RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
15 October 2004 
 (04-4350) 
Working Party on the Accession 
of the Russian Federation  
 
 
 
DRAFT REPORT OF THE WORKING PARTY ON THE  
ACCESSION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION 
Revision  
 
_______________  
 
Members of the Working Party on the Acces sion of the Russian Federation to the WTO  
 
 Attached is the Secretariat's third revision of the Draft Report of the Working Party on the 
Accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO. 
  This document reflects the current state of play.  As before, it is intended to provide focus to 
members of the Working Party for further multilatera l work in developing consensus towards agreeing 
the terms of entry of the Russian Federation to the WT O.  The text will necessar ily evolve in line with 
future negotiations, as well as ongoing work on pending legislation in specific areas.   
  Commitments have not been taken up for di scussion in the Working Party.  The square 
bracketed commitment paragraphs contained in th e text reflect proposals made earlier by WTO 
Members or included in this Revision at the request of the Russian Federation.    
 
 
_______________
 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page ii  
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
Introduction................................................................................................................... .........................1  
Documentation Provided......................................................................................................... ..............1  
Introductory Statements ........................................................................................................ ...............1  
ECONOMY, ECONOMIC POLICIES AND FOREIGN TRADE ...................................................3  
Fiscal and Monetary Policies ................................................................................................... .............3  
Foreign Exchange and Payments System ........................................................................................... .6 
Investment  Regime.............................................................................................................. .................11  
State Ownership and Privatization .............................................................................................. ......14  
Pricing Policies ............................................................................................................... ......................18  
Competition Policy............................................................................................................. ..................25  
FRAMEWORK FOR MAKING AN D ENFORCING POLICIES .................................................27  
Powers of executive, legislative and judicial branches of government............................................27  
Government entities responsible for making and implementing policies affecting foreign 
trade; Right of Appeal......................................................................................................... ...30 
Division of authority between cent ral and sub-central governments..............................................32  
POLICIES AFFECTING TRADE IN GOODS ................................................................................36  
Registration requirements for import/export operations.................................................................36  
- Alcoholic beverages............................................................................................................ .....38  
- Pharmaceuticals ................................................................................................................ ......40  
- Precious stones and metals..................................................................................................... 41 
- Other licensing requirements.................................................................................................42  
1. Import Regulations ............................................................................................................. ....44  
Customs Regulations and Customs Tariff......................................................................................... 44 
Ordinary Cust oms Duties........................................................................................................ ............48  
Tariff Quotas .................................................................................................................. ......................50  
Tariff Exemptions .............................................................................................................. ..................54  
Other Duties and Charges....................................................................................................... ............55  
Fees and Charges for Services Rendered......................................................................................... ..56 
Other Fees..................................................................................................................... ........................57  
Application of Internal Taxes on Imports ....................................................................................... ..61 
- Excise Taxes................................................................................................................... ..........61  
- Value Added Tax ................................................................................................................ ....64  
Quantitative Import Restrictions, including Prohibitions and Quotas...........................................67  
Import Licensing Systems ....................................................................................................... ............70   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page iii 
 
 
 - Sugar .......................................................................................................................... ..............73  
- Alcoholic beverages and Alcohol-Containing Products ......................................................73  
- Pharmaceuticals ................................................................................................................ ......74  
- Polycarbonates ................................................................................................................. .......77  
- Technology Products ............................................................................................................ ..77 
Customs Valuation.............................................................................................................. .................78  
Rules of Origin ................................................................................................................ .....................83  
Other Customs Formalities...................................................................................................... ...........89  
Preshipment Inspection ......................................................................................................... ..............93  
Balance of payments ............................................................................................................ ................95  
Anti-dumping, countervailing and safeguard measures...................................................................96  
2. Export Regulations ............................................................................................................. ..100  
Export Duties.................................................................................................................. ....................100  
Quantitative Export Restrictions, In cluding Prohibitions and Quotas.........................................102  
- Precious stones and metals...................................................................................................10 3 
Export Licensing Procedures.................................................................................................... ........106  
Other Customs Expo rt Formalities............................................................................................... ...109  
3. Internal Policies Affecting Foreign Trade in Goods ..........................................................111  
Industrial policy, including subsidy policies.................................................................................. ..111  
Technical Barriers to Trade.................................................................................................... ..........116  
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ............................................................................................ .128 
Trade-related Investment  Measures (TRIMs) ................................................................................139  
- Production Sharing Agreements .........................................................................................139  
- Domestic car-industry .......................................................................................................... 141 
- Aircraft area.................................................................................................................. ........142  
State-trading enterprises ...................................................................................................... .............143  
Free Zones and Special Economic Zones.........................................................................................1 50 
Government Procurement......................................................................................................... ........155  
Regulation of Trade in Transit ................................................................................................. ........159  
Policies Affecting Foreign Trade in Agricultural Products ...........................................................162  
Trade in Ci vil Aircraft........................................................................................................ ...............164  
Textiles ....................................................................................................................... .........................164  
TRADE-RELATED INT ELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGIME (TRIPS) ..................................165  
1. General........................................................................................................................ ...........165  
Fees and duties ................................................................................................................ ...................168  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page iv  
 
 2.
 Substantive standards of protection, including procedures for the acquisition 
and maintenance of intellectual property rights ................................................................169  
Copyright and Related Rights ................................................................................................... .......169  
Trademarks ..................................................................................................................... ...................170  
Geographical Indications ....................................................................................................... ...........171  
Inventions and Industrial Designs.............................................................................................. ......172  
Plant Variety and Animal Breed Protection....................................................................................17 3 
Layout Designs of In tegrated Circuits .......................................................................................... ...173  
Requirements on undisclosed information, including trade secrets and test data.......................173  
3. Enforcement .................................................................................................................... ......177  
Criminal Measures.............................................................................................................. ...............177  
Criminal Procedures............................................................................................................ ..............178  
Border Measures................................................................................................................ ................179  
Civil and Administrative Pr ocedures and Remedies ......................................................................180  
POLICIES AFFECTING TRADE IN SERVICES.........................................................................183  
TRANSPARENCY ................................................................................................................... .........191  
Publication of Information on Trade ............................................................................................ ...191  
Notifications.................................................................................................................. ......................195  
FREE TRADE AND CUSTOMS UNION AGREEMENTS..........................................................195  
CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... ............200  
ANNEX I Tables 1-18........................................................................................................201 
ANNEX II List of Laws and Regulations available to the Working Party ....................239 
ANNEX III List of Laws and Regulations pertaining to 
 Standardization, Metrology and Certification ..............................................240 
ANNEX IV Draft Decision and Protocol ............................................................................242 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 1 
 
 
 Introduction  
1. The Government of the Russian Federation a pplied for accession to the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947) in June 1993.  At its meeting on 8 July 1993, the GATT Council 
of Representatives established a Working Party to ex amine the application of the Government of the 
Russian Federation to accede to the GATT 1947 unde r Article XXXIII of the General Agreement.  
Following the entry into force of the WTO Agreement on 1 January 1995, and in pursuance of the 
decision adopted by the WTO General Council on 31 January 1995, the GATT 1947 Working Party 
was transformed into a WTO Accession Working Party under Article XII of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO.  The terms of re ference and the membership of the Working Party 
are reproduced in document WT/ACC/RUS/1/Rev.[…]. 
2. The Working Party met on 17-19 July 1995, 4-6 December 1995, 30-31 May 1996, 
15 October 1996, 15 April 1997, 22-23 July 1997, 9-11 December 1997, 29 July 1998, 
16-17 December 1998, and 25 May 2000 under the Chairmanship of H.E. Mr. W. Rossier (Switzerland), on 18 December 2000, 26-27 J une 2001, 23-24 January 2002, 25 April 2002, 
20 June 2002, 18 December 2002, 30 January 2003 , 6 March 2003, 10 April 2003, 10 July 2003 and 
30 October 2003 under the Chairmanship of H.E. Mr. K. Bryn (Norway), and on 5 February 2004, 
2 April 2004, 16 July 2004 and [ ...] under the Chairmanship of H.E. Mr. S. Jóhannesson (Iceland). 
Documentation Provided 
3. The Working Party had before it, to serve as a basis for its discussions, a Memorandum on the 
Foreign Trade Regime of the Ru ssian Federation (L/7410), supplem ents to the Memorandum on the 
regime in the areas of Trade-Related Investment Measures (WT/ACC/RUS/5), Trade in Services (WT/ACC/RUS/6), Trade-Related Aspects Of Intelle ctual Property Rights (WT/ACC/RUS/7), as well 
as questions submitted by Working Party member s on the foreign trade regime of the Russian 
Federation together with replies thereto and othe r information provided by the Russian authorities 
listed in document WT/ACC/RUS/11/ Rev[…] and legislative texts a nd other documentation listed in 
Annex I. 
Introductory Statements 
4. The representative of the Russian Federation r ecalled that his Government had been an 
observer to GATT 1947 since January 1992 when the Russian Federation continued the former USSR 
observer status. In this capacity , the Russian Federation had witnessed the successful conclusion of 
the Uruguay Round and followed its implementation. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 2  
 
 5. In this context, he noted that his Government was confronted with a number of important 
tasks in the social, institutional, macroeconomic an d investment fields. In particular, the Russian 
Federation had to overcome the decline in the sta ndards of living of its population resulting from the 
economic and financial crisis of  1998. This could be only achieved through policies aimed at 
stimulating growth in the country's GDP by improving economic productivity , and expanding sources 
of investments.  In his Government's view, this w ould also require the maintenance of a set of policies 
which could adequately develop competitive dom estic markets for goods, services and capitals and 
enhance the role of smaller and medium size enterpri ses.    Accordingly, since requesting accession to 
the GATT and afterwards to the WTO, the Ru ssian Federation had undertaken an unprecedented 
process of reform of its economy progressively adop ting laws and regulations consistent with WTO 
multilateral rules and disciplines.  This process was primarily aimed at establishing the conditions for 
a dynamic market economy in the Russian Federati on based on a stable and predictable legislative 
framework capable of sustaining long term econom ic growth and ensuring improvements in the 
standards of living and welfare of the Russian population as well as in the modernization of the 
Russian Federation's production capacity, and its in ternational competitiveness. The government of 
the Russian Federation had set a clear list of program s, policies and priorities that had as their central 
goal rendering the Russian Federation a better, mo re competitive and rewarding place in which to 
work and do business.  It was clear that the grow ing interdependence of national economies, global 
integration of markets and linkage between tr ade flows and investment required the Russian 
Federation to adjust its trade, financial and inv estment legislation to WTO rules and disciplines. 
6. Members of the Working Party welcomed th e Russian Federation's application for accession 
to the WTO and underscored the importance of a rapi d integration of the Russian Federation into the 
multilateral trading system, both for the benefit of  the Russian Federation and the world trading 
system as a whole.  To this end, members consid ered that the enactment of relevant legislation 
consistent with WTO requirements and of provis ions for its implementation was essential to the 
accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, in or der to ensure that Russia could be an effective 
participant in the WTO from the first day of its me mbership.  Members of the Working Party equally 
stressed the need for completing the negotiations  on commercially viable terms which should be 
mutually beneficial to the Russian Federation and WTO Members. 
7. The Working Party reviewed the economic polici es and foreign trade regime of the Russian 
Federation and the terms of a draft Protocol of  Accession to the WTO.  The views expressed by 
members of the Working Party on the various asp ects of the Russian Federation's foreign trade 
regime, and on the terms and conditions of the Russian Federation's accession to the WTO are 
summarized below in paragraphs 8 to […].     WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 3 
 
 
 ECONOMY, ECONOMIC POLICIES AND FOREIGN TRADE 
Fiscal and Monetary Policies 8. Members of the Working Party requested that the Russian Federation provide information on 
its fiscal and monetary policies, taxation system , developments in the State budget and plans for 
further changes and reform. 
9. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that current economic policies 
in the Russian Federation were aimed, inter alia, at "de-bureaucratization" of the economy, including 
elimination of unnecessary and burdensome administrative barriers, improvement of competition and investment attractiveness of the country, as well as at the achievement of its fiscal and monetary 
stability.  In particular, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that current monetary 
policy was aimed at creating favourable prec onditions for sustainable long-term economic 
development.  This objective was being achieved by reducing inflation to the projected level as the 
fundamental monetary policy target and implementi ng policy of managed floating exchange rate of 
the national currency.  All these activities were accompanied by measures to liberalize foreign 
exchange regulations. 
10. Noting the above statement, some members of th e Working Party considered that the Central 
Bank of the Russian Federation (CBR) in its conduc t of monetary policy continued to rely unduly on 
management of the exchange rate and foreign reser ves and on depository operations rather than on 
more standard monetary instruments, such as re financing and interest ra te management.  These 
members asked the Russian Federation to further comment on these issues. 
11. In response, the representative of the Russi an Federation noted that the CBR used all 
available monetary instruments and methods apart from (exact meaning) those mentioned by some 
members.  To achieve the monetary policy objectives  and to respond more quickly and effectively to 
any changes in money and credit, including interbank interest ra tes fluctuations, the CBR actively 
used market instruments, combining operations to provide liquidity to banks with the operations of 
medium and long term sterilisation of temporarily  free funds which helped the CBR to maintain 
balanced and relatively stable conditions on th e money market.  Principles for developing the 
monetary instruments system and its main elements  had been established in 2002-2003.  The diversity 
of monetary instruments implemented by the CBR was determined by the differ ent needs of the credit 
institutions and combined standing facilities a nd regular market-based auctions.  Monetary 
instruments and methods were adjusted  depending on  the  economic situation in compliance with the 
legal framework.  In accordance with Federal Law No .86-FZ of 10 July 2002 "On the Central Bank of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 4  
 
 the Russian Federation (CBR)" (as amended), the principal instruments and methods of the CBR’s 
monetary policy were the following: 
- interest rates on the CBR’s operations; 
- ratios of the required reserves deposited with the CBR (the reserve requirements); 
- open market operations;  
- refinancing of credit institutions; 
- currency interventions; 
- the issue of bonds on its own behalf; 
- setting targets for money supply growth. 
12. Taking into consideration the situation of liquidi ty in the banking sector in the first half of 
2004, the CBR had reduced required reserves ratios a nd brought them to the required reserves ratios 
of the European Central Bank.  Moreover, the CBR had allowed use of averaging provisions for the 
part of the required reserves (the part of required reserves was held on an average daily basis on the 
correspondent (current) credit institutions’ account  over a one-month reserve maintenance period).  
To absorb liquidity, the CBR had held, in 2003-2004, regular deposit auctions to attract funds from credit institutions for four weeks to three months and reverse repo auctions to sell federal government 
bonds (OFZ) with an obligation of reverse repurch ase for terms from 28 days to six months.  To 
absorb free funds of credit organizations for a relatively long period and broaden the range of 
financial instruments, the CBR had restarted to issue its own bonds for a term of more than one year.  
For the purpose of absorbing excess of liquidity, th e CBR had also used outright sales of government 
bonds from its portfolio at market yields without an obligation of reverse repurchase.  
13. In addition to using market instruments to sterilize liquidity, the CBR preserved permanent 
access windows for credit institutions to place thei r free funds on deposit with the CBR.  The CBR 
conducted deposit operations on standa rd terms and conditions at a fi xed interest rate through the 
Reuters Dealing System and MICEX (Moscow Inte rbank Currency Exchange) System of electronic 
lot trading (SELT).  At the same time, the CBR c ontinued to provide funds to credit institutions 
through direct repo and Lombard auctions.  Such  operations were conducted for terms ranging from 
one day to 90 days.  In addition, the CBR extended to banks intraday and overnight settlement loans, 
backed by federal government and local governme nts securities, mortgage bonds and CBR obligations 
(OBR).  Credit institutions also had the opportunity to receive liquidity through foreign exchange 
swaps arranged with the CBR.  An important mo netary policy instrument used by the CBR was 
currency interventions (foreign exchange outright sales and purchases) in the exchange and over-the-
counter segment of the domestic foreign exchange market.   
14. Under the Federal Law "On the Central Bank of the Russian Federation (the Bank of Russia)" 
the CBR was required to annually submit to the St ate Duma draft "Guidelines for the Single State  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 5 
 
 
 Monetary Policy" for the coming year no later th an 26 August and "Guidelines for the Single State 
Monetary Policy" for the coming year no later than 1 December.  He added that pursuant to “The 
Guidelines for the Single State Monetary Policy for 2004” (The Monetary Policy Guidelines) the 
ultimate aim of the monetary policy implemented by the CBR was the reduction of inflation.  The 
CBR had developed a monetary program with the ob jective to monitor monetary indicators on their 
compliance with the projected inflation level.  The Monetary Policy Guidelines for 2004 could be 
found on the CBR’s web-site (www.cbr.ru). 
15. He noted that general budgetary policy was describ ed in Resolution of the Government of the 
Russian Federation No. 910-r of 7 July 2001 "On th e Program of Social and Economic Development 
of the Russian Federation with a View to the Me dium-Term Perspective".  Key policy objectives 
were:  improvement and measuring of the effect iveness of expenditure-based budgetary policy; 
creation of a system for management of state asset s and liabilities to add flexibility to current policy 
and properly control debt; improving the transparency of the budgetary procedures;  and the reform of 
the tax system to improve equitability, transp arency and lower the tax burden on businesses.   
16. Concerning the tax system of the Russian Fe deration, the representative of the Russian 
Federation noted that the current forms of taxation in the Russian Federation were established by Law 
of the Russian Federation No. 2118-1 of 27 December 1991 "On the Basic Principles of the Taxation System in the Russian Federation".  That Law disti nguished between federal ta xes, regional taxes, and 
local taxes.  He noted, that Federal taxes comprised :  the value-added tax, excise tax, uniform social 
tax, securities transaction tax, customs duty, royalty tax for use of natural resources and extraction of 
minerals, profit tax imposed on le gal persons, income tax imposed on natural persons, state duties, 
succession and gift tax, tax on the use of the words "Russia", "the Russian Federation", gambling tax, 
water use tax. 
17. The representative of the Russian Federation furt her mentioned that his country’s monetary 
policy was undergoing a process of gradual changes in line with systemic economic and social 
reforms. The basic direction of such evolution w as to achieve a balanced monetary system free of 
unnecessary restrictions and constraints for domestic a nd foreign economic operators. In this context, 
he described the basic elements of the evolving  foreign exchange and payments system in the 
following section. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 6  
 
 Foreign Exchange and Payments System 
18. The representative of the Russian Federation reca lled that his country had been a member of 
the International Monetary Fund (IMF) since 199 2.  The national currency - the Ruble (equal to 
100 Kopeks) - was convertible to foreign currencies on the basis of current market rates.   
19. Members of the Working Party noted their concer ns in relation to certain foreign exchange 
control and regulatory measures in force, including restrictions on foreig n exchange retention, 
restrictions on the rights of residents to acquire and hold foreign exchange and to have accounts in 
foreign banks, pre-payment requirements for impor ts, and the acquisition charge of one per cent 
levied on the purchase of foreign exchange.  They  requested information on the nature of the 
requirements in place, their legal basis, their pur pose and WTO justification, the circumstances that 
led to their introduction and whether these circumst ances still existed, and the Russian Federation's 
plans to eliminate restrictions which were still in place. 
20. In response, the representative of  the Russian federation stated that the CBR exercised control 
over timely and full transfer of export earnings to  the country and over making payments for goods 
imported to the territory of the Russian Fede ration under pre-payment terms.  The CBR also  exercised 
control to enable the detection of fictitious fore ign exchange operations by residents to off-shore 
zones.  Enhanced requirements in respect of estab lishing correspondent relations and forming reserves 
were imposed on operations performed by authorized  banks with resident banks registered in off-
shore zones.  The requirements differed depending on the group and the off-shore zone they related 
to.  Relevant requirements and the classification of of f-shore zones were defined in the Instructions of 
the CBR No.1317-y of 7 August 2003 “On the Proce dure for Establishing Correspondent Relations 
Between Authorized Banks and Non- Resident Banks Registered in the States and in the Territories 
Granting Preferential Taxation Treatment and (or)  not Envisaging Disclosure and Provision of 
Information in Performing Financial Operations (in Off-Shore Zones)” and No. 1318-y of 7 August 
2003  “ On Establishing and the Amount of the Reserve for Operations Performed by Crediting 
Organizations with Residents of Off-Shore Zones”. 
21. The representative of the Russian Federation furt her explained some main peculiarities of the 
new currency regulation enacted by Federal Law No. 173-FZ of 10 December 2003 “On Currency 
Regulation and Currency Control” (hereinafter – the Law).  
22. The Law (in the wording of Federal Law No. 58- FZ of 29 June 2004), which had entered into 
force on 18 June 2004, aimed at the implementation of the State currency policy and stability of the 
Russian Federation's currency while at the same ti me ensuring the progressive liberalization of the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 7 
 
 
 currency transactions regime.  One of the main features of the new regulation was a shift from the 
previous principle “everything is forbidden except that is permitted by law” to “everything is 
permitted except that is forbidden by law”.  This trend was reflected in Articles 7 and 8 of the Law, 
which established a closed list of currency opera tions pertaining to capital movement subject to 
special regulation.  Outside this list, all currency transactions were conducted w ithout restrictions.  At 
the same time, the Law provided for a clear a nd balanced distribution of powers between the 
Government and the Central Bank in the field of regulation of currency transactions pertaining to 
capital movement.  Pursuant to Article 7 of the La w, the Government was responsible for regulating 
currency transactions pertaining to capital movement  connected with foreign trade operations.  The 
joint competence of the Government and the Cent ral Bank covered transactions connected with the 
purchase by residents  of share fractions, deposits, shares in legal entities’ property (authorized or 
ownership capital, share fund of cooperative societ y) from non-residents or with entering deposits 
under simple partnership contracts signed with non-r esidents.  The powers of the Central Bank in the 
sphere of regulation of currency transactions pe rtaining to capital movement were extended to 
operations related to granting and ra ising of credits and loans;  operations with securities whose face-
values were specified in Russian or foreign curre ncy (including related payments, transfers and 
performance of obligations); and ope rations of credit organizations. 
23. The Law also established an exhaustive set of  instruments which could be used by the 
Government and the Central Bank to regulate currenc y transactions pertaining to capital movement: a) 
temporary reservation of a part of the currency tr ansaction amount; and b) requirement to use special 
bank accounts in authorized banks. 
24. The representative of the Russian Federation further stated that currency transactions 
pertaining to capital movement listed in Articles 7 and 8 of the Law were subject to restrictions only 
with the purpose of preventing substantial reducti ons in gold and foreign currency reserves; sharp 
fluctuations of exchange rate of currency of th e Russian Federation, as well as of maintaining the 
stability of balance of payments.  These  restrictions were non-discriminatory. 
25. He further noted that Federal Law No. 173-FZ of 10 December 2003 “On Currency 
Regulation and Currency Control” (in the word ing of Federal Law No. 58-FZ of 29 June 2004) 
introduced a “negative list” approach: if the pro cedures for currency transactions and for using bank 
accounts (including the requirement of special ba nk accounts) were not established by the State 
bodies for currency regulation (the Government a nd the Central Bank of the Russian Federation) 
within the scope of this Federal law, currency transactions should be carried out, accounts should be 
opened and transactions through the accounts shoul d be carried out without restrictions.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 8  
 
 26. The law also stipulated that State bodies for currency regulation should not introduce more 
than one reservation requirement with respect to  one particular type of currency transactions 
simultaneously.  The procedure of reservation and re turn of reservation amount was established by the 
Central Bank of the Russian Federation. The am ount of reservation should be brought in Russian 
currency. The calculation of the reservation amount  was carried out by residents and non-residents 
independently.  The amount of reservation pertai ning to foreign currenc y transaction should be 
calculated at the official rate established by the Ce ntral Bank of the Russian Federation at a date of 
entering of the amount of reservation.  Early return  of total or part of reservation amount was 
authorized in cases stipulated by the Law.  Inter ests were not charged for the amounts of reservation 
brought into accounts of authorized banks or the Ce ntral Bank.  According to the Law, requirements 
of reservation and use of special bank acc ounts were in force until 1 January 2007. 
27. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that, currently, his Government was not 
using instruments of regulation of currency tran sactions pertaining to capital movement connected 
with foreign trade operations pursuant to Article 7 of  the Law.  Accordingly, all currency transactions 
related to foreign trade operations listed in Article 7 could be conducted freely and without 
restrictions. 
28. In response to further questions, the representativ e of the Russian Federation stated that the 
Central Bank had introduced five different categorie s of special accounts to be used by residents and 
non-residents while carrying out currency transactions related to granting and raising of credits and 
loans and operations with securities whose face-values were specified in Russian or foreign currency 
(including related payments, transfers and performan ce of obligations).  The transfer to and writing–
off from these accounts of money resources were subj ect to a different temporary reservation rate 
(varying from 3% of the total transaction amount fo r 365 calendar days to 50% for 15 calendar days) 
depending on the category of special account.  The procedures for using special accounts and 
reservation requirements were set up by normative act s of the Central Bank (Instructions No. 116 of 
7 June 2004, No. 114 of 1 June 2004, Directive No. 1465 of 29 June  2004).  These instructions had 
entered into force on 18 June  2004 and the directive on 1 August 2004. 
29. He added that pursuant to Article 21 of the Law,  residents were bound to sell a part of their 
foreign currency earnings at a rate not exceeding 30% of the amount on the internal currency market.  
The actual mandatory surrender requirement set by  the Central Bank was 25% (Directive of the 
Central Bank No. 1304 of 9 July 2003).  The following  foreign currency revenues were not subject to 
mandatory surrender requirements:  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 9 
 
 
 - the amount of foreign currency received by the Russian Federation Government, federal 
executives bodies authorized by the latter, by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation 
from transactions and deals being carried out by  them (or on their behalf and/or at their 
expense) within the scope of their competence; 
- the amount of foreign currency derived by au thorized banks from bank transactions and other 
bargains with non-residents; 
- residents’ foreign currency earnings within the limits of the amount necessary to fulfil their 
obligations under credit and loan contracts signe d with non-resident entities acting on behalf 
of foreign governments as well as with residents of OECD or FATF country members for a period exceeding two years. 
- the amount of foreign currency derived from transa ctions involving the transfer by residents 
of external emissive securities (rights to external emissive securities). 
30. The list of foreign currencies subject to ob ligatory sale through the Russian Federation's 
internal currency market of the would be est ablished by the CBR.  The mandatory surrender 
requirement was in force until 1 January 2007. 
31. Some Members noted that there were three sp ecific restrictions on the use of foreign 
exchange that affected trade and engaged WTO oblig ations.  As the application of these restrictions 
had not been specifically approved by the Internatio nal Monetary Fund, they should be eliminated by 
the date of its accession to the WTO, and Russia should confirm that it would  not have recourse to 
such measures after accession: 
1. The one per cent tax levied on the purchase of cash foreign currency operated as a de facto  
additional charge upon imports a nd was inconsistent with the provision of Article III on non-
discrimination, Article VIII on charges covering the cost of services rendered, and the 
requirements of Article XI of the GATT 1994, as well as Article 4 of the WTO Agreement on 
Agriculture, which envisaged elimination of unjustifiable restrictions to export.   
2. The provision that purchase of foreign curre ncy for making advance payments for imports 
required opening a deposit in the currency of th e Russian Federation, as well as all formalities 
fees and requirements which were to be obser ved pursuant to the provision, tied up capital of 
importers that could be used to purchase add itional imports.  It was inconsistent with the 
non-discrimination provisions of Article III as well as the provisions of XI of GATT 1994 and 
Article 4 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  They were also discriminatory in respect of 
imports from more distant countries, and, thus, did not comply with the provisions of Article 1 of the GATT 1994. For these reasons, several members urged the Russian Federation to 
consider the use of other methods to avoid illicit capital outflow.   
3. The mandatory requirement to transfer 25 pe r cent of the currency earnings to the domestic 
currency applied to exporters of the produc tion from the Russian Federation effectively 
increased import transaction costs, and did not comp ly with the requirement of Article XI of 
the GATT 1994 on the elimination of unjustifiable export restrictions. Furthermore, due to the 
fact that that requirement hindered the use of  the currency earnings for subsequent entry, it 
was also inconsistent with non-discrimina tion requirements of Article III of the WTO 
Agreement on Agriculture. Some members furt her noted that the discussed requirement was WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 10  
 
 especially burdensome for smaller importers and could, thus, make trade payments more 
difficult.  
32. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the one per cent tax 
levied on the amount of foreign currency in cash pur chased by natural persons (not applicable to 
juridical persons) established by Federal Law No .120-FZ of 21 July 1997 “On the Tax Levied on 
Purchase of Foreign Currency Notes and Payment Do cuments in Foreign Currency” (with subsequent 
amendments) had been abolished on 1 Ja nuary 2003 by Federal Law No. 193-FZ of 
31 December 2002. 
33. Some members noted that the above-mentioned me asures continued to have a negative impact 
upon imports.  The recently abolished 1% tax ha d operated as a de facto additional charge upon 
imports.  The mandatory surrender requirements effectively increased import transaction costs, and 
the import prepayment requirements unjustifiably tie d up capital of importers that could be used to 
purchase additional imports.  Those members requested  the Russian Federation to eliminate all such 
requirements by the date of its accession to the WTO and to enter a commitment not to have recourse 
to such measures after accession.  In addition, Me mbers noted in response to Russia's statement that 
such measures were necessary to ensure accumu lation of foreign currency reserves, that these 
measures were no longer needed.  Russia's foreign exchange reserves were at record high levels, 
equivalent to 50 per cent of external debt and more than six months of import cover.  Finally, Russia's 
balance of payments position had improved dramati cally since these controls had been imposed in 
1998 during the financial crisis. 
34. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration noted that, in his opinion, the sale of 
a part of currency revenue, a measure which was also used by a number of WTO Members, was not leading to discrimination against non-residents and in ternal market protection subject to Article III of 
the GATT 1994, as it regulated the operations of all resident legal entities.  Nor was this measure 
related to any quantitative import restrictions in  the sense of Article XI of the GATT 1994 or 
protection of domestic producers since after the sale of current revenue, the exporter had the 
possibility of acquiring foreign currency on the inte rnal currency market for payment of imports 
without restrictions.  This requirement was an im portant instrument guaranteeing the stability of the 
foreign exchange market and the predictability of the Ruble exchange rate dynamics, and a means to 
mobilize currency resources required to fulfill fo reign payments obligations.  The Russian 
Government considered it premature to abandon the mandatory surrender requirement and import 
prepayment requirement at this stage.  These re quirements were not intended to restrict rights and 
lawful interests of residents but to control and r estrain currency outflow from the country.  No deposit  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 11 
 
 
 was required in case of payments through letter of cr edit, bank guarantee, or where a risk insurance 
was available in respect on non-return of export exchange earnings.   
35. While recognizing the liberalization efforts undertak en by the Russian Federation in this field, 
several members further considered it useful to be provided with an opportunity to review the content 
of the new package of banking laws and informa tion on the banking reform policy recently promoted 
by the Russian authorities.  Some members of the Working Party requested that the Russian 
Federation eliminate those foreign exchange requirements prior to or upon accession.   
36. [The Russian Federation agreed to eliminat e its import prepayment and export surrender 
requirements upon accession.  The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
37. [The representative of the Russian Federation t ook note of concerns e xpressed by members of 
the Working Party.] 
Investment Regime 
38. The representative of the Russian Federation note d that the current policy of his Government 
in this area was directed to creation of conditions  to promote the expansion of domestic and foreign 
investments, and also the formation of transpar ent and stable rules in the conduct of economic 
activities.  The basic legal texts relating to the ac tivities of foreign investors were set forth in the 
Constitution of the Russian Federation adopted on  12 December 1993; the Civil Code Part One 
No. 51-FZ of 30 November 1994 (as amended on 23  December 2003) and Part Two No. 14-FZ of 
26 January 1996 (as amended on 29 June 2004 ); and a number of other legislative acts. Those 
legislative acts provided guarantees for the protec tion of foreign investors' rights and interests 
consistent with the Russian Federation domestic i nvestment legislation and relevant international 
treaties to which the Russian Federation was a party.  
39. In response to questions by some members of the Working Party, he added that the adoption 
of the Land Code of the Russian Federation (F ederal Law No. 136-FZ of 25 October 2001 (as 
amended on 29 June 2004)), together with a numb er of legislative acts on "debureaucratization" 
(Federal Law  No. 128-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On Li censing of Specific Types of Activity", Federal 
Law No. 134-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On the Protection of Legal Entities' and Individual Entrepreneurs' 
Rights in the Case of Exercise of State Control (Supervision)"), and the Tax Code of the Russian 
Federation had significantly contributed to the fo rmation of a favourable investment climate and 
facilitated the investment activity of Russian and foreign companies in the Russian market. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 12  
 
 40. In response to questions concerning the 2001 Land Code and the 2002 Agricultural Land Law 
the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the new Land Code of the Russian Federation 
(Federal Law of October 25, 2001, No. 136-FZ) pr ovided that foreign natio nals and foreign legal 
entities could acquire leasehold over land (Articles 22 , 38).  Articles 28, 36, 37, 38, 65 and 66 of the 
Land Code and relevant decisions of the President of the Russian Federation (as related to national 
security issues) governed the fixing of the purchase price and other conditions of sale.  The purchase 
of land for construction purposes was subject to Ar ticles 30, 31 and 32 of the Land Code.  He noted 
that for national security reasons, foreign natio nals and foreign legal entities could not own 
agricultural land, land located in the border territori es determined as such by President of the Russian 
Federation in accordance with federal laws on State Bo rder of the Russian Federation, or in closed 
administrative areas and other territories of the Russi an Federation as specially stipulated by federal 
laws.  Border zones were, as a rule, established w ithin five kilometers (of the ward, city) from the 
State Border, the sea coast, banks of border rivers, la kes and other reservoirs and within the territories 
of the islands of these reservoirs. 
41. In response to further questions, the represen tative of the Russian Federation noted that 
owners of buildings, cons tructions and/or facilities located on a la nd plot owned by another person or 
the state, could benefit from a preemptive right of purchase or lease in respect of such land plot, unless the Land Code, Decisions or Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation, or Decisions of the Head of the Security Council prohibited the purchase or lease of those lands.    
42. Concerning commercial transactions in agricultu ral land, the representative of the Russian 
Federation noted that Federal Law No. 101-FZ of 24 July 2002 "On Commercial Transactions in 
Agricultural Land" permitted leasehold by foreig n natural persons, forei gn legal entities and legal 
entities with foreign participation exceeding 50 pe r cent  for a period of up to 49 years.  
43. In response to further questions concerning the ta x regime and special concessions to attract  
foreign investors, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the Ministry of Economic 
Development and Trade of the Russian Federation was the authority responsible for forming and 
implementing the investment policy of the Russi an Federation.  As of May 2003, the Russian 
Federation had concluded 57 bilateral investment treaties (BITs). In respect of investors and their 
investments, all BITs contained, inter alia , provisions on national treatment and MFN with 
exemptions, guarantees in case of expropriation and rul es for reimbursement of losses, free transfer of 
profits and dispute settlement procedures.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 13 
 
 
 44. He noted that in accordance with the existing legislation, investment incentives for foreign 
investors could be established.  These incentives could, inter alia,  include the following incentives if 
the volume of investment was greater than US$100 million:    
- VAT exemption: (i) for goods (with the exception of those subject to excise taxes) included in 
the fixed assets and imported by foreign invest ors as contributions to the charter (share) 
capital of organizations (enterprises) with fore ign investments per Article 150.7 of Part II of 
the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (F ederal Law No. 117-FZ of 5 August 2000 (as 
amended on 28 July 2004); (ii) for goods (with the exception of goods subject to excise taxes) brought into the territory of the Russian Fede ration as aid (assistance) free of charge per 
Article 150.1 of Part II of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. 
- Customs duties exemption: Government Decr ee No. 883 of 23 July 1996 "Concerning Import 
Duty and Value Added Tax Exemptions for Goods Imported by Foreign Investors as 
Contributions to Charter (Pooled) Capital of En terprises with Foreign Investments", provided 
for customs duties exemption for goods, which were  to be imported into the customs territory 
of the Russian Federation as a foreign founding party's contribution to the charter (pooled) capital on condition that those goods: 
- were not excisable goods; 
- were classified as property, plant and equipment; 
- were imported within the time-limits est ablished by the articles of association / 
incorporation of the enterprise. 
45. He further noted that in accordance with the Federal Law No. 160-FZ dated 9 July 1999 "On 
Foreign Investment in the Russian Federation ( as amended on 8 December 2003), the property of a 
foreign investor or a commercial  legal entity with foreign investment could not be subject to forced 
seizure, including nationalization, requisition, ex cept for the cases and reasons determined by a 
federal law or international treaty of the Russian Federation.  Regarding payment of taxes and fees 
provided by the legislation of the Russian Federation, a foreign investor had a right to freely use on the territory of the Russian Federation the revenu es and profits (which had been obtained from the 
investment released in the Russian Federation) for reinvesting in accordance with the legislation of 
the Russian Federation or any other purpose not contradicting the legislation of the Russian 
Federation.  Foreign investors also had the right af ter fulfillment of tax and ot her obligations to export 
without hindrance any revenues, profits, and other legally acquired money sums in foreign currency 
from the Russian Federation in connection to investme nt made. A foreign investor could acquire stock 
and other securities of Russian commercial organi zations and state securities in accordance with 
legislation of the Russian Federation on securities. 
46. The representative of the Russian Federation added that a wide range investment projects 
were open to foreign investors.  Information on in vestment projects was widely available, including 
from the Chamber of Commerce of the Russian Fede ration and the Russian Union of Entrepreneurs 
and Industrialists (Employers). WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 14  
 
 47. Article 4.1 of Federal Law No.160-FZ of 9 July 1999 "On Foreign Investments in the Russian 
Federation" ensured national treatment for foreign in vestors.  However, exceptions could be imposed, 
for example, if required to protect the fundamental  constitutional requirements or to ensure national 
security and defence interests, public order, morals , health, right and legitimate interests of other 
persons.  The following security related restricti ons were applied: (i) the Law of the Russian 
Federation No. 3297-1 of 14 July 1992 “On a Clo sed Administrative-Territorial Area” set forth 
certain restrictions including restrictions on entr epreneurial and economic activities; and (ii) Article 
15.3 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation pr ovided that foreign natural persons and foreign 
legal entities could not own land within the border  territories designated by the President of the 
Russian Federation pursuant to the federal legislati on On State Border of the Russian Federation and 
in other specially defined territories of the Ru ssian Federation in accordance with federal laws. 
State Ownership and Privatization  
48. The representative of the Russi an Federation said that governmental privatization policy was 
aimed at a structural reform of the Russian econom y and at developing its private sector by expanding 
the scope of privatization.  This policy also provi ded for:  delivery of budget revenues; minimization 
of federal budget costs of public property manage ment; encouragement of investment in the 
production sector of the Russian economy; improved opportunities for medium and small business to 
participate in privatization by means of divers ifying the methods of privatization of State and 
municipal property; and the consolidation of real properties by means of attaching land plots to the 
privatized property.  Privatizati on was based on the principles of transparency and predictability of 
privatization procedures, and State and municipal properties, and transparent procedures of State authorities and local administrations.   
49. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that privatization of State enterprises was 
executed pursuant to the following legal acts: 
- Federal Law No. 178-FZ of 21 December 2001 "On Privatization of State and Municipal 
Property"; 
- the State Program of "Privatization of State and Municipal Enterprises in the Russian 
Federation" (approved by Presidential Decree No. 2284 of 24 December 1993, as amended on 
14 March 1996, 6 October 1997, 15 July 1998, 25 July, 1 August 2000, 3 April 2002, 19 November 2003); 
- Basic Provisions of the State Program of "Privatization of State-Owned and Municipal 
Enterprises in the Russian Federation after 1 July 1994" (approved by Presidential Decree 
No. 1535 of 22 July 1994 as amended on 16 April 1998, 25 January 1999, 19 November 2003);     WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 15 
 
 
 - the Conception of Management of State Propert y and Privatization in the Russian Federation 
(approved by Government Decision No. 1024 of 9 August 1999, as amended on 29 November 2000);  
- Article 192 of the Budget Code of the Russian  Federation, which pr ovided for annual draft 
Privatization Programme to be submitted by the Government of the Russian Federation 
together with a draft law On the Federal Budget to the State Duma; 
- the Rules of Elaboration of the Forecast Plan  (Programme) of Privatization of Property in 
Federal Ownership (approved by Resolution of  the Government of the Russian Federation 
No. 617 of 19 August 2002);  
- the Rules of Drafting and Taking Decisions on the Terms of Privatization of Property in 
Federal Ownership (approved by Resolution of  the Government of the Russian Federation 
No. 512 of 9 July 2002);  
- the Rules of Determining of the Normative Price of State and Municipal Property Subject to 
Privatization (approved by Resolution of the G overnment of the Russian Federation No. 369 
of 31 May 2002).  
50. He further added that Federal Law No. 178-FZ of 21 December 2001 and the State Program 
"On Privatization of State and Municipal Property" listed the types of property which were excluded 
from privatization, including, inter alia , property classified under federal laws as a non-alienable 
object of civil rights  - i.e. an object exempted fro m privatization, such as natural resources, budgetary 
funds, defense facilities and objects, sanitary and ep idemiological services, etc. - and property that 
could only be in State or municipal ownership as established by federal laws. 
51. Thus, in accordance with the Land Code of th e Russian Federation No. 136-FZ of 25.10.2001 
(as amended on 29.06.2004), Federal Law No . 101-FZ of 24.07.2002 “On the Turnover of 
Agricultural Land”, and Federal Law No. 7- FZ of 10.01.2002 “On the Protection of the 
Environment”, land of common use occupied by squar es, streets, automobile roads etc., land situated 
within the borders of State reserves and national pa rks, as well as some categories of agricultural land 
were also not subject to privatization. 
52. A list of objects and enterprises not subject to privatization, as established by federal laws, 
was contained in the State Program "On Privatizat ion of State and Municipal Property".  This list 
included, among others, mineral wealth, forest fund, water resources, air space, resources of the 
continental shelf, territorial waters and sea econom ic zones of the Russian Federation, budgetary and 
non-budgetary means, currency and other reserves, object s of historic and cultural heritage of federal 
value, State "unitary enterprises" and state institu tions involved in the turnover of narcotics and 
psychotropic substances, nuclear stations and ente rprises producing special nuclear and radio-nuclear 
materials, nuclear weapons, as well as enterprises pe rforming scientific research  and development 
works in the mentioned above areas, permanent-set ob jects of social servicing, including orphanages.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 16  
 
