WT/DS624/1  
G/L/1529  
G/SPS/GEN/2222  
 
24 April 2024 
(24-3358) Page: 1/4 
  Original: English  
 
  
EUROPEAN UNION  – ADDITIONAL MEASURES CONCERNING  
THE IMPORTATION  OF CITRUS FRUIT FROM SOUTH AFRICA  
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY SOUTH AFRICA  
The following communication , dated 15 April  2024 and received on 19 April 2024 , from the 
delegation of South Africa  to the delegation of the European Union , is circulated to the Dispute 
Settlement Body in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.  
 
_______________  
 
 
My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the European Union pursuant to 
Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994 (GATT 1994), Article  4 of the 
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), and Article 11 
of the Agre ement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS  Agreement), 
concerning certain aspects of the European Union's (EU) regime on the importation of citrus fruit 
from South Africa described below.  
As this request concerns perishable produc ts, South Africa also makes this request pursuant to 
Article 4.8 of the DSU and reserves its rights thereunder.  
We note that South Africa has already requested and since engaged in consultations with the EU 
regarding the application of certain phytosanita ry measures relating to Thaumatotibia leucotreta  
("false codling moth") that affect the importation of citrus fruit from South Africa.1 As explained 
below, this request addresses the application of those EU phytosanitary measures relating to 
P. citricarpa  ("citrus black spot" or "CBS") that also affect the importation of citrus fruit from 
South  Africa.  
Pursuant to Article 4.4 of the DSU, South Africa describes below the reasons for this request, 
including the identification of the measure at issue and an indication of the legal basis for the 
complaints.  
IDENTIFICATION OF THE MEASURE AT ISSUE  
The measure at issue concerns certain aspects of the import regime imposed by the European Union 
(EU) on citrus fruit from South Africa, as described below. Since at least 1992, the EU has prohibited 
the importation of South African citrus fruit affected b y Phyllosticta  citricarpa (McAlpine) Van der Aa , 
despite the fact that citrus fruit is not a viable pathway for the transmission of this organism. 
Moreover, without sufficient scientific reasons, the EU has categorised this organism as a quarantine 
pest fo r citrus fruit without leaves and furthermore as a "priority pest".2  
As a direct result of this erroneous categorisation, the EU establishes, inter alia , burdensome 
approval, verification, sampling, checking, inspection, testing, packaging, transportation, 
 
1 See Request for Consultations by South Africa, EU — Citrus Fruit (South Africa) , WT/DS613/1,  
G/L/1430, G/SPS/GEN/2056, 29 July 2022.  
2 See, inter alia , Part A of Annex III of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 of 
28 November 2019, as well as Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1702 of 1 August 2019  read with 
Regulation (EU) 2016/2031.  WT/DS624/1 • G/L/1529 • G/SPS/GEN/2222  
 
- 2 - 
 
  certification, labelling and traceability requirements that must be met in order to import specified 
fruits3 into the EU.4  
The EU's measure is conta ined in, and based on, the following instruments:  
(i) Council Directive 2000/29/EC, of 8 May 2000, "on protective measures against the 
introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and 
against their spread within the Communit y", as amended;  
(ii) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/715 of 11 May 2016 setting out measures 
in respect of certain fruits originating in certain third countries to prevent the 
introduction into and the spread within the Union of the harmful organism  Phyllosticta 
citricarpa  (McAlpine) Van der Aa.  
(iii) Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of plants, amending 
Regulations (EU) No 228/2013, (EU) No 652/2014 and (EU) No 1143/2014 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council and repeal ing Council Directives 69/464/EEC, 
74/647/EEC, 93/85/EEC, 98/57/EC, 2000/29/EC, 2006/91/EC and 2007/33/EC, which 
came into effect on 14 December 2019;  
(iv) Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
15 March  2017 on official contr ols and other official activities performed to ensure the 
application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and 
plant protection products, amending Regulations (EC) No 999/2001, (EC) No 396/2005, 
(EC) No 1069/2009, (EC) No 1107/2009, (EU) No 1151/2012, (EU) No 652/2014, (EU) 
2016/429 and (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council 
Regulations (EC) No 1/2005 and (EC) No 1099/2009 and Council Directives 98/58/EC, 
1999/74/EC, 2007/43/EC, 2008/119/EC an d 2008/120/EC, and repealing Regulations 
(EC) No 854/2004 and (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 
Council Directives 89/608/EEC, 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 91/496/EEC, 96/23/EC, 
96/93/EC and 97/78/EC and Council Decision 92/438/EEC  (Official Controls Regulation);  
(v) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1702 of 1 August 2019 supplementing 
Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and of the Council by 
establishing the list of priority pests;  
(vi) Commission Implementing Regul ation (EU) 2019/2072 of 28 November 2019 
establishing uniform conditions for the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of 
the European Parliament and the Council, as regards protective measures against pests 
of plants, and repealing Commission Regula tion (EC) No 690/2008 and amending 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019;  
(vii) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/632 of 13 April 2022 setting out 
temporary measures in respect of specified fruits originating in Argentina, Brazil, 
South  Africa, Uruguay and Zimbabwe to prevent the introduction into, and the spread 
within, the Union territory of the pest Phyllosticta citricarpa  (McAlpine) Van der Aa; and  
(viii)  Scientific Opinion on the risk of Phyllosticta citricarpa  (Guignardia citricarpa ) for the  EU 
territory with identification and evaluation of risk reduction options, prepared by the 
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2014, and supporting documentation including 
the draft Scientific Opinion on the risk of Phyllosticta citricarpa  (Guignardia citricarpa ) 
for the EU territory with identification and evaluation of risk reduction options, EFSA, 
2013; Technical Report: Outcome of the public consultation on the draft Scientific 
 
