procedure was initiated.  However, the 
draft amendments to the Code of Arbitratio n Procedure proposed to allow provisional measures to be obtained before filing the c laim.  
167.  305-326 TRADE-RELATED SE RVICES REGIME 
Policies Affecting Trade in Services 
168.  General We are not satisfied with the outline of this sec tion, and we believe a substantial revision is warranted 
169.  305 Data Protection :   
 
In paragraph 304 of the Report it is mentio ned that the Russian legislation will fully comply with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement from the date 
of accession to the WTO:  
1. (§295) Could you please provide us the English translation of the Regulations which provide for this effective protection ag ainst commercial use of 
undisclosed test or other data submitted to authorities in the Ru ssian Federation in support of applications for marketing appr oval of pharmaceutical and 
agrochemical products which contain new chemical substances, and information regarding the manner in which this Regulation is g oing to be 
implemented to fulfil the TRIPS requirements?  
 Compulsory Licenses:   
 
2. (§292) Concerning the issuance of compul sory licenses, and therefore the Patent La w Draft, could you please provide an Engli sh translation thereof as 
well as information regarding the progress of the enactment procedure of this Draft? 
170.  306 As indicated in the Draft Report, th e Representative of the Russian  Federation notes that, in these circumstances, the Rus sian Federation needed to retain 
the possibility of having recourse to certain temporary measures aimed at the maintenance of a normal competitive environment, balance and integrity of 
markets, social stability and employment.  
We would like to get more information on “temporary measures”. Will it be a measure of Emergency Safeguard Measures or not? Wha t conditions will 
temporary measures be applied? 
171.  306 We retain a general concern about use of the term “infant industries” in the context of se rvices.  If the concept is to be  retained in the text, we will need  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 62 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
an agreed definition. 
172.  313 We support the points made by delegations in WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Add.1, listed as paras 313-316 of the addendum.  They are relevant and are not 
meaningfully reflected in the revised draft Working Party Report text.  We seek incorporation of these points and an appropriat e substantive response 
from Russia.  These points are listed below: 
 
Language from the addendum: 
 
- These members expected the Russi an Federation to make a commitment by which deposit guarantees would be granted in a non_discri minatory 
way to all account holders irrespective of the bank they choose, and under the same conditions and up to the same deposited sum s. These 
Members were of the view that this would foster equal conditi ons of competition between differen t banks operating in Russia, an d would help 
improve the solidity and functioning of the financial sector more generally. 
- These members commended the Russian Federation on the reform propos als that were being considered towards the creation of a dep osit 
insurance scheme, although they had concerns about the length of time for implementation suggested in certain proposals, the lo w figure for 
guaranteed deposits (equivalent to around $650) and the continuation of the preferential position currently enjoyed by Sberbank , which was 
contrary to WTO principles of non_discrim ination and should be ended on accession. Th ey invited the Russian Federation to submi t more 
detailed information on these proposals, including on their implementation date, as well as to demonstrate the equivalence of g uarantees for 
deposits with the Sberbank and other banks.” 
- The report could also usefully include a de scription of existing prudential requiremen ts governing the financial services secto r, together with 
relevant legislation. 
- These members expected Russia to make commitments to (a) divest or bring under the responsibility of another branch of governme nt the 
commercial activities of the Central Bank of Russia (CBR) and (b) to ensure that there is no discrimination between established  banks as 
regards the guarantee of deposits. Both these step s should be completed by an agreed deadline. 
 We would appreciate updated information on Russia’s plans to provide a deposit guarantee system
: 
 
- What is the legislative status of the law establishing the system.  When will the particulars of this proposal be available to WP members?   We 
would like to see a brief description of the new law as it relates to this issue incorporated in the Report. 
- Does the new deposit insurance law include a time line for transitioning Sberbank into the system?  
 We would also like to know the timetable for the sale of Vneshtorgbank to non-governmental institutions. 
173.  322-324 Interested WP members are examining  the question of the need for these paragraphs in the WP report in plurilateral me etings on Services.  If reference 
to these issues is retained in the draft WP report text, we belie ve that they will need to be revised based on the results of t he plurilateral discussions.. 
174.  325-326 While we appreciate Russia’s willingness, in para 326,  to confirm its intent to observ e GATS requirements, the text c annot be said to fully respond to 
members’ concerns expressed in para 325.   WP members would a ppreciate a substantive response fr om Russia to the issues raised in paragraph 325. 
175.  305-326 Some important changes made to the text, especially that the reference to natural monopolies has been deleted. We take that as a reflection of the fact 
that the issue of monopolies is in essen ce a market access restriction that is part of the specific commitm ents negotiations. H owever, it is important to 
have some detailed references to the regulatory framework concerning monopolies in the WP report.  
 