 53. The representative of the Russian Federation further added that Russia's legislation on 
privatization – as listed above – did not contain any restrictions concerning foreign participation in 
privatization.  He noted that the legislation re quired mandatory compliance with any restrictions 
contained in other legislation for certain categories of natural and legal pers ons, including foreigners, 
to protect constitutional order, public morals, the h ealth and legal rights of citizens, the defensive 
capacity and security of the State etc.  Federa l Law No. 66-FZ of 13 April 1998 “On the Conversion 
of the Defense Industry in the Russian Federation”, for example, permitted the restriction of foreign 
participation in the privatization of enterpri ses, which carried out scientific and/or production 
activities related to defense and the security of the St ate, in order to prevent damage to the military 
and scientific potential of the Russian Federation and the expansion of weapons of mass destruction.  
Such restrictions were imposed in the form of Decisions on privatization. 
54. He added that the requirements of the State Pr ogram of Privatization of State and Municipal 
Enterprises in the Russian Federation (approved by Presidential Decree No. 2284 of 24 December 1993) regarding foreign participation in privatization in the defense i ndustry, the oil and gas industry, 
mining and processing of ores of strategic materials, precious and semiprecious stones, precious 
metals, radioactive and rare-earth  minerals, certain transportation and communications industries, and 
municipal retail and wholesale enterprises, public cat ering and consumer services, small enterprises in 
industry, construction, and automobile transportatio n had been abolished by Presidential Decree No. 
370 of November 2003.  Foreign participation in pr ivatization was now governed by Federal Law No. 
160-FZ (1999) “On Foreign Investment in the Ru ssian Federation” and Federal Law No. 178-FZ 
(2001) “On Privatization of State and Municipal Property.”  Pursuant to Federal Law No. 160-FZ, 
foreign investors were allowed to participate in th e privatization of federal and municipal property as 
noted above, unless the Government decided otherwise in each individual case. 
55. Some members of the Working Party request ed information on progress achieved in the 
privatization process and the percentage of trade acco unted for by State-owned firms.  These members 
noted that in many situations, a shareholding of as low as 25 % could amount to effective control, and, 
accordingly, requested information on the economic  activity of companies with 25% or greater 
government shareholding.  In response, the representati ve of the Russian Federation said that a total of 
90,947 enterprises had been privatized between 1993 and 2001 (Table 2).  He also provided 
information concerning privatization by sectors (Tab le 3).  He noted that according to the Common 
Russian Classifier of Sectors of the Economy (appr oved by Decision No. 21/97 of Gosstandard of the 
Russian Federation on 29 October 1997, as amended on 15 January, 31 August 1999, 
15 February 2000) "Industry" included fishing and mining, and wood-processing, timber-processing 
and cellulose and paper producing industries as a si ngle category. Forestry (forestation, forest  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 17 
 
 
 regeneration) was a separate sector of economy and pertained to "Other areas of economy".  
According to the Conception of Management of State Property and Privatization in the Russian 
Federation (approved by Governme nt Decision No. 1024 of 9 August 1999) only such enterprises 
could be maintained in the form of Federal St ate "unitary enterprises" which complied with the 
criteria stipulated in Government Decision No. 13 48 of 6 December 1999 "On Federal State Unitary 
Enterprises Based on the Right of Economic Jurisdiction (maintenance of national defense and 
national interest, solution of social goals)".   
56. In response to questions from members of th e Working Party, the representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that the term “unitary  enterprise” was defined by Federal Law No. 161-FZ 
of 14 November 2002 «On State and Municipal Enterprises" as “a commercial organization not endowed with the right of ownership of the propert y assigned to it by the property owner". Only State 
and municipal enterprises could be established as un itary enterprises and only the Government of the 
Russian Federation or federal executive authorities could establish a federal unitary enterprise. The 
property of unitary enterprises belonged by right of ownership to the Russian Federation, a subject of 
the Russian Federation or a municipal entity. State (or municipal) unitary enterprises were a form of 
legal entity aimed at making profit.  Their activities were based mainly on commercial considerations.  
In response to further questions he noted that  procedures for allocating and managing property 
assigned to a unitary enterprise were determined by  the Government of the Russian Federation, the 
empowered regional State authorities of the Russian  Federation and local administrations.  In the 
event of bankruptcy, the persons responsible for th e actions of the unitary enterprise, would bear 
subsidiary liability for the obligations of the enterprise where the property of the debtor was 
insufficient.  A detailed description of these provisions is provided below in the section on State Trading Enterprises. 
57. He added that in July 2003 his Government  had approved a programme on privatization of 
State assets in 2004 and main objectives for priv atization for the period up to 2006 (Government 
Decision No.1165-r of 15 August 2003).  This prog ramme aimed at encouraging Russian and foreign 
investors' activity, increasing economic efficiency, and raising budget revenues.   
58. As of June 2003, his Government still owne d a controlling stake in 9,860 State-owned 
companies - i.e. 'Federal State un itary enterprises' (GUPs) - and 4, 250 incorporated companies.  A 
total of 911 GUPs and 1,978 incorporated companies ha d been authorized for privatization in 2003.  
In 2004, State assets to be sold included stakes in Lukoil (7.6% of the second largest crude producer), 
the Moscow International Stock Exchange, the St Petersburg, Vladivostok, Archangel, Azov and 
Novorossiisk sea ports, and several steamship operators .  In June 2004, there were 9,222 Federal State WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 18  
 
 unitary enterprises in the Russian Federation and the Government still owned shares in 3,905 joint 
stock companies.  About 1,900 federal-owned objects, including some 600 joint stock companies of 
federal ownership were pl anned for privatization in 2005.  Members of the Working Party invited the 
Russian Federation to enter a commitment to report on  developments in its prog ram of privatization as 
long as the privatization program was in existe nce and on other issues related to any ongoing 
economic reforms relevant to its  obligations under the WTO. 
59. [The representative of the Russian Federa tion confirmed the readiness of the Russian 
Federation to ensure the transparency of its ongoing privatization program and to keep WTO 
Members informed of progress in the reform of its economic and trade regime.  He stated that his Government would provide annual reports to WTO Me mbers (along the lines of that provided to the 
Working Party) on developments in its program of  privatization as long as the privatization program 
was in existence.  He also stated that his Gove rnment would provide annual reports on other issues 
related to economic reforms as relevant to its  obligations under the WTO while the Russian 
Federation was still in the process of reforming its economy.] 
60. [The representative of the Russian Federation t ook note of concerns e xpressed by members of 
the Working Party.] 
Pricing Policies 
61. The representative of the Russian Federation explai ned that an important objective pursued by 
his authorities was to introduce the principle of free market price formation based on supply and 
demand in the economic field.  Therefore, prices in most sectors of the Russian economy were now 
determined freely by market forces.  Presidentia l Decree No. 221 of 28 February 1995 "On Measures 
to Streamline the State Regulation of Prices (tari ffs)" (as amended on 8 July  1995 and 8 April 2003) 
and Government Resolution No. 239 of 7 March 1995 "On Measures to Streamline the State Regulation of Prices (Tariffs)" (as last amended on 30 June 2002), established the main principles of 
State price (tariffs) regulation on the Russian domestic market.  Price regulation was implemented by 
the Government of the Russian Federation, fede ral authorities and sub-federal bodies of executive 
power for the goods and services listed in Tables 4- 6.  Regulatory legislation issued by federal 
executive bodies concerning state regulation of prices for goods and services were subject to 
mandatory official publication, and all decisions  by the Government of the Russian Federation 
concerning state regulation of prices and tariffs, including those for services of natural monopolies, 
were published in "Rossiiskaya Gazeta".  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 19 
 
 
 62. He noted that while contract prices for certain  goods and services imported into the territory 
of the Russian Federation were subject to State pri ce regulation, in reality, those prices were fixed by 
enterprises independently, subject to market c onditions and the current regulatory provisions 
regardless of whether they were sold to domestic or  foreign purchasers.  Contract prices for goods and 
services exported from the territory of the Russian Federation and subject to State price regulation 
were in reality also fixed by enterprises depending  on market conditions.  However, in sectors where 
natural monopolies existed and in the case of products  purchased exclusively or mainly by the State 
such as defense products, pricing was based on pr oduction costs and established in a way which 
excluded any possible abuse by the producer/supplier of its monopoly position.  According to the 
legislation in place, the term “natural monopoly” was defined as the state of a market in which the satisfaction of the demand on this market was more  effective in the absence of competition, due to 
specific technological production aspects (in connec tion with economies of scale), whereas services 
provided by the subjects of a natural monopoly co uld not be replaced in consumption by other 
services, while the demand on the given market fo r services provided by the subject of the natural 
monopoly depended to a lesser degree on changes in prices for these services than on the demand for 
other services.  Production was not substitutable and the demand depended less on the price change 
than the demand on other markets.  Pursuant to Article 4 of the Federal Law «On Natural 
Monopolies», natural monopoly sectors included tran sportation of oil and oil products along main 
pipelines; transportation of gas along pipelines; transf er of electric heat and power; transportation by 
rail; services of transport terminals, ports and airpor ts; services of generally accessible electricity and 
postal and communication services, services on opera ting and dispatching management in energy 
sector– this list was exhaustive.  No other sector s were considered to be natural monopolies. 
63. The procedures and principles used for fixing prices of goods and services regulated by the 
State differed depending on the type of goods or ser vices.  For some goods a minimum price level was 
fixed (e.g. for alcoholic beverages above 28% vol .) while for others a maximum price level was 
settled (e.g. in railway transportation).  For natural monopolies, prices (tariffs) or limits were established for every particular sector in accordan ce with the Art.6 of Federal Law No. 147-FZ of 
17 August 1995 «On Natural Monopolies» .  In addition, in the case of air, road and river transport 
services involving competing groups of carriers, the profit margins and not the prices were set.   
64. In reference to the Russian Federation's descr iption of certain "natural" monopolies, some 
members requested additional information on whet her prices charged by natural monopoly suppliers 
of goods and services differed dependi ng on whether they were sold for domestic consumption.  
Those members also requested information on the pr icing of certain services associated with the sale 
of goods – such as those related to goods destined fo r export rather than for domestic consumption.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 20  
 
 65. Members of the Working Party sought furthe r clarifications on the mechanisms for 
determination of State controlled prices and their relation to  market and international prices and 
whether such prices, when charged by State trad ing enterprises, were in accordance with commercial 
considerations.  The representative of the Russian Fe deration replied that the following elements were 
considered in determining the prices for specific  products and services: the cost-effectiveness of their 
production including the production (marketing) expe nses of products and services; taxes and other 
payments; the cost of fixed production assets; the requirement of investment for reproduction 
purposes; depreciation charges; estimated profits; re moteness of different consumer groups to the 
production site of products and services;  adequacy of the quality of the products;  and services 
produced and marketed to the consumer demand.   
66. A member requested further clarification on th e grounds for fixing the minimum price level 
of vodka, liquor products and othe r alcohol stronger than 28% vol.  That member also asked the 
Russian Federation to explain how this practice c ould be in compliance with the Agreement on the 
Implementation of Article VII of GATT 1994.   
67. He confirmed that minimum prices on vodka, li quor products and other alcohol stronger than 
28 % vol. related only to the internal sale at the retail level of domestically produced and imported 
products, and were not applied in a discriminat ory manner between domestically produced and 
imported products.  He confirmed that this measure  had no bearing on the customs valuation of the 
imported product.  
68. Regarding price controls applied at the sub -regional level, some members of the Working 
Party  enquired about the legal basis and scope of au thority to apply price controls at this level, and 
about whether these measures were actually reviewed by the federal authorities.   
69. The representative of the Russian Federation replied that regional governments regulated 
prices for some products and services, such as gas a nd solid fuel sold to the population, transportation 
of passengers and luggage by all means of public  transport in municipal transport networks, 
communal services to households, water supply, an d sewerage services.  At the regional government 
level, prices for electrical energy provided by regional electrical companies  were also regulated, as 
well as prices for all means of commuter passenge r transportation (except railways) and communal 
services for the population (including housing rent).  Decisions on pricing taken at the federal level by 
bodies authorized to regulate the activity of natu ral monopolies were compulsory for the regional 
executive bodies and local executive authorities.  State regulation of prices for goods and services 
provided by local natural monopolies was carried out by regional executive bodies independently to  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 21 
 
 
 the extent provided by current regulatory provi sions, taking into account recommended prices 
approved by federal executive bodies. 
70. Some members also sought additional inform ation on the Russian Federation's announcement 
of efforts to unify its domestic and foreign operating tariffs for railways, as well as a status report on 
developments.  Noting that the Russian Federation had indicated that discriminatory pricing for 
transportation on railway freight could be elimin ated by 1 March 2002, some members asked the 
Russian Federation if this measure had been impl emented as planned.  These members expected the 
Russian Federation  to treat all import and expor t cargoes on the same basis as domestically produced 
goods, in line with the national treatment requirement s of Article III, and to make a commitment to 
this in the Working Party Report. 
71. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation explained that his authorities were 
prepared to introduce the same pricing schem e on import-export cargoes as it was for domestic 
products.  He added that in August 2001 the first stage of unification for railway freight rates was 
implemented with the transition to payment for export and import cargoes shipped through Russian 
ports based on Price List No. 10-01 tariffs of the Ministry of Railways.  These measures eliminated 
the existing differentiation in pricing for export a nd import cargoes shipped through Russian ports and 
domestically transported cargoes.  Competent fede ral authorities were preparing the second stage of 
this tariff unification which would extend Price Li st 10-01 tariffs to import cargoes shipped through 
Russian border land checkpoints.  
72. In response, some members of the Working Pa rty stated that the Russian Federation should 
specify how and when it proposed to complete the el imination of the current discrimination vis-à-vis 
export and import cargoes.  Those members also expr essed concerns that differential rates continued 
to be charged for rail transportation of cargoes for export by land border crossings. 
73. Regarding the reform of the railway system , the representative of the Russian Federation 
replied that a program of structural reforms had been adopted in Government Resolution No. 384of 
18 May 2001.  The reform was organized in three phases.  The first phase (2001-2002) included: the 
development of competition in the railway transportation sector, including the creation of cargo companies – operators, owning carriage rolling stock;  the guarantee of non-discriminatory access to 
railway infrastructure for users of railway services;   the establishment of independent structural 
divisions within the "The Russian railways" (OJS C) for carrying out different activities;  and the 
introduction of separate accounting for each activity .  The second phase (2003-2005) involved: the 
reorganization of the OJSC into independent stru ctural divisions in affiliated companies executing 
different activities on railway transport; the transition to free pricing in competitive sectors; a study on WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 22  
 
 the organization and implementation of legal mechan isms, the consequences of the reorganization of 
the OJSC into independent structural divisions, an d the expediency of such a reorganization.  The 
third phase of the reform (2006-2010) was aimed at  increasing investments into the sector by selling 
Government's shares of OJSC affiliated companies a nd of other companies established in this sector.  
This reform program was being carried out without serious changes or delay. 
74. Some members of the Working Party asked whet her gas liquids and condensate, e.g. those 
used for petrochemical feed stocks , were also included in the list of  items under price control.  These 
members expressed strong concerns about the trade di stortions caused by State controls on the pricing 
of energy for domestic consumption (whether in the fo rm of gas, oil or electricity).  The effect of 
these controls was to depress prices for domestic industrial users, which could lead to a very wide differential between the price paid by domestic industrial users and th e price paid by export customers 
as well as the world market price. Other members not ed that the price for natural gas was below the 
full cost of production, including a reasonable profit,  and was therefore inconsistent with commercial 
considerations.  Referring to natural gas, these members considered that the fact that Russian 
industrial producers did not have to pay the full market price for their energy inputs, including gas, 
especially in energy-intensive industries and in indus tries that used gas as an  input (rather than an 
energy source) constituted an unfair competitive advant age.  This situation had implications for the 
ability of imported goods to compete on the Russian  market and could lead to a displacement of 
member products from third country markets.  In  addition,  Russian exports of "downstream" 
intermediate or finished goods, particularly of prod ucts that were energy-intensive such as fertilizers 
or metals, could take place at prices below their norm al value, leading to the possibility  of facing 
anti-dumping or countervailing actions in export markets. 
75. Those members recognized that this was an area where the Russian Federation had begun a 
process of regulatory reform, which could not be achieved overnight, and al so understood that the 
Russian Federation could wish to maintain cont rols on the price of energy sold for domestic 
household consumption.  Those members also stressed  that increases in the price of natural gas could 
also lead to a return of the non-payment problem.  Members considered that the opportunity of WTO 
accession should be taken to tackle the negative imp act of dual pricing in favour of manufacturing 
industry at its source.  They considered that th e regulatory reform in the energy sector would also 
benefit the wider economy of the Russian Federa tion by allowing for a more rational resource 
allocation and stimulating greater investment and competitiveness. 
76. The representative of the Russian Federation re plied that underground resources within the 
territory of the Russian Federation, including subs oil domain and mineral resources contained therein,  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 23 
 
 
 energy and other resources, were the property of th e State and were pertaining to the sovereign rights 
of the Russian Federation.  Referring to the internal  price of natural gas, he stated that the basic 
principle of price setting was to ensure economically  viable production and recovery of costs, which 
also included costs of investments done or pla nned, and reasonable prof its. That methodology was 
uniform and was applied to all gas consumers, except  those situated in remote geographical locations, 
without exceptions, exemptions, discounts or prefer ences.  The Energy Strategy of the Russian 
Federation for the period up to the year 2020 provided fo r an increase in natural gas prices.  The retail 
price was also expected to grow.  He added that the deregulated price, at which independent producers 
sold their gas,  was  close to the regulated price. 
77. In response to the concerns raised by some me mbers regarding the pricing of gas, he further 
noted that the final price of gas sold to domestic  industrial users was regulated, whereas the price of 
exported gas was not.  The price for gas purchased at its source was not regulated.   He further added 
that his Government was of the view that the issue of pricing was not regulated by the WTO Agreement.  Regarding the views of some members of the Working Party that the regulation of gas 
prices could imply an element of indirect subsidi zation of Russian industrial producers because those 
consumers did not pay a free market price for thei r energy inputs, he noted his Government's view 
that this did not constitute a subsidy pursuant to the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  He added that the current practice of regulation of energy and natural gas 
prices in the Russian Federation was not different from similar practices of most of the WTO 
Members who continued to regulate energy prices. 
78. He further noted that Order No. 12/1 of the Federal Energy Commission of 24 March 1999 
"On Granting a 50 per cent Reduction of Prices of Gas to Enterprises which Produce Chemical 
Fertilizers, Chemical Protection for Plants and Ra w Materials for Production Thereof, in 1999" had 
only been in effect in effect during the year 1999 and that there were no other legal provisions that 
provided for similar price reductions for any othe r industries.  Presently, the pricing of gas was 
determined by Resolution of the Federal Ener gy Commission No. 8/9 dated 6 February 2002 
(Methodology of Determining Tariffs for Supp ly and Marketing Services provided by Gas 
Distribution Organizations).  He noted that fertilizer  industry consumers, in pa rticular, were part of 
the group with the biggest amount of gas consumption – more than 100 000 m
3 per year as they 
bought gas for further processing.  He added that re form of the gas sector was under consideration.  
79. Concerning electricity prices, he noted that such prices were regulated in a similar way to gas 
prices, in pursuance of Federal Law No. 41-FZ of 14 April 1995 “On state regulation of tariffs on electric and thermal power in the Russian Federati on.  Electrical energy prices provided by regional WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 24  
 
 electrical power-plants to the regional market were fixed both to industrial and household consumers.  
He added that the setting of prices of electric ity supplied to commercial consumers was being 
reformed (although, like for gas, prices charged to individual household consumers would remain 
fixed for reasons of social protection).  The concep t of the reform had been approved by Government 
Regulation No.526 of 11 July 2001 «On reforming the electricity sector in the Russian Federation», 
which approved «The main trends of electricity re form in the Russian Federation».  In pursuance of 
this regulation, a package of draft laws had been  adopted on 26 March 2003).  The electricity sector 
was regulated by Federal Law No.35-FZ « On electric ity».  The reform was planned to be carried out 
taking into consideration the results of the privati zation of the electricity sector enterprises and aimed 
at the de-monopolization and development of co mpetition in production, electricity selling, and 
service rendering; ensuring non-discriminatory access for the producers and consumers of electricity 
to the market infrastructure, and at ensuring the ri ghts of investors, creditors and shareholders in case 
of structural reforms.   
80. At a later stage, he noted that the first stage of  the reform of the electricity sector had been 
finalized.  It had resulted in the establishment of  a competitive electricity market and in greater 
financial transparency in electricity enterprises.   Wholesale and generating companies were being 
established, after which the 51% share that the Gove rnment had in these companies would be reduced.  
During the second stage, the constitution of a wholesale market and retail electricity market would be 
finalized in the European, Urals and Siberia energy  regions.  Tariff regulation would be maintained 
only for transportation and system services.  The thir d stage  was aimed at promoting investments in 
the electricity sector and at achieving a high le vel of competition in generation and distribution 
sectors.  During this stage, the Government woul d also cease administrating competitive electricity 
sectors.  Currently, up to 15% of all electricity w as sold on the deregulated electricity market, which 
had been operating since November 2003.  Electricity was sold to energy companies and industrial 
consumers, including steel and fertilizer producers.   
81. In relation to members' concerns about the dispar ity between the price of gas sold to industrial 
consumers in the Russian Federation and the world price of gas, the representative of the Russian 
Federation stated that gas export prices were not re gulated and were established on the basis of supply 
and demand in the importing country.  He was of th e view that there was no “world market price” for 
gas, and noted that for gas shipped to Europe, shipme nt and transport reflected a substantial part of the 
landed price.  He added that the price of gas for internal consumption in the Russian Federation was 
fixed at a level that secured recovery of costs and an amount for profit.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 25 
 
 
 82. Members of the Working Party noted that di scussions in the Working Party had served to 
clarify the pricing of gas.  However, those members remained concerned that the regulated  price for 
gas used by industrial consumers was not fixed at  a level that permitted a gas supplier a full and 
proper recovery of all costs and an amount for profit.  They requested a confirmation from the Russian Federation that gas suppliers would act on the basis of commercial considerations, based on 
full recovery of costs and a reasonable profit.  
83. In response to the concerns expressed, the repr esentative of the Russian Federation indicated 
that producers/distributors of natural gas in Russi a would operate, within the relevant regulatory 
framework, on the basis of normal commercial consider ations, based on recovery of costs and profit.  
He confirmed that his Government’s policy was to ensure that these economic operators, in respect of 
their supplies to industrial users, would recover their costs (including the cost of production, 
overheads, financing charges, transportation, main tenance and upgrade of extraction and distribution 
infrastructure, investment in the exploration and development of new fields) and would be able to 
make a profit, in the ordinary course of their busin ess.  He added that his G overnment would continue 
to price supplies for households and other non-commerc ial users, based on considerations of domestic 
social policy.  [The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
84. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed the Russian Federation would apply 
price controls on products [and services] contai ned in Tables […], and any similar measures, 
[including dual pricing,] that are introduced or re introduced in future, in a WTO-consistent manner, 
and take account of the interests of exporting me mbers as provided for in Article III:9 of the 
GATT 1994.  From the date of accession, the Russ ian Federation will publis h lists of goods and 
services subject to State price controls in its Offi cial Gazette, including the list in Tables […] and any 
changes from that list.] 
85. [The representative of the Russian Federati on confirmed that from the date of accession, 
when applying [internal maximum] price control measures in respect of products, the Russian 
Federation would comply with the provisions of the GATT 1994, and in  particular with Article III:9 
of that Agreement.  The Working Pa rty took note of this commitment.] 
Competition Policy 
86. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that his authorities attached great 
importance to competition policy, and had closely followed the activities of the WTO Working Group 
on the interaction between trade and competition polic y.  The basic goal of competition policy in the 
Russian Federation  was to create a favorable climate for enterprises, and the facilitation of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 26  
 
 competition and efficient functioning of the mark ets by preventing, restraining and eliminating 
monopolistic and anti-competitive practices among econom ic operators.  The Russian Federation had 
adopted the following legislation:  Federal La w No. 948-1 of 22 March 1991 "On Competition and 
Restriction of Monopoly Activity on Commodity Markets" (as amended on 24 June 1992, 25 May 
1995, 2 January 2000 and 9 October 2002);  the Code of On Administrative Offences";  and Federal 
Law No 117-FZ of 23 June 1999 "On Protection of Co mpetition in the Financial Services Market" (as 
amended on 1 July of 2002).   
87. In response to requests from members of the Working Party for further information, the 
representative of the Russian Federation stated that  any anti-competitive market structure and unfair 
business practices that impeded competition were subj ect to the anti-monopoly laws.  In his view 
Russian legislation already in force contained all necessary elements for State supervision and control 
over arrangements and practices of economic operators that adversely effected competition, abuse of 
dominant position on the market by economic ope rators, and led to economic concentration. 
88. He further added that the Federal Anti-Monopol y Service had succeeded the Ministry of the 
Russian Federation for Antimonopoly Policy and Entrep reneurship Support pursuant to Presidential 
Decree No. 314 of 9 March 2004.  The main functi ons of the Federal Anti-Monopoly Service were to 
introduce legislative initiatives in the field of anti-monopoly activity and monitor compliance with 
anti-monopoly requirements by economic enterprises.   The Anti-Monopoly Service also reviewed 
anti-monopoly aspects of establishment and mergers, sh are transactions and acquisitions.  He noted 
that under Article 71.g of the Constitution of the Ru ssian Federation, regional authorities did not have 
jurisdiction over competition policy. 
89. He further noted that the Law of the RSFSR No.948-1 of 22 March 1991 (in the edition of 
9 October 2002) "On Competition and Restriction of Monopoly Activity on Commodity Markets" 
concerned the breaking up of monopoly activity and unfair competition in commodity markets as well 
as anti-competitive behaviour by federal execu tive bodies and other governmental bodies of the 
subjects of the Russian Federation. Violation of the anti-monopoly legislation by officials of the 
federal executive bodies, the executive bodies of the subjects of the Russian Federation, local 
government, and other bodies and organizations vested  with functions under the legislation as well as 
by natural persons, including individual entrepreneurs,  could lead to civil, administrative or criminal 
liability. 
90. In response to question from members of the Work ing Party, he added that foreign operators 
on commodity markets were granted national treat ment and protected by Article 10 of Federal 
Law No.948-1 of 22 March 1991 (in the edition of 9 October 2002) "On Competition and Restriction  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 27 
 
 
 of Monopoly Activity on Commodity Markets".  The Anti-Monopoly Service made no distinction 
between foreign and domestic operators. 
91. In 2001, the Anti-Monopoly body had brought  1,500 complaints and notifications – three 
times more than in 2000 - 128 cases had been consider ed and 70 court orders had been issued.  In 
total, 8,540 cases had been consider ed in 2001, among which were 3,129 cases of abuse of dominant 
position on commodity markets, 343 cases of unfair competition, 5,182 cases on the establishment, 
merger, and joining of commercial organizations, liquidation and separation of state and municipal 
unitary enterprises, as well as acquisition of shares in  chartered capitals of commercial organizations.  
The total number of cases considered in 2001 exce eded that of 2000 by 31 per cent. Administrative 
sanctions had been applied in 5,337 cases.  Fin es had been imposed in 3,697 cases and 1,837 cases 
had resulted in administrative caution.  9,000 cases of  violation of anti-monopoly legislation had been 
considered in the Russian Federation in 2002.  Over 1,000 cases against federal executive authorities 
and local governments violating anti-monopoly legisla tion had been initiated in  2004.  He added that, 
in order to eliminate unfair competition, the An ti-Monopoly Service provided extensive protection of 
rights to all participants of commodity markets.  Most cases of unfair competition uncovered by the 
Anti-Monopoly Service of the Russian Federation and its regional divisions related to infringement of 
intellectual property rights and, in particular, to the illegal use of trademarks. 
FRAMEWORK FOR MAKING AND ENFORCING POLICIES 
Powers of executive, legislative and judicial branches of government 92. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that, in accordance with the Constitution, 
State power in the Russian Federation was exercised by the President of the Russian Federation, the 
Federal Assembly (the Council of the Federation and the State Duma), the Government of the Russian 
Federation, and the courts of the Russian Federa tion.  The competence of each body of power was 
defined in Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, respectively.  In response 
to further questions from members of the Working Party, he noted that judicial, legislative and 
executive power were all exercised separately.   
93. A new system of federal executive bodies had been established by Presidential Decree 
No. 314 of 9 March 2004 (as amended on 20 May 2004)  “On the System and Structure of the Federal 
Executive Bodies” in pursuance of ongoing administ rative reform.  The new system introduced 
federal ministries, federal services, and federal agencies as federal executive bodies with different 
spheres of competence.  Federal ministries were responsible for de termining State policy, preparing 
legislation in related fields, and coordinating and controlling the activity  of federal services and WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 28  
 
 federal agencies under their authority. Federal serv ices exercised control and supervision in related 
fields of activity, performed special functions rela ted to national defence, St ate security, defence of 
the State borders of the Russian Federation, fight ag ainst crime, and public safety.  Federal agencies 
rendered State services managing state-owned propert y as well as law-enforcement, except functions 
related to control and supervision. 
94. The judicial system of the Russian Federation was regulated by Federal Constitutional Laws, 
No. 1-FKZ of 31 December 1996 "On Judicial System  of the Russian Federation", No. 1-FKZ of 21 
February 1994 "On Constitutional Court of the Ru ssian Federation" (as amended on 8 February 
2001), and No. 1-FKZ of 28 April 1995 "On Courts of Arbitration in the Russian Federation".  
Judicial power was exclusively exercised by courts manned by judges, juries, and arbitrators duly appointed under constitutional, civil, administra tive and criminal court proceedings.  Judgments, 
rulings, orders, summons and other lawful communica tions issued by the c ourts were binding upon all 
persons, entities or governmental authorities throughout the whole territory of the Russian Federation.  
Justice was equal for all.  Courts should not fa vour any agency, person or otherwise complainant 
based on nationality, sex, race, language, political co nvictions or any other grounds unless established 
by federal laws.  Failure to comply with a court judgm ent, or any other act of contempt of court, was a 
breach of federal law.  The rules of civil procedure in federal courts of gene ral jurisdiction were set 
out in the Civil Procedure Code of the Russi an Federation No. 138-FZ of 14 November 2002 (as 
amended on 25 February 2004).  Procedures for the settle ment of disputes by arbitration courts were 
set out in the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation No. 95-FZ of 24 July 2002 (as 
amended on 28 July 2004).  He further noted that th e State fees for claims or other statements or 
complaints submitted to the courts of general jurisd iction or to arbitration courts were established in 
Federal Law No. 2005-1 of 9 December 1991 "On State Fees".  
95. The President of the Russian Federation was the Head of State.  He determined the guidelines 
of domestic and foreign policies of the State.  Pendi ng resolution of a matter by the appropriate court,  
the President had the right to suspend the opera tion of acts of the executive power bodies of the 
"subjects"
1 of the Russian Federation if they were not  in compliance with the Constitution of the 
Russian Federation, federal laws and internati onal commitments of the Russian Federation.   
96. Executive power in the Russian Federation was ex ercised by the Government of the Russian 
Federation.  The Government ensured the implementa tion in the Russian Federation of a single trade, 
                                                      
1 Proceeding from Article 5 (1) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the term "subjects" of the 
Russian Federation includes republic s, regions, oblast, cities of federa l importance, autonomous regions and 
autonomous areas.  Article 65 of the Constitution contained the exhaustive list of  "subjects" of the Russian 
Federation.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 29 
 
 
 financial, credit and monetary policy, including the establishment of the customs tariff;  the 
implementation of foreign policy;  and the implemen tation of measures required to ensure the rule of 
law. 
97. The Federal Assembly (the Parliament of the Russian Federation) was the representative of 
the legislative authority in the Russian Federation.  It consisted of two cham bers - the Council of the 
Federation and the State Duma.  The Council of the Federation included two representatives from 
each subject of the Russian Federation: one from th e legislative and one from executive body of state 
power.  The composition of the Council of the Fe deration was also determined by Federal Law 
No. 113-FZ of 5 August 2000 "On the Order of Form ation of the Council of the Federation of Federal 
Assembly of the Russian Federation".  The State Du ma consisted of 450 deputie s elected for a term of 
four years.  The composition of the State Duma  was determined by Federal Law No. 121-FZ of 
24 June 1999 "On Election of Deputies to the State Duma of the Russian Federation" (as amended on 
12 April and10 July 2001).  Both chambers were i nvolved, inter alia, in the adoption of the federal 
laws on federal budget, federal taxes and dues, fina ncial, currency, credit, customs regulation and 
monetary issues, ratification and denunciation of in ternational treaties and agreements of the Russian 
Federation. 
98. The right of legislative initiative was vested with  the President of the Russian Federation, the 
Members of the Council of the Federation, the Depu ties of the State Duma, the Government of the 
Russian Federation, and the legislative bodies of the subjects of the Russian Fe deration.  The right of 
legislative initiative was also vest ed in matters under their jurisdiction with the Constitutional Court 
of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Superior Court of 
Arbitration of the Russian Federation.  
99. The representative of the Russian Federation furt her added that the Russian legal system was 
comprised of federal  legal acts and legal acts of the subjects of the Russian Federation (sub-federal 
and regional governments).  The federal legal sy stem consisted of th e Constitution; federal 
constitutional laws; federal laws; d ecrees and resolutions of the President of the Russian Federation; 
resolutions and orders of the Government of th e Russian Federation; and acts of federal executive 
authorities.  Acts of federal executive authorities (i.e . acts whose binding effect extended to all of the 
territory of the Russian Federation) included resolu tions, orders, rules, instructions, regulations and 
decisions.  This list was exhaustive.  Recommendati ons, letters, telegrams, teletype messages are not 
regulatory legal acts (Order No. 217 of the Ministry of Justice of 14 July 1999).  Such acts had a recommendatory character only and were intended for u se within the relevant ministry or department.  
The legal system of the subjects of the Russian Fe deration consisted of their respective constitutions WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 30  
 
 (in the case of Republics,) or charters (in the case of other subjects of the Russian Federation);  laws 
and other legal acts.  The Constitution had overriding  power and was applicable throughout the entire 
territory of the Russian Federation.  All federal le gal acts and legal acts of the subjects of the Russian 
Federation were required to be in conformity with  the Constitution.  Fede ral constitutional laws 
regulated matters directly provided for under the C onstitution of the Russian Federation.  Federal laws 
regulated areas of joint competen ce between the Russian Federation and its regions.  The Constitution 
reserved certain subject matters to the exclusive ju risdiction of the Russian Federation and others to 
the joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and its subjects (Article 72).   
100. He further noted that Presidential decrees and resolutions did not prevent the Federal 
Assembly from enacting a law covering the same subj ect matter.  Such law could have a wider scope 
than that of Presidential decrees and resolutions.  Government resolutions and orders (subsidiary 
legislation) were issued pursuant to and in furthe rance of the Constitution, federal constitutional laws, 
federal laws and Presidential decrees and resolutio ns.  The requirement for such resolutions and 
orders were, as a general rule, provided for in the re levant enabling law, decree or resolution.  Those 
legislative acts were also binding throughout the en tire territory of the Russian Federation and might 
be appealed in court.  Acts of federal executiv e authorities were issued on the basis of and in 
furtherance of federal laws, presidential decrees and resolutions, and Government resolutions and 
orders.  Those acts should be in compliance with the relevant enabling  provisions.  They had an 
auxiliary and detailing function.   
Government entities responsible for making and im plementing policies affecting foreign trade; 
Right of Appeal 
101. Members of the Working Party requested de tailed information on the availability of 
administrative appeals, as well as  the availability of  appeals to an independent tribunal or judicial 
review.  Those members also requested that th e Russian Federation ensure that the central 
Government would monitor and take active steps to ensure that measures taken by sub-central 
authorities or other subjects of the Russian Federati on such as WTO inconsistent legislation, actions 
or non-uniform application would be brought into  conformity with Russia's obligations under the 
WTO Agreement promptly, particularly when such measures were notified to the central government 
by a WTO Member or other interested party.  Th ose members noted that a right of appeal to an 
independent tribunal or judicial review should be provided to all participants in the Russian 
Federation economy. 
102. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration replied that any decision by the state 
authorities, local administrations, community associati ons or officials could be appealed to a court  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 31 
 
 
 with respective jurisdiction.  In the case of appeal s against administrative action or inaction, at the 
discretion of the appellant, an appeal could also  be addressed to either the Government or a 
Government agency controlling body responsible fo r the decision.  He noted, also, that appeals 
against the decision of a lower court were also po ssible.  He reiterated th at the person aggrieved by 
the decision could decide whether to pursue an administrative review or court procedures. 
103. In response to requests for additional informati on on the types of appeal mechanism available 
and the standing of an aggrieved party, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that 
Article 45 of the Customs Code provided that any pe rson could lodge an appeal against a decision of 
the customs authorities of the Russian Federation a nd their officers, if such person (i) reasonably 
believed that their rights and lawful interests had been infringed, and (ii) where the conduct at issue 
affected such person directly and personally.  
104. The procedure for appeals in respect of decisi ons, action (inaction) of the customs authorities 
and their officers was stipulated in Chapter 7 of  the Customs Code and applied to any decisions, 
action (inaction) of the customs authorities and thei r officers.  Under the Customs Code appeals were 
to be lodged with the superior customs authority directly or through the customs authority whose 
decision, action (inaction) was appealed against.  Appeals against decisions, action (inaction) of 
federal executive bodies competent fo r customs-related matters were to  be lodged with that federal 
executive body.  Appeals could be lodged to a court simultaneously or consecutively to an 
administrative procedure.  They could be lodged within 3 months from the date the appellant knew 
that his rights and lawful interests had been in fringed or from the date of implementation of the 
decision taken by the customs authority or its officers.   Appeals were to be submitted in written form.  
Appeals were to be processed by the customs author ity within one month from the date of lodging the 
appeal.  However, if necessary, the period for processing could be extended by the head of the 
customs authority for up to one month.   
105. Appeals lodged against decisions, action (inacti on) taken by a customs officer or a customs 
checkpoint concerning shipment of goods through the border, which did not exceed 1,5 million 
Rubles in value and (or) one vehicle, could be pro cessed in a simplified appeal procedure.  This 
involved an oral claim to a superior customs office r.  Such appeals were dealt with by immediate 
ruling.  The simplified appeal procedure did not preclude the appellant lodging an appeal via the 
normal procedure.  Appeal decisions issued by the customs authority could be appealed against to the 
superior customs authority or court, or arbitration court.  Pursuant to Article 46 of the Customs Code, 
the appeal mechanism envisaged by  the Customs Code did not include decisions in respect of the 
Code of Administrative Offences No.195-FZ of 30  December 2001 (as amended on 28 July 2004).  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 32  
 
 Administrative appeal procedures were similar to those envisaged by the Customs Code, except under 
the Code of Administrative Offences, appeals could be  lodged within 10 days after receipt of a copy 
of the decision appealed against and required to be  processed within 10 days from the date of lodging 
the appeal. 
106. In response to further questions, the representativ e of the Russian Federation stated that the 
procedure for appealing against decisions of tax bodies  and actions or omissions of their officers was 
regulated by the Tax Code of the Russian Federa tion.  Decisions issued by tax bodies, as well as 
actions and omissions by their officers, could be app ealed to a supervising officer or a court, either 
simultaneously or consecutively.  An appeal was required to be determined within one month from 
the date of lodging the appeal.  The tax body was re quired to take a decision within one month, and 
the decision on the appeal was required to be notifie d to the person lodging the appeal within 3 days 
after the decision was taken.  Fees for appeals s ubmitted to courts were set out in Federal Law 
No. 2005-1 of 9 December 1991 "On State Duties". 
107. As regards appeals and complaints in the sphe re of technical regulation the representative of 
the Russian Federation noted that pursuant to Fe deral Law No. 184-FZ of “On Technical Regulation” 
refusal to register a voluntary certification could be a ppealed in a judicial procedure.  With regard to 
mandatory conformity certification, an applicant could lodge a complaint with the authority on accreditation against unlawful actions of certification authorities and accredited testing laboratories (centers). 
Division of authority between central and sub-central governments  
108. Members of the Working Party sought confirmation concerning the uniform application of 
WTO provisions throughout the territory of the Ru ssian Federation as well as by sub-central entities.  
They also invited the Russian Federation to provide  more information on the hierarchy of legislative 
acts in the Russian Federation, sought an explicit st atement on the status of international agreements 
like the WTO vis-à-vis Russian law and whether Russia's Protocol of Accession to the WTO was 
deemed to be a "treaty" for this purpose, and requ ested a description of how, in legal terms, the 
protocol package would be ratified and WTO rul es and commitments implemented in the Russian 
Federation.  Further information was sought on wh ether there were any areas relating to matters under 
WTO provisions where sub-federal entities might have  exclusive jurisdiction.  Those members also 
requested further clarification on whether the aut horities of the Russian Fede ration would be required 
to submit the approved protocol package to sub-cen tral entities for their approval in the ratification 
process.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 33 
 
 
 109. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that international treaties 
contracted by the Russian Federation were conclude d on behalf of the Russian Federation by the 
President of the Russian Federation, the Chairman of the Government, as well as federal ministers, 
heads of other federal authorities, heads of di plomatic missions of the Russian Federation (if 
appointed) in accordance with Articles 12 and 13 of Federal Law No. 101-FZ of 15 July 1995 "On 
International Treaties of the Russian Federation".  Once they had entered into force, international 
treaties were binding throughout the entire territory of the Russian Federation and, in the event of 
conflict, prevailed over domestic federal laws in accordance with Ar ticle 15 of the Constitution.   
110. The representative of the Russian Federation fu rther noted that according to Article 3 of 
Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 “On the Fundamentals of State Regulation of Foreign 
Trade Activity” foreign trade in the Russian Fede ration was regulated by the Constitution of the 
Russian Federation, federal laws and other le gal acts of the Russian Federation and by the 
international treaties to which the Russian Federation was a party.  Article 6 of said Law provided for, 
inter alia , the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation to form the concept and strategy of the 
development of foreign trade relations and the basic principles of the foreign trade policy;  to ensure 
the economic security and protection of the econo mic sovereignty and economic interests of the 
Russian Federation, as well as the economic interests of the subjects of the Russian Federation and of 
Russian natural and juridical persons;  and to concl ude international treaties in the field of foreign 
economic relations. 
111. He further noted that if an international treat y of the Russian Federation affected issues falling 
within the jurisdiction of the subj ects of the Russian Federation, such  a treaty should be elaborated in 
co-ordination with relevant bodies of the interested subjects of the Russian Federation.  This provision 
was contained in Federal Law No. 101-FZ of 15 July  1995 "On International Treaties of the Russian 
Federation".  As regards internati onal treaties of the Russian Federation affecting issues falling within 
the joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation a nd the subjects of the Russian Federation, the Law 
established that federal bodies of executive power s hould send the main provisions or the draft of a  
treaty to the state power bodies of the interested subject of the Federation.  Proposals received from 
the subjects were considered in the course of prep aration of the draft of the international treaty. 
112. He recalled that Federal Law 1999 No. 4-FZ of 4 January 1999 "On Co-ordination of 
International and Foreign Economic Ties of the S ubjects of the Russian Federation" provided the 
subjects of the Russian Federation, inter alia , with the right to negotiate  and conclude agreements 
with their partners on internationa l and foreign economic ties.  Such agreements could not contradict 
the federal legislation and the international commitm ents of the Russian Federation.  The Law made it WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 34  
 
 compulsory for the subjects to notify the approp riate federal authorities before entering into 
negotiations, and set forth a procedure for  prior appr oval of the draft agreed text of the agreement by 
the appropriate federal authorities.  The agreem ents concluded by the subjects of the Russian 
Federation were not consider ed international treaties. 
113. The representative of the Russian Federation note d that once signed, the Russian Federation's 
Protocol of Accession to the WTO would have the st atus of an international treaty.  Consequently, 
according to Article 7 of the Civil Code, it would have direct effect in regard to relations regulated by 
the civil law except where national acts had to be passed for its enforcemen t.  In accordance with 
Article 17 of Federal Law No. 110-FZ of 15 July  1995 “On International Treaties of the Russian 
Federation”, the Protocol would be subject to ratif ication.  After ratification, it would become an 
integral part of the legal system of the Russian Federation.  Its provisions would apply throughout the 
territory of the Russian Federation.  
114. Members of the Working Party expressed concerns  in relation to non-WTO consistent actions 
of certain regional governments, often in the face of relevant federal legi slation.  In addition, 
Members of the Working Party requested clarificati on of the ability of the central government to take 
the initiative and responsibility for overruling or removing WTO-inconsistent measures taken by 
subjects of the Russian Federation.  Some memb ers of the Working Party requested a specific 
commitment from the Russian Federation that inte rnational treaties would be strictly observed 
throughout its territory. 
115. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that a special mechanism had 
been established to monitor and ensure that the legi slation and practice of the subjects of the Russian 
Federation complied with federal laws.  On 6 October 1999 Federal La w No. 184-FZ "On General 
Principles of the Organization of the Legislative (Representative) and Executive Authorities of State 
Power of the Subjects of the Russian Federation" had been enacted.  The Public Prosecutor's Office 
administered the law.  Following a complaint regarding the action or policy  of a subject of the 
Russian Federation, the Public Prosecutor could seek  an order or declaration from the Supreme Court 
or an appropriate lower body of the concerned subject invalidating the legislation or practice 
complained of , on the basis that the legislation or practi ce was inconsistent with respective federal 
legislation or international treaties of the Russi an Federation.  Presidential Decree No. 849 of 
13 May 2000 "On the Authorized Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in a 
Federal District" empowered a presidential represen tative in a federal district to propose the 
suspension of acts of executive authorities of the s ubjects of the Russian Federation that contravened 
the Constitution, federal laws or international comm itments of the Russian Federation.  Similarly,  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 35 
 