3 The requirements at issue apply to specified fruits defined in Article 2(2) of Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2022/632 of 13 April 2022 . They  are Citrus  L., Fortunella  Swingle, Poncirus  Raf., and their 
hybrids, other than fruits of Citrus aurantium  L. and Citrus latifolia  Tanaka.  
4 For specified fruits, other than fruits destined exclusively for industrial processing,  see requirements 
listed in  Chapter II , Articles 3 to 5,  and Annex III of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/632 of 
13 April 2022. For specified fruits destined exclusively for industrial processing , see requirements listed in 
Chapter II I, Articles 6 to 9,  of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/632 of 13 April 2022 , and 
Article 49 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625.  WT/DS624/1 • G/L/1529 • G/SPS/GEN/2222  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Opinion on the risk of Phyllosticta citricarpa  (Guignardia citricarpa ) for the EU territory 
with identification and evaluation of risk reduction options, EFSA, 2014; as well as Pest 
survey card on Phyllosticta citricarpa , EFSA, 2020.  
South Africa's request also covers any additional measures that may amend, supersede, supplem ent, 
add to, update, extend, replace, or implement the EU's measure at issue.  
LEGAL BASIS FOR THE COMPLAINT  
The EU's measure at issue appears to be inconsistent with the EU's obligations under the Agreement 
Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO Ag reement). In particular, the EU's measure 
appears to be inconsistent with:  
(i) Article 1.1 of the SPS Agreement, as it is a phytosanitary measure under the 
SPS Agreement that is not "applied in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement";  
(ii) Article 2.2 of  the SPS Agreement, as it is not "based on scientific principles", it is 
"maintained without sufficient scientific evidence", and it is not "applied only to the 
extent necessary to protect … plant life or health";  
(iii) Articles 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 of the SPS Agre ement, to the extent that a relevant 
international standard exists, and the EU has failed to base its measure on it or to provide 
scientific justification to deviate from it;  
(iv) Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of the SPS Agreement, as it is not "based on an assessm ent, 
as appropriate to the circumstances, of the risks to … plant life or health" and does not 
"take into account" the factors listed in Articles 5.2 and 5.3 of the SPS Agreement;  
(v) not covered by Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement, as the EU is not in a situa tion "where 
relevant scientific evidence is insufficient"; and, in any event, the EU does not comply 
with any of the requirements set forth in this provision;  
(vi) Articles 5.5 and 2.3 of the SPS Agreement, to the extent that the EU makes "arbitrary 
or unjustifiable distinctions in the levels it considers appropriate in different situations" 
and "discriminate[s] between Members where identical or similar conditions prevail";  
(vii) Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement, as the EU's measure is "more trade -restrictive  than 
required";  
(viii)  Articles 6.1 and 6.2  of the SPS Agreement, as the EU fails to adapt its import regime for 
South African citrus fruit to the "phytosanitary characteristics of the area … to which the 
product is destined" and has failed to "recognize the concepts of pest - or disease -free 
areas" ; 
(ix) Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement, to the extent that the EU does not comply 
with its obligations regarding control, inspection and approval procedures, including, but 
not limited to, completion of procedures without undue delay, limitation of i nformation 
requirements to what is necessary and reasonable, and a lack of proper procedures to 
review complaints concerning the operation of such procedures and to take corrective 
action when a complaint is justified and imposition of fees on imported pro ducts that are 
equitable in relation to any fees charged on like domestic products;  
(x) Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, as the EU's measure constitutes a "restriction … on the 
importation" of citrus fruit from South Africa;  
(xi) Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1 994, to the extent that the EU discriminates between 
like products from different origins;  
(xii) Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994, as the EU fails to apply it in a "uniform, impartial and 
reasonable manner".  WT/DS624/1 • G/L/1529 • G/SPS/GEN/2222  
 
- 4 - 
 
  These consultations might give rise to other matters h aving legal implications that are not expressly 
stated in this request but relate to other WTO obligations of the EU. With a view to facilitating a 
wide-ranging exchange of views, South Africa notes that, if such were to be the case, these matters 
would al so be covered by the scope of this request for consultations.  
*** 
I look forward to receiving your reply to this request. In order to ensure that the consultations take 
place within the 30 -day deadline specified in Article 4.3 of the DSU, we propose that t he consultations 
take place at the WTO in Geneva between 6 and 8 May 2024, or earlier if required.  
__________