We refer to some of the comments we made on natural monopolies at the plurilateral on services on November 1:  
- Two issues related to natural monopolies 
- natural monopolies as an argument for not allowing market access, and  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 63No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
- the regulations on natural monopolies, and whether some of these are in contradiction to the GATS or fall under the GATS,  esp.  Art VIII on 
monopolies and exclusive service suppliers and art IX on Busine ss Practices. We agree that these articles are relatively narrow . 
- On 1: We do not accept the argument that for sectors dominated by so-called natural monopolies, it is  impossible  or extremely  difficult to 
increase market access.  For the energy  sector, the only natural monopoly with decreasing marginal costs would be the 
transportation/distribution networks (gas pipelines, electric power transmission and distribution lines), i.e. the lines not th e transportation as 
such. The same goes for telecom and some ar eas of  the transportation sector (services connected to ports, terminals etc. are ” unbundled” and 
not  naturally part of monopoly). For natural monopolies in infrastructure, it is important to ensure that both producers and c onsumers have 
non-discriminatory access to them on trans parent and objective terms, similar to thos e established for instance through the Ref erence Paper 
for Telecommunications.  
- On 2: The test of whether anti-monopoly regulations might not be conform with the GATS, is to look to art II on MFN, art XVI an d art XVII 
specifically. 
176.  306 If measures are to be taken for safeguard reasons, they have to be in conformity with the GATS, regardless of whether it is  for infant industries or other 
business. 
177.  307 Russia is intending to maintain its subsidies to domestic se rvice providers, the bulk of which go to large service provider s such as Rostelekom, 
Ingostrakh, Ae roflot, etc. 
- We seek the inclusion in this section of the draft Report of fa ctual information on the types and levels of subsidies currently  provided; Russia’s 
intentions in respect of areas currently not receiving any subsidies; and an unde rtaking by Russia to phase out its system of s ubsidies. 
- We seek the inclusion in this section full re sponses to questions raised by Members. 
We note that a number of issues are still subject to the broader plurilateral discussions, and we reserve the right to request further changes in this 
section pending their outcome. 
178.  320 We assume that the measures referred to either come under pr udential measures or BOP-measures and should be conform with th e GATS. 
179.  321-324 Para 321-324 are as before and do not reflect discussions at the plurilateral on services. We therefore reiterate some of our comments. 
180.  321 The use of public utilities argument cannot be used for protectionist purposes or in areas where the services are of a narr ow nature that cannot be 
defined as a general public service. Specifically on environmenta l services, no intention to undermine the freedom for local go vernment, municipalities  
to decide whether they themselves operate or by tender open up  to private actors to operate e.g., sewage treatment facilities o r refuse disposal. Does not 
undermine government’s rights to formulate and implement national environmental policies. In taking commitments in the area of public utilities it is 
possible to make the distinction between statutory work on behalf of and delegated by government, and commercial services in th e area  and we would 
urge the Russian delegation to look further into this matter. 
181.  322 - On culture, comparing the WP draft report and the Russian services offer, the report text seems wide open as to when and were t here might be 
authorization requirements in place, while in the offer it seems only related to education. The working party text cannot be th at general 
because it can imply a national treatment restriction. We would like a confirmation that where specific commitments are made, n o new (Art 
XVI- and Art XVII-) restrictions based on cultural concerns suddenly pop up. 
- On specifically protected natural territories, we would think that the regulations to protect such territories would be the sam e for all, and as 
such are covered by  the GATS (relevant articles are preamble and art VI on domestic regulation, and Art XIV (b)). 
182.   Our delegation is still deeply concerned over the Russian Federation’s maintenance of a discriminatory regime with regard to the supply of services 
on Russian services’ market by our nationals residing in different regions of our country, under the modes of supply - “commerc ial presence” and 
“movement of natural persons”. We urge th e Russian Federation to make the necessary adjustments prior to its accession in order  to avoid the 
discriminatory treatment and to allow all our nationals to pr ovide services on the Russian market at the equal footing.  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33 
Page 64 No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
183.  327-330 TRANSPARENCY 
- Publication of Information on Trade 
184.  327-330 The publication of customs regulations and decrees is v ital for traders attempting to import and export.  We understan d, however, that this is often a 
problem for importers.   
 
We understand that there are over 4,500 customs regulations and "instructions".  While it is possible that these exist somewher e in published form, it is 
not easily accessible to traders, and the St ate Customs Committee does not provide them to importers (or to Embassies) upon req uest.  This information 
should be noted in the WP report text. 
 I. Russia should elaborate on how it is approaching this issue, e.g., the  need to improve and systematize the availability of cus toms documents, 
and to  simplify the current system of customs regulations in its draft customs code.  
 There is a larger problem of operational tran sparency.  This has become clear in the area of e.g., Telecommunications and energ y, where the market can 
be manipulated with little scrutiny by major players. 
185.  329 There is a crucial typo in the penultimate sentence.  It should read “three” days rather than “the” days. 
186.  330 It would be useful to have information regarding elements in this paragraph, e.g., can Russia identify the publication or publications referred to in this 
paragraph.  We note that GATT 1994 and GATS requirements are spec ifically mentioned, but that TR IPS Agreement transparency requ irements are not 
mentioned.  This needs to be addressed. 
187.  327-330 The publication of customs regulations and decrees is v ital for traders attempting to import and export.  We understan d, however, that this is often a 
problem for importers.    
- We understand that there are over 4,500 customs regulations and "instructions".  While it is possible that these exist somewher e in published 
form, it is not easily accessible to trader s, and the State Customs Committee does not provide them to importers (or to Embassi es) upon request.  
This information should be noted in the WP report text. 
- Russia should elaborate on how it is approaching this issue, e.g., the  need to improve and systematize the availability of cus toms documents, 
and to  simplify the current system of customs regulations in its draft customs code.  
 
There is a larger problem of operational tran sparency.  This has become clear in the area of e.g., Telecommunications and energ y, where the market can 
be manipulated with little scrutiny by major players.   
188.  329 There is a crucial typo in the penultimate sentence.  It should read “three” days rather than “the” days. 
189.  330 It would be useful to have information regarding elements in this paragraph, e.g., can Russia identify the publication or publications referred to in this 
paragraph.  We note that GATT 1994 and GATS requirements are spec ifically mentioned, but that TR IPS Agreement transparency requ irements are not 
mentioned.  This needs to be addressed.  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33
 Page 65No. Paragraph 
No. Comment 
190.  331 Notifications 
191.  331 Is this text acceptable to Russ ia?  What steps is Russia taking to develop the required initial notifications? 
 
__________