 
 Presidential Decree No. 1486 of 10 August 2000 "On S upplementary Measures to Provide Integrity of 
Legal Treatment in the Russian Federation" created a federal registry of the legal acts of the subjects 
of the Russian Federation.  All legal acts enac ted by the subjects of the Russian Federation were 
notified to the Federal Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation within 7 days of enactment for 
scrutiny and review.  If the legislation was found to be  inconsistent with fede ral laws, the Legislative 
Department of the Ministry of Justice could draft a presidential decree suspending the operation of the 
legislation, or seek an order from the Constitutiona l Court of the Russian Federation together with 
proposals for reconciling or rectifying the conflict.  Acts or parts thereof determined by the Court to 
contravene the Constitution became invalid.   
116. He further noted that, in accordance with th e Constitution of the Russian Federation, the 
Constitution itself and federal laws had supremacy over  the whole territory of the Russian Federation.  
The bodies of state authority, the bodies of local self -government, officials, private citizens and their 
associations were required to observe the Constitution of the Russian Federation and its laws.  Federal 
Law No. 101-FZ of 15 July 1995 "On International Treaties of the Russian Federation contained rules 
ensuring the execution of the international treaties of  the Russian Federation by the President and the 
Government of the Russian Federation, federal executive bodies, bodies of state authority of the 
relevant subjects of the Russian Federation. 
117. [The representative of the Russian Federati on confirmed that the provisions of the WTO 
Agreement should be applied uniformly throughout the Russian Federation's customs territory and 
other territories under the Russian Federation's contro l within its state border, including in regions 
engaging in border trade or frontier traffic, special economic zones, and other areas where special regimes for tariffs, taxes and regul ations were established.  He added that, when informed of a 
situation where WTO provisions were not being appl ied or applied in a non-uniform manner, central 
authorities would act to enforce WTO provisions without requiring the affected parties to petition 
through the courts.] 
118. [The representative of the Russian Federation also confirmed that in matters involving 
international trade subject to WTO provisions, his authorities would provide judicial, arbitral or administrative recourse to an independent tribunal or judicial review, in conformity with WTO 
obligations, including, but not restricted to, Article X:3(b) of GATT 1994, and relevant provisions in 
the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of  Intellectual Property Rights and the General 
Agreement on Trade in Services.] 
119. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would administer in a uniform , impartial and reasonable manner all its laws, WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 36  
 
 regulations, decisions and rulings of the kind describ ed in Article X:1 of the GATT 1994.  He further 
confirmed that the legislation of the Russian Fede ration would provide for the right to review of 
administrative actions and decisions in conformity with the provisions of Article X:3 b) of the GATT, 
Article 41.4 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article 6. 2 of the GATS.  The Working Party took note of 
these commitments.] 
POLICIES AFFECTING TRADE IN GOODS Registration requirements for import/export operations 
120. The representative of the Russian Federati on noted that his Government imposed no 
restrictions on the right of all enterprises to import or export, except for cases provided for in international agreements and fede ral laws.  He noted that the State monopoly on foreign trade had 
been eliminated by Presidential Decree No. 213 of  15 November 1991 "On Liberalization of Foreign 
Economic Activity on the Territory of the Russian S oviet Federal Socialist Republic" (as amended on 
27 October 1992).  This principle was further embodied in Article 1 of the Civil Code and Article 8 of 
the Constitution.   
121. The representative of the Russian Federation furt her noted that the background for export and 
import trade in the Russian Federation were set out in Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 
"On the Fundamentals of the State Regulation of the Foreign Trade Activity".  Article 10 of that Law 
provided that legal persons established in accordan ce with Russian legislation, as well as natural 
persons that were citizens of the Russian Federati on or possessed the right of permanent residence in 
the Russian Federation were permitted to undertak e export and import operations in accordance with 
Russian legislation.  Export and import operations did not require any additional special permission or 
activity license.  This rule had few exceptions, in  particular: alcoholic beverages, pharmaceuticals, 
and precious stones/metals. 
122. In response to requests for further informati on on registration requirements for engaging in 
economic activity, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that registration of legal persons 
and natural persons as i ndividual entrepreneurs was governed by  Article 51 of the Civil Code and 
Federal Law No.129-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On State Re gistration of Juridical Persons and Individual 
Entrepreneurs" (as amended on 23 December 2003).  Registration was carried out by the Federal Tax 
Service.  Refusal of State registration was governed by Article 23 of the Law and could be appealed to 
court.  Registration enabled lega l persons/individual entrepreneurs to engage in economic activity, 
including foreign trade activity.  The Law did not contain any restrictions or discrimination against foreign founders of legal persons.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 37 
 
 
 123. To register, legal persons were required to  submit the following documents, listed in 
Article 12 of the Law:   
- an application based on the form established by Government Resolution No. 439 of 19 June 
2002 (as amended on 26 February 2004); 
- the decision whereby the legal person had been fo rmed, in the form of minutes, agreement or 
any other document in comp liance with Russian law; 
- the constitutive documents of the legal person (originals or copies certified by a notary); 
- for foreign legal persons, an extract from the regist er of legal persons of the country of origin 
or another equally effective proof of the legal st atus of a foreign legal entity being a founder; 
- and a certificate of payment of state duty in the amount of 2,000 Rubles. 
Under the Law, registration of a natural person as an individual entrepreneur required the following 
documents: 
- an application based on the form approved by the Government of the Russian Federation; 
- for citizens of the Russian Federation, a copy of the identification document of the natural 
person (i.e. passport - Presidentia l Decree No 232 of 13 March 1997); 
- for foreign and Stateless persons, a copy of the document established by Federal Law or 
recognized under an international agreement of the Russian Federation as the identification 
document (identification documents were liste d in Article 10 of Federal Law No. 115-FZ of 
25 July 2002 “On The Legal Position of Fore ign Citizens in the Russian Federation”); 
- a document confirming the right to reside in the Russian Federation; 
- and a document confirming the payment of a 400 Rubles registration charge.   
Pursuant to Article 9 of the Law, no other documen t – other than those listed in the Law – could be 
requested for registration.   
124. In order to ensure transparency in registrati on, in accordance with Article 4 of Federal Law 
No.129-FZ, the Federal Tax Servic e of the Russian Federation was responsible for supervising the 
State Register, which contained information on th e establishment, reorganization and liquidation of 
legal persons and other respective da ta.  This information was available to any interested person upon 
request under the conditions established by the Law.  This information was also posted on the web-
site of the Federal Tax Service (www.na log.ru) and updated on a monthly basis. 
125. Several members of the Working Party noted that laws and regulations relating to the right to 
trade in goods, "registration requirements" or "activ ity licensing" should not operate to restrict imports 
in violation of the general prohibition on quantita tive restrictions as under Article XI:1 of GATT 
1994, nor should they discriminate against importe d goods in violation of the non-discriminatory 
provisions of Article III:4 of GATT 1994.  Furthermore,  fees and charges levied on the right to import 
should be limited to the cost of services rendere d as under Article VIII:1(a) of GATT 1994, and taxes 
and charges on the right to trade in imported goods should not lead to discrimination in favour of like domestic products as required by  Article III:2 of GATT 1994. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 38  
 
 126. In response the representative of the Russian Federation stated that, in his opinion, such 
matters as the right to trade in goods, “registr ation requirements” or “activity licensing” were 
regulated by the provisions of the WTO agreement on trade in services.  Regarding Article VIII:1(a) 
of the GATT 1994, he noted that in his view it was only applicable to customs-related fees, namely 
customs fees, consular fees, and statistical fees, a nd did not apply to fees connected with registration 
requirements or activity licensing. 
127. Some members requested additional information concerning the future elimination of activity 
licensing requirements in areas such as pharmaceuti cals, alcoholic beverages, metals and precious 
stones. These members sought clarifications regard ing the steps taken by the Russian authorities to 
bring existing practices into consistency with WT O requirements.  Noting that the Ministry of 
Agriculture and the Federal Customs Service  of the Russian Federation had recently made efforts to 
limit the number of both importing and exporting firm s engaged in international trade of certain 
products, these members further requested an explan ation on the reasons for these limitations and the 
legal basis upon which they might be taken fo r both domestic and foreign trading firms. 
- Alcoholic beverages 
128. Some members expressed concern over the rest rictive consequences of the current activity 
licensing system for the sale of alcoholic bevera ges.  They requested information on the Russian 
Federation's intention to introduce ne w legislation in this area.  Noting that the fees charged for the 
right to trade in imported alcoholic beverag es greatly exceeded those charged for domestic 
distribution or export, these members felt that more detail was also required on  this and on any other 
activity licensing fees associated with importation.  In particular, these members sought information 
on any plans for establishment of a State monopoly on alcoholic beverages.  
129. The representative of the Russian Federation noted  that activity licensing requirements for the 
importation and exportation of ethy l alcohol and alcoholic products, alcohol-containing products were 
aimed at protecting human life and h ealth and at the proper collection of internal taxes.  Federal Law 
No. 171-FZ of 22 November 1995 "On State Re gulation of Production and Turnover of Ethyl 
Alcohol, Alcoholic and Alcohol-Containing Pr oducts" (as amended on 12 November 2003) 
established the legal basis for production and turnove r of ethyl alcohol, alcoholic products (wine, 
alcoholic beverages, ethyl drinkable alcohol) and alcohol-containing produc ts (alcohol-containing 
edible and non-edible products).  Pursuant to th is Law, natural and legal persons were required to 
obtain an activity license in the agencies of the Fede ral Tax Service after their State registration.  
Export/import activity licenses were being issued:  for the purchase, storage and exports of ethyl  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 39 
 
 
 alcohol and alcoholic products;  exports of alcohol  products; and imports, storage and supply of ethyl 
alcohol and alcoholic products,  alcohol-containing products.   
130. Conditions and requirements to be fulfilled by legal persons and individual entrepreneurs 
were stipulated in Law N. 171-FZ.  This Law established two kinds of export/import activity licenses: 
general licenses and licenses for a single contract.  General licenses to import, store and supply alcoholic products were issued only to organizati ons with the paid-up authorized capital of no less 
than 40 thousand federal statutory minimal wage s and which had been performing deliveries of 
alcoholic products for at least one year (while havi ng the turnover of imported al coholic products of at 
least 50 thousand deciliters over one year in equiva lent to absolute alcohol ).  These licenses were 
issued for a term of up to three years.  They could not restrict the volume of alcohol products.   Single 
contract licenses (i.e. one-time licences) were issued  for a term of 
up to five months to organizations 
to export and import, store and deliver alcoholic a nd alcohol containing edible products amounting to 
no more than 500 deciliters in equivalent to absolu te alcohol with their customs value not exceeding 
100 thousand federal statutory minimal wages.  Li censing fees provided by Federal Law No. 5-FZ of 
8 January 1998 "On Charges for Issuance of Licenses for Production and Turnover of Ethyl Alcohol, 
Alcohol Containing Products" are shown in Table 7.  Licenses were required to  be issued within 30 
days after submission of the complete set of documents.      
131. He added that in order to improve the system of import licensing in the Russian Federation, 
the State Duma had passed in the first reading - and was currently preparing for the second reading -a 
draft federal law "On Amending the Federal Law On  Charges for Issuance of Licenses and Right for 
Production and Marketing of Ethyl Alcohol, Alcohol Containing and Other Alcoholic Products".  This 
draft law was designed to provide a unified licensi ng fee rate (500 minimum wages) for the right of 
production, storage and sale of alcoholic products, the right to export ethyl alcohol and alcoholic 
products and the right to purchase ethyl alcohol, al cohol-containing and alcoholic products for import, 
storage and wholesale.   He further confirmed that procedur es would be simplified and that the 
principle of “one window” would apply for licensing.  His Government would also simplify licensing procedures in the area of alcohol business activity  by eliminating activity licences for imports and 
exports. This would lead to a system whereby activity licenses would be required only for doing 
business, i.e. producing, distributing, supplying a nd storing alcoholic beverages and ethyl alcohol – 
such licences would be valid for no less than 3 years - and whereby no specific activity requirement 
would be needed for import/export activities. He confirmed that the new licensing system would not have any turnover requirement and that the system would be in place upon accession. The representative of the Russian Federation further confirmed that the Russian Federation would WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 40  
 
 eliminate any discriminatory fee between imported and domestic products in relation to licensing 
procedures upon accession. 
132. He added that 1750 licenses had been issued by the Ministry of Taxes and Fees of the Russian 
Federation in 2003, including 27 general licenc es and 64 activity licenses for the export of ethyl 
alcohol and alcoholic products - among which were 59 general licenses.  Some 894 import licenses and 18 export licenses had also been issued within the first six months of 2004. 
- Pharmaceuticals 
133. The representative of the Russian Federation sai d that in order to protect human life and 
health, the right to import pharmaceuticals was gran ted to the following en tities, in accordance with 
Federal Law 86-FZ of 22 June 1998 "On Medicines": 
- enterprises manufacturing pharmaceuticals which imported pharmaceutical products for their 
own manufacturing of pharmaceuticals; 
- wholesale enterprises of pharmaceuticals; 
- research and development institutes and laborator ies, which carried out development research 
and quality control, effectiveness, and safety of pharmaceuticals; 
- foreign enterprises manufacturing pharmaceuticals and wholesalers of pharmaceuticals 
provided they had their own representations in  the territory of the Russian Federation. 
134. Pursuant to Federal Law No. 128-FZ of 8 Au gust 2001 "On Licensing of Certain Types of 
Activities", the licensing requirements in respect of pharmaceuticals was maintained because of 
potential damage to rights, legal rights and health of Russian nationals.  The only possible form of 
regulation was licensing.  Licenses for the productio n or wholesale trade of these goods were issued 
for a period of five years.  In accordan ce with Article 15 of Federal Law No. 128-FZ of 
8 August 2001 "On Licensing of Certain Types of Activities", a fee of 1,300 Rubles was charged for 
the issuing of each license.    
135. Some members of the Working Party requested the Russian Federation to confirm that the 
ability to request an activity licen se for trade in pharmaceuticals w as reserved to Russian Federation 
firms and to explain what that meant in practice for foreign-owned firms in the Russian Federation, 
foreign exporting firms not established in the Russian  Federation, and domestic or foreign individual 
entrepreneurs seeking to export pharmace uticals to the Russian Federation. 
136. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation recalled that foreign legal persons 
intending to import pharmaceuticals into the territory  of the Russian Federation were required to open  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 41 
 
 
 a representative office in the territory of the Ru ssian Federation; register  as a legal person on the 
territory of the Russian Federation; hold a license for the relevant type of activity (pharmaceutical 
production or distribution) pursuant to the provisions of Law No. 128-FZ; and hold a license to import 
pharmaceuticals into the territory  of the Russian Federation. 
137. He further noted that such persons were subj ect to the same uniform procedures as provided 
under Government Resolution No. 1539 of 25 Decemb er 1998 "On Imports into and Exports from the 
Russian Federation of Medicines and Pharmaceutical Substances".  
138. The representative of the Russian Federation r ecalled that under Article 21 of Federal Law 
No. 86-FZ of 22 June 1998 "On Medicines" domestic and foreign natural pers ons were not permitted 
to export pharmaceuticals to the Russian Federation. 
139. In response to the statement that domestic and foreign natural persons were not permitted to 
export pharmaceuticals to the Russian Federation, some Members of the Working Party requested 
information on whether natural persons were perm itted to manufacture pharmaceuticals in the Russian 
Federation.  Those members noted that the fee fo r each importation was burdensome, delayed imports 
and unnecessarily added to the expenses of importation,  and appeared to be a revenue measure.   
140. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that under Federal Law 
No. 128-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On Licensing of Certain Types of Activities" the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals in the Russian Federation could be carried out by both natural persons and legal 
persons. Regarding importation of pharmaceuticals,  he noted that legal persons with foreign 
participation (including fully fo reign-owned legal persons) enjoyed the same rights as other Russian 
legal persons in the Russian Federation and could obtain an activity license under the same 
conditions.   
- Precious stones and metals 
141. The representative of the Russian Federation not ed that there were no statutory licensing or 
quantitative requirements for imports of precious ston es and metals to the territory of the Russian 
Federation.  Precious stones and metals had been  excluded from the list of currency valuables 
pursuant to Federal Law No. 173-FZ of 10 Dece mber 2003 "On Currency Regulation and Currency 
Control" and data on extraction, transfer, and c onsumption of precious stone s and metals had been 
excluded from the list of State secret data, in accordance with Federal Law No. 153-FZ of 
11 November 2003 "On Amending Article 5 of the Fe deral Law of the Russian Federation On State 
Secrets".  The November 2003 amen dments simplified the procedure for performing transactions with 
precious stones and metals and made these transactions more transparent.  In addition, amendments to WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 42  
 
 Presidential Decrees No. 742 of 21 June 2001, "On th e Procedure of Importation into and Exportation 
from the Russian Federation of Precious Meta ls and Precious Stones" and No. 1373 of 
30 November 2002 "On Regulations on Importation to the Russian Federation and Exportation from 
the Russian Federation of Raw Diamonds and Cut Diamonds" were being prepared.  These 
amendments would abolish quantita tive restrictions for platinum and platinum group metals, raw 
diamonds; allow exports of ferrous metals scrap and wast es; and permit the future liberalization of 
international trade involving these goods. 
142. Some members requested further clarification on whether the Russian Federation maintained 
any restrictions or requirements other than tariffs  on the importation of precious metals and stones, 
notably whether imports of these products were also restricted by import licensing, or whether it was necessary to import them through specific custom s posts as was the case with diamond exports.  
These members also expressed concerns in relati on to export requirements for precious stones and 
metals.  In response, the representative of the Ru ssian Federation stated that imports of precious 
stones and precious metals were carried out thro ugh specific customs posts (Presidential Decrees 
No. 742 of 21 June 2001 "On the Procedure of Im portation into and Exportation from the Russian 
Federation of Precious Metals and Precious St ones" and No. 1373 of 30 November 2002 "On 
Regulations on Importation to the Russian Federati on and Exportation from the Russian Federation of 
Natural Diamonds and Cut Diamonds ").  He added that apart from customs tariffs and customs 
registration no other requirements were applied to imports of pr ecious metals, precious stones and 
jewellery at the specific customs checkpoints.   
- Other licensing requirements 
143. Some Members of the Working Party expressed concerns in relation to licensing requirements 
governing access to oil and gas pipelines or other distribution networks for export products which 
could operate in a manner so as to restrict the volume of oil and gas exported from the Russian 
Federation, and could be inconsistent with the requirements of  Article XI of the GATT 1994. They 
requested the Russian Federation to provide furthe r information on the operation of these regimes, 
including on the regime for export licensing of energy products. 
144. Concerning questions on licensing related to expo rt or import of natural gas and electricity, 
the representative of the Russian Federation st ated that there were no export/import licenses 
requirements for these products.  He noted, however , that the licensing requirements governing access 
to pipelines or other distribution networks used fo r the export of those products were not applied so as 
to restrict the volume of gas and oil exported fro m the territory of the Russian Federation.  The 
Ministry of Industry and Energy of the Russian Fe deration issued activity licenses to legal entities and  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 43 
 
 
 individual entrepreneurs.  Activity licenses were gran ted for a five-year term.  The effective term of 
the license could be extended on the licensee's a pplication in accordance with the licence renewal 
procedure (Government Decision No. 637 of 28 Augu st 2002 "On Licensing Activities in the Field of 
Operation of Electric Grids and Thermal Grids, th e Transportation, Storage Processing and Sale of 
Oil, Gas and the Products of Processing Thereof").   Under Federal Law No . 128-FZ of 8 August 2001 
"On Licensing of Specific Types of Activity" the follo wing types of activity were subject to licensing:  
- the operation of oil and gas production facilities; 
- the processing of oil, gas and oil/gas processing products thereof; 
- the transportation of oil, gas and oil/gas processing products; 
- the storage of oil, gas and oil/gas processing products; 
- the sale of oil, gas and oil/gas processing products; 
- the activity of operating gas networks. 
145. The representative of the Russian Federation recalled his earlier statements on registration 
requirements, and further stated that such requi rements for export contracts had been originally 
introduced by Government Resolution No. 758 of 1 July 1994 "On Measures to Improve the State 
Regulation of Export of Goods and Services", and had been repealed by Government Resolution 
No. 300 of 21 March 1996 "On Recognizing as Invalidat ed Certain Decisions of  the Government of 
the Russian Federation on the Issue of Register ing Contracts in the Export of Commodities".  
Registration of import contracts had never been re quired in the Russian Federation, and the Russian 
Federation did not maintain any special registry of import or export contracts, excluding contracts for 
import or export of goods that are subject to measures justified by Article XXI of the GATT 1194.  
He also confirmed that his authorities had no plans to restore such registration in any form.  He further 
stated that the subjects of the Russian Federation were not permitted to impose requirements on legal or natural persons that might affect their rights to engage in importation or exportation of goods. 
146. Some members of the Working Party stated th at the Russian Federation should undertake the 
following commitments in this area: the Russian Federation would guarantee that no restrictions 
would be maintained on the right to trade in goods except as would be consistent with WTO 
provisions and that all laws and regulations relati ng to trading rights would be applied in a manner 
consistent with relevant WTO obligations.  Specifi cally, the Russian Federation should confirm that 
no restrictions would be maintained on the rights of  individuals and enterprises, including those with 
foreign participation, to import and export goods in to the customs territory of the Russian Federation 
except as would be consistent with provisions of  the WTO Agreement.  Nor would individuals and 
firms be restricted in their ability to import and ex port based on their registered scope of business.  
The criteria for registration and enrolment in the St ate Register of legal pe rsons would be generally 
applicable and published in the Official Gazette, al ong with any further changes.  Without prejudice to WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 44  
 
 other relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement, th e Russian Federation should ensure that any laws 
and regulations relating to the right to trade in goods  would not restrict imports of goods in violation 
of the general prohibition on quantitative restric tions under Article XI:1 of GATT 1994, nor should 
they discriminate against imported goods in viol ation of the non-discriminatory provisions under 
Article III:4 of GATT 1994.  Any ass ociated fees, taxes and charges should also be limited to the 
approximate cost of services rendered and their appl ication should not lead to  discrimination in favour 
of like domestic products.  The Russian Federation s hould ensure full national treatment in respect of 
all laws, regulations and requirements concerni ng internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, 
transportation, distribution or use of imported alcoholic beverages and ethyl alcohol. 
147. [The representative of the Russian Federati on took note of the concerns expressed by 
members of the Working Party.] 
[to be completed] 
1. Import Regulations 
Customs Regulations and Customs Tariff 
148. The representative of the Russian Federation reca lled that the Russian Federation had been an 
active participant at the World Customs Organization (WCO) even before gaining full membership to 
it on 8 July 1993.  The Russian Federation had also  joined the International Convention on the 
Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding  System on 1 January 1997.  Federal Law 
No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff" (as last amended on  29 June 2004) and the Customs 
Code of the Russian Federation (Federal Law No. 61-FZ of 28 May 2003) constituted the legal 
framework for the customs regime of the Russian Federation.  The existing Law “On Customs Tariff” 
and the draft Federal La w "On Amending the  Law of the Russ ian Federation On Customs Tariff" 
provided for customs tariff regulation of import and export of goods and de termination of customs 
value of goods in compliance with WTO rules and disciplines.  Customs administration and customs 
procedures were governed by the Customs Code. 
149. Members of the Working Party considered th at the Russian Federation should provide a 
description of changes to customs regulations, pr ocedures and practices following the enactment of 
the Customs Code in 2003, together with copies of  all relevant implementing instruments in a WTO 
working language.  Referring to the draft proposal before the State Duma for revising Federal Law 
No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993 “On Customs Tariff” (as amended on 29 June 2004), several members  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 45 
 
 
 asked the Russian Federation to explain how this pr oposal related to the new Customs Code (Federal 
Law No. 61-FZ of 28 May 2003).  
150. With respect to concerns of some members of  the Working Party, the representative of the 
Russian Federation noted that the customs bodies made  up a single federal centralized system and that 
their functions were established by the provisions of the Customs Code.  In cases directly defined by 
the statutes of the customs legislation and other legal acts of the Russian Federation, the State 
Customs Committee (SCC) could issue, within th e limits of its competence, normative legal acts 
pertaining to customs.  Only some provisions of th e Customs Code were not directly applicable.  The 
lists of documents and information, for example, including information required to fulfil customs 
registration formalities were defined by the State Customs Committee. 
151. Some members expressed concern regarding possi ble inconsistencies in the application of 
customs laws and regulations by regional customs authorities and stressed the need to ensure uniform 
and transparent implementation of customs regulati ons throughout the entire territory of the Russian 
Federation.  Many members also sought a clarificat ion of Customs Order No. 25 of 15 January 2001 
and other related orders of the SCC which limited  the numbers of customs land checkpoints for goods 
imported from 14 countries, including a number of ASEAN countries.  Noting that ten out of these 14 
countries were WTO Members, these Members reque sted a commitment from the Russian Federation 
that this particular order and othe r related orders would be repealed  and would not be introduced in 
the future.  
152. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation confirmed that Customs Order 
No. 25 of 15  January 2001 had been abolished by Cu stoms Order No. 517 of 24 May 2002.  He 
explained that the new Customs Code was based on  generally accepted international rules, including 
the Kyoto Convention 2000.  To prevent custom s authorities from using their own discretion in 
decision-making, the vast majority of provisions of the Customs Code of the Russian Federation  were 
of direct application.  To ensure transparency, the Customs Code provided that relevant authorities  
should publish legal acts of customs regulations in the official publications. The Customs Code 
contained detailed provisions related to WTO rules and disciplines in particular those to protect 
intellectual property rights, and was drafted in a manner to comply with the Agreement on Rules of 
Origin.  Articles 45-57 of the Code contained improved provisions on right of appeal so as to ensure 
compliance of customs administrations and their officers with legislative requirements in their 
decision-making, action or inaction.  Right of app eal could be exercised through lodging a complaint 
with the superior customs administrations and/or th rough judicial procedures. (for further details, see 
the section on “Right of appeal”). WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 46  
 
 153. In response to questions regarding the relati onship between the Customs Code and the draft 
Federal Law “On Amending the Law On Custom s Tariff”, the representative of the Russian 
Federation explained that the Customs Code was a framework law.  The draft Federal Law “On 
Amending the Law On Customs Tariff” had been pr esented by the Government and had passed first 
reading in the State Duma.  That draft Law provided methods to determine the customs value of goods in accordance with the provision of the Customs Code and in consistency with the provisions of 
the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994. 
154. He recalled that the Customs Code set out a list of customs payments, a list of declarants and 
any other persons responsible for payment of customs duties pursuant to the Customs Code, as well as 
the legal grounds for exemption from such payments.  The Customs  Code also stipulated the grounds 
for deferment of payments and making payments in instalments.  It  provided a list of circumstances 
when deferment of payments and making paymen ts in instalments would not be excluded and 
contained methods to secure customs payments, incl uding: personal guarantee; payment in cash at the 
cashier’ desk or transfer of funds to the account of the customs office at the federal treasury (cash 
deposit); bank guarantee; mortgagi ng of goods and other property. 
155. The Customs Code established the right of the participant in foreign trade activity, when 
securing a customs payment, to use any kind of secu rity envisaged by the Code, provided that the 
security used was also recognized as reliable by the customs authority.  He further recalled that the 
Code provided a detailed description of the procedur e for the recovery of unpaid customs payments.  
The Code also set out the mechanism for recovery  of overpaid or over-recovered customs payments.  
The customs authority was required to inform the pa yer of  the overpaid or over-recovered customs 
payments within one month of the detecti on of the overpayment or over-recovery.   
156. Several members further noted that the legisla tion currently applied did not appear to fully 
implement Article 13 of the Agreement on the Im plementation of Article VII of GATT 1994 which 
provided for a guarantee system allowing an importe r to withdraw goods from customs pending final 
determination of the customs value.  This wa s a critical provision as it ensured that customs 
procedures did not, in themselves, block imports.  These members sought a confirmation that relevant 
Customs decisions, e.g. Orders and Letters, and deci sions of local customs authorities that traders and 
other interested parties needed to be able to revi ew and understand would be made available promptly 
and at reasonable cost.  Information was also required on how the SCC and its regional offices 
published and/or made available their rulings an d other information for importers and exporters. 
Furthermore, administrative orders issued by the SCC were sometimes issued as 'secret orders' and their contents were not publicized to traders.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 47 
 
 
 157. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation stated that the procedure for 
publication and making effective regulatory legal act s of federal executive authorities (including the 
SCC) was governed, in particular, by Presidentia l Decree No. 763 of 23 May 1996 "On the Procedure 
for Publication and Taking Effect of Acts of the President of the Russian Fe deration, the Government 
of the Russian Federation, and Regulatory Legal Ac ts of Federal Executive Authorities"; Government 
Resolution No. 1009 of 13 August 1997 "On the Approval of the Rules for Preparing the Normative 
Legal Acts of the Federal Bodies of the Executive Power and Their State Registration"; and the Order 
of the Ministry of Justice No. 217 of 14 July 1999  "On the Approval of the Explanations on the 
Application of the Rules for the Preparation of Normative Legal Acts of the Federal Bodies of 
Executive Power and Their State Registration.  No rmative legal acts of the SCC (e.g. acts with a 
binding effect throughout the territory of the Ru ssian Federation) included its regulations, orders, 
rules, instructions, dispositions and administrative decrees.  Briefings, letters, telegrams, teletype 
letters were not considered as normative legal acts but acts which could only have a recommendatory 
character and be used internally for the sole purpo se of a State body.  Normative legal acts of the SCC 
were subject to mandatory publication with the ex ception of acts or parts thereof constituting state 
secrets or confidential information.  Exhaustive lists  of such information and data had been approved 
by various Presidential decrees.  The official orga ns for publication were Rossijskaya Gazeta and the 
Bulletin of Regulatory Acts of Federal Bodies p ublished by Yuridicheskaya Literatura publishing 
house of the President's Administration edited monthly since 1998.  Regulatory legal acts of the SCC 
subject to State registration with the Ministry of Justice became enforceable only after they had been 
registered and officially published.   
158. In response to questions from members of the Working Party concerning “secret orders” 
made to customs officials by customs authorities, the representative of the Russian Federation noted 
that problems had occurred regarding certain unpub lished administrative orders.  He added that 
Article 24 or the Customs Code required customs authorities to make available freely and free of 
charge, including by information technology, all legal acts even in draft form.  Legal acts had to be 
registered and published officially.  They normally en tered into force not earlier than ten days after 
the date of publication.  He noted that “secret orders” were sometimes required for performing 
operational and investigation activities, rather than implementation of ordinary customs legislation. 
159. He further added that customs authorities were responsible for providing advisory services to 
all interested persons with regard to customs i ssues such as classification and valuation and other 
issues within their competence.  Such services were to be delivered as quickly as possible, and no 
later than one month from the date of receipt of the enquiry. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 48  
 
 160. [The Russian Federation undert ook bilateral market access negotiations on goods with [some] 
members of the Working Party.  The results of th ese negotiations are contained in the Schedule of 
Concessions and Commitments on Goods and fo rm Annex 1 to the Draft Protocol.] 
[to be completed] 
Ordinary Customs Duties 
161. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that the structure of the Russian 
Federation's customs tariffs was regulated by Federal Law No. Law No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993 "On 
Customs Tariff" (as last amended on 29 June 2004) .  Tariff rates could be changed by Government 
decisions based on proposals by the Interministe rial Commission on Customs and Tariff Policy and 
Trade Remedies Measures,  also taking into account the Russian Federation's international 
commitments. 
162. The Import Tariff currently applied in the Russian Federation was based on the 2002 
Harmonized Commodity Description and Code System  of the World Customs Organization.  This 
system had been introduced on 1 January 2002 by Government Resolution No. 830 in replacement of 
the HS 96 system previously used.    The customs tariff consisted of 11,032 tariff lines.  The 
significant majority of tariff items were subject to ad valorem  tariffs; 1,538 tariff items were subject 
to compound (mixed) rates ( ad valorem  and specific duties). Compound ta riff rates were applied to 
meat, butter and cheeses, flowers, bananas, coffee and tea, rice, vegetables, plant oils, preserved 
vegetables, cosmetics, leather and fur articles, f ootwear, apparels, home electronics, watches, cars and 
furniture.  92 tariff items were subject to specific rates (i.e. apples, chocolate, beer,  strong alcoholic 
beverages).  The ad valorem rate s and ad valorem equivalents of combined and specific rates ranged 
from 0 to 30 per cent, except for:    
- sugar; 
- ethyl alcohol and beer; 
- used buses older than 7 years; 
- used passenger motor cars older than 7 years; 
- used trucks older than 7 years 
- furniture with a cost lowe r than 1,8 euro per 1 kg. 
163. Tariff rates (Tables 8 and 9) were established following the basic criteria that (i) tariffs were 
the major trade policy measure applied to protect do mestic industrial and agriculture production; (ii) 
tariffs were considered measures of both trade a nd fiscal policy; (iii) tariffs were a function of 
economic development, in particular, the restructur ing of the economy.  The most recent version of 
the Customs Tariff of the Russian Federation, intr oduced by Government Resolution No. 830 of 30  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 49 
 
 
 November 2002, contained MFN rates of import customs duties for all 11,032 tariff lines.  The 
number of tariff lines with rates above 20% had be en maintained (poultry meat, sugar, beer, pure 
alcohol, vehicles older than 7 years and cheap furnit ure - see list in Table 8.  The rates of customs 
duties applicable to products originating from the co untries with which the Russian Federation did not 
apply MFN treatment amounted to the double of MFN rates.  The import customs duties applicable to 
products eligible for tariff preferences and originating from countries enjoying the Russian 
Federation's GSP scheme were levied at the level of 75 per cent of the MFN rates.  
164. Government Resolution No. 886 of 27 Novemb er 2000 substantially revised downwards and 
levelled out the customs duties (in approximately 3, 500 tariff positions out of 11,032).  As a result, 
customs tariffs for nearly all goods categories we re grouped under broader h eadings (raw materials, 
semi-finished products, finished products, foodstuffs) with duty levels of 5, 10, 15 and 20 per cent, 
respectively.  These changes, which took effect on 1 January 2001, were aimed at liberalization of 
imports of modern technologies and machinery in to the Russian Federati on, countering illegal 
practices at customs and improving the effectiveness of customs payment collection.  
165. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that the methodology for calculating the 
specific part of combined duties was as follows: for products imported into Russian territory from 
countries other then CIS and subject to a combined duty, the import value of the product (in Euro) was divided by its physical quantity.  The specific part was calculated by taking from the average unit 
price so obtained the percentage corresponding to th e ad valorem part of the duty.  The calculations 
were made on the basis of the Russian Federation' s official customs statistics for the three years 
preceding the year of introduction of the specific component for which statistics were available. 
166. Following requests from some members, the repr esentative of the Russian Federation stated 
that the new commodity description and classification system based on HS 2002, which had entered into force on 1 January 2002, was available at the WTO Secretariat in the English language in 
electronic format.  He stated that, upon request, members could have the lists of the Russian 
Federation's MFN partners and GSP recipients.  He added that the Russian Federation was ready to 
convert the results of its tariff negotiations from HS 1996 to HS 2002. 
167. Noting the above statements, some members asked  the Russian Federation to clarify whether 
the expected changes to the cust oms legislation would also exclude the possibility to apply double 
MFN tariff rates to goods originating from WTO me mbers, thereby ensuring conformity with the 
requirements of Article I of GATT 1994.  Those members considered that this issue required a substantive response, as the maintenance of doubl e-tariffs to WTO Members was unjustified and 
discriminatory. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 50  
 
 168. In response, the representativ e of the Russian Federation confirmed that goods imported from 
some WTO Members were subject to double MFN tariff rates in the Russian Federation.  He stated 
that the current problem of non-MFN tariff rate s to goods originating from some WTO Members 
resulted from the absence of bilateral trade agreem ents between Russia and these Members, notably: 
Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Brunei Darussalam, Central African Republic, Côte 
d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Domi nica, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Guatemala, Haiti, 
Hong Kong (China), Lesotho, Macao (China), Ma lawi, Maldives, Namibia, Niger, Papua New 
Guinea, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lu cia, Saint Vincent and th e Grenadines, Senegal, 
Solomon Islands, Suriname, Swaziland, Togo, Trinid ad and Tobago, and the United Arab Emirates.  
He added that all these countries and customs terr itories were beneficiaries of the Russian GSP 
scheme.  Therefore, goods originating from those territories were taxed at 75 % of the corresponding 
MFN rate.  He further added that following accession to the WTO the Russian Federation would  
apply MFN treatment in accordance with its rights and obligations under the WTO agreement. 
Tariff Quotas 
169. Many members expressed concerns regarding the Russian Federation's intention to have 
recourse to TRQs, particularly on products curre ntly subject to tariffs only.  These members 
considered that the introduction of new TRQs would be a step backward from trade liberalization that 
should be expected by acceding to the WTO.  They requested a description of the current and 
prospective legal authority for auctioning licenses an d quotas in the Russian Federation and noted that 
any method of allocating quotas or licenses should be consistent with WTO provisions, notably 
Articles II, XI, and XIII of GATT 1994, the Agreem ent on Import Licensing Procedures and Article 4 
of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Several members also stressed that, in order for TRQs to be 
introduced, the Russian Federation had to ensure that  these TRQs would preserve existing levels of 
trade, provide annual growth and would be limited in time.  In any case, full details of tariff quota 
administration measures should be provided in orde r to assess their conformity with WTO provisions. 
170. The representative of the Russian Federation re plied that Federal Law No. No. 5003-1 of 
21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff" provided the ge neral legal framework for the establishment of 
tariff rate quotas (TRQs).  Concerning the TRQ for s ugar, he noted that this TRQ had been applied 
before 2004 to imports of raw sugar originating from GSP beneficiaries.  This TRQ was imposed 
pursuant to Government Resolution No. 536 of 15 July 2002.  In 2003, this TRQ had amounted to 
3,950,000 metric tons and had been distributed am ong importers by auctions on the stock exchange.  
The procedure for holding auctions was laid down in Government Resolution No.1299 of 31 October 
1996 “On the procedure for Holding Tenders and Au ctions for Sale of Quotas when Quantitative 
Limitations and Licensing of Export and Import of Goods are Introduced in the Russian Federation”.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 51 
 
 
 He added that the TRQ on raw sugar had been elim inated pursuant to Government Resolution No.720 
of 29 November 2003.  Currently, raw sugar im ports were subject to import tariffs only. 
171. With regard to meat, he noted that in  2003- 2004 a two-level tariff had been applied to  
imports of beef (HS 0201 and  0202) and pork (HS 0203).  The legal basis for this measure were 
Government Resolutions No.49 and No.50 of 23 Janua ry 2003 and No. 721, 722, 723 of 29 November 
2003. This measure provided an oppor tunity to import  420,000 tons of beef and 450,500 tons of pork 
per year at a lower duty.  Quantities allowed for importation in 2004 were as follows: 
- frozen beef: 420,000 tons.  This TRQ was shared into four categories of countries: 1) the 
European Union, including as of 1 May 2004 Hungary, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, 
Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, the Czech Repub lic, and Estonia – 331,800 tons; 2) the United 
States– 17,200 tons; 3) Paraguay-3,000 tons ; and 4) other countries – 68,000 tons. 
(Government Resolution No. 723 of 29 November 2003);  
- fresh or chilled beef (HS 0201, sub-position 0201 10 000 1, 0201 20 200 1, 0202 20 300 1, 
0201 20 500 1, 0201 20 900 1, and 0201 30 000 beginning from 1 August 2003 - Government 
Resolution No. 417 of 11 July 2003):, 11,000 tons  500 kg for the five last months of 2003 and 
27,500 tons for 2004. This TRQ was shared into two categories of exporters: 1) the European 
Union, including as of 1 May 2004 Hungary, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, 
Slovakia, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, and Es tonia – 27,000 tons; and 2) other countries- 
500 tons (Government Resolution No.722, of 29 November 2003); 
- pork: 450,000 tons.  This TRQ was shared into four categories of exporters: 1) the European 
Union, including as of 1 May 2004 Hungary, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, 
Slovakia, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, and Es tonia - 227,300 tons; 2) the United States - 
42,200 tons; 3) Paraguay - 1,000 tons; and 4)  other countries - 179,500 tons. (Government 
Resolution No.721 of 29 November 2003). 
172. Imports in excess of these amounts were subject to a higher duty.  The Ministry of Economic 
Development and Trade of the Russian Federation was the body responsible for TRQ administration 
and issuing non-automatic licenses for imports unde r TRQs.  For pork and beef, 90 per cent of the 
import volume was distributed by granting licenses to historical importers based on their 
representative imports over last three years (2000-20 02) with a portion (10 per cent) reserved for new 
entrants.  These 10 per cent were distributed by au ctions on the stock exchange.  The representative of 
the Russian Federation further added that since TRQs were a new regulatory instrument for his 
country, there could be changes in administration me thods in order  to achieve the effective use of 
TRQs. 
173. In respect of imports of poultry, he explaine d that his Government had imposed safeguard 
measures as from May 2003.  The legal basis for this measure in 2004 was Governmental Resolution 
No. 724 of 29 November 2003 “On specifics of applica tion of special safeguard measure in respect of 
import of poultry in 2004”.  In accordance with that  resolution, the annual quota of imports of poultry WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 52  
 
 had been established at the level of 1050 million to ns, out of which 771,9 thousand tons were to be 
imported from the USA, 205 thousand tons from th e EC, 5 thousand tons from Paraguay and 68 
thousand tons from other third countries.  In res ponse to questions from memb ers, the representative 
of the Russian Federation said that his Government intended to consider conversion of the safeguard 
quota into a TRQ. 
174. Several members stated that to the extent that the auction charges associated with the 
allocation of TRQs exceeded the Russian Federation's tariff bindings, they would be inconsistent with 
the Russian Federation's obligations under Article II  of the GATT, and allocation of quotas without 
regard to Articles XI and XIII would also violate WTO provisions.  These members sought a commitment from the Russian Federation that any fees, charges or revenues collected would not 
exceed the bound rate of duty established for the prod uct concerned.  Some members also maintained 
that the auctioning method for distributing TRQs was not fully consistent with the GATT 1994 and 
discriminated against those members that did not provide export subsidies. 
175. Noting that Federal Law No. 5003-1 of 21 Ma y 1993 "On Customs Tariff" prohibited access 
under TRQs from being granted to products orig inating from MFN suppliers, some Members 
requested confirmation of whether the Russian Federa tion also intended to provide legal authorization 
for using TRQs to regulate general imports or if this would be limited to GSP imports. These 
Members required a more precise understanding of the methods of allocation and other aspects of the 
system that the Russian Federation inde nted to adopt in this field.   
176. Some members requested a clarification of wh ether only Russian legal or natural persons 
could participate in TRQ auctions.  These Members also requested a confirmation that there were no legal requirements to participate in TRQ aucti ons that could favour local production, such as 
requirements to enter into contracts to purchase domestic products or requ irements to provide 
domestic producers with inputs.  In addition, so me Members also requested that the Russian 
Federation enact amendments to the Tax Code to ensure MFN access to the system of TRQs.   
177. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation replied that foreign-owned firms 
established as Russian legal entities could participate in  TRQ auctions as well.  He also confirmed that 
there were no other legal requirements to partic ipate in TRQ auctions that could favour local 
production. 
178. Recalling discussions in the "Import Licensing"  section of this Draft Report below, Members 
of the Working Party requested Russia to provi de additional information on new import licensing  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 53 
 
 
 requirements, announced in January 2003, for imports  of poultry (to allocate quotas  in the context of 
taking a safeguard action), and beef and pork (through establishment of de facto tariff rate quotas).    
179. In response, and recalling discussions in the "Import Licensing" section of this Draft Report 
below, the representative of the Russian Federati on stated that following the adoption of the 
safeguard-quota measures for poultry on  1 May 200 3, an importer was required to obtain an import 
license from MEDT.  The importation of poultry, as well as beef and pork also required a permit from 
the Federal Veterinary Service.  90 % of import licences were granted to historical importers based on 
average imports from 2000- 2002, with a 10% portion reserved for new entrants. 
180. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that import licences were not 
transferable, but noted that unused import licences would be reallocated.  According to information 
published on MEDT's website on 4 March 2003, importers that had received a share of the quota 
based on  historical trade shares could apply for a license by 20 March 2003 for TRQs on beef and 
pork, and quota on poultry, as described below.  App lications submitted after that date had not been 
accepted.  The representative of the Russian Fede ration reported that import licences had been issued 
starting on 1 April 2003, the same day the TRQs for b eef and pork had become effective.  He further 
stated that import licences for importers that had r eceived an allocation through the auctioning system 
had been issued between 1 June and 1 Decemb er 2003.  Importers had received a licence after 
submission of an application for the licence  and a copy of a certificate confirming that the applicant 
was registered by a regional tax authority as a ta x-payer.  Import licences had been issued for each 
commercial contract and were valid until 31 Decemb er 2003.  A fee of 3,000 Rubles was charged for 
each licence.  This fee had not been reimbursed in the event the importer did not use the license.   
181. In response, Members of the Working Party stat ed that the system described did not work 
well in practice, and made it extremely difficult to actually export poultry, beef, and pork to the 
Russian Federation.  Use of historical suppliers wa s particularly problematic as many had been one-
time shippers and no longer were participants in the market.  As  a consequence, many importers 
received quota allocations so small that they we re not economically viable (in some instances, 
importers were given quota allocati ons as low as 10 kilograms), and only a very small portion of the 
total quotas was being held for new entrants.  They also noted that no mechanism for re-allocation of 
unused licenses had been developed in advance of th e introduction of this new system, and it did not 
appear that full utilisation of the quotas and ta riff-rate quotas, which already contemplated reduced 
imports, would be possible.  Members also noted th at suppliers situated ge ographically distant from 
the Russian Federation experienced additional difficulties due to shipping time.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 54  
 
 182. Members also noted that the Ministry of Agriculture’s Veterinary Service required that 
importers obtain an import permit, in addition to veterinary and sanitary certification requirements 
(and now the import license), to be able to import beef, pork, and poultry into the Russian Federation.  
Those members considered that those import permits were also subject to the disciplines of the WTO 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  Member s noted that in January 2003, the Veterinary 
Service abruptly cancelled existing import permits for beef, pork, and poultry and established a new 
system for issuing import permits.  Members not ed that no information had been published or 
provided to Working Party participants on the ne w requirements for obtaining import permits.   
183. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that importers would be 
required to present an import license from MEDT as a precondition to import.  This requirement also applied for imports of products that would be used for further processing or into retail sale. 
184. The representative of the Russian Federation noted  that the distribution of quotas for imports 
of all products were made in accordance with the provisions of the WTO agreements and were based 
on the historical shares of Russia’s main suppliers  for the respective products in the years 1999-2001, 
which were the years immediately preceding the year  when the decision to introduce  the TRQs for 
beef and pork and special safeguard quotas for poultry had been taken (2002), and for which 
information was available.  He confirmed that all supplying members were invited to consult with his 
Government about country-specific allocations of quotas.  Some of these consultations had been 
successfully concluded and their results were now being implemented.   
185. He noted that his Government was prepared to continue such consultations and to address the 
question of redistribution of unused country specific quotas. 
[to be completed] 
Tariff Exemptions 
186. The representative of the Russian Federation sai d that pursuant to Article 34 of Federal Law 
No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff" (as amended on 29 June 2004), tariff exemptions 
were granted in accordance with the procedures est ablished by the Government and Articles 35, 36 
and 37 of the Law.  Such decisions included: Government Resolution No. 1041 of 8 September 1994 
“On the Procedure for Exemption of Goods Import ed to the Customs Territory of the Russian 
Federation and Exported from This Territory for Purposes of Eliminating the Aftermaths of 
Accidents, Catastrophes and Natural Disasters from Customs Duties” (as amended on 26 July 1996), Government Resolution No.497 of 19 May 1994 “On Tariff Preferences in Respect of Oil and Oil  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 55 
 
 
 Products Manufactured by Enterprises with Forei gn Investment and Exported form the Russian 
Federation” (as amended on 13 Oc tober 1995), and Government Resolution No. 413 of 23 April 1998 
"On Additional Measures to Attract Investments for Development of Domestic Car Making".  
187. Article 35 of Law No. 5003-1 established the list of goods which were not subject to customs 
duties, such as goods in transit; items imported by foreign diplomatic and consular offices in the 
Russian Federation in accordance with  their needs and requirements for official purposes; articles for 
personal use when travelling abroad; goods destin ed for disaster relief and humanitarian purposes; 
industrial and other equipment related to foreign in vestment, etc. Exemptions could be also granted 
under Articles 36 and 37 of the Law on the basis of tariff rate quotas; tariff preferences; free trade agreement and GSP scheme.  Tariff exemptions other than those provided for in the context of a free 
trade agreement or GSP scheme were applied on a MFN basis.  He also added that no tariff 
exemptions, other than those provided for in the legi slation in force, were envisaged in the draft law 
“On Amending the Law on the Customs Tariff (which had passed first reading in the Stade Duma on 
5 August 2004). 
188. Some members noted that certain tariff exemptions  granted currently or in the recent past for 
investment purposes (automobiles and PSA projects) or to promote domestic industry (aircraft) 
continued to be of concern.  These members sought  a commitment from the Russian Federation to use 
its authority to grant such exemptions in conformity with WTO provisions.  
189. The representative of the Russian Federati on replied that these types of exemptions  were 
discussed in the sections on "TRIMs" and "Indus trial Subsidies" of this Draft Report. 
Other Duties and Charges 
190. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that the Russian Federation had not 
applied any duties and charges (ODCs) within th e meaning of Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994. 
Authority to apply such measures, however, was pr ovided for in Article 34 of Federal Law No. 5003-
1 of May 21 1993 “On Customs Tari ff” (as amended on 29 June 2004). 
191. Noting this statement, several members asked th e Russian Federation to bind at zero all such 
ODCs in its Schedule of Concessions and Commit ments on Goods and to undertake a commitment 
that it would not apply such measures except in conformity with WTO obligations. 
192. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
not apply other duties and charges on imports other than ordinary customs duties from the date of 
accession, and that any such charges applied to im ports after accession would be in accordance with WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 56  
 
 WTO provisions.  He further confirmed that the Ru ssian Federation would not list any other charges 
in its Schedule under Article II:1(b) of GATT 1994, binding such charges at zero.] 
Fees and Charges for Services Rendered 
193. Several members asked for a description of how  the Russian Federation intended to modify 
its customs fees regime, as the Russian Federation had indicated its intention to revise its import fee structure and that relevant provisions had been in cluded in the new Customs Code, which had entered 
into force on 1 January 2004.  Noting that under current legislation, fees charged for customs 
clearance were calculated on an ad valorem  basis, these members questioned how they would relate to 
the cost of services rendered and stressed their e xpectation that the Russian Federation should meet 
the relevant obligations provided for in GATT 1994. 
194. The representative of the Russian Federation re plied that before the adoption of the new 
Customs Code of the Russian Federation No. 61- FZ of 28 May 2003 (as amended on 20 August 2004) 
there were six types of fees and charges for servi ces rendered levied in re lation to importation or 
exportation.  The new legislation, which had come  into force on 1 January 2004, provided for only 
two types of fees, i.e. (i) charges for customs clea rance; and (ii) charges for the escort of goods.  
Customs fees for the escort of goods were calculate d as fixed sums, corresponding to the overall value 
of services rendered, and fees for customs clearance were applied temporarily on an ad valorem  basis 
(Table 10).  Fees for customs clearance were co llected pursuant to the Instructions No. 640 “On 
Collecting Customs Fees for Customs Clearance” a pproved by State Order of the Customs Committee 
on 7 June 2004.  Revenues generate d by those fees were remitted to the general revenues of the State 
budget. 
195. He added that new draft amendments to the Customs Code (which had passed first reading in 
the State Duma on 5 August 2004) provided explicitly th at customs fees were not permitted to exceed 
the approximate cost of the expenses of the cust oms authorities for performing certain operations, and 
provided for a third type of customs fee – “charg es for the storage of goods”.  The precise level of 
fees and procedures for their application would be c ontained in implementing regulations to come into 
effect soon after the amended legisl ation would enter into force.  These fees would be applied to all 
imports from all sources and to exports to all des tinations.  An exhaustive list of goods exempt from 
application of the storage fee for certain reasons  was stipulated in the Instructions No. 640 “On 
Collecting Customs Fees for Customs Clearance” approved by the Order of the State Customs 
Committee on 7 June 2004.  He also added that, pursu ant to the provisions of the Customs Code of the 
Russian Federation, the customs f ee for the storage of goods was not applied temporarily, but a person 
placing goods at a bonded warehouse had to reimburse costs concerned with the storage of goods at  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 57 
 
 
 the amount stipulated by the contract for storage concluded with a customs office.  Provisions of the 
contract would be regulated by the provisions of civil law of the Russian Federation pertaining to a 
public contract (Article 897 of the Civil Code of  the Russian Federation).  Revenues generated by 
these charges were also remitted to th e general revenues of the State budget. 
196. He further noted that, in accordance with Article 30 of Law No. 164-FZ “On the 
Fundamentals of State Regulation of Foreign Tr ade Activity” of 8 December 2003 (as amended on 
22 August 2004), all payments collected on exports and imports of goods which were neither customs 
duties nor other taxes should not exceed the approxima te cost of services rendered and be a means of 
protection of goods of Russian origin or of taxati on for fiscal purposes.  Revenues generated by those 
fees were remitted to the general revenues of the State budget.  
197. In response to further comments he said that detailed information on licence fees was 
provided in the section on Import Licencing System s (Paragraph [246] of the draft Working Party 
Report).  
[to be completed] 
Other Fees 
198. Some Members requested clarification on any othe r fees or charges applied to imports or to 
the act of importation.  In this regard, they soug ht information on possible di scriminatory or otherwise 
WTO-inconsistent application of port user fees be tween foreign and domestic users, State duties or 
consular fees.  
199. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that the port fees used in commercial 
seaports (Tables 11(a) on "Port Fees Used by Group  of Vessels" and (b)) of the Russian Federation 
had been approved by the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation on 21 July 1995.  Port-charges included: tonnage (to be collected per 1 m
3 of vessel conventional capacity, separately for 
each arrival into the port and departure from it) and beaconage (to be collected per 1 m3 of vessel 
conventional capacity upon each arrival into the por t and its departure.  Exempted from beaconage 
were vessels calling for refuge to perform an emerge ncy repair and the vessels of group "D".  Vessels 
of groups "E" and "G" were exempted from th e beaconage dues unless they performed cargo handling 
and operations of a commercial nature at th e port), canal dues (to be collected for 1 m3 of vessel 
conventional capacity upon each pass of canal in on e direction), and wharfage dues (to be collected 
per 1 m3 of vessel conventional capacity for each day of vessel being alongside.  Wharfage dues were 
collected from vessels staying al ongside the berth.  For the ve ssels of groups "A", "B" and "H" WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 58  
 
 wharfage dues were charged per 1 m
3 of the conventional volume of the vessel for each day of the 
vessel's stay alongside the berth.  The time of stay at a berth was rounded off upward to one-half of 
the day.  The vessels of groups "C", "D", "E",  "F" and "G" were charged berth dues (per 1 m3 of the 
conventional volume for each call), anchor dues (to be collected for 1 m3 of vessel conventional 
capacity for each hour of anchorage in the outer or inner harbour in excess of 12 hours - incomplete hour of anchorage was considered as a complete hour  of anchorage), ecological dues, pilotage dues, 
and navigation dues.  Port-charges were collected in commercial seaports of the Russian Federation, 
irrespective of their form of organization, legal status and pattern of ow nership, from Russian and 
foreign vessels and floating facilities on the basis of the non-discrimination principle. 
200. The application of State Duties by the Russian  Federation for the performance of legally 
significant actions was provided for in Law No. 2005-1 of 9 December 1991 "On State Duty" (as 
amended on 22 August 2004).  He further noted that  the State duty applicable (Table 12) for the 
processing of imports or exports by customs and for other purposes related to trade had been 
established in accordance with Federal Law No. 226-FZ of 31 December 1995 "On Amending the 
Law of the Russian Federation on the State Duty " (as amended on 14 November 2002 - No. 137-FZ).  
State duties were to be collected for the performance of legally valid actions or for the issuance of 
documents by bodies or official persons authorized  for this purpose and only in a few cases required 
by the legislation.  
201. Regarding State duties, several members questi oned again how an ad valorem State duty for 
the attestation of agency agreements and for accep ting money and securities in deposit could relate to 
the cost of the service rendered.  They also request ed clarification on whether these duties applied in 
the act of importation or exportation, and what so rts of customs documents required a stamp tax.  
Regarding fees that were applied to imports for requirements, such as standards certification or 
vehicle taxes, these members also noted that these fees were not consistent with Article III of the 
GATT 1994 as they were not equally applied to  domestic products and should be revised or 
eliminated prior to accession.  Clarification was al so requested regarding the nature of the services 
rendered by the additional customs charge for cu stoms clearance, and on the precise meaning of 
legally significant action" for performing other no tary actions" or "for the performance of the 
technical work for the making of the documents".   
202. In response, the representative of the Russi an Federation stated that pursuant to Law 
No. 2005-1 of 9 December 1991, "On State Du ty" (as amended on 22 August 2004), "legally 
significant actions"  were the following:  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 59 
 
 
 - statements of claim and other claims and complain ts filed with courts of general jurisdiction, 
arbitration courts and the Constitutiona l Court of the Russian Federation; 
- notarial acts by public notaries employed by not ary offices or duly authorized officials of 
executive authorities, local administrations and consular offices of the Russian Federation; 
- state registration of vital records and other legally significant actions performed by vital 
statistics offices; 
- issuance of documents by courts, institutions and agencies for consideration and issuance of 
documents associated with acquisition of Russian  citizenship (national status) or denunciation 
thereof and performance of other legally significant actions.   
203. He further stated that appeal of decisions and actions (inactions) of customs bodies  in the 
court of justice or in the arbitration court were subj ect to a State duty at the rate established in the Law 
“On the State Duty”.  
204. In response to further questions, he stated th at mandatory customs operations and procedures, 
authentication of customs documents, attestation of  agency agreements and acceptance of money and 
securities in deposit by customs bodies did not require any payments, such as State duty.  He added 
that, pursuant to the Instructions “For Collecti ng Customs Fees for Customs Clearance” approved by 
Order of the State Customs Committee No. 640 of  7 June 2004, operatio ns of importation and 
exportation of securities in foreign currency by legal entities were subject to a customs fee for 
customs clearance of 300 Rubles per consignment. 
205. Referring to consular fees, he noted that in accordance with the Vienna Convention on 
Consular Relations (1963) and Consular Articles provisions (1976), the main objective of the consular 
offices was the protection of rights and legal intere sts of Russian citizens and legal entities abroad.  
Consular offices of the Russian Federation collect ed fees for the issuance of documents of legal 
significance to Russian natural persons or legal entiti es constantly or temporarily residing or located 
in foreign countries, as well as to citizens of foreig n States, foreign legal entities, persons without 
citizenship.  Acts performed by the Russian cons ular offices included those related to passport and 
visa matters, citizenship, certification and notarizati on of documents, power of attorney notarization. 
None of these acts were directly rela ted to exports or imports of goods.  
206. Noting the statement above, some members s ought clarification from the Russian Federation 
on whether consular fees were levied on consular op erations involving importation or exportation.  In 
particular, they asked the Russian Federation to c onfirm whether a requirement for authentication of 
customs documentation by Russian Federation cons ulates overseas prior to exportation existed.  Some 
members expressed concerns about the charging of fees for consular purposes that were connected 
with importation (Table 13) at a lower rate from certain countries where the service was performed WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 60  
 
 (the Baltic countries and CIS countries) as this practic e would be in violation of Article I of the GATT 
1994 and should be eliminated prior to accession.  Other members of the Working Party expressed 
concern about the discriminatory application of cons ular fees by sub-federa l entities, apparently in 
contravention of Russian Federation legislation.   Those members requested that the Russian 
Federation enter a commitment to apply a uniform consular fee policy to all and to eliminate current discriminatory practices prior to accession.   
207. The representative of the Russian Federation responded that his Government imposed no 
requirement for the issuance of consular invoices or certificates for exports to the Russian Federation, 
nor for the authentication of customs documentatio n required for importation. He confirmed that 
consular fees were charged only by the consular  offices of the Russian Federation. No consular 
offices were established by sub-federal entities and no c onsular fees were applied at sub-federal level. 
He also noted that the consular fees listed in Tabl e 13 were not connected with the type of consular 
acts covered by Article VIII:4(a) of the GATT 1994, and were not in any way directly related to 
exportation or importation.  These acts were covere d by bilateral consular treaties and performed 
mainly in respect of the Russian citizens and Russi an legal entities (e.g. fees for consular service of 
sea and aircraft were collected only from the Russia n vessels). Such bilateral treaties, providing for 
differential treatment for consular services on reciprocal basis, were common among the WTO Members. 
208. The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that the lists of fees and charges for 
customs services, port fees used in commercial sea ports and State duties related to import and export 
(listed in Tables [10, 11, 12…] ) were complete and accurate. 
209. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
ensure that any fees and charges for services rende red listed in Tables [10,11,12…] or introduced in 
the future would only be applied in conformity with the relevant obligations of the GATT 1994, and 
that any application of fees and charges by th e Russian Federation for services rendered or in 
connection with importation or expo rtation would be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the 
WTO Agreement, in particular Articles VIII and X of GATT 1994, from the date of accession.  He 
further confirmed that, after accession, information re garding the application and the level of any such 
fees, revenues collected and their use, would be provided to WTO Members upon request.]   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 61 
 
 
 210. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would conform with the provisi ons of Articles VIII of the GATT 1994 relating to 
fees and charges imposed on or in connection w ith importation or exporta tion of goods. Members of 
the Working Party took note of that commitment.] 
[to be completed] 
Application of Internal Taxes on Imports - Excise Taxes 
211. The representative of the Russian Federation not ed that until January 1997 excise taxes on 
certain products differentiated between imported and domestically-produced goods.  Federal Law 
No. 12-FZ of 10 January 1997 "On Excise Tax" ha d unified excise tax rates for imported and 
domestic products. In pursuance of Chapter 22 (" Excise Tax") of the Tax Code (Federal Law 
No. 110-FZ of 24 July 2002 "On the Introduction of Chapter 22 Into Force"), excise tax rates for 
imports and those for domestic produc ts were identical and in conformity with Article III of GATT 
1994.  The products subject to excise taxes and to r espective tax rates were enumerated in Table 14. 
212. He further noted that only cigarettes were partially  subject to ad valorem  rates.  The tax base 
for calculating the excise tax for those products wa s the selling price exclusive of VAT for domestic 
products and the sum of their customs value and th e payable customs duty exclusive of VAT for the 
ad valorem part of the excise tax for imported cigarettes.   
213. Natural gas imported to the Russian Federati on was free from excise tax.  If excisable goods 
were placed under customs treatment of trans it, bonded warehouse, re-export, processing under 
customs control, free customs area, bonded warehouse, destruction and refusal in favour of the State 
the excise tax was not paid.  Products for which a zer o level excise tax was indicated (e.g. beer with 
an alcohol content of 0,5 per cent inclusive) were included in the list of excisable goods only for more effective State monitoring of their turnover.  Histor ically, excise taxes had been applied differently to 
imports from CIS countries than to imports from non-CI S countries.  From 1 July 2001, when Chapter 
22 of the Tax Code had entered into force, excise taxes had been levied in a uniform manner on all 
imports based on the country of destination principl e, except for Belarus.  In the case of Belarus, 
excise taxes were charged based on the country of or igin principle, by virtue of Article 27 of the 
Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus of  8 December 1999 “On the 
Creation of a Union State”. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 62  
 
 214. He further noted that the Union States of Belarus and the Russian Federation  maintained a 
uniform principle in respect of levying indirect tax es irrespective of the actual location of the taxpayer 
within its territory. In this regard and pursuan t to Article 13 of Federal Law No. 118-FZ of 
5 August 2002 “On Enacting Part II of the Tax Code  of the Russian Federation and Amending Certain 
Tax Acts of the Russian Federation”, the amount of  excise tax payable on excisable goods originating 
in and imported from the Republic of Belarus into the Russian Federation  was reduced by the amount 
of excise tax paid in the country of origin.  A convergence of lists of ex cisable goods and marginal 
excise tax rates was envisaged, inter alia, as part  of the establishment of the Common Economic Area 
envisaged with the Republic of Belarus.  
215. Noting that when excise tax es were collected on imports from Belarus to the Russian 
Federation there was still a deduction from the char ge for excise taxes applied in Belarus, some 
members maintained that this could violate Artic le I of the GATT 1994 by providing better treatment 
to imports from Belarus than from other suppliers .  These members asked the Russian Federation to 
indicate how it intended to bring this practice in to conformity with WTO provisions prior to 
accession.  One member noted that Article XXIV of the GATT did not contain any provisions related 
to domestic taxation policy.  The practice of discr iminatory application of domestic taxes on imports 
was a violation of Article III of the GATT, whethe r the imports originated from preferential trading 
partners or from MFN trading partners.  This memb er requested that the Russian Federation eliminate 
the discrimination in its taxation policy vis-à-vis Belarus prior to its accession to the WTO.  In 
response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that this issue would be discussed at a 
later stage. 
216. Some Members noted that excise taxes on imports of automobiles were applied on the basis 
of the engine size, which was an unjustified di scrimination against trade in similar products.  
Members also sought information on an announced pros pective application of a similar discriminatory 
excise tax on agricultural machinery on the same b asis.  In their view, these measures were not in 
conformity with WTO provisions, e.g., Articles III or XI of the GATT 1994.  
217. The representative of the Russian Federation rep lied that the issue of excise taxes on imports 
of automobiles was not having a discriminatory effect on imports as excise tax rates for imports and 
domestic products were identical under Article 193 of the Tax Code and that agricultural machinery 
was not subject to excise taxes. 
218. Several members expressed appreciation for the comprehensive listing of excise taxes and 
other information on their application to domes tic and imported goods.  They noted that the 
differentiation of excise tax rates within specific cate gories of alcoholic beverages, e.g., for different  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 63 
 
 
 types of beer, wine, and spirits, might have a de facto  discriminatory effect on imports.  In addition, a 
higher excise tax was levied on alcoholic bevera ges containing more than 28 per cent alcohol by 
volume.  At a later stage members sought confirmati on that any differential in the rates of excise tax 
applied to alcoholic beverages ha d been eliminated and information on how the Russian Federation 
intended to eliminate these measures and bring it s excise tax regime on alcohol and alcoholic 
beverages into conformity with WTO Agreements .  Furthermore, on alcoholic beverages, some 
Members sought clarification regarding the Russian  Federation's excise warehouses and whether this 
would be extended to imported products.  They co nsidered that an extension to imported products 
would create a barrier to trade and could have a discriminatory result.   
219. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the differentiation of 
excise tax rates applied to specific categories of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine and spirit) was based 
on the principle of harmonizing the applied rate wi th the concentration of pure alcohol in those 
beverages and was not having a discriminatory effect on imports.  For example, Russian produced wines (fortified wines) were subjected to the high est excise rates in comparison with imported wines 
(natural wines). The representative of the Russian  Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation 
would not apply any system of excise taxation to imported alcoholic pr oducts that would be 
discriminatory. 
220. With respect to the excise warehouses for al coholic beverages, the representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that this practice w as applicable only with re gard to domestically 
produced goods. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that if changes were to be 
made to the system of taxation and controls of alcoholic products, his Gove rnment would make sure 
to avoid creating market conditions that would be  less favourable to im ported products than to 
domestic products. 
221. Noting further that differential rates of excise  tax were levied on natural gas depending on 
whether it was sold in the Russian Federation fo r export to other CIS countries (15 per cent), or 
whether it was for export to other countries (30 per cent), some members felt that this practice was 
discriminatory and asked how the Russian Federati on would bring it in conformity with WTO rules 
upon accession.  Moreover, a more detailed clarif ication was needed on the national treatment 
implications of calculating excise taxes on imports on the customs value plus the total of customs 
duties and levies payable, while the excise taxe s on domestically produced goods were based on 
actual value only.  Members sought the eliminati on of these practices and a commitment from the 
Russian Federation that full conformity with WTO provisions would be ensured in the application of 
excise taxes as from the date of accession to the WTO. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 64  
 
 222. In response to concerns about the inclusion of the customs duty in the taxable base for the 
purposes of the value-added tax and excise taxes levi ed on imports of goods to the customs territory 
of the Russian Federation, the repr esentative of the Russian Federation st ated that this requirement of 
the Russian legislation was consistent with the practice of implementation of the GATT 1994. 
223. The representative of the Russian Federation clar ified that the excise tax on sales of natural 
gas had been eliminated as of 1 January 2004 an d replaced by a 30 per cent export duty.  He also 
added that the ad valorem  part of combined rate of excise tax for cigarettes was equal to one per cent.  
The methodology of accruing the basis described in the document WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 could not hamper imports.  The new scale of excise tax was provided in Table 14. 
- Value Added Tax 
224. Some members requested confirmation that VAT  was now applied in an uniform manner to 
all domestic and imported products a nd that from 1 July 2001 this was also the case w ith respect to 
CIS countries.  Clarification was also requested on whether the same principle applied to imports and 
exports of energy products such as gas and oil.   A member requested clarification concerning the 
different VAT treatment of ice-cream produced fr om milk and dairy products (10 per cent) and 
ice-cream produced from fruits and berries (20 per cent).  
225. The representative of the Russian Federation re plied that, in accordance with Chapter 21 of 
the Tax Code (Federal Law No. 117-FZ of 5 August 2000 and Federal Law No. 118-FZ of 
5 August 2000 "On Introduction of Part Two of the Tax Code"), VAT was applied in an uniform 
manner to almost all domestic and imported produc ts on the basis of the country of destination 
principle, and that it has also b een the case with CIS countries since 1 July 2001.  The only exception 
related to bilateral trade with Belarus, where VAT was levied in the country of origin.  As for the 
exportation of crude oil and natural gas, VAT would be  levied in the country of destination also with 
respect to bilateral trad e with CIS countries from the year 2005 or  2006.  By that time, VAT should be 
levied on imports of these products, and exports should be eligible for VAT exemption as all other 
exports.  
226. Noting that that the application of domestic ta xes to Belarus was still based on the country of 
origin, some members asked the Russian Federatio n to indicate how, and in what time-frame, the 
Russian Federation intended to proceed to convert its taxation system with Belarus.  These members 
also asked for a list, by HS tariff lines, of oil and gas import items for which the level of application of 
VAT continued to be based on the country of origin .  They further requested the Russian Federation 
to provide a more precise timetable for unifying the application of VAT on all products on the basis of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 65 
 
 
 the country of destination principle, i.e. to indicate a date by which these measures would be in 
conformity with the WTO. 
227. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the Russian Federation 
and Belarus had signed a bilatera l Treaty "On the Creation of the Union State" on 8 December 1999 
leading, inter alia , to the formation of a single economic space based on unified legislation.  Work 
was being done to address the issue of taxation within this single economic space.  He further stated 
that the only difference in the exportation of crude oil and natural gas (HS 2709 and 2711.21, 
respectively) to CIS countries in comparison with the exportation of these products to other countries was that VAT was not reimbursed to Russian exporters  in the case of export to CIS countries.  This 
practice was slated to be changed, as described in paragraph […] above.  Further clarification on the 
creation of the single economic space with  Belarus will follow at a later stage. 
228. He noted that VAT was levied at a single rate of 18  per cent with some exemptions listed in 
Tables 15(a) and 15(b).  All these exemptions were  applied in non-discriminatory manner both to 
domestic output and imports of similar products.  Also exempt from VAT were goods placed under 
the customs treatment of transit customs warehouse; re-export; duty free shop; processing under 
customs control; free customs zone; free warehouse; d estruction and refusal in favour of the State.  
The tax base for the imposition of the VAT include d excise taxes, if any.  For imported goods 
customs duties were also included in the tax base. 
229. Referring to the list of VAT exemptions listed in Table 15(a), some members noted that a 
reference was made therein that "sale of products of own manufacture of orga nizations engaged in the 
production of agricultural products which generate 70 per cent and more of the overall share of 
incomes from the sale in the total sum of their in comes" were exempted from VAT.  They enquired 
about the products in question a nd whether imports of similar produc ts did also qualify for exemption 
and, more generally, how the exemption of domestic  agricultural output from VAT could be justified 
under Article III:2 of the GATT 1994.  Noting that fish caught on the high seas by Russian registered 
vessels were also VAT exempted, these members fu rther inquired whether this exemption was 
extended to imported fish products as well.  Some  members also inquired whether the provision for 
VAT exemption for certain agricultural producers, or producers in any other sector, also applied 
where output was bartered for goods or services or used as payment in kind for discharging financial 
obligations to financial institutions or other credito rs.  If that was the case, these members requested 
full details on the legal basis for such goods and ser vices being deemed to satisfy the relevant criteria 
for VAT exemption.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 66  
 
 230. Members also noted that there existed discr iminatory VAT application in the automotive 
sector, in that used cars imported by individuals we re not charged a VAT or excise tax.  They also 
noted that the VAT was applied on an arbitrary basis on medical equipment, medical devices, and 
pharmaceuticals.  These measures were not in confor mity with Article III of the GATT 1994.  Some 
Members also expressed concern about the practice of Russian customs to apply the previously 
existing VAT rate of 20 per cent to imports of pha rmaceutical products inst ead of the special VAT 
rate of 10 per cent introduced by the Tax Code and sought confirmation from the Russian Federation 
that this practice had been abolished. In a ddition, these Members sought clarification on the 
application of the 20 per cent VAT on imports of pharmaceutical products for clinical trials. In 
addition to a discriminatory VAT (20 per cent instea d of 10 per cent), which customs tended to apply 
in the absence of a special permit from the Ministry  of Health, these Members stated that the Tax 
Code Part 2 allowed for exemptions and asked the Russian Federation to consider VAT exemption of 
these products as they were not for resale.  
231. The representative of the Russian Federation re plied that, in the case of fish caught on the 
high seas by Russian registered vessels, the VAT coll ection resulted from the fact that fish so caught 
was considered to be Russian produced fish and, as such, its delivery into the customs territory of the 
Russian Federation did no constitute an importation.   These goods were thus not subject to VAT when 
imported into the customs territory of the Russian Federation but were subject to VAT when the first 
transaction was performed.   
232. In response to the concerns of members con cerning VAT exemption for agricultural products 
of some producers, he further explained that these pr oducts substituted payments for the job of natural 
persons employed by those producers.  Such  a form of payments was used in the  agricultural sector by 
entities in critical situation with no actual money e ither to pay salaries or VAT when paying for the 
job of employed persons by agricultural products.  There were few such cases.  The agricultural 
products at issue were unprocessed products of pl ant growing and cattle breeding (meat, fish, eggs, 
vegetables, fruits etc.).  This provision was not  applied to the cases when the output of the above -
mentioned producers was bartered for goods or servi ces, or used as payment to reimburse financial 
obligations to financial ins titutions or other creditors.  
233. As regards application of VAT in the automotiv e sector and the fact that used cars imported 
by natural persons were not charged a VAT or exci se tax, the representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that Government Resolution No. 718 of 29 November 2003 "On the Approval of the 
Regulations on the Application of the Uniform Rat es of the Customs Duties and Taxes with Respect 
to Goods Transferred across the Customs Border of  the Russian Federation by Natural Persons for  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 67 
 
 
 Personal Use" provided that imports by natural persons of motor cars into the customs territory of the 
Russian Federation should be applied a single pa yment, which comprised customs duty, VAT and 
excise tax. The representative of the Russian Fe deration added that Government Resolution No. 718 
equalized customs payments made by legal and natu ral persons in the importation of motor cars into 
the customs territory of the Russian Federation.  He noted that VAT application in the automotive 
sector was not having a discriminatory effect on imports. On the application of VAT on 
pharmaceutical products, the representative of the Ru ssian Federation confirmed that there were no 
more irregularities and that a 10 per cent VAT was applied (not 20 per cent).  In response to the 
question on VAT for clinical trials, he stated that customs applied a 20 per cent VAT if no special permit was issued by the Ministry of Health as they were then considered as chemical products. 
234. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would apply its domestic taxe s, including VAT, excise taxes, and other taxes 
applied to goods including those listed in Tabl e […] and paragraphs […] in compliance with 
Articles I and III of the GATT 1994, in a non-discri minatory manner to imports regardless of the 
country of origin and to domestically produced g oods, without exceptions, regardless of the regional 
destination of goods.] 
235. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would apply internal taxes app lied to imported products in accordance with the 
provisions of the GATT 1994, in particular its Artic les I:1 and III:2.  The Working Party took note of 
this commitment.] 
[to be completed] 
Quantitative Import Restrictions, including Prohibitions and Quotas 
236. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that the Russian Federation did not 
maintain any quantitative import restrictions, prohibi tions or quotas in the meaning of Article XI of 
the GATT 1994, except in certain cases provided for in Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 
"On the Fundamentals of State Regulation of Fore ign Trade Activity", which came into force on 
15 June 2004.  Pursuant to Article  21 of Federal Law No. 164-FZ, im ports of goods should be free of 
any quantitative restrictions.  However, import restri ctions could be applied pursuant to Article 32 of 
Federal Law No 164-FZ and in accordance with federal laws and international treaties of the Russian 
Federation as measures not carrying an economic charact er and affecting forei gn trade in goods.  In 
his view, these measures were justifiable unde r Articles XX and XXI of the GATT 1994.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 68  
 
 237. In addition, pursuant to paragraph 2.2 of Article 21 of Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 
December 2003 "On the Fundamentals of State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity", the 
Government of the Russian Federation could, in ex ceptional cases, introduce import restrictions on 
agricultural or fishery products imported into the Russian Federation in accordance with Article XI:2 
of the GATT 1994 when such measures  were necessary to (a) reduce the production or sale of similar 
products of Russian origin; (b) reduce the production or sale of goods of Russian origin that could be 
directly replaced with imported goods unless ther e was a large-scale production of similar goods in 
the Russian Federation; (c) remove from the market  a temporary surplus of similar goods of Russian 
origin by providing the available surplus of such goods to some groups of Russian consumers either 
free of charge or at prices inferior to market pr ices; (d) remove from the market a temporary surplus 
of goods of Russian origin that may be directly replaced with imported goods unless there was a 
large-scale production of similar goods in the Russian  Federation by providing the available surplus 
of such goods to some groups of Russian consumers either free of charge or at prices inferior to 
market prices; and (e) limit the production of products of animal origin whose production was 
dependent upon goods imported into the Russian Fe deration, provided the production of similar goods 
in the Russian Federation was relatively small.  
238. He further stated that pursuant to Article 13 of Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 12 December 
2003, the Government of the Russian Federati on was authorized to apply quantitative import 
restrictions, prohibitions and quotas upon its own initiative or upon proposal of the Ministry of 
Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation, which was the federal executive body 
responsible for regulating foreign trade.  
239. Noting the statement of the representative of the Russian Federation that measures applied on 
the basis of Article 32 of Federal Law No.164- FZ were justifiable under Articles XX and XXI of 
GATT 1994 and other respective provisions of the WTO agreement, a member considered that certain 
elements of that Article 32, such as paragraph 6, reached beyond grounds provided for under the 
GATT, in particular Articles XX and XI.  This me mber requested a commitment that the Russian 
Federation would apply Article 32 of Federal Law No. 164-FZ in strict conformity with WTO 
provisions. 
240. The representative of the Russian Federation not ed that the temporary ban on the importation 
of ethyl alcohol enforced under Federal Law No. 61-FZ of 31 March 1999 "On Temporary Ban on 
Ethyl Alcohol Imports" had been terminated on 31 D ecember 2001.  He further said that Article 13 of 
Federal Law No.  
171-FZ of 22 November 1995 "On State Regula tion of Production and Turnover of 
Ethyl Alcohol, Alcoholic and Alcohol-Containing Produc ts" restricted imports of distilled spirits to no  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 69 
 
 
 more than 10 per cent of alcohol sales in the Russian  Federation. Within this quota, not less than 60 
per cent of imports should contain 15 per cent of alcohol or less.  He noted, however, that the 
provisions of that Article had never been implemented. 
241. Noting the Russian Federation's statement concerning the lifting of the temporary ban on 
imports of ethyl alcohol, some members requested  clarification on whether the Russian authorities 
considered that imports of ethyl alcohol could still be affected by Government Resolution No. 1292 of 
3 November 1998 "On the Approval of Rules for the Issuance of Quotas for the Manufacture of Ethyl 
Alcohol from All Types and Special Permits for Its Delivery" (as amended on 17 December 2001).  
As this Resolution seemed to contemplate placing quotas on deliveries by domestic producers, the issue remained as to whether th e Russian Federation eventually planned to place quotas on imports.  
As for the reference to a law in fo rce, but not applied, that restricted imports of distilled spirits to no 
more that 10 per cent of the Russian market and stipul ated that within this quota at least 60 per cent of 
imports should  contain 15 per cent of alcohol or less, some members requested a clarification as to whether the Russian authorities actuall y intended to repeal this law. 
242. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation stated that the rules of putting quotas 
on production of ethyl alcohol from all types of raw materials, methylated spirits and 
alcohol-containing solutions had been recognised as invalid by Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. GKPI 2001-783 of 16 May 2001 "On Recognition as Invalid and 
Inapplicable the Rules on Putting Quotas on Produc tion of Ethyl Alcohol and Alcohol-Containing 
Solution, Approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No 1292 of 
3 November 1998".  The rules of issuance of special permits for delivery (release) of ethyl alcohol produced from all types of raw materials, methyl ated spirits and alcohol-containing solutions had 
been recognised as invalid and inapplicable by Resolution of the Supreme Court No. GKPI 00-1251 
of 23 November 2000 "On Recognition as Invalid and In applicable the Rules of  Issuance of Special 
Permits for Delivery (Release) of Ethyl Alcohol Produced from All Types of Raw Materials, 
Methylated Spirits and Alcohol-Containing Solutions , Approved by the Resolution of the Government 
of the Russian Federation No 1292 of 3 November 1998".  No quotas on imported alcoholic products 
were planned in future.  He further confirmed th at the provisions of Article 13 of Federal Law 
No. 171-FZ of 22 November 1995 "On State Re gulation of Production and Turnover of Ethyl 
Alcohol, Alcoholic and Alcohol-Cont aining Products" had never been applied and that no agency in 
the Russian Federation was appointed to oversee its implementation.   
243. He further noted that even after the draft law “On Amending the Federal Law “On State 
Regulation of Production and Turnover of Ethyl  Alcohol, Alcoholic and Alcohol-Containing WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 70  
 
 Products”, currently in the State Duma, would ha ve been passed, it would not repeal Federal Law 
No. 171-FZ.  The draft law would make a number of amendments to the existing law, including the 
elimination of the import quota and introduction of automatic import licensing, which were intended 
to achieve WTO compliance. 
244. Noting that the Russian Federation did not exclude the introduction of a State monopoly on 
the distribution of alcoholic products, some Members requested Russia to ensure  that, in the event of 
such introduction, it would not create a disguised rest riction to imports of al coholic products into 
Russia nor that it would create unduly burdensome procedures for imports. 
245. The representative of the Russian Federation adde d that, following the requisite investigation, 
the Russian Federation had introduced safeguard meas ures in 2003 in the form of an import quota for 
a four year period on imports of fresh, chilled a nd frozen poultry under HS 0207, including boneless 
poultry (HS 020714100 and 0207271000) on the basis of  Articles 4 and 6 of Federal Law No. 63-FZ 
of 14 April 1998 “On the measures for protection of the economic interests of the Russian Federation 
in foreign trade in goods” (Government Resolution No. 48 of 23 January 2003 “On measures to protect the poultry farming of the Russian Federation” ).  This quota was administered by issuance of 
non-automatic licenses by the Ministry of Economic  Development and Trade, as described in the 
"Tariff Quotas" section of this draft Report.  Th e amount of quota was as follows: 2003 (9 months) – 
744,000 tons; 2004 – 1,050,000 tons; 2005 – 1, 050,000; 2006 (3 months) – 306,000 tons. 
[to be completed] 
Import Licensing Systems 
246. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that his country's import licensing system 
was regulated by Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 “On the Fundamentals of State 
Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity”, which ha d come into force on 15 June 2004.  This Law 
maintained the previous import licensing syst em, established by Federal Law No 157-FZ of 
13 October 1995 “On the State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activities”.  The list of products subject 
to licensing is provided in Tables 16(a) and 16(b).  Article 13 of Federal Law No. 164-FZ stipulated 
that the procedure for the importation of precious stones and precious metals should be established by 
Presidential Decrees, whilst the procedure for the im portation of nuclear and radioactive materials –as 
well as for the importation of certain types of goods a ffecting state security, life or health of citizens, 
property of physical and juridical persons, state an d municipal property, the environment, life and 
health of animals and plants should be established by the Government.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 71 
 
 
 247. Government Resolution No. 1299 of 31 October 1996 "On Rules of Conduct of Auctions and 
Tenders on Sale of Quotas in Cases of Introducti on of Quantitative Restrictions and Licensing of 
Exported and Imported Goods, Works and Services in the Russian Federation" (as last amended on 
15 December 2000), introduced a uniform proce dure for the licensing of imports.  Under this 
Resolution, all Russian participants in foreign tr ade activities had the right to obtain import licenses 
without regard to the form of their property, regist ration location or market position.  The Ministry of 
Economic Development and Trade issued licenses upon receipt of the following documents: an 
application for license, copy of the contract, copy  of a certificate confirming that the applicant was 
registered with a regional tax authority as a tax-pa yer, copies of the registration documents, copy of 
the applicant's charter, and a copy of the certificate of State registration approval of the federal agency 
responsible for specific sensitive goods (for non- automatic license only) and licensing.  Licenses 
were, as a rule, valid for up to 12 months but co uld be extended upon request of the license holder. 
Licenses were required to be issued within 25 days after the complete set of documents had been submitted.  Pursuant to Order No. 363 of 6 Augus t 1999 of the Ministry of Trade "On Approval of 
Regulation on Fixing the Charges for Issuance, Re issuance and Extension of Licenses for Export and 
Import of Goods (Works, Services), Certificates of Barter Transactions", the fee charged for the 
issuance of an import/export license amounted to 3000 Rubles for a one-time license and 15 000 Rubles for a general license.  Applications could onl y be rejected if one of the required documents 
was missing, if the information submitted by the appl icant was false, or if the importer or exporter did 
not fulfill the conditions stipulated in in ternational conventions for specific goods.  
248. He added that his Government was working on a draft Government Resolution “On the 
Procedure for Licensing Export and Import of Goods (work, services) in the Russian Federation”, which would reduce the list of documents required to obtain a licence and simplify the terms of 
issuance of a licence.  The Ministry of Economic Development and Trade would issue three types of 
licenses: one-time, general and exclusive.  Under this draft, licenses would be have to be issued within 
20 calendar days after the complete set of documents  had been submitted.  The fee charged for issuing 
a license would amount to the approximate cost of services rendered, such as registration and 
examination of the documents submitted for the licen se; issuance of the license, maintenance of the 
federal licence data bank.  
249. The representative of the Russian Federation furt her added that in order to monitor imports 
and exports of certain types of goods, a draf t Government Resolution “On the Procedure for 
Monitoring Export and Import of Certain Types of Goods” would be prepared.  The monitoring of exports and imports of certain types of goods woul d be established by the Government.  Imports and 
exports of certain types of goods would be subj ect to permission by the Ministry of Economic WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 72  
 
 Development and Trade.  Such permissions would be  issued, as a general rule, within three working 
days upon the application of the pa rticipant in foreign trade activity.  
250. The purpose of the licensing regime was to mon itor and control imports of goods which, for 
various reasons, were classified as sensitive fo r the Russian Federation and the international 
community. Import licenses in force were justifiable under Articles XX and XXI of the GATT 1994 and the corresponding provisions of the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures as, in 
accordance with Federal Law No. 164—FZ of Dece mber 2003, licenses were required for the purpose 
of fulfilling international agreements; ensuring stat e security; the protection of human, animal and 
plant health; the protection of the environment; the protection of physical or legal persons' property, 
and State or municipal property.  According to the Article 24 of Federal Law No. 164-FZ, licensing 
was also required in the event of temporary quantit ative restrictions on imports of certain types of 
goods.  Licenses were generally issued by the Mini stry for Economic Development and Trade of the 
Russian Federation.  In the case of weapons, ammunitions and dual-purpose goods, licenses were 
issued by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian  Federation.  The licensing regime was applied to 
imports from all countries, including imports from CIS countries without discrimination as regards the 
country of origin.   
251. Several members of the Working Party expressed  concern regarding the Russian Federation's 
justification for the application of non-automatic im port licenses for products listed in Table 16(a) per 
Article XX of the GATT 1994.  These members request ed additional explanation to understand how 
the provisions in the chapeau of Article XX would be met.  They noted that, while import licensing 
might be an appropriate mechanism to administer ce rtain controls, the justification for these controls, 
as well as the specifics of the import licensing procedur es used to administer them, needed in all cases 
to be fully in accordance to WTO provisions, including those on non-discrimination.  
252. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation said that the Russian Federation had 
no intention to limit the quantity and value of imports, except as provided for in international 
conventions such as the Montreal Protocol or the Basel Convention or for the implementation of other 
measures justified under the WTO agreement.   
253. Several members replied that the current appli cation of licensing requirements to products 
such as pharmaceuticals, sugar, alcoholic beverag es clearly operated to restrict imports.  They 
requested the Russian Federation to explain how these restrictions would be modified or eliminated to 
meet WTO requirements.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 73 
 
 
 254. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that import licensing of 
pharmaceuticals and alcoholic beverages was justif ied by Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994 and was 
aimed at implementing the Government's policies in the field of human and animal life and health 
protection. 
[to be completed] 
- Sugar 
255. Some members asked for more detailed in formation on how the Russian authorities 
considered that each of the requirements of Ar ticle 1 and 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures had been met in relation to non-automa tic import licensing in the administration of its 
TRQ for raw sugar (HS 1701.11). 
256. The representative of the Russian Federati on responded  that Government Resolution 
No. 1580 "On the Introduction of Amendments and Addenda to the Regulations on the Procedure for 
Licensing the Export and Import of Goods (Works, Services) in the Russian Federation", which 
regulated import or export licensing, had been issued on 29 December 1998.  After that, the list of goods subject to import or export licensing regime had been amended on several occasions with a 
view to minimizing the number of products concerne d.  The most recent Resolutions on this matter 
(Resolutions No. 560 of 26 July 2001 "On the Abolishment of the Licensing of the Import of White Sugar to the Russian Federation" and No. 757 of 18 December 2003 “On the Abolishing of the 
Licensing of the Import of Raw Sugar to the Russi an Federation”) had rem oved raw and white sugar 
from the list of products requiring an import license.   He added that pursuant to Government 
Resolution No.782 of 17 July 1998 (as amended on 18 December 2003) imports of glucose syrup 
required licensing.  This measure, however, had a temporary surveillance character and had been 
taken in order to collect trade data that could be  used, if necessary, to justify possible measures aimed 
at regulating imports.  These licenses were issued automatically without quantitative restrictions.  
- Alcoholic beverages and Alcohol-Containing Products 
257. Noting that for alcoholic beverages and alc ohol-containing products, import licenses were 
only issued where the applicant already had an ac tivity licence, some members requested information 
on the rationale for this apparent  duplicative requirement.  They also required information on the 
number of licenses issued every year and on how many  of these were currently in force.  These 
members requested the Russian Federation to make  a commitment that any import licenses on ethyl 
alcohol, alcoholic drinks, alcohol-containing produc ts and pharmaceutical products would be granted WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 74  
 
 automatically on the basis of a regime compatible with WTO requirements, including Article 2 of the 
WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  
258. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation said that pursuant to Federal Law 
No.  164-FZ of 8 December 2003 “On the Fundamen tals of State Regulation of Foreign Trade 
Activity”, and Government Resolutions No. 77 of 28 January 1997 and No. 114 of 2 February 1998, 
the Ministry for Economic Development and Trad e issued licenses for the importation of strong 
alcoholic beverages (of an alcoholic strength exceeding 28% Vol. - only vodka and competing 
alcoholic beverages were subject to licensing accordi ng to the HS code of the Russian Federation).  
Such licenses were issued only to those holding an  activity license to import alcohol, as provided for 
by Federal Law No. 171-FZ of 22 November 1995 "O n State Regulation of Production and Turnover 
of Ethyl Alcohol, Alcoholic and Alcohol-Containing Produc ts".  He further noted that the Ministry of 
Economic Development and Trade issued licens es upon receipt of the documents listed in 
paragraph [247] of this draft Report.  In his view , import licensing of alcohol and alcohol-containing 
products was undertaken for purposes consistent with  the requirements of Article XX (c) of the GATT 
1994.  However, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the non-automatic import 
licensing requirement for alcoholic beverages and alcohol-containing products would  be eliminated 
and replaced upon accession by an automatic licensing procedure whereby licences would be issued 
upon submission of the appropria te and complete documentation as described above. He further 
confirmed that procedures would be simplified a nd that the “one window” principle would apply for 
licensing.  Changes to this syst em are described in the section on “Registration requirements for 
import/export operations”. 
- Pharmaceuticals 
259. Some members noted that pharmaceutical licensi ng requirements were extremely burdensome 
and constituted a problem for their exporters. A ma jor obstacle was that pharmaceuticals had to be 
re-registered periodically, e.g. once every four years,  and this re-registration was not automatic, often 
resulting in firms losing their current licence and bei ng unable to import products for a period of time.  
Regarding Government Resolution No. 1539 "On th e importation in and the exportation from the 
Russian Federation of Medicaments and Pharmaceutical Substances", some members indicated that 
Paragraph 2 of that resolution appeared to suggest  that foreign manufacturers were required to have 
offices in the Russian Federation in order to obtain an import license.  They requested clarification as 
to whether this would imply that foreign manufact urers of pharmaceuticals should have an office in 
the Russian Federation to obtain a license to import, and noted that in this case such a requirement 
would be inconsistent with WTO provisions.  In  addition, they asked the Russian Federation to  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 75 
 
 
 elaborate on the purpose of these requirements, partic ularly in the case of licensing products such as 
flavourings and dual use precursor chemicals, and on whether they required the examination of every 
contract to import.  Members also expressed concerns regarding treatment of imports when there were 
differences between the quantity shipped and that listed in the contract. In some cases small 
disparities had resulted in a refusal to permit import even of the contracted amount.  Members also requested information on possible expedited proced ures to obtain licenses for any significant overage. 
Those members also recalled the concerns raised  under the section on "Registration requirements for 
import/export operations" of this  draft Report (above).   
260. In response the representative of the Russian Fe deration explained that in accordance with 
Federal Law 86-FZ of 22 June 1998 "On Medicines"  and Federal Law No. 128-FZ "On Licensing of 
Certain Types of Activities", foreign enterprises (p roducers and wholesalers) were entitled to import 
and/or export pharmaceuticals to/from the territo ry of the Russian Federation if they had a 
representative office in the Russian Federation, whic h had been granted a license for this type of 
activity (pharmaceutical production or distribution) and a licence for importation.  The issuance of a 
licence for pharmaceutical activity or production allowed the legal entity to obtain a license for 
importation and/or exportation of me dicines.  The fee charged for the issuance of the licence to 
import/export medicines amounted to 3,000 Rubles (about US$100).  He also noted that they were subject to the same uniform procedures as pr ovided under Government Resolution No. 1539 of 25 
December 1998 "On Imports into and Exports fr om the Russian Federation of Medicines and 
Pharmaceutical Substances". 
261. Noting the concerns expressed by of the Members regarding the treatment of imports when 
there were differences between the quantity shipped and that listed in  the contract, the representative 
of the Russian Federation explained that the quantity shipped could be smaller then that listed in the 
contract, but not larger. 
262. Noting further that pharmaceutical exporters had expressed concern over certain Russian 
import licensing requirements (for instance if the molecule unique to the pharmaceutical had not 
changed periodic renewal of licenses appeared unnecessary and could be e xpensive and burdensome 
to industry), some members asked whether such requirements were equally applied to similar 
domestic products, as this could constitute a violati on of Article III of the GATT 1994.  Noting that 
some pharmaceutical exporters had expressed concern that the administration of licenses by the Ministry of Health and Social Development and the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade 
did not presently meet WTO requirements such as tr ansparency, fees for services rendered, processing 
within a reasonable timeframe and forbearance on minor documentation errors, these members WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 76  
 
 requested clarification on the steps that the Russian  Federation intended to take to ensure that the 
administration of import licenses would conform to WTO requirements.  In this regard, some 
members asked the Russian Federation to explain ho w the 0.05 per cent administrative fee charged by 
the Ministry of Health and Social Development fo r issuing permits to import pharmaceutical products 
was consistent with the requirements  of Article VIII of the GATT 1994.  
263. Some members requested additional clarification on the status of any legislative initiative in 
the Russian Federation which could operate to r estrict imports of pharm aceuticals having domestic 
analogues.  These members felt that, if adopted, such legislation could be inconsistent with the provisions of Articles III and XI of the GATT 1994.  They asked the Russian Federation to confirm that activity licenses would be made available to all registered companies (domestic or foreign), which satisfied government regulatory criteria.  They  noted that this would not prevent the Russian 
Federation from operating state-trading enterprises or applying controls on imports and exports for 
example for purposes of human health, as long as th ese were applied in a manner consistent with 
relevant WTO obligations.  Noting further that the Russian Federation had acknowledged that the 
current law concerning pharmaceuticals (Federal La w No. 86 "On medicines" of 22 June 1998) was 
inconsistent with the new draft Foreign Trad e and Import/Export Licensing Laws, some members 
expected that this law would be amended or rep ealed to ensure WTO conformity by the date of 
accession. 
264. The representative of the Russian Federation rep lied that there were no plans in the Russian 
Federation to introduce new legislation which coul d operate to restrict imports of pharmaceuticals 
having domestic substitutes.  Activity licences were made available to all registered companies 
(domestic or foreign owned) wh ich satisfied government regulatory criteria.  For issuance of 
preliminary permits for imports of  pharmaceutical products the Ministry of Health and Social 
Development of the Russian Federation charged a fee of 0.05 per cent of the contract value of the 
goods.  He also added that, by way of legislativ e and regulatory development, work was currently 
underway to modify procedures for imports of ph armaceutical substances and medicines into the 
Russian Federation.  He also referred to his e xplanations under the above section on "Registration 
requirements for import/export operations".  
265. Some members of the Working Party stated that  their traders had experienced difficulties with 
other Ministries or institutions charging extra fees in connection with impor tation permits based upon 
the contract value of the goods.  Those members requested that Russia entered a commitment to 
eliminate all non-WTO consistent measures upon its accession to the WTO.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 77 
 
 
 - Polycarbonates 
266. For the purpose of fulfilling Russia’s internationa l obligations on protection of copyright and 
related rights, a draft Government Resolution “On Introducing in the Russian Federation Import 
Licensing of Polycarbonates for Producing Optical Medi a” has been elaborated.  The draft was to be 
submitted to the Government.  Due to be introduc ed on 1 January 2005, the licensing requirement 
would help to raise the efficiency of measur es on the discontinuance of illegal production and 
turnover of optical media in Russia. 
- Technology Products 
267. Some members expressed their concerns that im ports into Russia of all encryption products 
were subject to non-automatic licensing, irrespectiv e of whether these products could be considered 
sensitive or not with respect to national security. Th e fact that current Russian legislation did not 
provide a clear definition of which encryption pr oducts were subject to import licensing led to a 
situation in which all imports of  encryption products were made s ubject to non-automatic licenses, 
including those which are part of mass consumer products and which were in ternationally recognised 
as posing no risk to national security. They also  considered that the licensing process was non-
transparent and led to a situation where domestic  products had a more favourable treatment than 
foreign products. They requested the Russian Federa tion to commit to take measures to facilitate trade 
in non-sensitive encryption products by addressing these concerns by the time of its WTO entry. 
268. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that legislation had being prepared to 
render the process of licensing transparent and predicta ble, and that the relevant rules and regulations 
applicable to licensing of this kind of equipmen t would be made available to the Members. The 
licensing procedure would be proportional in term s of time-frame, not exceeding three months.  The 
Russian Federation would set transparent and cost -based fees for the license procedures. It would 
exempt from import licensing requirements those encryp tion devices, which, due to their parameters, 
characteristics and areas of exploitation, were out of export control in accordance with Wassenaar 
agreements and would maintain this  list in consultation with its main  trading partners. He also noted 
that the Russian Federation would ensure equal requirements and procedures for imported encryption 
devices and locally produced products for use on the territory of the Russian Federation. He 
confirmed that these measures would be in place by the time of WTO accession. 
269. Members requested further information on the exemptions from import licensing 
requirements and procedures that would be used to develop and maintain the list of exempted 
products.  These members had continuing concerns th at commonly traded products would be subject 
to licensing requirements. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 78  
 
 270. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
eliminate from the date of accession, and would no t introduce, reintroduce or apply, quantitative 
restrictions on imports or other non-tariff measures such as quotas, bans, permits, prior authorization 
requirements, licensing requirements or other require ments or restrictions having equivalent effect 
that could not be justified under the provisions of the WTO Agreem ents.  The import licensing regime 
from the date of accession would be fully in accord ance with all relevant provisions of the WTO, 
including the Agreement on Import Licensing Proce dures.  He further confirmed that the legal 
authority of the Government of the Russian Fede ration to suspend imports or to apply licensing 
requirements that could be used to suspend, ban or  otherwise restrict the quantity of trade would be 
applied from the date of accession in conformity w ith the requirements of the WTO, in particular 
Articles III, XI, XII, XIII, XIX, XX and XXI  of GATT 1994, and the WTO Agreements on 
Agriculture, the Application of Sanitary and Ph ytosanitary Measures, Import Licensing Procedures, 
Safeguards, Technical Barriers to Trade and the Understanding on Balance-of-payments Provisions of 
the GATT 1994.] 
271. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would conform with the provisions  of Article XI of the GATT 1994.  He further 
confirmed that the Russian Federation would not appl y import prohibitions or restrictions that cannot 
be justified under the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreements, including Articles XII, XIII, XIX, 
XX, XXI of the GATT 1994. The import licensing regime, from the date of accession, would be in 
accordance with the provisions of the Agreemen t on Import Licensing Procedures.  The Working 
Party took note of these commitments.] 
[to be completed] 
Customs Valuation 
272. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that the basic provisions relating to 
customs valuation practices in the Russian Federa tion were contained in Federal Law No. 5003-1 of 
21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff", Government Resolution No. 856 of 5 November 1992 "On the 
Procedure of Customs Valuation of Products Importe d into the Territory of the Russian Federation", 
the Customs Code (Federal  Law No.61-FZ of 28 May 2003), the Code on Administrative Offences 
No.195-FZ of 30 December 2001, and the Arbitration Procedural Code No.95-FZ of 24 July 2002. 
The rules for determining customs values were ba sed on the provisions of the WTO Agreement on 
Implementation of Article VII of GATT 1994.  All six methods of customs valuation applied were 
based on the provisions of Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of that Agreement.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 79 
 
 
 273. Members of the Working Party noted that specifi c issues of concern in this area included the 
use of de facto fixed import prices for some goods, the need to include more precise provisions for 
valuation of imports possibly involvi ng related parties, and the inclus ion of the Interpretative Notes to 
the Agreement in legal texts.  They described in  detail the areas where additional legal provisions 
were necessary to achieve compliance with the WTO Agreement.   
274. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that in accordance with the 
Customs Code and in line with the provisi ons of Article 17 of the WTO Agreement on 
Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994,  the State Customs Committee of the Russian 
Federation (SCC) had been implementing a special t echnique of customs control aimed at preventing 
gross under-invoicing of customs value through the use of false documents stating a clearly understated contractual price. 
275. Members reiterated ongoing concerns  related to the current administration of the Customs 
system, such as the inconsistency of the current  legislation with WTO and other norms, the 
inconsistent application of legisla tion, and the consequent lack of predictability and certainty.  Those 
members requested that the Russian Federation detail the further adjustments that would be made in 
order to  bring the Russian Federation Customs la w and practice into full conformity with WTO and 
other requirements.  They noted that existing procedures in the WTO Agreement that facilitated 
importation were important benef its for WTO Members and should be introduced by the Russian 
Federation upon accession.  Members also reiterated the importance of ensuring that aids to 
application of the Customs Valuation Agreement such as the Interpretative Notes and Decisions on 
Carrier Media be enshrined in the new legislation and clearly spelled out.  
276. Noting that the Russian Authorities had menti oned a special technique of customs control 
introduced by the SCC in order to prevent unde r-invoicing of customs value, some members 
requested clarification on the modalities of applicati on and legal justification of this special technique .  
Minimum or arbitrary valuation methods, even if intended to address a specific problem, would have 
to be eliminated prior to accession and replaced with procedures meeting WTO requirements.  Members expressed concern about the special techni ques of customs control to prevent commercial 
valuation fraud.  In particular, members sought information on how th e special technique was applied, 
to what products, such as flat glass, and how that system would be eliminated.   
277. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration said that the "special technique" of 
customs valuation used with respect to the valu ation of certain imported products (described in 
WT/ACC/RUS/28 and WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/33) entrus ted the decision-making authority of the 
customs bodies with the task of checking the truth a nd accuracy of the stated value of products.  The WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 80  
 
 relevant customs bodies were vested with certain functions to control customs value, and those 
situations in which such functions  could be performed were specifi ed and the operational procedures 
of the customs bodies at the various levels (cus tom-house, regional customs authority, SCC staff) 
defined. This technique was not meant to repl ace the applicable Russian legislation on customs 
valuation based on the use of the transaction value as a main method of customs valuation.   
278. He added that SCC Order No.1329 of 10 Dece mber 2002  “On Measures to Strengthening of 
Control of Customs Value”, which had been adopted  in order to prevent under-invoicing of customs 
value, had been invalidated by SCC Order No. 755 of 30 June 2004 “On Measures for Strengthening 
of Control of Customs Value”, which aimed at raisin g the efficiency of the work of customs bodies in 
valuating goods imported into the custom s territory of the Russian Federation. 
279. He noted that actions by the SCC could be  appealed in accordance with the procedure 
established by the Customs Code, notably under Ar ticle 47 which required that the initial appeal 
should be filed with the higher customs administ ration of the Russian Federation (Federal Law 
No. 61-FZ of 28 May 2003), as outlined in paragr aph [105] above.  The draft Federal Law "On 
Amending the Law of the Russian Federation 'O n Customs Tariff'" was intended to ensure 
consistency of the Russian Federation customs valu ation procedures with the provisions of the WTO 
Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of GATT 1994.   
280. He further explained that the draft Federa l Law "On Amending the Law of the Russian 
Federation 'On Customs Tariff'", which his Government eventually planned to incorporate into 
Federal Law No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1991 "On Custom s Tariff", would establish a predictable and 
transparent regime in this area.  The draft Law had been elaborated with regard to Article VII of the 
GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Implementation of Ar ticle VII of the GATT 1994.  It amended the 
Russian legislation on customs valuation in accordance with the provisions of the Interpretative Notes 
and brought the texts of the Law “On Customs Tariff ” in full conformity with the Customs Valuation 
Agreement.  In response to further requests from members, the representative of the Russian 
Federation stated that the Interpretative Notes anne xed to the Customs Valuation Agreement would be 
partially included in a federal law.  The rest w ould be included through im plementing regulations of 
the Government.   
281. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that the amendments to the Customs 
Tariff Law and its implementing legislation, as well as the provisions of the new Customs Code 
would address a number of members' concerns.  The  methods of valuation provided for in the WTO 
Agreement were contained in Articles 13-19 the draft Federal Law “On Amending the Law of the 
Russian Federation “On Customs Tariff”’.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 81 
 
 
 282. He noted that Article 20 provided for the use of  the fallback method.  If the customs value of 
the imported goods could not be de termined under the provisions of Articles 14, 16-19 in this draft 
law, the customs value would have to be determ ined using reasonable mean s consistent with the 
principles and general provisions of this draft  law. 
283. The methods of customs valuation used under this  Article were the same as those provided by 
Articles 14, 16 – 19 of the draft Law.  Certain discr etion was allowed in dete rmining customs value, 
i.e.  
- determination of customs value could be based on the transaction value of identical or similar 
goods produced in the country other than the country of the goods being valued; 
- in determining customs value using the transac tion value of identical or similar goods, the 
requirement of Articles 16 or 17 that the identi cal or similar goods should be exported at or 
about the same time as the goods being va lued could be reasonably flexible;   
- customs values of identical or similar imported goods already determined under the 
provisions of Articles 18 and 19 of this Law c ould be used in determining customs value;  
- in determining customs value using the de ductive method, the "90 days" requirement 
established by item 4 of Article 18 of this Chapter could be administered flexibly. 
284. The representative of the Russian Federation added that pursuant to Article 318 of the 
Customs Code of the Russian Federation (Fed eral Law No. 61-FZ of 28 May 2003) customs 
payments included: import customs duty; expo rt customs duty; value-added tax levied upon 
importation of goods into the customs territory of  the Russian Federation; excise tax levied upon 
importation of goods into the customs territory of  the Russian Federation; and customs fees.  
285. Members of the Working Party thanked the Russi an Federation for its explanations of the 
provisions of the new legislation, and noted that  the new draft Law amending the Customs Tariff Law 
appeared to address many of their concerns.  However, some aspects of the WTO Agreement did not appear to be reflected in the new text.  These included deficiencies related to (1) acceptance of a 
related party transaction value and the circumstance s of sale test; (2) the circumstances under which 
information was required from declarants; (3) when  the deductive method could be used and use of 
the “fallback” method of valuation; and (4) the estab lishment of a publication requirement for the rate 
of exchange used in valuation, confidentiality requi rements for data provided, and the right of appeal 
“without penalty” to a judicial authority.  The draf t law also lacked a provision for the acceptance of 
paragraph 2 of Decision 4.1 of the Committee on Customs Valuation which provided that the 
“Valuation of Carrier Media Bearing Software, for Data Processing Equipment” should be based on 
the value of the media, and Decisions 3.1 on the “Tr eatment of Interest Charges in the Customs Value 
of Imported Goods.”  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 82  
 
 286. Members also noted that the draft Law did not elaborate on existing, and inadequate, 
provisions in the Customs Code for the use of a surety bond to allow clearance of goods through 
customs  if the  final determination of cust oms value had been delayed, and many of the  
Interpretative Notes to the Customs Valuation Agreement, which were an integral part of the Customs 
Valuation Agreement were not fully reflected in the draft Law or other existing legislation.  Members 
sought assurances that these deficiencies would be a ddressed and corrected in the draft law or its 
implementing regulations prior to their implementati on.  They also requested the Russian Federation 
to supply the Working Party with a translation,  in a WTO Working language, of the Amended 
Customs Tariff Law and its implementing regulations  as soon as possible.    In addition, members 
sought a commitment that the new legislation would be fully implemented so as to secure complete compliance with the WTO Agreements. 
287. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration noted that the draft Federal Law “On 
amending the Law of the Russian Federation “On Customs Tariff” contained a provision based on 
Article 4 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994.  Terms such as identical goods, similar goods, and related parties in  the Law were used as they were described in 
Article 15 of the Agreement.   
288. Along with the legislative acts adopted at the beginning of the 1990s, the Customs Code 
contained provisions on customs valuation.  The Co de established confidentiality requirements for all 
information presented by declarants for customs pur poses, including valuation, risk management as an 
instrument of customs control and customs value control (additional inform ation could be required 
when customs authorities had reasons to doubt the accu racy of the declared value pursuant to Article 
17 of the Agreement and Decision 6.1 of the Committ ee on Customs Valuation), rate of exchange for 
customs valuation, and release under guarantee if the final determination of customs value was 
delayed. According to Article 15 of Federal Law No.86-FZ of 10 July 2002 “On the Central Bank of 
the Russian Federation” (as amended on 10 Janua ry and 23 December 2003), the Central Bank fixed 
and published the official exchange rates of forei gn currencies with respect to the Ruble.  Appeal 
procedures for customs matters were regulated by  the Customs Code, the Code on Administrative 
Offences No.195-FZ of 30 December 2001, and th e Arbitration Procedural Code No. 95-FZ of 
24 July 2002. 
289. The representative of the Russian Federation noted  that under the legislation in force and the 
draft Federal Law “On Amending the Law of the Ru ssian Federation “On Cust oms Tariff”’ minimum 
prices were not appli сable for customs valuation purposes.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 83 
 
 
 290. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
apply its customs valuation laws, re gulations and practices in full c onformity with the relevant WTO 
provisions, including the Agreement on Implementati on of Article VII of GATT 1994, from the date 
of accession without recourse to any transition period.  [He further confirmed that, in determining the 
value of imports, the Russian Federation would apply the provisions of paragraph 2 of Decision 4.1 of 
the Committee on Valuation of Carrier Media Bearing Software for Data Processing Equipment and 
Decision 3.1 on the Treatment of Interest Charges in Customs Value of Imported Goods and for the 
Valuation of Carrier Media Bearing Software for Da ta Processing Equipment.]  He also confirmed 
that the Russian Federation would not use any form  of minimum value, reference price, or fixed 
valuation schedule establishing the value of imports and exports or to apply duties and taxes from the 
date of accession.  He added that, as an intern ational agreement, the provisions of the WTO 
Agreement on the Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994 would supersede domestic law 
after accession.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.]   
291. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would conform with the provi sions of Article VII of the GATT 1994 and the 
Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of th e GATT 1994.  The Working Party took note of this 
commitment.] 
[to be completed] 
Rules of Origin  
292. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that the Russian Federation closely 
followed the work of the World Customs Organization (WCO) and the WTO regarding the application and harmonization of non-preferential rules of origin.  The principles for determining the 
country of origin of goods were based on international practices and implemented the 
recommendations of the Kyoto Convention.  The pro cedures for determining the country of origin of 
goods were established pursuant to the provisions  of Federal Law No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993 "On 
Customs Tariff’’(as last amended on 29 June 2004).  Goods were recognized as originating from a 
specific country if they were wholly made in that  country or substantially transformed in accordance 
with criteria set forth in the Law.  The country of origin of goods might also be understood to mean a 
group of countries, customs unions, a region or a part of a country, if  it was necessary to identify 
them with a view to determining the origin of goods.  The provisions of Federal Law No. 5003-1, 
which related to the determination of  the country of origin of goods, had been incorporated in the new 
Customs Code, which had entered into for ce on 1 January 2004 (Federal Law No. 61-FZ of 
28 May 2003). WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 84  
 
 293. The representative of the Russian Federation not ed that, pursuant to the Customs Code, by 
default, MFN treatment was granted if the country of origin was declared and accepted as being the 
MFN country of origin.  Where MFN treatment existe d  in respect of the exporting country, customs 
duties were charged at the Customs Tariff rates.  Pu rsuant to Article 38 of the Customs Code, customs 
duties were charged at the double rate only when the customs bodies discovered the lack of signs 
proving that the goods at issue had originated from a country in respect of which Russia did not apply 
MFN treatment.  If customs bodies had no reasons to consider a good as originating from a country in 
respect of which Russia did not apply MFN treatment, customs duties would be charged at the Customs Tariff rates irrespective of the availa bility or absence of Certificate of origin. 
294. He stated that pursuant to Article 36 of the Cu stoms Code, certificates of origin constituted an 
indisputable documentary proof of the country of origin of goods issued by the competent body or 
organization of a given country or of the country of  exportation, provided the latter issued certificates 
based on information obtained from the country of or igin of the said goods.  Certificates of origin 
should contain a written statement by the consignor that goods satisfied the respective criteria of 
origin, and written confirmation by the duly auth orized body of the exporting country which had 
issued the certificate that the data  indicated therein were true and correct (Article 31 of the Federal 
Law No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff”).  The certificate of origin should be submitted 
alongside the customs declaration and other docum ents presented for customs clearance.  If doubts 
existed about the validity of a certificate or the accur acy of the data indicated therein, including the 
country of origin, the Russian customs agency coul d approach the organizations that had issued the 
certificate or other authorities of the country indicat ed with a request for clarification.  In these 
circumstances, goods would not be regarded as or iginating from a given country until a duly executed 
certificate of origin or requested data were subm itted. Failure to submit a duly executed certificate or 
data about the origin of goods w ould not constitute grounds for refusal to clear such goods across the 
customs border.  However, goods whose origin had not been clearly established, would be cleared 
only after the payment of customs duties at the double MFN rates of the Customs Tariff.     
295. He further stated that the determination of th e origin of goods originating from developing 
countries eligible for the system of preferences maintained by the Russian Federation was governed 
by the "Rules of Origin of Goods Originating from Developing Countries for the Purposes of Tariff 
Preferences under the General Preferences System" in corporated in the Agreement of the CIS states of 
12 April 1996 "On Rules of Origin of Goods Orig inating from Developing Countries for the Purposes 
of Tariff Preferences under the General Preferences Sy stem".  As for the rules of origin within free 
trade agreements, additional criteria of direct pur chase were used, along with requirements that the 
exporter be legally established in a Party to the Agreement (Decision of the Heads of Government of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 85 
 
 
 other CIS Countries of 18 October 1996).  In respect  of goods originating from CIS countries, he said 
that the Russian Federation adhered to the "Rules of Origin of Goods" approved by the Council of 
Heads of CIS Governments on 30 November 2000.  These rules had been developed pursuant to the 
international practice of determination of orig in.  There were no special arrangements for the 
determination of the country of origin of goods  within the framework of the Eurasian Economic 
Community. 
296. Noting that the rules of origin provisions contained in Federal Law No. 5003-1 of 
21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff" did not appear to fully reflect the requirements of the WTO Agreement, several Members of the Working Party felt it essential to ensure that the new Customs 
Code would provide revised rules of origin consistent with WTO provisions.  These members also requested a clarification on whether these new laws would cover both preferential and 
non-preferential rules of origin.  Noting that goods, whose origin had not been clearly established, 
were cleared through customs only after payment of customs duties at a double MFN rate of the Customs Tariff, some Members asked the Russian Fe deration to clarify whether in such cases it was 
possible to submit a certificate of origin subseq uent to customs clearance and, if origin was 
subsequently satisfactorily established, whether ex cess duties were then refunded.  Some members 
also expressed concerns and requested a clarif ication regarding the consistency with the WTO 
Agreement on Rules of Origin of the Russian-stated pr actice that "the country of origin could also be 
understood to mean a group of countries, customs unions, a region or part of a region, if this was 
necessary to identify them with a view to determining the origin of goods".  Members also sought 
clarification on the requirement that the exporter be  legally established resident in a Party to the 
Agreement, and asked if corporate registration woul d satisfy that requirement, or whether there were 
other criteria. 
297. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that according to Article 37 of 
the Customs Code, when goods were brought into the customs territory of the Russian Federation, the 
declarant, i.e. the person declaring the goods or on behalf of which the goods were declared (Article 
11 of the Customs Code), had to present a document confirming the country of origin of the goods to 
benefit from preferential tariffs in accordance with in ternational treaties or legislation of the Russian 
Federation.  In this case, the document confirmi ng the country of origin of the goods had to be 
presented to the customs body simultaneously with the customs declaration.  The customs authorities 
had the right to ask the declarant to present documenta ry proofs of the country of origin of the goods 
in other cases only if they discovered signs of auth enticity of the declared information denoting the 
country of origin of the goods, as far as such info rmation could affect the a pplication of the customs 
duties, taxes, and/or restrictions and prohibitions  stipulated by the Federal Law of the Russian WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 86  
 
 Federation on the State Regulation of Foreign Trad e Activity.  As for the requirement that the 
exporter be legally established in a Party to the Ag reement there were no any other criteria apart from 
registration. 
298. Several Members requested information on the ri ght to request an origin determination from 
the Government prior to shipment, and requested a commitment that these provisions be applied in 
line with the requirements of Article 2(h) and Anne x II, paragraph 3(d) of the Agreement on Rules of 
Origin.  They sought information on where these provisions could be found in the Russian 
Federation's customs legislation.  They also indicated  that Russia's preferential rules of origin for CIS 
countries and other preferential trade agreements to which the Russian Federation belonged should 
fully reflect the interim rules of Annex II of the Ag reement.  In this regard, these Members requested 
clarification on whether the "Decision of the Counc il of the Governments of the Commonwealth of 
Independent States on the Rules for the Determ ination of a Country of Goods' Origin" of 
24 September 1993 met these requirements, and sought a commitment as to their implementation upon accession.  Some members also asked a clarification on whether customs procedures did include any guarantee system which allowed release of goods pending determination of preferential origin and 
how any associated rectification procedure (subsequent  refund or recovery of customs duties) actually 
operated.  These members also inquired on whether provisions existed in Russian customs laws for 
the protection of confidential information supplied for the purpose of application of the rules of 
origin. 
299. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation stated that Articles 393 to 396 of the 
previously applied Customs Code provided that  customs authorities were entitled to issue a 
provisional decision with respect to the origin of goods, prior to import of these goods into the territory of the Russian Federation.  To further develop these provisions, the State Customs Committee (SCC) had introduced a "Regulation on th e procedure for taking preliminary decisions 
with respect to the country of origin of goods".  He added that with regard to compliance with the 
requirements of Article 2(h) and Annex II, paragr aph 3(d) of the Agreement on Rules of Origin, 
Articles 393-396 of the previous Customs Code of th e Russian Federation provided for the possibility 
of preliminary (prior to shipment) origin determina tion by customs administrations.  In furtherance of 
these Articles, the State Customs Committee had prep ared and passed a Regulation on the procedure 
for origin determination prior to shipment, a nd provisions authorizing such measures had been 
included in Articles 40-44 of the new Customs Code.  General rules of confidential information were 
contained in Article 139 of the Civil Code and Article 10 of Law No. 948-1 of 22 March 1991 "On 
Competition and Restriction of Monopoly Activity on the Commodity Markets" (for further details 
see paragraph [598] of this draft Report).  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 87 
 
 
 300. Members of the Working Party thanked the repr esentative of the Russian Federation for this 
information, but noted that the new Customs Code did not appear to provide for a time period of no 
later than 150 days after a request for issuing a preliminary decision on the origin of a product had 
been submitted, provided that all required informa tion had been submitted.  They requested that the 
requirements of Article 2(h) and Annex II, paragraph 3(d) of the Agreement on Rules of Origin be 
identified in Russia's legislation or provided for in  new legislation.  Those Members also requested 
information on whether Russia’s preferential rules of origin for the FTAs with CIS, Yugoslavia, 
EAEC, the Common Economic Space, or other such ag reements, reflected the interim rules of the 
WTO Agreement in Annex II of the Agreement.    
301. Some members reiterated their concerns regard ing the customs regulation and simplification 
of border control measures and necessity of bringi ng all these inconsistencies into full conformity 
with WTO rules.  Some Members also stated that the Russian Federation had not provided 
satisfactory responses to problems concerning the admi nistration of certificates of origin, which had 
serious economic consequences for some Members’  national economy.  Those Members therefore, 
sought a commitment from the Russian Federation to  prevent the illegal flow of smuggled goods from 
its territory and to remove all customs formalitie s, which represented hidden barriers to trade and 
major trade distorting measures, prior to its accession to the WTO. 
302. One member reiterated that th e Decrees of the State Cust oms Committee of the Russian 
Federation No. 961-r dated 4 October 2001 and No. 1002 dated 19 October 2001 ran counter to the 
provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation,  particularly Article 15 which stated that "if 
an international treaty to which the Russian Federati on is party provides for other rules than those set 
forth by Russian Federation domestic law, the rules of the international treaty should apply".  That 
Member was of the view that those Decrees of th e State Customs Committee violated the provisions 
of the bilateral agreement between this member a nd the Russian Federation on Customs Check Points, 
and should immediately be eliminated to ensure the consistency with the requirements of that bilateral 
agreement.   
303. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that the new Customs Code of 
the Russian Federation contained provisions to fu lly reflect the requirements of the Agreement on 
Rules of Origin in Chapter 6, paragraphs 1-3, and defined the country of origin of a particular product 
as either the country where the product was pr oduced wholly or was subject to sufficient 
transformation in accordance with the criteria or pro cedure established by the Code, the two of them 
complying with the Agreement on the Rules of Origin. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 88  
 
 304. Concerning the requirements of Article 2 (h) a nd Annex II, paragraph 3 (d) of the Agreement 
on Rules of Origin, he noted that they were refl ected in SCC Order No.920 of 22 August 2003 “On 
the Approval of the Regulations on the Pro cedure for Taking Preliminary Decisions on the 
Classification of a Commodity in Accordance with  Commodity Classification of Foreign Economic 
Activity and on the Country or Origin of a Commodity”.  Preliminary decisions on the origin of a product had to be taken within 90 days from the date of receipt of a request by the customs body.  
Preliminary decisions were valid for five years unl ess they were changed, withdrawn or terminated. 
305. He further noted that the Customs Code supp lied an exhaustive list of the kinds of goods 
which were considered to be produced wholly in the country.  The Customs Code also established the 
criteria of sufficient transformation and listed the ope rations which did not satisfy those criteria, but in 
a non-exhaustive manner, additions could be made by  the Government of the Russian Federation.  
The Customs Code established the cases where certifi cates of origin were mandatory.  In the other 
cases, the customs authorities had the right to require the provision of a certificate of origin only when 
there was a motivated reason to believe that the in formation on the country of origin of goods was 
false. 
306. He noted that in the event that goods were supplied in a dismantled or not assembled state 
over several shipments - when it was impossible to de liver the whole lot at one time due to industrial 
or transportation problems or when the lot of goods had, by mistake, been divided into parts - the 
Customs Code established a number of peculiarities to  assist in determining the country of origin of 
goods (the indicated goods could, at the discretion of  the importer, be considered as one shipment).  
307. Concerning the application of preferences, he not ed that the document confirming the country 
of origin of goods would be the Certificate of Orig in or the Declaration on the Origin of Goods.  He 
added that the Customs Code provided that the G overnment of the Russian Federation could establish 
a procedure for the application of criteria of s ubstantial transformation for particular goods for a 
particular country to whom the Russian Federation granted tariff preferences.  He also noted that 
Article 32.5 of the Customs Code provided that the te rm for application of the rules of direct purchase 
and direct shipping for granting preferential tariffs  were also established by the Government.  Upon 
accession, the preferential rules of origin applied by  the Russian Federation would reflect the interim 
rules of the WTO Agreement in Annex II of the Agre ement, including the provisions for transparency, 
right of appeal, and notification to  the Committee on Rules of Origin. 
308. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that according to Article 38 of the 
Customs Code  in cases when documents confirming th e country of origin of goods were lacking or 
when there were signs that the documents presente d had been drawn up inappropriately and/or that  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 89 
 
 
 they contained unreliable information, the following actions had to be taken before the filing of the 
documents confirming the country of origin of the goods or the provision of more precise information: 
- customs duties would be paid at non-MFN rates if the customs body discovered signs that the 
country of origin of the goods was a country w ith which trading and political relations did not 
envisage MFN treatment or a security would have to be provided for the payment of customs 
duties at the said rates; 
- Article 355 of the Customs Code of the Russian Federation (Federal Law No. 61-FZ of 
28 May 2003) set out the mechanism for recovery of overpaid or over-recovered customs payments.  The customs authority was required to  inform the payer of  the overpaid or over-
recovered customs payment within one month fro m the date of detection of the overpayment 
or over-recovery. 
- when the certificate was accepted, after re lease of the goods MFN treatment or tariff 
preferences would be applied to the goods for one year and the importer could recover the 
difference in the duties paid.  Customs duti es were reimbursed upon the submission, by the 
payer, of a request within one year from the date  of occurrence of the incident of overpayment 
of the customs duties.  Such a request had to  be submitted to the customs office to which 
duties had been paid. 
309. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that from the date of accession of the 
Russian Federation's laws and regulations on rul es of origin for both MFN and preferential trade 
would be applied in conformity with the provis ions of the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin, 
including the provisions of Annex II, and that th ese provisions would be established in the Russian 
Federation's legal framework.  He further confirmed th at, in line with the requirements of Article 2(h) 
and of Annex II, paragraph 3(d), both for non-preferen tial and preferential rules of origin, its customs 
authorities would provide an assessment of the orig in of the import and outline the terms under which 
such an assessment would be provided upon the request  of an exporter, importer or any person with a 
justifiable cause.  According to the provisions of the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin specified 
above, any request for such an assessment would be accepted even before trade in the goods 
concerned had begun, and any such assessme nt would be binding for three years.] 
310. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would conform with the provisi ons of the Agreement on Rules of Origin.  The 
Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
Other Customs Formalities 
311. Several members stressed that the simplification of border controls and customs 
documentation necessary for importation in the Russian  Federation would have a favourable impact 
through reduced costs and improved efficiency for Russi an traders.  In response, the representative of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 90  
 
 the Russian Federation stated that customs formal ities in the Russian Federation were applied in 
accordance with the internationa lly accepted rules and were based on the Kyoto Convention.  
312. Noting that his country was experiencing a huge volume of uncontrolled entry of smuggled 
goods from the Russian Federation which seriously in jured its domestic market, a Member asked the 
Russian authorities to clarify how they intended to fully control the Russian Federation's customs 
border in its entirety to prevent exit of smuggled goods from Russian territory continuing to damage 
small and vulnerable neighbouring countries.  This member believed that regulations imposed by the 
Russian Federation on imports of certain types of products (wine and wi ne products, petroleum 
products, tobacco products, chicken meat, etc.) wh ich authorized only certain check-points often 
located away from the exporting countries, even in the case of neighbouring countries, to handle these 
goods, represented hidden impediments to trade.  He  therefore requested that  the Russian Federation 
ensure these requirements be removed or significantly simplified. 
313. One member of the Working Party noted that under State Customs Committee Orders 
No. 155 of 14 February 2001 "On the Procedure fo r Coordination of Decisions to Release Goods for 
Free Circulation" and No. 949 of 31 December 1999 on "Amending Order No. 258 of the SCC of 
26 April 1996 (in the wording of Order No. 43 of the SCC of 31 January 1997 and as amended on 
10 March 2000) certain goods that qualified as high-risk  (e.g. certain foodstuffs) were not released for 
free circulation without the specific approval of a higher customs authority.  The process of obtaining such approval could last from one to two weeks.  Under rules introduced in October 2001 by the 
North Western Customs Authority, shipments of "ris k products" (a wide group  of products including 
coffee, furniture, tyres and washing machines) were subject to burdensome documentary requirements, including in relationship to the owne rship of the vehicle transporting the goods.  The 
Russian Federation had also imposed restrictions that required customs clearance for certain goods, 
including textiles, clothing and electrical products , to take place only on bor ders with certain Asian 
countries as well as in certain ports and airports.  Co nsequently, such items originating in Asia could 
no longer be exported to the Russian Federation via that Member's customs territory.  As well as 
raising concerns in relation to c onformity with WTO requirements on trade in transit, these decrees 
made it possible for companies exporting to the Russi an Federation to use raw materials from the Far 
East for sub-contracting and subsequently created  a barrier to business cooperation.  The cumulative 
effect was that exporters to the Russian Federati on faced unpredictable, non-transparent, lengthy and 
generally burdensome customs pro cedures for imported goods at the point of entry into the Russian 
Federation's customs territory.  Checks on imported goods should not be applied in a heavy-handed or 
non-transparent way.  Those member s considered that Russia should  enter a commitment to respect 
standard WTO requirements of transparency, predictab ility and uniform applicati on in this regard.     WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 91 
 
 
 314. Another Member said that his authorities had c oncerns with the practice used by the Russian 
Federation customs bodies in respect of the transp ort companies of this member. He noted that 
country-specific restrictive customs procedures we re incompatible with WTO provisions, notably 
those in Articles I and VIII of GATT 1994. This me mber requested the Russian Federation to ensure 
that these and other country specific measures relatin g to customs procedures would be brought in full 
conformity with the WTO requirements prior to accession. 
315. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that measures mentioned by members, 
including the designation of customs clearance of particular goods to certain border customs points, 
were aimed to increase predictability and accuracy of  customs procedures for traders and transporters, 
not to act as a hidden or unnecessary restriction to tr ade, bearing in mind the following factors: (1) the 
unprecedented length of Russia’s borders; and (2) insu fficient resources to equip all border customs 
points with necessary equipment and storage facilitie s. These procedures were in accordance with the 
International Convention on the Simplification a nd Harmonization of Customs Procedures (Kyoto 
2000), in particular, with its Specific Annex A, Ch apter 1.  The Russian Federation expected that 
gradually the majority of border customs points w ould be prepared to process all goods crossing the 
border and that the Russian Federation was ready m eanwhile to constructively address to the extent 
possible any specific concerns of Members w ith a view to facilitating trade flows.   
316. The representative of the Russian Federation info rmed the Working Party that State Customs 
Committee Order No. 155 of 14 Febr uary 2001 "On the Procedure fo r Coordination of Decisions to 
Release Goods for Free Circulation" mentioned in paragraph [313] had been invalidated by State 
Customs Committee Order No. 828 of 5 August 2002. 
317. He added that, in accordance with the Cust oms Code, the federal executive governmental 
body in charge of customs affairs was entitled to d esignate specific customs points for the declaration 
of specific types of goods in order to ensure th e effectiveness of control over the observance of the 
customs legislation, only: 
(i)  if it was necessary to use specialised equipm ent and/or special knowledge to perform customs 
formalities in respect of such goods as cultura l valuables, weaponry, military material and 
ammunition, radioactive and fission materials; 
(ii) depending on the means of transport used to  perform international carriage of goods (motor 
vehicles, seagoing vessels, riverboats, aircraft , railway cars, pipelines, or electric power 
lines).  Restrictions with regard to the kind of  transport could only be applied along with the 
other restrictions described in this paragraph.  The definition of the kind of transport to which 
restrictions could be applied was essential to minimize the negative consequences for trade, 
linked to the establishment of restrictions, and was determined based on the largest possibility 
of violating customs legislation could take place. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 92  
 
 (iii) when the movement across the customs bor der concerned goods which had been involved in 
frequent breaches of customs legislation or were subject to bans and restrictions established 
under the legislation of the Russian Federation on State regulation of foreign trade activity; 
(iv) when special control was needed for goods containing objects of intellectual property 
according to the list established by the G overnment of the Russian Federation. 
318. He further added that pursuant to Article 125  of the Customs Code, legislation designating 
specific places for the declaration of certain types of goods would enter into force not earlier than 
90 days from the day of their official publication.  The list of such goods was contained in the Table 17(a) in accordance with Article 125 of th e Customs Code of the Russian Federation. 
319. According to Paragraph 2 of Article 402 of the Customs Code, the Federal Customs Service 
in co-ordination with the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation 
could determine that a particular customs office co uld have the exclusive right to carry out customs 
procedures in respect of certain categories of goods .  The list of such goods was contained in the 
Table 17(b) pursuant to Article 402 of the Customs Code. 
320. Members of the Working Party stated that they  expected the Russian Federation to undertake 
a commitment that upon accession all regulations, fo rmalities and requirements connected with the 
importation of goods, including in relation to sta tistical control, customs clearance, documents, 
documentation and certification, inspection and an alysis, and any changes to these regulations, 
formalities and requirements would be published suffi ciently in advance and would be applied in a 
uniform, impartial and reasonable manner across the customs territory of the Russian Federation, 
consistent with WTO requirements, including Ar ticles VIII and X of the GATT 1994.  Customs 
regulations, formalities and requirements should also be applied and operated in  a fashion consistent 
with WTO requirements.  They noted that industry and exporters had regular experience of inconsistencies between administra tive decisions taken by the Russian Federation authorities and the 
prevailing Russian Federation legislation.  Moreover , inconsistencies appeared to exist between the 
general legislative framework and subsidiary regulations and administrative guidance issued by the 
Russian Federation government bodies (such as the SCC).   
321. With respect to the concerns of members of th e Working Party raised in paragraph [320], the 
representative of the Russian Federation referred to th e Section on Transparency of the Report of the 
Working Party.  He added that the provisions of legal acts of the federal executive governmental body 
charged with customs affairs should not conflict with  the provisions of customs legislation and other 
legal acts of the Russian Federation and/or should no t establish requirements, ba ns and restrictions not 
envisaged by customs legislation and other legal acts of the Russian Federation.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 93 
 
 
 322. He further added that the uniform application of customs procedures was required by 
Article 1 of the Customs Code which stated that  the federal executive governmental body charged 
with customs affairs would ensure the uniform a pplication of customs legislation by all customs 
bodies in the territory of the Russian Federation.  He also noted that according to Article 6 of the 
Customs Code the normative legal acts could only be pronounced incons istent with the Customs Code 
in a judicial procedure.  The State would be oblig ed to compensate the losses incurred by persons as a 
result of the untimely adoption, entry into force, and/or publication of a normative legal act whose 
adoption was stipulated by the Customs Code an d to reimburse the losses caused as a result of 
inaccurate information circulated by customs authorities.   
Preshipment Inspection 
323. Noting that the Russian authorities had stated that the Russian Federation did not currently 
require any inspection services prior to shipment but was considering possible future recourse to such 
measures, members of the Workin g Party asked the Russian Federa tion to identify its laws and 
regulations for employing pre-shipment inspection and to undertake a commitment indicating that if 
such services should be employed in the future, they would conform to WTO provisions in their 
operations, e.g. in the application of fees for services rendered, observance of other WTO 
requirements in customs processing, and in provid ing right of appeal to the Government.   
324. Some members of the Working Party requested information on the timeframe and reasons for 
which the Russian Federation planned to introduce pre-shipment inspection.  Those members further 
stated that although the WTO Agreement did not pr eclude recourse to pre-shipment inspection subject 
to meeting a range of requirements, some members believed that this would be a backward step and 
expressed their preference to see the Russian Federati on engaging customs reforms that would address 
problem areas.  Some members stated that the use of pre-shipment inspection services could gradually erode a country's ability to perform certain ser vices itself.  Those members asked whether the 
government of the Russian Federation would take step s to ensure that any fees or other formalities 
imposed by any pre-shipment inspection entity would be fully in conformity with WTO rules, such as the Agreements on TBT, SPS, Article VIII and the Agreement on Customs Valuation.  Those 
members also sought assurances that the traders w ould have available a right of appeal (both 
administrative and judicial, as described above in this Draft Report) from any decisions of the pre-
shipment inspection entity.  Those members also requested information on the expected duration of 
any such measure.   
325. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation indicated that pursuant to the 
provisions of Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 28 Dece mber 2003 “On the Fundamentals of the State WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 94  
 
 Regulation of the Foreign Trade Activity”, the Gove rnment of the Russian Federation was authorized 
to introduce pre-shipment inspection with respect to certain types of goods in order to protect 
consumer’s rights and interests, as well as to discont inue the unfair practice of distortion of official 
information, including the deliberate lowering of cu stoms values.  Pre-shipment inspection could be 
introduced as a temporary measure for a period of three years maximum.  Pre-shipment inspection 
should be conducted in a transparent manner; the pr ocedures and criteria, used for inspection, should 
be objective and be applied on an equal basis to  all importers of goods; the information on the 
inspection requirement, should be available to all im porters of goods; the information received in the 
course of the pre-shipment inspection should be treated as business confidential.   
326. He added that pursuant to Federal Law No. 164-FZ a draft Government Resolution “On the 
Approval of the Regulations on Pre-shipment Inspecti on” has been elaborated in accordance with the 
WTO Agreement on Pre-shipment Inspection.  Acco rding to this draft Resolution pre-shipment 
inspection activities included verification of quality,  quantity, customs classification and price of 
goods, including financial terms of the contract; and issuance of a certif icate on pre-shipment 
inspection or reasons for refusal to issue such certif icate.  The list of goods subject to pre-shipment 
inspection had to be approved by the Government of the Russian Federation, along with implementing 
regulations setting the rights, obligations and respon sibility of the persons involved in pre-shipment 
inspection activities; the procedures for settling disp utes that may arise between the pre-shipment 
inspection company and the importe r of goods; and the procedures for controlling the activity of pre-
shipment inspection companies.  The time limit fo r carrying out pre-shipment inspection could not, as 
a rule, exceed three working days. 
327. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that if a pre-shipment inspection 
system would be introduced in the future, it woul d be temporary.  The Government of the Russian 
Federation would take responsibility to ensure that  the operations of any pre-shipment inspection 
companies it retained would comply with the requir ements of the WTO Agreements, in particular the 
Agreements on Pre-shipment  Inspection, Import Li censing Procedures, Customs Valuation, Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Measures and Technical Barriers to Trade.  He further confirmed that charges and 
fees applied by such companies would be consiste nt with Article VIII of the GATT 1994, and that 
such system would comply with the due pro cess and transparency requirements of the WTO 
Agreements, in particular Article X of the GAT T 1994, and the Agreement on the Implementation of 
Article VII of the GATT 1994.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.]  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 95 
 
 
 328. [The representative of the Russian Federa tion confirmed that, should a pre-shipment 
inspection system be introduced, it would be appl ied in conformity with the provisions of the 
Agreement on Preshipment Inspection.  The Work ing Party took note of this commitment.] 
[to be completed] 
Balance of payments 
329. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that Article 15 of Federal Law No. 63-FZ 
of 14 April 1998 "On Measures to Protect the Economic Interests of the Russian Federation with 
Respect to Foreign Trade in Goods" provided th e legal framework for tr ade remedy measures, 
including to safeguarding the country's balance of  payments as well as anti-dumping, countervailing, 
and safeguard measures.  In accordance with this law, and due to particular balance of payment 
difficulties, Government Resolution No. 791 of 17 July 1998 "On Introduction of an Additional 
Import Duty" had introduced a special import surcharg e at a rate of 3 per cent ad valorem applied to 
all tariff items.  Government Resolution No. 235 of 27 February 1999 had eliminated the import 
surcharge from 1 March 1999. 
330. Noting the repeal of the balance of payments measure, some members asked whether similar 
import surcharges would be authorized under any of  the new customs laws, notably the amendments 
to the Customs Tariff Law, the new Customs Code, and Chapter 27 of the new Tax Code.  In this 
regard, these members sought a commitment confirming that as from the date of accession the Russian Federation would apply any such measures,  either for BOP or other purposes, in full 
conformity with WTO provisions.  
331. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that Article 38 of Federal Law 
No 164-FZ provided, for the purposes of protecti ng the Russian Federation's external financial 
position and maintaining the equilibrium of the balan ce of payments, that the Government could adopt 
a decision to impose measures towards restriction of fo reign trade in goods.  The restriction of trade in 
goods could be implemented by means of introducin g an import quota or other measures for a term 
required to restore the equilibrium of the balance of payments of the Russian Federation with due 
regard to the international obligations of the Russian  Federation.  He further noted that, should such 
measures be imposed, the Government would design ate a federal executive body responsible for the 
implementation of these measures.  Any decision on  the imposition of measures restricting foreign 
trade in goods in the case specified under Article 38 of Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 
was required to be made by the Government  upon recommendation of the Central Bank.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 96  
 
 332. Several members considered that a commitment was required from the Russian Federation 
that the provisions of Federal Law No. 63-FZ that addressed trade remedies, including those applied 
for balance-of-payments purposes, would only be replaced by other legal provisions that would 
conform to relevant WTO provisions, in par ticular the WTO Agreements on Safeguards, 
Antidumping, and Subsidies and Countervailing M easures, and Article XII of GATT 1994 and the 
Understanding on the Balance of Paym ents Provisions of GATT 1994.   
Anti-dumping, countervailing and safeguard measures 
333. Concerning anti-dumping, several members noted that Federal Law No 63-FZ did not secure 
full conformity with relevant WTO provisions.  In particular, investigations seemed to be limited to 
injury and causality aspects without requiring a prope r determination of dumping, while any measures 
applied would be expected to re main in place for "a limited period of time necessary to eliminate 
injury", thus not necessarily complying with the five-year maximum duration provided for measures 
undertaken under the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994.  
334. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that Federal Law No. 165-FZ 
"On Safeguards, Antidumping and Countervailing Measures Applied to  Imports of Products" had 
been enacted on 8 December 2003 with the objective of introducing full conformity with WTO 
Agreements.  This law replaced the relevant prov isions of Federal Law No . 63-FZ of 14 April 1998 
"On Measures to Protect the Economic Interests of the Russian Federation in Foreign Trade in Goods" 
(with minor exceptions, such as paragraph 26 of Article 2 and Articles 6.5, 24, 25) .  Federal Law 
No. 165-FZ established procedures for the application,  investigation, and imposition of safeguards, 
anti-dumping and countervailing measures.  Unde r this Law, anti-dumping, safeguards and 
countervailing measures could be introduced only fo llowing an investigation showing evidence of 
substantially increased, dumped or subsidized imports, serious or material injury to domestic industry 
or threat of such injury and causality between th ese developments.  The measures could only be in 
place for a limited period of time necessary to elimin ate the injury.  The Law made more precise the 
terminology in these areas in compliance with the ru les and provisions of WTO.  It provided a clear 
distinction between serious and material injury and expanded the Government’s authority on the 
initiation and investigation phase of  the inquiry.  The Law define d actionable subsidies in full 
consistency with WTO provisions.  The definition of the dumping margin corresponded to Article 2 
of the Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994.  The Law set a five-year maximum duration for antidumping and countervaili ng measures and eight-year for safeguards.  He 
further added that Federal La w No. 165-FZ had been applied since its entry into force on 
15 December 2003.  Any investigation which ha d been initiated upon a written application lodged  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 97 
 
 
 prior to the entry into force of Federal Law No . 165-FZ would be conducte d under the still operative 
Federal Law No. 63-FZ. 
335. He further noted that the main improvemen ts contained in Federal Law No. 165-FZ of 
8 December 2003 vis-à-vis Federal Law No. 63-FZ were  the detailed description of the investigation 
procedure and concepts such as increased imports, dum ping, subsidies, serious and material injury, 
threat thereof, causal link, the de finition of Russian industry, and ot her matters.  Seve ral provisions of 
Federal  Law No. 165-FZ were directed at improving the mechanism of introduction, application, 
reconsideration and cancellation of safeguard, antidumping and countervailing measures.  The 
provisions determining the procedure for th e application of safeguard, antidumping and 
countervailing measures (including temporary duties,  and securities) were framed in a more detailed 
and intelligible manner.   
336. He further noted that Federal Law No. 165-FZ of 8 December 2003 empowered the 
responsible federal executive body (once an investig ation had been undertaken pursuant to this Law) 
to propose the application of safeguard, antidumping or countervailing measures.  It also permitted the 
responsible authority to propose their introducti on, review and cancellation.  Following such a 
proposal, the decision to impose a measure would be taken by the Government of the Russian 
Federation.   
337. A Member pointed out that Article 16.3 of Federal Law No. 165-FZ did not contain all 
provisions of Article 9 of the Agreement on Impl ementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994.  In 
particular it did not foresee the possibility of a ne wcomer review according to Article 9.5 of the 
Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of th e GATT 1994. He invited the Russian Federation to 
enter to a commitment reflecting that although the Law did not expressly foresee prompt newcomer reviews, the provisions of Article 9.5 of the Ag reement on Implementation of Article VI of the 
GATT 1994 would be fully respected and newcomer  reviews would be promptly carried out 
according to this provision. 
338. A Member noted that Article 6.1 of Federa l Law No. 165-FZ provided opportunity for the 
Russian Federation to impose safeguard measures when imports rose in relation to domestic consumption.  However, Article 2 of the Agre ement on Safeguards only allowed the imposition of 
safeguard measures when imports rose in absolute te rms or in relation to domestic production.  This 
member invited the Russian Federation to ente r to a commitment reflecting that the Russian 
Federation would fully comply with the provisions of Article 2 of the Agreement on Safeguards and 
only impose measures in the event of imports incre asing in absolute terms or relative to domestic 
production. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 98  
 
 339. The same Member pointed out that Article  8 of Federal Law No. 165-FZ did not contain any 
reference to the existence of "critical circumst ances" before imposition of provisional safeguard 
measures, as provided by Article 6 of the Ag reement on Safeguards. He invited the Russian 
Federation to enter to a commitment reflecting that the Russian Federation would only apply 
provisional measures pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 of the Agreement on Safeguards when 
critical circumstances appeared. 
340. The Member further noted that Article 9 of Fe deral Law No. 165-FZ regarding the application 
of safeguard measures only partly reflected Artic le 5.2 (b) of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures since it omitted to state th e obligation of the Russian Federation to hold 
consultations with Members on allocation of quotas in the occurrence of disproportionate imports.  
This member invited the Russian Federation to enter to a commitment reflecting that the provisions of 
the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measur es would be fully respected and that in the 
event of such a situation, the Russian Federation would hold consultations under Article 12.3 of the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Counterva iling Measures with supplying Members. 
341. Noting the assurances given by the representa tive of the Russian Federation on the new 
legislation on trade defence instruments, some members of the Working Pa rty requested that the 
Russian Federation detail its plans for the elimination of currently applied measures that might not meet the requirements of the WTO Agreements and the GATT 1994 after implementation of the new 
legislation.   
342. A Member enquired about the exact text a nd meaning of Article 13.3 of Federal Law 
No. 165-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On Safegua rds, Antidumping and Countervailing measures 
applying to imports of Products".  Its provisions di d not seem to require that – even though required 
by Article 3.2 of the Agreement on Implementati on of Article VI of the GATT 1994 - consideration 
shall be given whether price undercutting was « signif icant » or that the effects of imports was to 
depress prices to a « significant » degree or prevent price increases which otherwise would have 
occurred to a « significant » degree.  This memb er invited the Russian Federation to enter to a 
commitment reflecting that although the word « signi ficant » was not used in Article 13.3 of Federal 
Law No. 165-FZ, the provisions of Article 3.2 of th e Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of 
the GATT 1994 would be fully respected.  Such criteri on was supposed to be applied by virtue of the 
rules of Article 29.5 of the same law providing th at an investigation should be stopped in case the 
margin of dumping was de minimis or the volume of imports was negligible. 
343. Concerning measures applied pursuant to Fe deral Law No. 63-FZ, some members of the 
Working Party requested the Russian Federation to confirm that, notwithstanding Article 18.3 of the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 99 
 
 
 Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994, the Russian Federation would apply 
the provisions of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 to proceedings 
under Article 9.3, including the calculation of marg ins of dumping, in connection with anti-dumping 
measures adopted before the entry into force of the Draft Protocol ("existing measures"), to reviews of 
existing measures initiated under Articles 9.5, 11.2 and 11.3 pursuant to requests made on or after the 
entry into force of the Draft Protocol (any review  of an existing measure of Article 11.3 would be 
initiated no later than five years from its date of imposition), and provide the type of judicial review 
described in Article 13 of the Agreement on Impl ementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 with 
regard to proceedings under Article 9.3 a nd reviews under Articles 9.5, 11.2 and 11.3. 
344. Some members of the Working Party further requ ested the Russian Federation to confirm that 
the Russian Federation would provide the type of judicial review described in Article 23 of the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures with regard to reviews under Articles 19.3, 
21.2 and 21.3 to ensure that all investigations in itiated and measures imposed in the area of trade 
defense instruments (i.e. anti-dumping, countervailing and safeguard measures) were fully consistent 
with WTO requirements upon accession and that all relevant legislation in place at the time of 
accession or implemented in the future was in full conformity with the relevant provisions of the 
relevant WTO Agreements. 
345. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that many members of the 
WTO currently maintained WTO-inconsistent trade remedy  measures against exports from the 
Russian Federation.  He noted that the Russian Federation expected that upon its accession to the 
WTO, all such measures by Members would be bro ught into conformity with the WTO Agreements 
and the GATT.   
346. [The representative of the Russian Federati on confirmed that upon accession to the WTO the 
Russian Federation would ensure that the application of such measures was in full conformity with the 
relevant WTO provisions, including Articles VI and XIX of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on 
the Implementation of Article VI, the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and the Agreement on Safeguards.  He also stated that th e Russian Federation would fully comply with the 
provisions of Article 2 of the Agreement on Safe guards, would impose safeguard measures in the 
event of imports increasing in absolute terms or relative to domestic produc tion, would only apply 
provisional measures pursuant to the provisions of  Article 6 of the Agreement on Safeguards, and 
would hold consultations with supplying Members on  allocation of quotas in case of disproportionate 
imports.] WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 100  
 
 347. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would conform with the prov isions of the Agreement on Implementation of 
Article VI of the GATT 1994, the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and the 
Agreement on Safeguards.  The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
[to be completed] 
2. Export Regulations Export Duties 
348. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that export duties, ranging from three to 
50 per cent, had been imposed mainly for fiscal pur poses and in very few cases (raw hides and skins, 
scrap and waste of non-ferrous and ferrous metals, timber, oil seeds) to ensu re the availability of 
materials essential to the domestic industry, to pr event shortages in domestic supply and to address 
social concerns.  He explained that over the last years the number of products on the list of export 
duties had been reduced by around 50 per cent a nd  their average level had decreased from 12 to 
6.5 per cent.  For the last thr ee years, the number of products subject to export duties had been 
reduced from 1200 to 480 tariff lines. This trend w as continuing.  Export duties were applied on an 
MFN basis except for goods exported to parties of the Agreement on creation  of the Customs Union.  
He confirmed that export duties were also applied to goods exported to CIS countries (not to the 
Customs Union) with which Russia had concluded fr ee trade agreements. All changes in export duties 
were published officially.   At a later stage and in response to requests from members of the Working 
Party, the representative of the Russian Federation provided a complete list of export duties of the 
Russian Federation in Annex I of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3/Add.2.   
349. Several members were of the view that export duties acted as indirect subsidies to domestic 
down-stream users and could thus distort internati onal trade.  Noting that the Russian Federation had 
argued that export duties were levied mainly fo r fiscal purposes, some members expressed concerns 
that the effect of these duties was to discriminate ag ainst foreign buyers and to raise the level of the 
export price so that third-country producers encountered their own difficulties of supply for the products concerned; suffered from increased producti on costs resulting from higher input or energy 
costs; and/or faced a situation where they lo st relative competitiveness on the global market for 
downstream products as a result of the indirect price support given to domestic Russian producers 
competing in the same markets.  This was pa rticularly the case as a result of export duties on 
minerals, petrochemicals, natural g as, raw hides and skins, ferrous a nd non-ferrous metals and scrap.  
These members requested the Russian Federation to  make a commitment to phase out export duties  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 101 
 
 
 under modalities and a timetable would need to be established.  The Russian Federation should also 
commit that export duties would not be applied on other products and that, once eliminated, export 
duties on products currently affected would not be  reintroduced. Some members also requested the 
Russian Federation to reduce the number of product s subject to the export duties, especially the 
products with higher value added (e.g . a coniferous bonded wood), so that the negative impact in trade 
in such products with higher value added could be minimised. 
350. Some members of the Working Party stated th at Russia should describe its future plans in 
conjunction with application of e xport tariffs, VAT, and excise changes to exports.  In particular, 
those members sought confirmation that Russia removed some export duties and information on Russia’s plans in this regard.  In light of recent improvements in the economic situation in the Russian 
Federation, those members enquired whether the export taxes were still necessary to deal with 
external debt.  Some Members sought clarification on the intended increase of export duties on oil and 
natural gas and expressed concern about the poten tial impact on prices. Some members of the 
Working Party, however, stated that they considered that export duties could play a role as a legitimate tool of trade policy. 
351. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation stated that export duties played an 
important fiscal and regulatory role in the Russi an Federation.  Export duties payable on a limited 
number of goods had been introduced as a tempor ary measure to respond to a sharp plunge of the 
Ruble in August 1998, which gave the exporters a sign ificant edge in the form of additional income 
over sales of goods on the domestic market to satisfy  its immediate needs.  He noted that, in most 
cases, export duties did not affect the price at wh ich an exported commodity was purchased.  As for 
the 30 per cent export duty on natural gas, he e xplained that this export duty had replaced the 
preexisting excise taxes on natural gas (see also the sec tion on “Excise Taxes”).  He further noted that 
the level of export duties on crude oil was linked to the world price of crude oil and therefore, 
fluctuated accordingly. Export duties of a fiscal na ture permitted the Russian Federation to replenish 
the Budget (which was also required to perform  Russia’s international financial commitments) 
whereas export duties of a regulatory nature were us ed  to address  both social and economic needs. 
As for the export duties imposed for social reasons, he explained that they concerned goods such as 
non-ferrous scrap, which was product mainly destin ed for exportation as there was hardly any 
domestic demand. He further explained that this  export duty was also linked to the need to prevent 
illegal production of non-ferrous scr ap and was considered the most effective way to curb this 
phenomenon as it made exports of this product non-ec onomical.  He added that his Government was 
considering other means to address this problem, such as a licensing mechanism to monitor exports.  
He further noted that export duties were subject to a regular review mechanism.  He stated that export WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 102  
 
 duties could not be considered as a subsidy in the sense of Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures, and its effect to the industry  was nearly equivalent to those of import duties. 
352. He further observed that export duties were permitted under WTO rules, and that many 
Members of the WTO applied export duties as an inst rument of trade policy.  In this regard, his 
country considered that the request of several memb ers that Russia establish a timetable to completely 
phase-out export duties was excessive.  He neverthel ess the confirmed readiness of his Government to 
phase-out or reduce most of the currently applied e xport duties and not to increase the level of others 
against the currently applied level, without prejudice to the Russian Federation's rights to introduce or 
to reintroduce  export duties in compliance with WTO provisions. 
353. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
apply from the date of accession export restrictio ns, in particular export duties and VAT, on a 
non-discriminatory basis vis-à-vis all WTO Members without any exemptions.]  
354. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would introduce new, or reintrodu ce export duties eliminated before or after the 
accession, in conformity with the provisions of th e GATT 1994.  The Working Party took note of this 
commitment.  The list of concessions on export duti es that the Russian Federation would grant after 
its accession would be enclosed to the Protocol of Accession.] 
[to be completed] 
Quantitative Export Restrictions, Including Prohibitions and Quotas 
355. Some members requested details on the export r estrictions abolished in 1996 and thereafter.  
These members also sought a clarification regarding the reference to "essential national interests" as a 
justification for export quotas and any possible relati on of this reference to relevant WTO provisions 
that referred to essential security interest. 
356. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that according to Article 21 of Federal 
Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 “On the Fundamen tals of State Regulation of Foreign Trade 
Activity”, the importation and e xportation of goods could be ex ercised without any quantitative 
restrictions, unless expressly permitted by that La w.  Concerning export restrictions, the Law 
provided that, in exceptional cases, the Governme nt of the Russian Federation could introduce 
temporary export prohibitions or restrictions to prevent or diminish critical shortages of foodstuffs or 
other products substantially im portant to the domestic market of the Russian Federation.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 103 
 
 
 357. The representative of the Russian Federation furt her stated that under Article 32 of Federal 
Law No. 164-FZ, measures with no economic charact er and concerning foreign trade in goods could 
be introduced in accordance with federal law and in ternational treaties of the Russian Federation. He 
also stated that such measures could not be enacted  or applied in a manner,  which would constitute a 
means of unjustifiable discrimination, or a disguised restriction on international trade in goods.  As a 
consequence, Russia was reviewing export restricti ons and bans in place with a view to removing 
measures that would not meet these criteria.  He added that this provision could not be applied to 
goods originating in countries or groups of countri es towards which the Russian Federation had no 
mutual legal obligation to accord treatment no less fa vourable than that accorded to other countries or 
groups of countries. 
358. Some members of the Working Party noted th at quantitative export restrictions, including 
quotas, bans and non-automatic licensing restrictions  were prohibited by the GATT unless specifically 
justified and requested Russia to list, identify by HS  tariff number, and justify any current export bans 
or quantitative restrictions in place. Those member s also requested additional information on export 
bans or quantitative restrictions currently in place,  in particular those concerning the prohibition on 
export of unprocessed precious metals and stones, th e quantitative restrictions on export of natural gas 
(and the consistency of both measures with the re quirements of Article XI of the GATT 1994), and a 
list of all quantitative restrictions eliminated since 1996.   
- Precious stones and metals 
359. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that quotas were imposed on the 
exportation of the following goods: platinum and platinum group metals, n on-refined nuggets of 
precious metals, non-ferrous metals containing precious metals (copper,  lead, zinc concentrates), raw 
diamonds (the list of goods, by HS code, subject to  quantitative restrictions is provided in Presidential 
Decree No. 742 of 21 June 2001 “On the Procedure for Import to and Export from the Russian 
Federation of Precious Metals and Precious Stones”). 
360. All documentation and procedures for exports or imports of these goods were to be completed 
at the relevant customs checkpoints.  Export quotas on platinum and plati num group metals, and non-
refined nuggets of precious metals were allocated by the Government in accordance with Presidential 
Decrees No. 1373 of 30 November 2002 "On Approval  of Regulation on Import to and Export from 
the Russian Federation of Natural and Cut Diam onds" and No. 742 of 21 June 2001 "On the 
Procedure of Import to and Export from the Russi an Federation of Precious Metals and Precious 
Stones".  The quota requirement also extended to ex ports of non-ferrous meta ls containing precious WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 104  
 
 metals (copper, lead, zinc concentrates).  Exports licenses were issued by the Ministry of Economic 
Development and Trade.  The quota on exports of raw diamonds applied to: 
- agents engaged in natural diamonds' extr action (except for industrial diamonds);  
- State Unitary Enterprise “Vneshneeconomicheskoye Obyedineniye “Almazjuvelirexport” 
(when supplied from the State Fund of Precious Metals and Precious Stones of the Russian 
Federation or from the State funds of precious stones and precious metals of the subjects of 
the Russian Federation); 
- agents engaged in the manufacturing of cut diamonds.  
361. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that the exportation of waste and scrap of 
precious metals, ores and concentrates of preci ous metals and unprocessed precious metals was 
prohibited in the Russian Federation.  He adde d that in accordance with the Presidential Decree 
No. 742 of 21 June 2001 "On the Procedure of Im portation into and Exportation from the Russian 
Federation of Precious Metals a nd Precious Stones", export licensing was mandatory for exports of 
refined platinum and platinum gr oup metals in the form of ingots, plates, powder and granules; 
unprocessed precious metals (excluding natural pieces of  metals not subject to refining); unprocessed 
gold and silver (only refined in the form of ingots,  plates, powder and granules as well as gold used to 
produce coins); natural processed and unprocessed prec ious stones (sapphire, ruby, emerald); minerals 
(only unique amber pieces); mineral and secondar y raw materials containing precious metals, 
including concentrated ores and residuals of non-fe rrous metals and their semi-manufactures.  He 
added that Information on the formalities for obtai ning an export licence was provided in the section 
on "Export Licensing Procedures". 
362. The representative of the Russian Federation not ed that work had been conducted to bring 
national legislation on export restrictions into accordance with WTO disciplin es.  Presidential Decree 
No. 742 of 21 June 2001 “On the Procedure for Importation into and Exportation from the Russian 
Federation of Precious Metals a nd Precious Stones” had abolished im port licensing of precious metals 
and precious stones, and quantitative export restric tions and export licensing of articles made of 
precious stones and meant for industrial-technical purposes; precious metals in the form of products 
and articles; as well as articles of precious stones an d natural pearls and coins.  Presidential Decree 
No. 1373 of 30 November 2002 “On Regulations on Importation to the Russian Federation and 
Exportation from the Russian Federation of Natura l Diamonds and Cut Diamonds” had abolished the 
need to obtain a license to import cut diamonds and natural diamonds.  Under Presidential Decree 
No. 1373, agents engaged in the manufacturing of cut diamonds were entitled to export and/or remove 
from customs treatment for processing outside the custom s territory up to 15 per cent of the value of 
the natural diamonds they had purchased within the year from agents of natural diamonds' extraction  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 105 
 
 
 or the State Fund of Precious Metals and Precious Stones of the Russian Federation.  The Ministry of 
Economic Development and Trade issued licenses fo r the exportation of natural diamonds and cut 
diamonds. 
363. He further stated that amendments to Presi dential Decrees No. 742 of 21 June 2001 "On the 
Procedure for Importation into and Exportation fro m the Russian Federation of Precious Metals and 
Precious Stones" and No. 1373 of 30 November 2002 “On Regulations on Importation to the Russian 
Federation and Exportation from the Russian Fede ration of Natural Diamonds and Cut Diamonds” 
were under preparation.  These amendments were aime d at abolishing quantitati ve export restrictions 
on unwrought platinum and metals of the plati num group and raw materials containing precious 
stones, removing bans on the export of certain typ es of goods, such as wastes and scraps of precious 
metals; precious metals ores and concentrates, and at future liberalization of international trade 
involving this category of goods. 
364. The representative of the Russian Federation a dded that the Russian Federation intended to 
bring Federal Law No. 41-FZ of 26 March 1998 “O n Precious Metals and Precious Stones” in 
accordance with the new legislation, namely Federal Law No. 173-FZ of 10 December 2003 “On 
Currency Regulation and Currency Control” and Federal Law No . 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 “On 
the Fundamentals of State Regulation of Forei gn Trade Activity”. Under Federal Law No. 173-FZ 
precious metals and precious stones were not rec ognized as currency valuabl es.  This category of 
goods was therefore not subject to currency legisl ation.  Furthermore, pursuant to Federal Law 
No. 153-FZ of 11 November 2003 "On Amending Artic le 5 of the Federal Law of the Russian 
Federation On State Secrets" data on extraction, tr ansfer, consumption of precious stones and metals 
had been excluded from the list of state secret data .  The amendments simplified the procedure for 
performing transactions with precious stones a nd metals and made these transactions more 
transparent.   
365. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
abide by WTO provisions in respect of export ba ns and other quantitative restrictions and would 
eliminate upon accession all such export restrictions, unless they could be specifically justified under WTO provisions, in particular Articles XI, XX and XXI of the GATT.  The Working Party took note 
of this commitment.] 
366. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would conform with the provisions  of Article XI of the GATT 1994.  He further 
confirmed that the Russian Federation would not appl y export prohibitions or restrictions that cannot WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 106  
 
 be justified under the relevant provisions of th e WTO Agreements, including Articles XVII, XX, XXI 
of the GATT 1994.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.] 
[to be completed] 
Export Licensing Procedures 
367. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that export licensing procedures in 
operation in the Russian Federation were the same as  import licensing in that they were regulated by 
Government Resolution No. 1299 of 31 October 199 6 "On the Procedure for Conducting Tenders and 
Auctions for Distribution of Quota upon Introduction of Quantitative Restrictions and Licensing of Export and Import of Goods (Works, Services) in th e Russian Federation".  The most sensitive goods 
were subject to non-automatic licensing (Table 18(a )).  A limited number of goods were subject to 
automatic licensing for the purpose of monitoring tr ade flows (Table 18(b).  Licenses were issued by 
the Ministry of Economic Development and Trad e upon receipt of the following documents: an 
application for the license, a copy of the contract, a copy of a certificate confirming that the applicant 
was registered by a regional tax authority as a ta x-payer, copies of the registration documents, a copy 
of the applicant's charter, and a copy of the certif icate of State registration approval of the federal 
agency responsible for the speci fic sensitive goods (Government Reso lution No. 1299 of 31 October 
1996).  Under Federal Law No. 164-FZ “On the Funda mentals of State Regulation of Foreign Trade 
Activity”, normative legal acts affecting the right to carry out foreign trade activity were to enter into 
force at the same time on the whole territory of th e Russian Federation after their official publication 
in the order provided for by the Russian legislation.   Pursuant to Government Resolution No. 1299 of 
31 October 1996 "On the Procedure for Conducting Te nders and Auctions for Distribution of Quota 
upon Introduction of Quantitative Restrictions and Licensing of Export and Import of Goods (Works, 
Services) in the Russian Federation», tender annou ncements had to be published in mass media 
(“Rossiyskaya Gazeta”, “Parlamentskaya Gazeta”, etc.) at least 30 days prior to the date of the tender.  
Information on tenders, auctions a nd procedures for holding tenders and auctions for the sale of a 
quota was published on the webpage of the Minist ry of Economic Development and Trade at 
www.economy.gov.ru
.  Additional information is provided in the Section "Import Licensing Systems” 
of this draft Report.  
368. Several members of the Working Party expressed  concerns about the export licensing regime, 
whilst noting that the Russian Federation did not  presently apply many export quotas.  Those 
members considered that a system of non-automa tic export licensing, however, applied to a wide 
range of products and that such measures had the potential to be app lied in a manner contrary to the 
general prohibition of quantitative restrictions on export provided under Article XI of the GATT  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 107 
 
 
 1994.  In the case of precious metals and stones, the legislation on export licensing made export 
licenses for certain products subject to a quota (Presi dential Decree No. 742 of  21 June 2001 "On the 
Procedure of Importation into and Exportation fro m the Russian Federation of Precious Metals and 
Precious Stones").  Under that Decree, exports of platinum were perm itted under licence within 
quantitative limits.  While a rationale could exist fo r the application of certain controls on exports 
under the relevant GATT exceptions clauses (includi ng Articles XX and XXI), for example in respect 
of the exports of dual use goods, hazardous products , endangered species etc, the rationale for such 
controls on the exports of other goo ds, particularly pharmaceuticals,  precious metals and stones other 
than gold and silver was less clear.   Automatic licensing, which was already applied for exports of 
raw hides and skins, provided a mechanism to monitor export flows, if this was considered desirable.  
However, as discretionary controls on these partic ular products are unlikely to meet the relevant 
criteria of the GATT exceptions clauses, it was essential that any licensing regime be genuinely 
automatic in order to avoid restrictions on trade. 
369. Several members also requested more info rmation on the procedures followed and fees 
charged in connection with the issuance of export li censes.  They requested confirmation that any fees 
charged on exports were related to the cost of service rendered in accordance with WTO provisions.  
Some members questioned whether the restrictions  on precious metals and stones, semi-precious 
stones, objects made thereof, certain alloys, semi- fabricates, ores, concentrates and wastes could be 
justified under the WTO provisions invoked by the Russian authorities.  Th ese members considered 
that the Russian Federation should provide a more detailed explanation of the measures applied on 
these products that the Russian Federation was seek ing to justify under Article XV:9(b) of the GATT 
1994, including a description of each measure and its  legal basis; the bodies involved in applying 
those measures including details of their responsib ilities; the products affected by each measure; the 
export licensing procedures applicable, including de tails of any restrictions on eligibility for export 
licenses, and other terms and conditions associated w ith their issuance; the provisions of the Russian 
Federation's exchange arrangements with the IMF currently in force that required the Russian 
Federation to adopt or maintain the measures app lied by means of non-automatic export licensing that 
the Russian Federation was seeking to justify unde r Article XV:9(b) of GATT 1994; and the Russian 
Federation's plans to eliminate all measures applie d by means of non-automatic export licensing that 
might be required under those arrangeme nts at the conclusion of their term. 
370. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that the procedure for issuing 
an export licence was regulated by Government Resolution No. 1299 of 31 October 1996 "On the 
Procedure for Holding Tenders and Auctions for the Sale of Quotas When Introducing Quantitative 
Restrictions and Licensing the Export and Import of Goods (Works, Services) in the Russian WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 108  
 
 Federation".  Corresponding charges were regulat ed by Order No. 363 of 6 August 1999 of the 
Ministry of Trade "On Approval of Regulation on  Fixing the Charges for Issuance, Reissuance and 
Extension of Licenses for Export and Import of Goods (Works, Services), Certificates of Barter 
Transactions", which set the fee charged for the issuance of an import/export license at 3000 Rubles for a one-shot licence and 15 000 Rubles for a gene ral licence. Work had been conducted in the 
Russian Federation to bring national export licen sing legislation into conformity with WTO 
disciplines.  Specifically, Federal Law No. 157-FZ "On the State Regulation of Foreign Trade 
Activity" had been replaced by Federal Law No. 164 -FZ “On the Fundamentals of State Regulation of 
Foreign Trade Activity”, which has been adopted on 8 December 2003 and had come into force on 
15 June 2004.  Corresponding am endments would be made to G overnment 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 Licensi ng the Export and Import of Goods (Works, 
Services) in the Russian Federation".  
371. He further noted that work was also being c onducted to bring the Russian Federation's export 
licensing for precious metals and stones into acco rdance with WTO disciplines.  Specifically, 
amendments to Presidential Decrees No. 742 of 21 June 2001 "On the Procedure of Importation into 
and Exportation from the Russian Federation of Prec ious Metals and Precious Stones" and No. 1373 
of 30 November 2002 “On Regulations on Importa tion to the Russian Federation and Exportation 
from the Russian Federation of Natural Diamonds  and Brilliants” had been drafted, taking due 
account of other international commi tments relevant for trade in natural and cut diamonds.  These 
amendments were aimed to reduce the number of licensed goods and remove bans on the export of 
certain types of goods, as well as  to the future li beralization of international trade involving this 
category of goods.  The representative of the Russian  Federation also noted that documents required 
for the issuance of a licence included: (i) for exports of precious stones and precious metals, a 
certificate of special registration in the State Assay Chamber of the Ministry of Finance (the Federal 
Law No. 41-FZ of 26 March 1998 "On Precious Meta ls and Precious Stones") and for crediting 
organizations, an authorization of the Central Bank or of a credit institution licensed by the Central 
Bank to perform operations with precious metals  (Federal Law No. 395-1 of 2 December 1995 "On 
Banks and Banking");  and (ii) for exports of ores of non-ferrous metals cont aining precious metals, a 
decision of the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Industry and Energy regarding the practicability and feasibility of commercial recovery of precious metals (Presidential Decree No. 742 
of 21 June 2001 "On the Procedure of Importation into and Exportation from the Russian Federation 
of Precious Metals and Precious Stones").  He also referred to the information contained in the section 
"Quantitative export restrictions, including prohibitions and quotas".  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 109 
 
 
 372. Concerning queries by members of the Worki ng Party on export licensing of medicines and 
pharmaceuticals, he noted that pursuant to Gove rnment Resolution No. 854 of 06 November 1992, 
exports of raw materials for the manufacturing of me dicines were subject to a licence by the Ministry 
of Economic Development and Trade in agreemen t with the Ministry of Health and Social 
Development and the Federal Service for Surve illance in the Sphere of Ecology and Natural 
Management of the Russian Federation.  Аccording to Federal Law No . 86-FZ of 22 June 1998 "On 
Medicines", pharmaceuticals could be exported by le gal persons having a license for the production or 
wholesale trade of these goods.  Under this Law, pha rmaceuticals also included raw materials for the 
manufacturing of medicines. This measure was app lied to protect national interests, including both 
safeguarding animals and plants and prot ecting non-renewable natural resources.   
373. In response to questions regarding licensing requirements in the field of energy, the 
representative of the Russian Federation clarified th at there were no export licensing requirements for 
export of gas, oil and oil products.  Concerning act ivity licensing requirements, he referred to the 
section "Registration requirement s for import/export operations".  
374. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that from the date of accession, all 
export licensing requirements or other export contro l requirements would be applied in conformity 
with WTO provisions including those contained in Articles XI, XVII, XX and XXI of the GATT 1994.  In this regard, Russia had replaced the licensing restrictions on exports of precious stones, diamonds, and metals with an automatic licensi ng regime.  The Working Party took note of this 
commitment.]  
375. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would apply export licensing procedures in conformity with the provisions of the GATT 1994, and in particular of its Article XI.  The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
[to be completed] 
Other Customs Export Formalities 
376. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that, according to Article 119 of the 
Customs Code (Federal Law No. 61-FZ of 28 May 2 003), goods and vehicles could depart from the 
customs territory of the Russian Federation at Stat e Border check-points or at other places established 
in compliance with the legislation on the State Bo rder of the Russian Federation during the customs 
bodies' working hours.  The provisions of the Article 119 did not extend to goods carried by sea (river) vessels and aircraft crossing the customs te rritory of the Russian Federation without stopping WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 110  
 
 at a port or an airport located in the customs territo ry of the Russian Federati on, i.e. such goods were 
not subject to customs formalities.  Pursuant to Law No.4730-1 of 1 April 1993 “On the State Border 
of the Russian Federation” (as last amended on 30 June 2003), State border check-points were 
established by the Government upon proposal of fede ral executive bodies, the subjects of the Russian 
Federation as approved by the border guard agen cies and frontier troops, and the other federal 
executive bodies concerned, taking into account take n the interests of adjacent and other foreign 
States. 
377. Members of the Working Party expressed concer n about the Russian Federation's practice of 
maintaining only a very limited number of custom s checkpoints authorized for exportation of certain 
products such as forestry products such as logs, and metal scrap, and also the practice to close 
promptly certain customs checkpoints, thus creating serious impediments to trade. Some members of 
the Working Party requested further clarifica tion on SCC Decree No. 1002 of 19 December 2001 "On 
Appointing Exportation Check-Points" which stipulat ed the customs clearance checkpoints that might 
be used for exportation of certain timber products by rail or road.  A member noted that this Decree 
had been provisionally amended on 14 January 2002 to include customs clearance checkpoints at its 
country borders with the Russian Federation and asked whether the Russian Federation intended to 
make a definitive amendment to SCC Decree No. 1002 so  as to avoid possible trade distorting effects.  
Another member asked for information on the sorts of timber products covered by the Russian measures and a clarification on whether this restrict ed use of checkpoints for exports would also cover 
additional products.  Other members asked for a st atus report on such provisions for exports of 
textiles, and asked the Russian Federation to iden tify and describe for the Working Party any other 
export measures like the one described in these paragraphs. 
378. In response, the representative of the Russi an Federation noted that the policy of his 
Government was to base identification of designated customs check points on the provisions of the 
International  Convention on the Simplification a nd Harmonization of Customs Procedures (Kyoto 
2000), in particular, its Specific Annex A, Chapter 1.  He further stated that the new Customs Code 
permitted the relevant body to designate specific cust oms offices for the declar ation of specific types 
of goods for the purpose of ensuring the effectivenes s of control over the implementation of customs 
legislation.  The grounds for establishing such point s were the same as those for imports, which were 
specified in paragraph [317] of the section “Other  customs formalities for imports”.  He also noted 
that an exhaustive list of possible export rest rictions was established by Federal Law. 
379. The representative of the Russian Federation further added that SCC Order No. 1002 of 
19 October 2001 "On Appointing Exportation Check- Points" for certain types of timber products  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 111 
 
 
 (codes of Commodity Nomenclature of Foreign Economic Activity of Russia: from 4401 10 0000 fuel 
wood in the form of logs and lumber; 4403; from 44 04 chopped wood, piles and spiles, sharpened but 
not length sawed; 4406; 4407; 4409) currently did not apply as provided for by the special instruction 
of the SCC No. TF-3705-3713 of 11 February 2002. 
380. Other members of the Working Party raised concerns about SCC Order No. 1219 "On 
Defining Places for the Customs Formalization and E xport of Ferrous and Non- Ferrous Metals Scrap 
and Wastes" of 27 December 2000, which provided th at non-ferrous and ferrous metal scrap could be 
exported only through the seaports of the Russian Fe deration.  Those members requested the Russian 
Federation to ensure that these and other measures related to exportation would be brought in full 
conformity with WTO provisions upon accession. 
381. The representative of the Russian Federati on informed the Working Party that S СС Order 
No. 1219 of 27 December 2000 "On Defining Places for the Customs Formalization and Export of 
Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Me tals Scrap and Wastes" had been invalidated by S СС Order No. 98 of 
28 January 2004. 
3. Internal Policies Affecting Foreign Trade in Goods Industrial policy, including subsidy policies 
382. The representative of the Russian Federation noted  that under current Russian legislation the 
following types of state support (financial contribution) were available to industry:  (i) direct transfers 
of budgetary funds, including those under federal targ eted and investment programs;  (ii) grants and 
subventions (earmarked grants) to regions;  ( iii) budgetary loans, credits and guarantees;  and 
(iv) deferred payments and exemptions with respect to payable taxes and customs duties.  Tariffs with 
respect to services provided by natural monopolies c ould be established by decisions of federal and 
regional tariff regulating authorities on the non- discrimination base and taking into account their 
economic viability.  Total State support averaged  US$12 billion a year, including US$10 billion from 
the federal budget (average data for 1997-1999).  Support was accorded both at the federal and sub-
federal levels.   
383. Direct transfers constituted the main element of state support to industrial production sector 
(around 40 per cent).  Such support was concentrated in the coal mining industry and it
 was carried 
out in accordance with the program of restructuring of  the coal sector aimed at acceleration of transfer 
to non-subsidized activities, enforc ement of government control and higher effectiveness of use of 
state resources.  The Ministry of Finance had conc luded treaties for an overall amount of 1,234 billion WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 112  
 
 Rubles on the implementation of investment projects in the coal industry on a competitive basis.  In 
2001-2002, 426,8 million Rubles had actually been sp ent out of this sum (80 million in 2001 and 
346,8 million in 2002). No export subsidies of any ki nd within the definition of Article 3 of the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures were available to the coal industry.  The 
remaining amount of direct transfers was provided for under federal targeted programs, 38 per cent of 
which were destined to programs (projects) associated with the deve lopment of industrial production. 
At present, no subsidies existed in the Russian Federation which could be considered as export 
subsidies. 
384. Concerning questions on the coal industry, the representative of the Russian Federation 
replied that per Government Resolution No. 15 23 of 3 December 1997 "On State Financing of 
Restructuring of the Coal Industry" the main direc tions of current supports were measures to enhance 
social security of employees and secure conditi ons of work in coal mining and liquidation of 
particularly loss-making mines.  No resources were allocated for export subsidies.  He stated that 
those directions would be retained in the future.  He provided details of the amounts of the subsidies 
paid between 2000 and 2002 in document WT/ACC/SPEC /RUS/31.  He further noted that since 2002 
the federal budget had not provi ded production support.  
385. In response to requests from some member s to describe export and import substitution 
subsidies, both at the federal and sub-federal levels, the representativ e of the Russian Federation noted 
that financial contribution to the regions of the Russian Federation did not directly related to the 
development of industrial production, but was aimed at reducing regional financial disparities.  The 
bulk of transfers was provided on the basis of objective indicators characterizing the social situation in the regions (82.5 per cent of the total amount).  The rest was paid for deliveries of supplies of food and fuel to Far North areas (11.5 per cent) and special  ("closed") territorial areas.  The same forms of 
state support to industrial production sectors were us ed by the sub-federal governments of the Russian 
Federation.  Such support mostly aimed at the fi nancial rehabilitation of enterprises, resolution of 
social problems, and reimbursement of losses.  Less  than 6 per cent of the total amount of support was 
destined to production development. 
386. In response to questions from members of th e Working Party, the representative of the 
Russian Federation confirmed that his authorities had not identified any export subsidies that would 
follow within the purview of prohibited export s ubsidies under the relevant provisions of the WTO 
Agreement. 
387. Noting that WTO rules on subsidies covered go vernment benefits beyond those explicitly 
financed through budgetary allocations, some member s requested that the Russian Federation address  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 113 
 
 
 all forms of subsidies that could be notif ied under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures.  Several Members also re quested that the Russian Federation revise its 
domestic law/regulations with a view to elimina ting all prohibited subsidies at all levels of 
government from the date of accession.  They re quested updated information on the Russian 
Federation's comprehensive draft law on State Aids , including a description of its purpose, scope and 
provisions, and an indication of when it might be implemented. 
388. In response, the representative of the Russian Fede ration stated that the provision of subsidies 
in the Russian Federation was regulated by budg et legislation, tax, customs and antimonopoly 
legislation.  The drafting of specific legislation on subsidies (the State Aid Law) had been suspended 
due to amendments to the antimonopoly legislation, in particular amendments to Law of the RSFSR 
No. 948-1 of 22 March 1991 "On Competition and Restriction of Monopoly Activity on Commodity 
Markets" (as amended on 9 October 2002).  Th e amendments made to the above-mentioned Law 
would ensure control over subsidies prohibite d under the provisions of the WTO Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.   
389. Some members of the Working Party asked to what  extent loans at below market interest rates 
provided under Government Resolution No. 538 of 15 May 1999 "On Providing Budgetary Loans to 
Finance the Implementation of High-Return C ontracts for Production and Supply of Products, 
Including Export Supplies" were contingent upon export performance, and requested clarification 
whether that Resolution had been repealed.  Some members also asked for further details regarding 
current subsidies paid to the coal sector.  Some me mbers of the Working Party also noted that certain 
subsidy programs, such as production sharing agreem ents and other programs for the automotive and 
civil aircraft industry appeared to provide subsid ies which constituted prohibited subsidies pursuant to 
Article 3(1)(b) of the Agreement on Subsidies a nd Countervailing Measures  In addition, aspects of 
certain rail freight tariffs also appeared to conflict with Article 3(1)(a) of that Agreement.  Members 
of the Working Party requested that the Russian Fe deration eliminate all such programs from the date 
of accession.  These members also questioned whether or not budget subsidies currently existed in the 
Russian Federation, which could be  considered export subsidies.  
390. In response to further questions he noted that  pursuant to Government Resolution No. 538 of 
15 May 1999 "On Providing Budgetary Loans to Finance the Implementation of High-Return 
Contracts for Production and Supply of Products , Including Export Supplies” loans equal to 
50.0 million Rubles had been granted from the fe deral budget to OAO "Rostsel mash" in 1999.  In 
2000-2002 that Resolution was not in force and no f unds had been granted from the federal budget.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 114  
 
 In the 2001-2002 federal budget, federal credit a rrangements had been provided on a competitive 
basis for the implementation of invest ment projects in coal industry.   
391. Some members stated that the Russian Federation should recognize that natural monopoly or 
other pricing could constitute a subsidy under the WTO Agreemen t on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures.  These members asked th e Russian Federation to provid e a description of the existing 
pricing mechanisms and any reforms under way to  bring domestic prices for oil, natural gas and 
electricity closer to world market prices.  In pa rticular, those members requested that the Russian 
Federation provide details of the recent reforms of the pricing of electricity to commercial consumers.   
392. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation pointed out that his authorities 
continued to believe that natu ral monopoly or pricing did not c onstitute a subsidy under the WTO 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  Regarding domestic prices for oil, natural gas 
and electricity, he referred to the information provi ded in the section "Pricing Policies" of this Draft 
Report.   
393. The representative of the Russian Federation sai d that the principles and mechanisms of 
granting export credits and export credit guarantees were  foreseen in the Concept of Development of 
Financial Support (Guarantees) of Export of Industrial Products in the Russian Federation adopted 
under Government Resolution No.1493-r of 14 Octo ber 2003.  The Concept envisaged procedures for 
granting: 
- State guarantees against political and long -term commercial risks arising during 
implementation of export contracts with fore ign importers. State guarantees would only be 
provided if the Government of the foreign importer also guaranteed the same level of 
payment to be made pursuant to the same  export contract guaranteed by the Russian 
Federation and the country of the government w as on the list of foreign states approved on an 
annual basis by the Government of the Russian Federation.  The amount of the guarantee fee 
would be based on the cost of service rendered by  the bank involved in the operation of the 
guarantee scheme and connected with developmen t of respective documents and would cover 
the long-term operating costs and losses of the program. 
- Export credits to be given to importers of Ru ssian industrial products. Such credits were 
aimed at equilization of costs for export cred its which existed on fore ign financial markets 
with respective costs in Russia. 
- Compensation of interest rates to Russian ba nks engaged in the crediting of exporters of 
Russian products aimed at equilization of cost s for export credits which existed on foreign 
financial markets with respective costs in Russia. 
- Export credits.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 115 
 
 
 394. A mechanism of granting credits and guarantees compliant with the rules and norms of the 
WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measu res was being elaborated  in furtherance of 
the Concept.  
395. Several members asked the Russian Federation to  confirm that all subsidy programs at all 
levels of government would be administered in  line with the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures and that upon accession all n ecessary information on all subsidies programs 
at all levels of government would be notifie d to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures in accordance with Artic le 25 of the Agreement.  
396. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that for all federal and regional 
subsidy measures identified, the Russian Federation would revise its domestic law or regulations to 
eliminate all prohibited subsidies within the meaning of Article 3 of the WTO Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and Ar ticle XVI of the GATT 1994 at the levels of 
government – including, but not limited to, exempti ons, reductions, deferrals or forgiveness of taxes 
and custom duties to enterprises which were c ontingent upon export performance or the use of 
domestic over imported goods from the da te of accession.  He further confirmed that such prohibited 
subsidies would not be introduced in the future, a nd that export financing and other export promotion 
policies would be operated in c onformity with WTO provisions.  [He further confirmed that the 
Russian Federation would, upon accession, grant no s ubsidies contingent upon the use of domestic 
over imported goods in the meaning of Article 3:1(b) of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures and that this commitment woul d cover subsidies at all levels of government, 
including exemptions, reductions, deferrals or fo rgiveness of taxes and du ties to enterprises which 
were contingent upon export performance or the use of domestic over imported goods.]  He also 
confirmed that the Russian Federation would admini ster any subsidy programs in place or established 
after accession at all levels of government in co nformity with the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures and that all necessary inform ation on programs be notified (if such programs 
existed) and be provided to the Committee on S ubsidies and Countervaili ng Measures in accordance 
with Article 25 of the Agreement upon entry into force of the Russian Federation's Protocol of 
Accession to the WTO.  He noted that Russia had provided members with a limited amount of 
information on subsidies during the accession discussi ons and confirmed that Russia would provide a 
draft notification covering all subsidy programs at  all levels of government prior to accession for 
review and would comply with its notification obligations under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures immediately upon accessi on. He also confirmed that the Russian 
Federation would not invoke any of the provision s of Articles 27, 28, 29 of the Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.] WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 116  
 
 397. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would apply its internal subsidy policies affecting foreign trade in industrial goods 
in conformity with the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  The Working Party 
took note of this commitment.] 
[to be completed] 
Technical Barriers to Trade 
398. The representative of the Russian Federation sai d that prior to the administrative reforms 
carried out in pursuance of President Decree No.314 of 9 March 2004 “On the System and Structure of the Federal Executive Bodies” (in the wording of 20 May 2004), the federal authority for 
standardization, metrology and certification matters was the State Committee of the Russian Federation for Standardization and Metrology (Gossta ndart). Gosstandart acted directly or through its 
subordinate centres for standardization, metrol ogy and certification in the regions and State 
inspectors, performing surveillance over complianc e with mandatory technical regulations and 
national standards (where no technical regulations existed) and providing uniformity in the units of 
measure.   
399. As a result of administrative reform, Gosstanda rt had been reorganized into the Federal 
Agency for Technical Regulation and Metrology, wh ich shared the functions related to technical 
regulations with the Ministry of Industry and En ergy.  Thus, pursuant to Government Resolution 
No.179 of 7 April 2004 “On the Competence of the Mi nistry of Industry and Energy of the Russian 
Federation”, the Ministry of Industry and Energy was in charge of the legal regulation and elaboration 
of the State standardization policy and the deve lopment of accreditation and voluntary certification 
systems.   
400. Pursuant to Government Resolution No. 294 of 17 June 2004 “On the Federal Agency for 
Technical Regulation and Metrology”, the Federal Agency for Technical Regulation and Metrology 
(further Rostechregulation
) was entitled, inter alia, to perfo rm expert assessments of national 
standards, promulgate notifications on the elabora tion and completion of public discussions related to 
draft technical regulations and na tional standards, develop a program  for the elaboration and approval 
of national standards, carry out accreditation procedures, and perfor m the functions of the national 
body on standardization on the basis of the proced ure determined by the federal body on technical 
regulation.  The Federal Agency also maintained the federal information data base of technical 
regulations and standards, the lis t of goods subject to mandatory conformity assessment, as well as 
registers of conformity declarations that had passed registration, of certificates that had been issued,  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 117 
 
 
 of voluntary certification, and of  accredited organizations that performed activities on the assessment 
of conformity of goods, production processes, and serv ices to the established requirements of quality 
and safety as well as activities related to ensuring the unity of measures.  
401. Legislation pertaining to standardization, metr ology and certification is listed in Annex 2.  
The representative of the Russian Federation noted th at this legal framework required products to 
meet the mandatory technical, pharmacological, san itary, veterinary, phytosanitary and ecological 
requirements determined by the Russian Federation.  In particular, imports of products into the 
territory of the Russian Federation were restrict ed if the products in question did not meet the 
statutory requirements, did not have a certificate, marking or a corresponding sign as envisaged by federal laws and other legal acts of the Russian Federation, or were banned from  use as harmful 
consumer goods. 
402. Prior to the entry into force of the Federal Law "On Technical Regulation" on 1 July 2003, 
State standards approved by Gosstandart, sectoral standards approved by the federal executive authorities, standards of enterprises, standards of  scientific, technical, engineering institutions and 
other societies were operative in the Russian Federa tion. No regional standards existed in the Russian 
Federation State standards and other documents  approved by the federal executive authorities 
contained mandatory requirements intended to ensu re the safety of products , works, and services for 
the environment, life, health, and property;  technical and informational compatibility; 
interchangeability of products;  uniformity in th e methods of control and marking;  and other 
requirements established by the legislation of the Russian Federation.  Technical committees for 
standardization had been set up for the development of  national standards a nd participation in the 
development of international and CIS interstate  standards.  
403. The representative of the Russian Federation stated  that standards issued by ISO, IEC, ITU, 
EEC UN, the Codex Alimentarius were regarded  by the Russian Federation as the fundamental 
international standards.  He reca lled that since 1997 and subject to the State standardization plans, the 
Russian authorities annually develo ped and implemented State standa rds, over 50 per cent of which 
had already been harmonized with their internatio nal counterparts. The level of harmonization of 
domestic standards with international sta ndards was currently about 35 per cent.  
404. Conformity of products subject to mandator y certification was confirmed by a conformity 
certificate issued by certification authorities, or a declaration of conformity registered with the certification authority.  Such a certificate was subm itted to customs authorities together with the cargo 
customs declaration, and was necessary to obtain th e permission to import the products in question 
into the Russian Federation. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 118  
 
 405. He noted that work on mandatory certification of goods in the GOST R certification system 
was currently conducted by Russian authorities and la boratories as well as foreign authorities and test 
laboratories accredited in accordance with the establishe d procedure.  Certification authorities and test 
laboratories were accredited in accordance with IS O/IEC Guideline 65 and IS O/IEC Standard 17025.  
A uniform accreditation procedure was applied to both Russian and foreign certification authorities 
and laboratories.  The list of accredited certificati on authorities and test laboratories was published on 
Rostechregulation webpage (www.gost.ru). 
406. Conformity to mandatory requirements had commonly been subject to mandatory 
certification.  However, as of July 1999 certain products had been transferred to the conformity 
declaration procedure. The list of products subj ect to mandatory certification was provided in 
Government Resolution No. 1013 of 13 August 1997 "On the Approval of the List of Goods Subject 
to Mandatory Certification and the List of Works and Services Subject to Mandatory Certification" 
and the list of products for which safety may be conf irmed by conformity declaration in Government 
Resolution No. 766 of 7 July 1999 "On the Approval of the List of Products Whose Conformity May 
Be Confirmed by Conformity Declaration".   
407. In order to further reduce the list of goods subject to mandatory certification and allow 
conformity confirmation by declaration of conform ity for a larger number of goods, the Government 
of the Russian Federation had passed Resolution No . 287 of 29 April 2002 "On Amendments to the 
List of Goods Subject to Mandatory Certification, to the List of Works and Services Subject to 
Mandatory Certification, and to the List of Pr oducts Whose Conformity May Be Confirmed by 
Conformity Declaration".  As a result, the list of  products for which confor mity could be confirmed 
by conformity declaration had tripled, and the lis t of products subject to mandatory certification had 
been reduced by 20%.   
408. Pursuant to Gosstandart Resolution No. 64 of 30 July 2002, the Nomenclature of Products 
and Services (Works) Subject to Mandatory Certifica tion Pursuant to Legislative Acts of the Russian 
Federation and the Nomenclature of  Products Whose Conformity May Be Confirmed by Conformity 
Declaration had been introduced on 15 Decemb er 2002 (Resolution No. 64 had been passed in 
furtherance of Government Resolution No. 287 of 29  April 2002).  The Nomenclature determined the 
documents (national standards and others), which contained requirements applicable to the products 
included in the list approved by the Government.   
409. Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 "O n Technical Regulation" (further referred 
to as the Federal Law) provided a new legal frame work for technical regulations, standards and  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 119 
 
 
 conformity assessment systems. The Federal Law pr ovided for the following main principles based on 
the provisions of the WTO TBT Agreement:  
- Application of non-discriminatory and national tr eatment. Technical regulations were to be 
applied in the same manner and to the same exte nt irrespective of the country and/or place of 
origin of products or processes of production, operation, storage, transportation, marketing 
and utilization, the nature and details of the transactions and/or natu ral or legal persons 
(Article 7.6 of the Federal Law).  
- Elimination of technical barriers to trade.  Requirements of technical regulations should not 
create any barriers to business activity beyo nd the minimum necessary to achieve the 
objectives of protection of human life or health, property of natural and legal persons, state or 
municipal property, protection of the environm ent, life or health of animals and plants, 
prevention of activities which could violate the in terests of consumers (Articles 6 and 7.2 of 
the Federal Law).  
- Harmonization of technical regulations, confor mity assessment procedures, and standards 
with their international counterparts and volunt ary application of standards. International 
standards and/or national standards could be used in full or in part as the basis for 
development of draft technical regulations.  The Government of the Russian Federation 
developed proposals to ensure conformity of t echnical regulation to the international norms 
and rules (Articles 7.8 and 7.12 of the Federal Law).   
- Standardization should be carried out accord ing to the following principles: voluntary 
application of standards; use of an internati onal standard as the basis for development of a 
national standard, except where such applicati on was considered to be impossible due to 
unsuitability of requirements of the correspondi ng international standard to climatic and 
geographical peculiarities of the Russian Fede ration, its technical and/or technological 
peculiarities or for other reasons, or where the Russian Federation had objected to the 
adoption of such international standard or any of its provisions in accordance with the 
established procedures (Article  12 of the Federal Law). 
- Transparency in the development of technical regulations and standard s (Article 9 of the 
Federal Law).  
- A notification about development of a draft te chnical regulation should be published in the 
print of the federal executive body on technical  regulations and in the general information 
system in electronic-digital format.  
- The notification about development of the draft technical regulation should contain 
information on the products, processes of produc tion, operation, storage, transportation, 
marketing and utilization, in relation to which the requirements had been developed, with a 
summary of the purpose of the technical regulati on and an explanation of the necessity of the 
technical regulation.  The notification should specify whether the requirements being 
developed differed from interna tional standards or obligatory requirements valid in the 
territory of the Russian Federation and s hould contain information on a method of 
familiarization with the draft technical regula tion, the denomination or surname, name and 
patronymic of the developer of the given draf t technical regulation, as well as his/her postal 
and e-mail (if any) addresses for the receipt of written notices from interested persons. 
- The draft technical regulation should be ma de available to interested persons for 
familiarization as of the date of publication of the notification.  The developer was requested WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 120  
 
 to supply, upon demand, any interested person with  a copy of the draft technical regulation.  
The payment for issuing the copy should not exceed the cost of its manufacture. 
- The developer was required to carry out a public  discussion on the draft technical regulation, 
make a list of written notices received from interested persons, summarize the content of such notices and the results of the discussion and to update the draft technical regulation taking 
into account the written notices received. 
- The developer was required to save the written notices received from interested persons up to 
the date of the entry into force of the technical  regulation, as provided for in the appropriate 
normative legal act, and upon request, to hand th em over to deputies of the State Duma, 
representatives of federal executive bodies and e xpert commissions on technical regulating 
(specified in Article 9 of the Federal Law).  
- The period for public discussion of the draft technical regulation - from the date of 
publication of the notification about development of the draft technical regulation up to the 
date of publication of the notif ication about completion of the public discussion - could not be 
inferior to two months. 
- The notification about completion of the public discussion of the draft technical regulation 
had to be published in the print of the fede ral executive body on technical regulation and in 
the general information system in electronic-digital format. 
- The notification about completion of the public discussion should include information on a 
method of familiarization with the draft techni cal regulation, the list of written notices of 
interested persons, and the denomination or surn ame, name and patronymic of the developer 
of draft technical regulation, along with his/her postal and e-mail (if any) addresses. 
- From the date of publication of the notification about completion of the public discussion, the 
updated draft technical regulation and the list of written notices received should be available 
to interested persons for familiarization. 
- Establishment of conformity assessment proce dures according to the following principles: 
non discrimination between domestic and importe d products both in terms of procedures and 
in terms of fees, proportionality of procedures to the risk of the products, transparency, predictability and expe ditiousness of the procedures, a nd protection of confidentiality. 
- Achievement of mutual recognition of conformity assessment results (Article 30 of the 
Federal Law). 
- Technical regulations should contain require ments in terms of performance of products, 
processes of production, operation, storage, tran sportation, marketing, and utilization rather 
than requirements regarding design or descrip tive characteristics, except where the purposes 
of adopting such technical regulation  could not be achieved in the absence of requirements in 
respect of design and descriptive characteristics in view of the risk of damage. 
410. He further noted that Federal Law No . 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 "On Technical 
Regulation" established technical re gulations, which provided binding specifications with respect to 
goods and their production processes as regulatory tool s to ensure safety and quality of products, as 
well as a legislative framework for a single informa tion system to provide users, including foreign 
users, with information on operative documents and documents under development, i.e. a single  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 121 
 
 
 enquiry point.  The Law also provided that mandato ry conformity confirmation works would be paid 
by the applicant.  The method for calculating th e cost of mandatory conformity assessment was 
determined by the Government and was based on uniform fees calculation rules for identical or 
similar products irrespective of the country and/or  place of origin or identity of the applicant 
(Article 23). The Law introduced the principle of  a uniform system and rules of accreditation.  
411. A technical regulation could provide the rules and forms of conformity assessment (including 
schemes of conformity confirmation) depending on the risks involved, deadlines for conformity 
assessment in relation to every regulated object and/or requirements in respect of terminology, packing, marking or labeling and the rules of their affixation. 
412. Mandatory requirements for products, pro cesses of production, operation, storage, 
transportation, marketing and utilization, rules and forms of conformity assessment, rules for 
identification, requirements in respect of terminolog y, packing, marking or labeling and the rules of 
their affixation contained in technical regulati ons were exhaustive and were applied directly 
throughout the territory of the Russian Federation.  Such requirements were modified only by making amendments and supplements to the corresponding technical regulation. 
413. Any requirements in respect of products, processes of production, operation, storage, 
transportation, marketing and utilization, rules and forms of conformity assessment, rules for 
identification, requirements in respect of terminolog y, packing, marking or labeling and the rules of 
their affixation that were not included in t echnical regulations were not mandatory.   
414. The new Federal Law also foresaw the implem entation of the rules of the Code of Good 
Practice for the Preparation, Adoption, and Ap plication of Standards (Annex 3 of the TBT 
Agreement). Sectoral standards were not envisaged under the Law as regulatory documents.  All existing sectoral standards  were to be transf ormed into national standards or standards of 
organizations prior to 2010. Standards of the Re gions of the Russian Federation were also not 
envisaged under that law.  
415. As of 1 July 2003, mandatory technical re gulations, including mandatory conformity 
assessment could be established by Federal Laws, Government Resolutions, and Presidential Decrees 
only.  The only exceptions included: requirement s connected with ensu ring of integrity and 
sustainable functioning of the global communications  network of the Russian Federation on and the 
use of the radio frequency spectrum; defense products  (works, services) used to protect data which 
constituted a State secret under Russian legislation or related to protected information of restricted WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 122  
 
 access; and products (works, services) whose data c onstituted a State secret. As a result, the list of 
mandatory requirements had been significantly reduced.  
416. As of 1 July 2003, the authority of federal executive bodies in the area of technical 
regulations had been restricted to the issuance of  acts of a recommendatory nature only, with the 
exception of the mentioned above cases.  As of this date and until the issuance of corresponding 
technical regulations, or should such regulations not be issued by 1 July 2010, the requirements 
regarding products, processes of produc tion, operation, storage, transpor tation, marketing, utilization, 
and conformity assessment procedures establishe d by the documents of the federal executive 
authorities prior to 1 July 2003 were subject to oblig atory implementation only to the extent that they 
ensured: protection of human life or health, prope rty of natural and lega l persons, and State or 
municipal property; protection of the environmen t and of animal and plant life or health; and 
prevention of activities which could violate the interests of consumers.  
417. Until the adoption of corresponding technical  regulations, veterinary, sanitary, and 
phytosanitary technical regulation would remain in place in accordance with Federal Law No. 99-FZ 
of 15 July 2000 "On Quarantine of Plants" a nd Federal Law No. 4979-1 of 14 May 1993 "On 
Veterinary Practices". 
418. Until the adoption of a general technical regula tion with respect to nuclear and radiological 
safety, nuclear and radiological safety technical regulation would remain in place in accordance with Federal Law No. 170-FZ of 21 November 1995 (as amended on 11 November 2003) "On the Use of 
Atomic Energy" and Federal Law No. 3-FZ of 9 January 1996 "On Radiological Safety of the 
Population". 
419. Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 “On Technical Regulation” also contained a 
number of norms, which determined alterations in the procedures for mandatory conformity 
assessment.  The Federal Law provided that until th e corresponding technical regulations had come 
into effect, the Government would determine and an nually supplement the list of products for which 
mandatory certification would be substituted by a c onformity declaration.  Thus, the list of products 
subject to mandatory certification could only be reduced, unless otherwise provided by the corresponding technical regulation.  Products, which ha d been included in the list of products subject 
to a conformity declaration, were automatica lly excluded from the list of products subject to 
mandatory certification. 
420. Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 24 of the Federal Law, persons applying for a conformity 
declaration had to be registered in accordance with  Russian legislation as legal persons or individual  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 123 
 
 
 entrepreneurs who were manufacturers and sellers, or  represented a foreign manufacturer. In the latter 
case, a contract ensuring conformity of the produc ts to technical regulati ons and liability for non-
conformity of the delivered products is required. Pa ragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Federal Law limited 
the possibility to adopt a conformity declaration on the basis of one's own evidence prior to the 
adoption of technical regulations to  domestic and foreign manufacturers  - sellers could not adopt such 
declarations. 
421. Pursuant to Paragraph 3 and 4 of Article 24 of the Federal Law when declaring the 
conformity on the basis of own proofs and those obt ained with participation of a third party, an 
applicant, at his own will and in addition to his ow n proofs formed in the order provided for in Clause 
2 of this Article, should: 
- include in evidentiary materials the reports of  researches (tests) and measurements carried out 
in accredited test laboratory (center); 
- submit the certificate of quality system, in rela tion to which there is provided for the control 
(supervision) of certification body, which has i ssued the given certificate, over certification 
object. 
The certificate of a quality system may be used t ogether with the proofs when assuming the supplier's 
declaration for any products, except for the case when  technical regulations stipulate for such products 
other form of conformity assurance. 
422. The contents of the documentary evidence were to be determined by a particular technical 
regulation.  Previously adopted normative legal acts provided that the conformi ty declaration could be 
adopted by Russian manufacturers (sellers, executers) or organizations registered as juridical persons 
in the Russian Federation and representing the interest s of the relevant foreign manufacturers (sellers, 
executers).  Quality system certificates could cons titute the basis for the adoption of a conformity 
declaration. 
423. The representative of the Russian Federation noted  that in respect of mandatory certification 
Paragraph 1 of Article 25 of the Federal Law provided that certification schemes applied for 
certification of certain sorts of products should be de termined in the relevant technical regulations and 
not by the certification authority.  The validity of conformity certificates and conformity declarations were to be established in the relevant technical regul ation.  The procedure for certification previously 
applied provided for the validity of certificates to be determined by the certification authority with due 
regard to the validity term of the normative docum ents related to the production as well as to the term 
for which the production or the quality system had been  certified (provided that this was envisaged by 
the certification scheme) but no longer than three years. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 124  
 
 424. According to Paragraph 1 of Article 27 of the Federal Law, mandatory marks were marks of 
circulation of a product on the market informing the purchasers on the compliance of the product with 
technical regulations.  Under previous legisla tion (Federal Law No. 5151-1 of 10 June 1993 “On 
Certification of Goods and Services”) each mandato ry certification system had its own confirmation 
mark. 
425. Pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of th e Federal Law, customs clearance of products 
subject to mandatory conformity assessment required submission of a conformity certificate or a 
conformity declaration.  Lists of such products , including the HS Codes description, were to be 
approved on the basis of technical regulations by the Government.  Previously, in order to be granted 
the right to export products subject to mandatory certification a conformity certificate was required 
(Federal Law “On Certification of Goods and Se rvices”).  For this reason the Government had 
adopted Resolution No. 72 of 10 February 2004 “On Amending the List of Goods Subject to 
Mandatory Certification, the List of Products Who se Conformity Can Be Confirmed by a Declaration 
of Conformity, and on Recognizing as Invalidated the List of Works and Services Subject to Mandatory Certification”. 
426. In order to bring the Nomenclatures into confor mity with the requirements of Article 46 of 
Federal Law No. 184-FZ f 27 December 2002 "On T echnical Regulation", Gosstandart had passed 
Resolution No. 51 of  5 July 2003 "On Making Amendments to the Nomenclature of Products and 
Services (Works) Subject to Mandatory Certificati on Pursuant to Legislative Acts of the Russian 
Federation, and the Nomenclature  of Products Whose Conformity May Be Confirmed by Conformity 
Declaration". 
427. Rostechregulation are now in charge of accreditation and conducting GOST R mandatory 
certification.  In cases envisaged by Russian legisla tive acts with respect to certain types of products, 
this task could be entrusted to other governmenta l bodies of the Russian Federation.  The forms of 
conformity confirmation of products  determined before the 1 July  2003 by Gosstandart or other 
governmental bodies of the Russian Federation with due  regard to established international practices 
would remain in effect until the issuance of new t echnical regulations.  However, from 1 July 2003, 
new forms of conformity confirma tion would have to be introduc ed by technical regulations.  
428. As a result of the adoption of Government Reso lution No. 72 of 10 February 2003, the list of 
goods to be declared had been increased by 32%,  According to preliminary assessments, upon entry 
into effect of all technical regulations envisaged by the program of technical regulations approximately 60% of goods would be subject to conformity declaration and 40% to conformity 
certification.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 125 
 
 
 429. Requirements connected with ensuring of integr ity and sustainable functioning of the global 
communications network of the Russian Federation were established and governed by the legislation 
of the Russian Federation on communication. 
430. Pursuant to Article 41 of  Federal Law No . 126-FZ of  7 July 2003 "On Communications" 
which had come into force on 1 January 2004, mandatory conformity assessment of telecommunications facilities  was conducted in order to ensure the integrity and stability of the global 
electrical communications network of the Russian Fe deration.  Conformity assessment was mandatory 
for telecommunication facilities used in public  telecommunication networks, and industrial 
telecommunication networks and special teleco mmunication networks if connected to public 
networks. 
431. Conformity of these telecommunication facilities to technical regulations adopted under 
Russian legislation by regulatory legal acts of the federal executive authority for communications 
could be confirmed by mandatory certification or conformity declaration.  The list of 
telecommunication facilities subject to mandatory certification approved by the Government of the Russian Federation.  
432. Some members expressed concern that Federal Law No. 126-FZ of 7 July 2003 “On 
Communications” did not contain enough guarantees that the elements of transparency and 
predictability of the TBT Agreement would be full y respected, namely, when the normative legal acts 
were drafted and approved. Furthermore, Fede ral Law No. 126-FZ did not provide for sufficient 
guarantees that the current system of conformity  assessment, according to which all information 
technology and telecommunications equipment were  subject to mandatory certification and to 
certificates of a limited validity period (maximum 36 months), would be revised. They requested the 
Russian Federation to take commitments that it woul d take measures to facilitate trade in information 
technology and telecommunications equipment products by addressing these concerns by the time of 
its WTO entry.  
433. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that his Government would base all 
normative legal acts determining technical requireme nts for communications facilities and elaborated 
in pursuance with Federal Law No. 126-FZ of 7 Ju ly 2003 “On Communications” on the principles of 
transparency and predictability.  To meet this objective, a Government Resolution would be adopted, 
which would determine that “normative legal acts” we re to comply with the transparency principles 
set forth in the TBT Agreement for the adoption of  normative legal acts.  The Russian Government 
would also limit the scope of the “normative le gal acts” to regulation related to essential public 
interests as defined in the TBT Agreement and the Telecommunications Annex of the GATS.  He WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 126  
 
 added that, by the end of 2010, mandatory requireme nts for communications facilities used in public 
networks, technological networks  and special networks connected  to public networks, would be 
limited to the requirements of technical regulations  and the requirements to ensure the integrity and 
stability of the single electric communications network of the Russian Federation. 
434. Furthermore, the representative of the Russi an Federation confirmed that the Russian 
Federation would implement a si mplified procedure for extending the validity of certificates and 
declarations of conformity for equipment which had not been substantially changed.  In the longer 
term, the Russian Federation would consider the possibility to phase out recertification and redeclaration of such equipment. Finally, he conf irmed that Russia would facilitate the operation of 
the production quality control system through mu tual recognition of production quality control 
systems certified to comply with international qualit y control standards or by negotiating international 
agreements. [The Working Party t ook note of these commitments.] 
435. Accreditation documents issued in accordance w ith the established procedure to certification 
authorities and accredited test laboratories (centers) prior to the entry into force of Federal Law 
No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 «On Technical  Regulation» and Federal Law No. 126-FZ of 
7 July 2003 "On Communications", as well as documents confirming conformity (conformity 
certificate, conformity declaration) and adopted prio r to the entry into force of the Federal Laws «On 
Technical Regulation» and "On Communications" were  considered to be valid until the expiration 
period specified therein. 
436. A technical regulation contained requirements in  terms of performance of products, processes 
of production, operation, storage, transportation, marketing and utilization, but did not contain any 
requirements for design or descriptive characteris tics, except where the purposes of adopting such 
technical regulation as specified in Clause 1 of Article 6 of the present Federal law could not be achieved in the absence of requirements in respect of  design and descriptive characteristics in view of 
the risk of damage. 
437. All necessary technical regulations had to be adopted  within seven years from the date of 
entry into force of the Federal Law. Thus, pr ior to 2010 all existing mandatory requirements for 
products, processes of production, ope ration, storage, transportation, marketing, and utilization would 
have been reviewed or reconciled transformed into  technical regulations.  Mandatory requirements for 
products, processes of production, operation, storag e, transportation, marketing and utilization, in 
respect of which technical regulations would not have been adopted within the specified period, 
would cease to be effective.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 127 
 
 
 438. Thus, from 1 July 2010 all mandatory require ments for products, processes of production, 
operation, storage, transportation, marketing, and util ization, the rules for identification of a regulated 
object for the purposes of application of a technical regulation, the rules and forms of conformity 
assessment (including schemes of conformity confirmation) depending on the risks involved, 
deadlines for conformity assessment in relation to every regulated object and/or requirements in respect of terminology, packing, marking or la beling and the rules of their affixation would be 
contained in technical regulations only.  
439. For this purpose and to ensure conformity of t echnical regulations to international norms and 
rules, the Government of the Russian Federation had approved a technical regulations development 
program which would be annually updated and publis hed.  This Programme was expected to be 
submitted to the Government in July 2004.   
440. The development of technical regulations would proceed in parallel with the development of 
draft national standards on the basis of appli cation of corresponding international standards. 
International and/or national standards had to be used  in full or in part as the basis for development of 
draft technical regulations and as the basis for ensuring compliance with technical regulations. 
Rostechregulation, as the national standardizati on authority, approved and published the list of 
national standards which could be applied on a voluntary basis to ensure compliance with technical 
regulations in its media resource and in a publicly  accessible information system in digital format. 
441. The recognition of certificates of supplying countries, which had not been issued in the 
mandatory certification system GOST R, was carried out by reference to interstate agreements and 
international certification systems to which th e Russian Federation had acceded.  The Russian 
Federation recognized the results of conformity confirmation procedures of those international 
systems to which it had acceded (Geneva Agreem ent of 1955 on Mechanical Vehicles, Brussels 
Convention on Reciprocal Recognition of Proof Ma rks of Handguns and Cartridges, IEC Quality 
Assessment System for Electronic Components (I ECQ), IEC System for Conformity Testing and 
Certification of Electrical Equipment (IECEE), IEC Scheme for Certification to Standards for Electrical Equipment for Explosive Atmospheres (IECEx)).  In other cases the procedures for 
recognizing foreign conformity assess ment documents were determined on the basis of multilateral 
and bilateral agreements. 
442. A Federal Data Bank of Technical  Regulations and Standards ha d been established to perform 
all information procedures and a Single Enquiry Point contemplated under the WTO Agreements on 
TBT and SPS had been established to provide users with access to Russian regulations, standards, 
rules, and conformity assessment procedures.  The enquiry point was located within WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 128  
 
 Rostechregulation at the following address: Russian Federation, 4, Granatniy Pereulok, 103001, 
Moscow, e-mail: ENPOINT@VNIIKI.RU
, website – http://www.ricwto.ru ; http://www.vniiki.ru ; 
http://www.gost.ru , Tel/Fax: (007 095) 230 2598. 
443. Since December 2003, Gosstandart had also la unched the "Newsletter (Vestnik) of Technical 
Regulation", an official publication which containe d all notifications of the development and of the 
end of public discussions on technical regulations , reports of expert commissions on technical 
regulations, draft legislative acts, and other regul atory legal documents in the area of technical 
regulation.  
444. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
conform with the provisions of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade from the date of 
accession.  The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
[to be completed] 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
445. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that protection of human health was 
currently regulated by Federal Law No. 52-FZ of 30 March 1999 "On Sanitary and Epidemiological 
Well-Being of the Population"; Federal Law No. 5487-1 of 22 July 1993 "Fundamentals of Health 
Legislation of the Russian Federation";  "Regula tions of the State Sanitary and Epidemiological 
Service of the Russian Federation" and "Regul ations on State Sanitary and Epidemiological 
Standardization" approved by Government Reso lution No. 554 of 24 July 2000;  and terms and 
provisions of other federal laws  and resolutions of the Govern ment of the Russian Federation 
concerning provision of safety of goods and products  for human health and environment (e.g. Federal 
Laws "On Environmental Protecti on";  "On Consumer Rights Protection";  and "On Quality and 
Safety of Food Products").  The representative of the Russian Fede ration stressed that sanitary and 
phytosanitary measures were implemented by the Ministry of Health and Social Development 
(MOHSD) and the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) which were in charge of food safety, protection of 
human, animal and plant health.  Referring to san itary measures, the representative of the Russian 
Federation explained that the Ministry of Health  and Social Development (Federal Service for 
Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-being), which was part of the 
Department on State Sanitary and Epidemiological  Surveillance (“Gossanepidnadzor”) (and two other 
services), was the federal executive authority in charge  of ensuring sanitary and epidemiological well-
being of the population.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 129 
 
 
 446. Under Russian legislation, the safety of goods produced by domestic manufacturers and 
imported into the territory of the Russian Federa tion which constituted a potential danger for human 
health and the environment was regulated by sanita ry rules, norms and hygiene regulations (safety 
criteria).  Sanitary rules, norms and hygiene regula tions (criteria) for foodstuffs had to be science-
based.  Leading scientific-research institutes, depart ments of medical colleges, and other interested 
academic and practice institutions were  to participate in their elaboration.  Pre-existing sanitary rules, 
norms and hygiene regulations for foods tuffs were being reviewed from the point of view of the need 
for harmonization and were brought into conformity with direct ives and recommendations of the 
Codex Alimentarius Commission (a list of reviewed  documents is provided in Annex 1). Sanitary 
normative legal acts and mandatory hygiene requi rements on products, production processes, use, 
storage, transportation, sale, and utilization were bei ng elaborated to comply with the principles of the 
WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary  and Phytosanitary Measures and Federal Law 
No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 “On Technical Regulati on”.  A number of federa l laws on technical 
regulations had been drafted to replace the relevant  sanitary rules pursuant with the Federal Law “On 
Technical Regulation”.  These draft laws had been  published in a Newsletter on Technical Regulation 
(Vestnik) and placed on the website of Gossanepidna dzor.  An open and science-based infrastructure 
of State sanitary and epidemiological regulations  had been created and was now functioning.  
447. He added that new sanitary rules and safety cr iteria were developed based on the findings of 
comprehensive scientific research and epidemiological studies, as well as monitoring of human health 
and harmful environmental factors (Article 38 of  Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 “On 
Technical Regulation”).  Sanitary requirements only aimed at ensuring the safety of products and at 
preventing any threat to human life and health.  Th ese requirements were established by reference to 
the existing international norms, rules, and r ecommendations, as well as the results of relevant 
research conducted in other countries.  All sanita ry and epidemiological requirements were applied 
uniformly without discrimination to both domestic and imported products and did not, in his view, 
contradict the provisions of the WTO SPS Agreem ent.  These requirements were performed under 
Federal Law No. 52-FZ of 30 March 1999 (as amended on 30 June 2003) “On Sanitary 
Epidemiological Well-Being of Population” (Artic les 1, 15, 38) and Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 
27 December 2002 “On Technical Regulation” (Artic les 7 and 8).  Under current legislation, an 
applicant had the right to appeal a decision of Go ssanepidnadzor through administrative or judicial 
procedures.   
448. The procedure for sanitary-and-epidemiological examination of products and for issuing a 
sanitary and epidemiological approval on the conformity of products with State sanitary and 
epidemiological rules and norms was established und er the "Procedure for Conduct of a Sanitary and WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 130  
 
 Epidemiological Examination of Products", approved by MOHSD Order No. 325 of 15 August 2001 
as amended by Order No. 84 of 18 March 2002.  This  Order also contained a list of products subject 
to sanitary and epidemiological examination.   
449. He further noted that all products produced in and imported into the territory of the Russian 
Federation for distribution to the population and u se in industry, agriculture, civil construction 
development, for transport requiring direct human involvement, or for private and household use, had 
to conform to the requirements of sanitary and epid emiological rules, norms and hygiene regulations 
(Articles 13, 15, 16 of Federal Law No. 52-FZ).  Such  conformity was to be confirmed by a sanitary-
epidemiological approval or a registration certificate.   
450. Sanitary and epidemiological examinati on of products was conducted prior to the 
commencement of industrial production in the territory  of the Russian Federation, and in the case of 
imported products prior to the conclusion of the cont ract to supply products of a specified type or 
based upon an enquiry of an exporter interested in  supplying products to the Russian market.  The 
examination consisted of an assessment of the documentation submitted, the conduct, where 
necessary, of additional laboratory examination, and the issuance of a positive or negative sanitary 
and epidemiological approval for a given type of products valid for five years, which could be 
extended provided there were no violations of the regulations.  Applications for a sanitary 
epidemiological approval had to  be submitted to one of Gossan epidnadzor’s regional centres 
authorized to conduct State sanitary and epidemiol ogical surveillance (Gossanepidnadzor).  Sanitary 
and epidemiological approvals were issued once a nd were valid throughout the territory of the 
Russian Federation.  Imports of products that had not passed a prior hygienic assessment were subject 
to hygienic examination upon importation.  In such  cases, hygienic approvals were valid for that 
particular consignment only.  State sanitary and epidemiological surveillance was conducted by the 
regional centers of Gossanepidnadzor at the stag e of distribution of products on Russia’s domestic 
market.  Regional Centers of Gossanepidnadzor were  subordinated to the Ministry of Health and 
Social Development of the Russian Federati on (the Department of Gossanepidnadzor).  
451. He further stated that Government Reso lution No. 987 of 21 December 2000, "On State 
Surveillance and Control in Ensuring Quality and Safe ty of Foodstuffs" delineated the functions of the 
authorities and institutions of the State Veterinary  Service of the Russian Federation and the State 
Sanitary and Epidemiological Servic e of the Russian Federation for the 
conduct of expert 
examinations of animal products.  A sanitary and epidemiological approval regarding domestic and 
imported goods was confirmation of their conformity with the requirements of sanitary legislation.  
For exportation, importation, and domestic circulation of products, the State Veterinary Service of the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 131 
 
 
 Russian Federation had to certify that animal produc ts were safe from a veterinary viewpoint and 
complied with veterinary norms and requirements. 
452. The representative of the Russian Federation emphasized that Federal Laws  No. 52-FZ of 
30 March 1999, "On Sanitary and Epidemiological  Well-Being of the Population", Federal Law 
No. 29-FZ of 2 January 2000 "On Quality and Safety of Foodstuffs", and Government Resolution No. 
988 of 21 December 2000 "On the State Registrati on of New Foodstuffs, Materials and Items" 
imposed uniform requirements when conducting Stat e registration of new foodstuffs, materials and 
items first produced in the territory of the Ru ssian Federation (Russian goods), and for goods 
imported into the Russian Federation for the first tim e.  State registration of imported foodstuffs was 
the competence of the MOHSD.  Approval of the MOA was only required for registration of products of animal origin.  Sanitary epidemiological assess ment and State registrati on of products constituted a 
single process.  Based on the results of the sanitary epidemiological assessment, a sanitary 
epidemiological approval, or a registration certificat e or if such products were subject to State 
registration, was to be issued.  
453. He further noted that a registration certificate wa s issued for any type of product for the whole 
period of industrial production in the case of Russian products, or the period of supplies in the case of 
imported products.  State registration of potentiall y hazardous substances and types of products was 
performed by the MOHSD and, in the case of new fo od products of animal origin, by the MOHSD in 
conjunction with the MOA (Government Resolution No. 262 of 4 April 2001 "On State Registration 
of Certain Types of Products Presenting Potentia l Threat for Human Life and Health and Certain 
Types of Products First Imported to the Territory of the Russian Federation"; Government Resolution 
No. 987 of 21 December 2000 "On State Surveillance and Control in Ensuring Quality and Safety of 
Food Products";  and Government Resolution No.9 88 of 21 December 2000 "On State Registration of 
New Food Products, Materials and Items").  Lists of products subject to State registration were 
attached to the above Government Resolutions.  His Government had planned to introduce State 
registration as from 1 January 2003, but the introduc tion of such a measure had been rescheduled for 
1 January 2004 pursuant to Government Resoluti on No. 90 of 11 February 2003.  In order to 
substantially reduce the list of products subject to State registration, the MOHSD had elaborated and 
submitted to the Government draft amendments to Resolution No. 90.  Currently, no final decision 
had been made on the time of introduction of St ate registration for certain foodstuffs.  The 
requirements and criteria with respect to safety of  products for human health and the environment 
pursuant to Articles 1, 2, 12, 13, 15, 16, 37, 38, 39, 41 and 42 of Federal Law No. 52-FZ were implemented by State sanitary and epidemiological rules and norms which were regulatory legal acts 
binding all citizens, individual entrepreneurs and legal entities.  All sanitary and epidemiological WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 132  
 
 requirements valid within the territory of the Russian Federation were implemented only through 
federal rules approved and enacted by the MOHSD.  
454. Referring to veterinary measures, the representa tive of the Russian Federation noted that the 
activities performed by the State Veterinary Servi ce were regulated by Federal Law No. 4979-1 of 
14 May 1993 "On Veterinary Practices", Govern ment Resolution No. 706 of 19 June 1994 on 
"Regulations on State Veterinary Surveillance in  the Russian Federation" , Government Resolution 
No. 830 of 29 October 1992 on "Regulations on the State Veterinary Service of the Russian 
Federation for Protection of the Russian Territory Against Importation of Infectious Animal Diseases 
from Abroad"; Government Resolution No. 1263 of 29 September 1997 on "Regulations on the 
Procedure for Examination of Low Quality or H azardous Food Inputs and Products, Their Use and 
Destruction"; "Regulations on Division of Functi ons of State Veterinary Surveillance in Processing 
and Storage Enterprises of Animal Products" No. 13-7-2/173 of 14 October 1994 approved by the 
Chief State Veterinary Inspector of the Russian  Federation; Government Resolution No. 987 of 
21 December 2000 "On State Surveillance and Cont rol in Ensuring Quality and Safety of Food 
Products" and Government Resolution No. 26 of 18  January 2002 "On the State Registration of 
Feedstuffs Received from Genetically Modified Organisms”; Instruction No. 13-7-2/871 of 12 April 
1997 "On the Procedure for Issuance of Veterinary Accompanying Documents for Cargoes Controlled 
by the State Veterinary Surveillan ce Agency" approved by the Ministry  of Agriculture of the Russian 
Federation; and other legislativ e documents, notably Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 
"On Technical Regulation", Federal Law No. 29-FZ of 2 January 2000 "On Qu ality and Safety of 
Foodstuffs", Federal Law No. 134-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On Protection of Rights of Legal Entities 
and Individual Entrepreneurs for the Purposes of State Control (Surveillance) Procedures". 
455. The procedure for lodging appeals against decisions  taken by officials of the State Veterinary 
Service could be performed, in a s ubordinate manner, by a veterinary inspector of a lower authority to 
a veterinary inspector of a higher authority and th e Chief State Veterinary Inspector of the Russian 
Federation.  Appeals against decisions taken by th e Chief State Veterinary Inspector of the Russian 
Federation had to be performed in accord ance with the legislation in force. 
456. He further noted that the Russian Federation had agreements on veterinary certificates for 
most types of animal products with the State vete rinary services of many exporting countries.  Exports 
of animal products under approved veterinary certificates was
 were not a mandatory procedure for 
exporting countries.  In the absence of approved veterinary certificates, animal products were 
exported to the Russian Federation under general veterinary certificates based on veterinary 
requirements in respect of imports of animal produ cts listed in the letter of the State Veterinary  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 133 
 
 
 Service No. 13-8-01/1-1 – 3-7 of 23 December 1999.  Veterinary certificates contained guarantees of 
the State Veterinary Service of the exporting countr y that the products fulfill the terms and conditions 
of import.  The certificate also included informatio n on the situation in th e exporting country at the 
moment of export of products and raw materials of  animal origin to the Russian Federation with 
regard to highly dangerous an imal diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease, cattle plague, African 
swine fever, etc.  The certificate should also conf irm the absence of such diseases.  The requirement 
imposed by the State Veterinary Service to forei gn countries to confirm the absence of some diseases 
was justified by the fact that these diseases did not exist in all Russian regions and that the Russian 
Federation carried out Programmes of prevention and termination of such diseases.  In his view, the 
requirement did not contradict the WTO SPS Agreemen t nor the Code of the International Epizootics 
Office (IEO) (Paragraph 1.2, Chapter 1.2.1).  Th e actual import conditions were contained in the 
veterinary certificate.  The list of products subject to  controls by the State Veterinary Service (Letter 
No. 13-8-01/3009 of 16 May 2000 of the Veterinary De partment of the Ministry of Agriculture) had 
been compiled in accordance with the Goods Nomenclature of Fore ign Economic Activity and only 
included those items which were a potential source of  infectious animal diseases or poisoning, and 
thus a threat to human and animal security and health.  International ve terinary cooperation was 
carried out on the basis of bilateral cooperation agreements and the Code of the International 
Epizootics Office (IEO). Veterinary and sanitary measures were non-discriminatory and identical for all exporting countries.  
457. For imports and transit of controlled cargoes regulated by the Convention on International 
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Fl ora (CITES), an additional permit from the CITES 
agency in the exporting country was required in addition to the required documents (CITES agencies 
were the Ministry of Natural Resources and th e State Committee of the Russian Federation for 
Fishery – for sturgeon fish species).  Imports a nd exports of pedigree animals, apart from the 
authorization from the Chief State Veterinary Insp ector of the Russian Federation and veterinary 
certificate, required an "extract from the State regi stry of selection achievements allowed for use with 
respect to the imported plant seeds, pedigree animal s" for imports, and  "confirmation of compliance 
with the requirements with respect to protection of  patent holder rights with respect to the exported 
plant seeds, pedigree animals" for exports, signed by  the Deputy Minister of Agriculture of the 
Russian Federation.  Imports of veterinary prepar ations were regulated by Government Resolution 
No. 1539 of 25 December 1998 "Regulations on Imports into and Exports from the Russian Federation of Medicines and Pharmaceuticals".  Imports of cargoes controlled by the State Veterinary Surveillance Agency were restricted to designa ted cross-border checkpoints at railway and car 
stations, at seaports, airports and other sp ecially equipped places open for international 
communications and having cross-border veterinary checkpoints installed.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 134  
 
 458. For countries with a bad epizootic situation with  regard to transmissi ble animal diseases, a 
mutual understanding could be achieved contemplatin g the presence of Russian Veterinary Inspectors 
to control compliance of raw meat consignments in tended for shipment to the Russian Federation with 
Russian Federation veterinary requirements.  The Ru ssian Veterinary Inspector would decide whether 
a particular meat consignment was eligible for shipment to the Russian Federation based on the 
epizootic situation, the conditions of processing and storage of meat in the exporting country.  
Consignments so inspected avoided any delays
 at cross-border or return to the exporting country. 
459. International transit of cargoes controlled by the State Veterinary Service through the Russian 
Federation was conducted in accordance with the provi sions of the International Epizootics Office’s 
International Veterinary Code.  No written authori zation from the Chief State Veterinary Inspector of 
the Russian Federation was required for internationa l transit of raw produce and products of animal 
origin through the Russian Federation.  When cr ossing the border of the Russian Federation the cargo 
was inspected by the State Veterinary Inspector  of the appropriate cr oss-border surveillance 
veterinary checkpoint.  International transit of live animals through the Russian Federation required 
written authorization from the Chief State Veterinary Inspector of the Russian Federation, on the basis 
of a request from the central veterinary authorit y of the importing country, indicating the points of 
import, export, route, stops, transfers, animal feeding and watering sites (Chapter 1.4.3 of the 
International Veterinary Code of the Internati onal Epizootics Office (OIE)).The main purpose of the 
existing procedure for international transit of live an imals was to protect the territory of the Russian 
Federation from importation of various diseases and o pr event, to the maximum extent possible,  the 
spread of such diseases during transportation of th e animals through the territory of the Russian 
Federation, the unloading for rest, feeding, watering,  collection and disposal of manure, bedding, etc. 
460. Referring to phytosanitary measures, the represen tative of the Russian Federation noted that 
policies and regulations on plant qua rantine were determined by the Ministry of Agriculture (its State 
Service for Quarantine of Plants or Rosgoskaran tin). Import quarantine permits were issued under 
Government Resolution No. 268 of 23 April 1992 "On State Service for Quarantine of Plants in the Russian Federation", as amended and supplemen ted by Government Resolution No. 1143 of 
1 October 1998. The list of products subject to ph ytosanitary controls in accordance with the Goods 
Nomenclature of the Foreign Economic Activity of the Russian Federation was provided in the 
"Nomenclature of Main Types of Products, Cargoes and Materials (Goods) Subject to Quarantine, for 
which imports into and exports from the Russian Fede ration required authorization by the agencies of 
the State Service for Quarantine of Plants of the Russian Federation", approved by the Ministry of 
Agriculture on 19 March 1999 (as amended on 25 December 2001).   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 135 
 
 
 461. Imports to the Russian Federation of products  subject to quarantine required an import 
quarantine permit.  Should the imported regulated pro ducts be intended for several regions, the import 
quarantine permit was issued by State Service for Qu arantine of Plants of the Russian Federation.  
When only one region was targeted, the import qua rantine permit was issued by the respective 
regional State service for quarantine of plants.  Ap plications for an import quarantine permit were 
required to state the product in question, the count ry of origin, the exporting country, volume, time-
frame for importation, destinations, and cross-bor der checkpoints.  The import quarantine permit 
indicated the phytosanitary requirements for the produ cts subject to quarantine.  Each consignment of 
products subject to quarantine had to be accompan ied by a phytosanitary certificate confirming the 
phytosanitary state of the product to conform to the conditions specified in the import quarantine 
permit.  Phytosanitary certificates were issued by  agencies of the State service in charge of plant 
quarantine in the exporting country. Phytosanitary measures maintained by the Russian Federation  
were based on the recommendations and principles of  the International Plant Protection Convention 
(Rome, 1951, 1997) that the Russian Federation had acceded in its revised version, as well as those of 
the European and Mediterranean Plant Protecti on Organization (to which the Russian Federation 
(USSR) was a member since 1957 and an executive member since 1997).  
462. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that pursuant to Federal Law No. 184-FZ 
of 27 December 2002 “On Technical Regulation” manda tory requirements applied to products would 
be contained in new technical regulations (general  and special). Amendments would be made to the 
relevant legislation in order to bring it in complia nce with the mentioned above  Federal law. A list of 
normative legal acts pending amendments, technical re gulations which were being elaborated as well 
as the time-frame for such amendments and elaborati on of technical regulations were contained in the 
Inter-Agency Programme of Measures. The provision s of the WTO Agreement on the Application of 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures such as “the  stand-still principle”, a single enquiry point, 
transparency, preparation of notifications, publi cation of measures taken in order to ensure the 
possibility of relevant comments, providing an adequate time period for comments, scientific 
evidence for the measures taken, and risk assessme nt, non-discrimination in trade and others were 
already envisaged in Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 “On Technical Regulation”.  In 
order to implement the provisions of the Federa l Law “On Technical Regulation”, the Government 
had passed the following Resolutions elaborated by Go sstandart jointly with the interested ministries: 
- Resolution on the procedure for publication and the amount of fees for publication of a 
notification of the development, discussion, and  expert review of a draft technical regulation, draft legislative acts, and other regulatory le gal acts on technical regulations (No. 673 of  
5 November 2003) WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 136  
 
 - Resolution on the federal data bank of techni cal regulations and standards and the single 
information system on technical regula tion  (No. 500 of  15 August, 2003) 
- Resolution on the establishment and functioning  of expert commissions for technical 
regulation (No. 513 of 21 August 2003). 
463. Since the entry into force of Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 “On Technical 
Regulation” on 1 July 2003, technical regulations or , if they had not been adopted by 1 July 2010, 
requirements on products, production processes, use, storage, transportation, sale and utilization 
established by the normative legal acts of the Russi an Federation and regulatio ns of federal executive 
bodies were to be applied only to the extent as th ey protected human health, the environment, and 
animal and plant life and health, and in order to  prevent actions which could mislead consumers 
(Article 46 of the Federal law). 
464. He added that Russian legislation on technical  regulation comprised Federal Law No. 184-FZ 
of 27 December 2002 “On Technical Regulation” an d federal laws and other normative legal acts of 
the Russian Federation adopted in accordance with this law. Provisions of federal laws and other 
normative legal acts which concerned the applicati on of Federal Law No. 184-FZ (inter alia, those 
which directly or indirectly provided for perfo rming control (surveillance) over observance of 
technical regulation requirements) were to fully comply with Federal Law No. 184-FZ (Articles 4.1 
and 4.2).  For this reason, all legislation on sanita ry and phytosanitary measures was currently being 
analyzed with a view to bring it in compliance with Federal Law No. 184-FZ, the requirements of 
which were based on the provisions of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. 
465. He further noted that all regulatory legal acts related to sanitary measures had to be published 
in official editions : Rossiyskaya Gazeta (the Ru ssian Newspaper), the Bulletin of regulatory acts of 
Federal Executive Authorities of the Administrati on of the President of the Russian Federation 
(Presidential Decree No. 763 of May 23, 1996 "On the Procedure for Publication and Taking Effect of 
Acts of the President of the Russian Federation,  the Government of the Russian Federation, and 
Regulatory Legal Acts of Federal Executive Author ities"); the Bulletin of regulatory documents and 
guidelines of Gossanepidnadzor of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of he Russian 
Federation; and various specialized scientific journa ls and manuals (Nutrition Care, Health Care at 
Workplace, Radiation Hygienics, Toxicology Newslette r, etc.). Draft sanitary rules were published in 
the Newsletter of the Russian Enquiry Point and specialized journals. Regulatory documents took 
effect no earlier than three months after their approval, unless a direct threat to human health and life 
was involved.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 137 
 
 
 466. New legislation and regulations concerning veterinary measures after approval were 
published in the journals "Veterinary Science and Practice", "Veterinary Newspaper", the newspaper 
"Veterinary Consultant", and other special publica tions.  Since December 2003, Gosstandard had been 
publishing an official “Newsletter (Vestnik) of  Technical Regulation”, which contained all 
notifications concerning the development and e nd of public discussions on technical regulations, 
reports of expert commissions on technical regula tions, draft legislative acts, and other regulatory 
legal documents in the area of technical regulation.   A specialized single Information Center (Enquiry 
Point) for TBT/SPS (WTO RIC (SPS/TBT)) ensuring transparency of veterinary, sanitary, and 
phytosanitary measures and providing access to re levant documentation had been set up and was 
functioning (http://www.ricwto.ru). 
467. Noting that the information provided above c onstituted a useful compendium of current 
practice in the Russian Federation, members of the Working Party felt that this information was still 
insufficient to assess to what extent  the current regime was consistent with WTO provisions.  More 
information on currently applied phytosanitary m easures was also required.  In this connection 
members stressed that lack of clarity in the way in  which the Russian Federation proposed to ensure 
that its SPS regime, as in case of any other NTMs, could prevent bilateral market access negotiations 
being effectively pursued.  While recognizing th at the Russian Federation was taking steps to 
strengthen its SPS regime and bring it into complian ce with WTO rules, members further considered 
that there was still substantial wo rk ahead for the Russian Federation to develop a predictable, 
transparent, and science-based regulatory system th at would ensure due legal process and sustained 
adherence to international obligatio ns.  In practice this could be attained by achieving compliance 
with WTO obligations, particularly regarding th e following principles of the SPS Agreement:  
transparency of measures through information to other WTO Members;  consistency, coherency and 
proportionality of measures;  non-discriminatory na ture of measures, including the need for 
requirements affecting imports not to be more restrictive than t hose affecting domestic production;  
adoption of international standards set by Codex, OIE and IPPC for import rules (the rules must be 
based on transparent scientific risk assessment in case  they go beyond the international standards, or 
where no international standards exist);  applica tions of the principles of regionalisation; and, 
acceptance of certificates and other guarantees give n by a third country (including the European 
Union) competent authorities as the basis for impor ts.  Members stressed that the Russian Federation 
needed to bring its legislative and regulatory procedures into compliance with WTO requirements, 
and provide the necessary legislative acts and do cumentation to demonstrate how these current 
deficiencies would be addressed.  They considered that an update of the Russian Federation SPS 
Action Plan would be particularly helpful at this stage of work.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 138  
 
 468. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation provi ded detailed information on the 
current and planned SPS regime in notes “Sanitary  and Phytosanitary Regulation in the Russian 
Federation” circulated to the Working Party as Job No. 366, Non-Paper of 18 January 2002,  
“Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures” submitted by the Russian Federation - Job No. 2560.3, Non 
Paper No. 26 of 1 April 2003, and Checklists of Technical Barriers to Trade and Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Issues in the Accession of  the Russian Federation to the WTO – 
WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/13/Rev.3 of 18 Octobe r 2002, as well as Annexes 1 and 2 of 
WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29/Add.1 of 21 January 2003. 
469. In response, some members of the Working Party stated that they required additional 
information on new legislation in order to determ ine how key aspects of the SPS Agreement would be 
met.  Those members requested that the Russian Fe deration explain how it was possible that all those 
measures were applied only to the extent necessary to  protect human, animal or plant health, and the 
conduct of risk assessment in that regard.  Tho se members noted that insufficient explanation had 
been provided for the multiple certification requireme nts were currently applied to animal products 
imported into the Russian Federation in terms of th e requirements of Article 2 of the Agreement on 
SPS.  Those members also raised concerns with re spect to measures (such as testing or conformity 
assessment) applied to imports that were more restrictive than measures applied to domestic 
production, despite similar or identical conditions, in  apparent inconsistency with the requirements of 
Article 2.3 of the Agreement on SPS, for example,  in relation to certification required of dairy 
products.  Some members of the Working Party also sought additional clarificat ions of the steps that 
would be taken by the Russian Federation to ensu re that it met the transparency and notification 
requirements of the Agreement on SPS from the da te of accession to the WTO.  Those members 
stated that their concerns related also to insuffici ent or inadequate periods for notification of new or 
amended measures, which in effect did not allow time for producers to adjust to new conditions.  
Those members also repeated their concerns that the Russian Federation did not meet the 
requirements of Article 6 of the Agreement on SPS.   
470. Some members raised concerns about the ass essment of risks of certain measures, for 
example the use of salt as a preservative for fish e xports.  Those members also raised concerns about 
the lack of policies to accept equivalent measure s of WTO Members, or that in certain cases the 
Russian Federation required frequent access to insp ection and testing establishments within the 
territory of WTO Members.   
471. Members of the Working Party sought a commit ment that the Russian Federation would fully 
apply the WTO Agreement on SPS upon accession.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 139 
 
 
 472. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
conform with the provisions of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures with recourse to a transitional period of three years from the date of accession to the WTO.  
The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
[to be completed] 
Trade-related Investment Measures (TRIMs) 
473. Members requested information on TRIMs addressing measures in place, particularly with 
respect to production sharing agreements and the i nvestment-promoting legislation for the automotive 
sector.  
474. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation said that the following laws and 
regulations were relevant for the consideration of the question of consistency of the Russian 
legislation with the provisions of the TR IMS agreement: Federal Law No. 225-FZ, of 
30 December 1995 “On Production Sharing Agreement s” (as amended of 6 June 2003); Presidential 
Decree No. 135 of 5 February 1998 "On Additional M easures to Attract Investments for Development 
of Domestic Car Making"; and Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 413 of 
23 April 1998 "On Additional Measures to Attract Investments for Development of Domestic Car 
Making".  
- Production Sharing Agreements  
475. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that the Federal Law No. 225-FZ of 
30 December 1995 “On Production Sharing Agreements ” (as amended of 06 June 2003) set out the 
legal framework for relations arising in the cour se of Russian and foreign investment in search, 
exploration and mining of minerals in the Russian Federation.  A "production sharing agreement" was 
a contract in which the Russian Federation provided to an investor, in consideration for value received 
and for a limited term, exclusive rights to perform search, exploration and mining of minerals in a 
subsoil plot specified in such agreement and any re lated works, and the investor undertook to perform 
the said works at his own risk and expense.  The rights and obligations of the parties to a production sharing agreement were governed by the Russian Federation's civil legislation.  The term of the 
Agreement was defined by the parties in complianc e with the legislation of the Russian Federation 
applicable as of the date of the Agreement’s conclusion. 
476. Federal Law No. 225-FZ of 30 December  1995 “On Production Sharing Agreements” (as 
amended of 06 June 2003) also contained the requi rement that the Parties include in such an WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 140  
 
 agreement an obligation to buy no less than 70 pe r cent of Russian technical equipment for natural 
resources extraction, their transportation and processing. 
477. The representative of the Russian Federation also noted that the production sharing 
agreements concluded before the entry into for ce of Federal Law No 225-FZ - except the Production 
sharing agreement on Chayvinskoe, Odoptinskoe and Arkutun-Daginskoe oil and gas condensing 
fields (Sakhalin-1) - contained provisions accordi ng to which a company or an operator could give 
preference to Russian equipment while realizing projects.  
478. The representative of the Russian Federa tion noted that Federal Law No. 225-FZ of 
30 December 1995 "On Production Sharing Agreement"  (as amended of 6 June 2003) was applicable 
to agreements concluded prior to the entry into force of Federal Law No. 225-FZ only to the extent 
that the law did not conflict with the provisions of these production sharing agreements. 
479. Three production sharing agreements had b een concluded and were implemented: 
(a) Production sharing agreement on Chayvinskoe , Odoptinskoe and Arkutun-Daginskoe oil and 
gas condensing fields (Sakhalin-1).  This agreement had been concluded in 1995 and was 
valid for 25 years (extendable); 
(b) Production sharing agreement on Piltun-As tokhskoe and Lunskoe oil and gas fields 
(Sakhalin-2).  This agreement had been c oncluded in 1994 and was valid for 25 years 
(extendable); 
(c) Production sharing agreement on oil-fi eld development and oil production on 
Kharyaguinskoe oilfield. This agreement had b een concluded in 1995.  It was valid for 
20 years and could be extended for a further 13 years. 
480. Although the agreement on exploration of the sout hern part of the Samotlorskoe oil and gas 
condensing field had been concluded between the Government of Russian Federation, the 
Administration of Hanty-Mansijsk region and Joint Stock Company “Samoltorneftegaz” it had not yet 
been executed.  
481. Pursuant to Federal Law No. 225-FZ of 30 December 1995 "On Production Sharing 
Agreement" (as amended of 06 June 2003), an Agre ement whose provisions had not entered into force 
within one year after signature of the Agreement, would be terminated on the expiry of that period, 
i.e. the special procedure for calculating and payi ng taxes and fees established by the Tax Code and 
other acts of taxation of the Russian Federation fo r this agreement would not be applied and this 
field’s exploration would be realized on common term s of taxation, without recourse to provisions of 
Federal Law No. 225-FZ.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 141 
 
 
 - Domestic car-industry 
482. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that Presidential Decree No. 135 of 
5 February 1998 "On Additional Measures to Attract  Investments for Development of Domestic Car 
Making", and Government Resolution No. 413 of 23  April 1998 "On Additional Measures to Attract 
Investments for Development of Domestic Car Making" permitted automobile and spare parts 
production within a “bonded ware house” under special conditions. These acts covered projects with 
investments of no less than 1500 millions Rubles and established that: 
- the share of costs incurred in Russia after 5 year s of the project life had to account for no less 
than 50 per cent of production costs of the end-product; 
- the Government of the Russian Federation a nnually determined the amounts of quotas within 
which the goods produced in a “bonded warehouse” could be exported customs free to the 
rest of the Russian territory. Customs payments on imports from the territory of a “bonded warehouse” zone into the rest of the Russian territory exceeding such quota were made on 
normal terms; 
- in order for cars imported into the Russian te rritory from a “bonded warehouse” to qualify as 
a product originating  from the Russian territo ry and benefiting from duty free treatment, the 
components used for the production of such car ha d to represent no less than 50% of the value 
of the final product at the end of the fifth year  until the end of the investment agreement.  
Components which were not recognized as orig inating from the Russian Federation when 
imported into the main territory of the Russian  Federation  from  warehouse and  subject to 
the customs legislation of the Russian Federa tion, and components of foreign origin, which 
had been used in their manufacture, were applied customs fees at the rates applied to means of 
automotive transportation and automotive components which had been in effect at the moment of their importation from free warehouse to the main territory of the Russian Federation.  
The term of these preferences could not be extende d beyond the investment project period, and could 
not be longer than seven years.  This term w as calculated from the date of granting a "bonded 
warehouse" license.  In accordance with these acts four  investment agreements had been concluded:  
- with the Finance and Industry Holding “Doninvest” for the production development on SC 
“Taganrog car plant” (agreement concluded in 1999);  
- with the Russian-French firm JSC “Avtoframo s” (agreement concluded in 1999, but no 
preferences granted);  
- with the Russian-American firm SC “Ford Vse volzhsk” (pursuant to Government Resolution 
No. 259-r of 17 February 2000, the State Cu stoms Committee granted a “bonded warehouse” 
license valid for 7 years);  
- with the Russian-Italian firm SC Nizhegor od Motors (agreement concluded in 1998). 
483. These agreements provided for car assembly units  in the Russian Federation by the companies 
“Daewoo”, “Renault”; “Ford Motors” (US) and “F IAT”, respectively.  The agreements with WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 142  
 
 “Renault” and “FIAT” cars had not been pursued yet.   The agreement with “Daewoo” car had been in 
force for two years but had been invalidated in 2001.   The agreement with “Ford Motors” was still in 
force.  There were plans to conclude a similar investment agreement with the Joint Stock Company 
“GM-Avtovaz”.  Russian legislation did not require foreign car-manufacturers party to the agreement to be incorporated in th e Russian Federation.  In response to further questions, the representative of 
the Russian Federation stated that, although those agreements contained common requirements to use 
domestically produced goods in the production pro cess, the Government of the Russian Federation 
would be willing to consider fr eezing conclusion of new agreements which contained provisions of 
such kind after its accession to the WTO. 
- Aircraft area 
484. In response to members of the Working Party' s concerns regarding the aircraft sector, the 
representative of the Russian Federation noted th at Government Resolution No. 574 of 2 August 2001 
"On Certain Issues of Regulation of Temporary Imports of Aircraft" superseded Government 
Resolution No. 716 of 7 July 1998 "On Additiona l Measures of State Support for Civil Aviation in 
Russia" and terminated the full exemption from cu stoms duties and taxes for temporary import for 
aircraft, spare parts and engines and simulators wh ich were imported under investment agreements.  
No investment agreements had been concluded si nce the adoption of Government Resolution No.574 
of 2 August 2001 "On Certain Issues of Regulation of Temporary Imports of Foreign Made Aircraft".   
485. Some members considered that the investment regime for the car sector as well as the regime 
for Production Sharing Agreements contained local content requirements which could be considered 
inconsistent with the TRIMs Agreement.  While no ting that existing programs might be terminated or 
modified, several members requested confirmation that the Russian Federation would eliminate any existing TRIMs upon accession.   
486. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would eliminate and would not ma intain any measures inconsistent with the WTO 
Agreement on Trade-related Investment Measures (T RIMs), and would apply this Agreement without 
recourse to any transition period.]   
487. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would conform with the pr ovisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related 
Investment Measures, and in particular would not conclude new agreements with foreign investors 
which contain provisions contrary to those prohib ited by the TRIMS Agreement.  The Working Party 
took note of this commitment.]  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 143 
 
 
 State-trading enterprises 
488. The representative of the Russian Federation said that under Article 26 of Federal Law 
No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On the Fundamental s of the State Regulation of the Foreign Trade 
Activity", an exclusive right to export and/or impor t certain types of goods could be granted to some 
organizations.  The list of organi zations (as well as types of goods ) to which such rights should be 
granted was determined by federal laws.  The ex clusive right to export and/or import should be 
implemented through licensing. 
489. Pursuant to Article 26, enterprises which had been granted exclusive or special rights or 
privileges to export and/or import certain types of goods were required to act in a non-discriminatory 
manner and in accordance with commercial considerations. 
490. The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that his authorities considered that 
only two State-trading enterprises in the Russian Fede ration were required to be notified pursuant to 
the notification requirements of Article XVII of the GATT 1994.  Those enterprises and the 
product/products which had special powers or priv ileges were:  the Russian Joint Stock Company 
(RJSC) Gazprom – natural gas; the Russian Joint Stock Company (RJSC) UES of Russia – electricity; 
and the State Enterprise (SE) Almazyuvelir Export Foreign Trad e Association – raw materials 
containing platinum and pl atinum group metals.  The enterprises, which had been granted exclusive or 
special rights or privileges in the exercise of whic h they influenced, through their purchase or sales, 
the level or direction of imports or exports, made their purchases and sales on the basis of commercial 
considerations. In the view of the Russian Govern ment, there were no other enterprises in the Russian 
Federation, either State-owned or privately-owned, which had been granted, formally or in effect, 
exclusive or special rights or privileges, including statutory or constitutional powers in the exercise of 
which their purchases or sales might influence the leve l or direction of imports  or exports. Regarding 
the Russian Joint Stock Company (RJSC) Gazprom – (natural gas) the representative of the Russian 
Federation noted that in his opinion Gazprom could not be considered as a state trading enterprise 
since it was not neither a monopoly and did not have exclusive or special rights or privileges.  Detailed information on enterprises which could be considered as state-trading enterprises is 
contained in document WT/ACC/RUS/18, subseque ntly revised in document WT/ACC/RUS[...] (to 
be circulated). 
491. Some Members of the Working Party request ed additional information on the special 
privileges accorded "unitary enterp rises".  Some Members stated that the Russian Federation should 
consider entering a commitment to ensure that th e requirements of Article III and XVII of the GATT 
1994 were fully met from the date of accession. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 144  
 
 492. In response to further questions concerning " unitary" enterprises the representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that, by definition, tho se enterprises  were not State trading enterprises as 
they operated as commercial enterprises, and did not enjoy any privileges in the sense of Article XVII 
of the GATT 1994.  A State (or municipal) unitary enterprise was a form of legal entity aimed at 
making profit. Its activity was based on commercial c onsiderations.  Pursuant to Article 113 of the 
Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the only charact eristic that distinguished a State (or municipal) 
unitary enterprise from other forms of commercial or ganizations was that it did not own the property 
assigned to it.  The property of State (or muni cipal) unitary enterprises was State-owned (or 
municipal-owned) was and had been assigned to it by right of economic or operational management.  
The Russian legislation in force did not envisage any special rights or privileges to be granted 
specifically to State (or municipal) unitary enterprises by virtue of its status. The civil legislation of 
the Russian Federation prohibited the State from interfering with the commercial activities of both 
commercial and non-commercial organizations. 
493. Some Members were particularly concerned that the pricing practices followed by Gazprom 
(about 38% State owned), which they considered to  be a state-trading enterprise, could not be 
regarded as being based on commercial considerations .  Specifically, sales for export were subject to 
controls in relation to quantity and price, and th e sale of gas for domestic industrial consumption was 
at a prices
 level considerably below that applied for exports which were linked to the prevailing 
would market price.  Artificially low domestic energy prices could also lead to indirect subsidization 
of downstream industries and to exports of value-a dded intermediate and finished goods at prices 
below their normal value.  In this context, those Members noted that the cost of producing natural gas 
for Gazprom, had been estimated to be approxi mately US$ 41 per tcm compared to controlled 
domestic prices of US$ 16 per tcm.   In light of these facts, those Members requested an explanation as to how Gazprom was selling in the domestic market “solely in acco rdance with commercial 
considerations” as required by Article XVII:1(b) of  the GATT.  Those members noted that Gazprom, 
or its subsidiaries, also appeared to be a participant in the fertilizer industry.   
494. The representative of the Russian Federation rep lied that the export price for gas was not 
regulated by the Government; the prices and quantit ies for deliveries of gas for exports were those 
which were negotiated between supp lier and buyer.  The Government determined only the principles 
of calculating the tariffs for gas transportation by gas-transporting systems and prices of natural gas 
for sale on the wholesale market in the Russian Fe deration.  As regards prices for internal 
consumption, they were established at the leve l which reflected  supply and demand, where any 
increase of price could lead to the inability of c onsumers to pay and hence to decrease sales with 
respective fall of profits for suppliers.  As for th e rest, Gazprom determined the levels of internal  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 145 
 
 
 calculated prices and payment procedures for gas s upply independently.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation also noted that in 2004 the co st of natural gas for Gazprom was US$28 per tcm 
while domestic wholesale prices (VAT excluded) amounted to US$32 per tcm and domestic retail 
prices (VAT excluded) to US$36 per tcm.  He al so mentioned that similar approaches towards 
regulation of prices for gas were used by WTO Members.  Furthermore, according to Annex 1 to the GATT 1994 (Notes and supplementary provisions), th e provisions of Article XVII of the GATT 1994 
did not preclude the application, by a State enterpri se, of different prices for the sales of its products 
on different markets, provided that such prices were charged for commercial reasons to meet the 
conditions of supply and demand on export markets.  He added that, in his opinion, Gazprom’s 
commercial activity was fully in line with Article XVII of GATT. 
495. Some Members of the Working Party further stat ed that in addition to the significant trade 
distortion which these pricing practices could cause, they were concerned that current prices to 
domestic industrial customers could take place at rat es that did not ensure "adequate remuneration" as 
provided for under Article 14(d) of the WTO Ag reement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 
and thus would confer a benefit to  domestic industrial users.  Accordingly, in the absence of further 
information, it was difficult to understand the asser tion that those enterprises operated on the basis of 
commercial considerations.  More generally, Memb ers observed that this situation gave rise to 
questions as regards its compatibility with WTO requi rements, not only in relation to Article XVII but 
also in relation to Articles XI and XVI of the GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures.  These Members invited the Russian Federation to provide further 
information on the operation of these enterprises, pa rticularly as regards the manner in which prices 
were set for the export of natural gas, and how th ose pricing structures were consistent with the 
suggestion that those enterprises operated under co mmercial considerations.  In response, the 
representatives of the Russian Federation noted that  gas prices and tariffs on gas transportation 
services, or their marginal levels were set at the rate that ensured: 
- Cost-recovery of economically valid costs asso ciated with gas extraction, transportation, 
processing, distribution and supply (sale); 
- Incorporation into regulated prices of all tax es and other mandatory payments pursuant to the 
Russian Federal law; 
- Valid profit gains; - Investment – corporate owners' of funding  possibilities regarding gas supply networks, 
extending gas recovery operations, gas pipelin es, and underground gas storage facilities; 
- Meeting solvent gas demand – attaining a ba lance of buyers' and gas suppliers' economic 
interests; WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 146  
 
 - As primary data for calculating gas prices and gas transportation tariffs, an estimated output 
of goods/services and projected total receipts were used. 
496. Some Members expressed concerns about the activities of the State-owned telephone 
company Svyazinvest, in particular that it had used  its influential market position to require its 
Russian cable suppliers to procure optical fibr e from a single supplier based on that supplier’s 
agreement to produce cable in the Russian Federati on at a later date.  Those Members were of the 
view that such conduct was not consistent with commercial considerations as specified in Article 
XVII of the GATT 1994. 
497. In response to the concerns about Svyazinvest 's actions, the representative of the Russian 
Federation stated that JSC Svyazinvest had been  established under Presidential Decree No. 1989 of 
10 October 1994 “On the Specific Aspects of State Management of the Electric Communication 
Network for General Use of th e Russian Federation” and Gove rnment Resolution No. 1297 of 
11 November 1994 “On Establishing Joint-Stoc k Company “Svyazinvest” in order to attract 
additional investments for the development of th e general electric communications network of the 
Russian Federation.  JSC Svyazinvest had been estab lished as a result of the consolidation of federal-
owned shares of joint-stock electric communication companies which had been set up during the privatization process of electric communication Stat e enterprises. At the time of the establishment of 
the JSC Svyazinvest 100 per cent of its shares were fe deral-owned.  The State had been the sole share-
holder of the company until mid 1997.  Currently, the State was the main but not the sole share-holder 
of “Svyazinvest” - 25% of the shares +1 had gone toMustcom. Ltd. 
498. JSC Svyazinvest coordinated the work of its  subsidiaries to facilitate the dynamic and 
proportionate development of an electric commun ication grid in the Russian Federation.  The 
Company did not take part in its subsidiaries’ activities on purchasing of equipment.  The company 
was mostly engaged in rendering services in the telecommunication sector, which fell within the 
scope of application of the GATS.  Thus, no exclusive or special rights or privileges were granted to the JSC Svyazinvest within the meaning of Article XVII of the GATT 1994. 
499. In response to questions from Members regardi ng JSC Alrosa's privileges with respect to 
exports of raw diamonds, the representative of the Russian Federation clarified that Presidential 
Decree No. 1373 of 30 November 2002 “On the endors ement of regulation on im ports in and exports 
from the Russian Federation of  raw natural di amonds and cut diamonds” (entered into force on 
6 February 2003) had abol ished all exclusive rights of Alrosa.  At present, Alrosa had no exclusive or 
special privileges and was not a State-trading enterprise.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 147 
 
 
 500. Some Members requested further information on the role of marketing enterprises such as 
Exportkhleb, Prodintorg, and Rosk hleboprodukt in agricultural trade, and a description of the 
legislation that had specifically ended the special  rights and privileges that these organizations had 
traditionally received as monopoly trade or marketi ng entities.  These Members also asked for further 
information on the extent to which the Russian Federation's agricultural trade was still conducted 
through inter-governmental agreements between  the Russian Federation and other countries, 
especially CIS countries, and on whether any govern ment-to-government barter arrangements were 
still in place. 
501. The representative of the Russian Federation not ed that some enterprises (Roschleboproduct 
and Roscontract) had been granted exclusive and special rights in 1993 and 1994 in the context of 
bilateral barter trade with some CIS count ries performed under the framework of special 
intergovernmental agreements for those calendar year s.  Such exclusive rights had expired completely 
on 31 December 1995 when the agreements expired and had never been resumed.  At present, the 
Russian Federation did not conduct barter trade with any of the CIS countries.   
502. Regarding the concerns of some Members in r espect of the special export regime for wheat 
exported to Ukraine, the representative of th e Russian Federation stated that a special 
intergovernmental Agreement on export supplies of  wheat to Ukraine from August to October 2003 
had been concluded in August 2003.  This agreement was not concerned with barter trade.  Under the 
Agreement, the State unitary ente rprise “Federal Agency on the Foods Market Regulation” had been 
entitled to conclude contracts on wheat supply in accordance with the Agreem ent.  However, these 
rights had expired upon termination of the suppl y periods, as defined in the Agreement.   
503. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that under Government Resolution 
No. 1224 of 26 September 1997 "On the Foundation of  the State Unitary Enterprise – the Federal 
Agency for Food Market Regulation by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food of the Russian 
Federation", the Federal Agency for Food Mark et Regulation had replaced the Federal Food 
Corporation with a modified institutional and le gal framework. The mission of the Agency was to 
develop and regulate the market of agricultural products.  Pursuant to Resolution No. 1124, the 
agency was a commercial organization established in order to meet social needs and make profit.  Its 
main activities included: 
- monitoring the current state of the agricultural,  raw materials, and f oodstuffs market, creating 
a system providing informational support to market entities , analyzing and forecasting the 
situation on the market; WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 148  
 
 - boosting competition in purchase and sale of ag ricultural products, raw materials, and 
foodstuffs; 
- organizing and carrying out purchase and sale -related intervention in order to promote 
stability on the market of agricultural products, raw materials, and foodstuffs; 
- ensuring guarantees in carrying out operations w ith agricultural products, raw materials and 
foodstuffs; 
- performing the functions of the state purchaser on establishing the operative reserve of the 
Government of the Russian Federation and pe rforming deliveries to polluted territories. 
504. Pursuant to Government Resolution No.756  of 11 October 2002 “On Performing in 2002-
2003 State Purchase Interventions for Regulation of the Grain Market” in 2002-2003, the Federal Agency was entitled to organize and perform state purchase interventions of grain crops produced in 
the territory of the Russian Federation in 2002.  The products purchased thereby formed the reserves 
of the intervention fund.  Pursuant to Government Resolution No.580 of 30 August 2001 “On 
Approving the Rules of Exercising State Purchase and Sale Intervention for the Regulation of the 
Market of Agricultural Products, Raw Materials, a nd Foodstuffs”, reserves of the intervention fund 
had being recognized as State property to be sold and used upon decision of the Government.  Thus, 
pursuant to Government Resolution No. 44 of 30 January 2004 “On Performing State Goods 
Interventions on the Grain Market in 2004”, gr ain purchased in 2002-2003 through state purchase 
interventions was to be sold through auctions  to flour-and-cereals i ndustry organizations for 
subsequent processing.  It was not subject to expor tation.  Thus, the federal state unitary enterprise 
“Federal Agency for the Regulation of the Foodstu ffs Market” had no special or exclusive rights and 
privileges, which could affect the amount and dir ection of import/export and, consequently, was not a 
State trading enterprise within the meaning of Article XVII of the GATT 1994. 
505. Regarding concerns of some Members that en terprises which were selling alcohol were given 
exclusive rights, the representative of Russian Federa tion stated that Russian legislation provided the 
possibility, for some enterprises, of obtaining ex clusive rights for export/import of ethyl spirit.  
According to Article 9 of Federal Law No.171- FZ of 22 November 1995 “On state regulation of 
producing and turnover of ethyl spirit, alcoholic  and spirit containing production”, only unitary 
enterprises and organizations in which the State pos sessed at least 51% of the shares were entitled to 
export and import ethyl spirit if they had appropria te licenses for carrying out of such activity.  
Nevertheless, no licenses for exportatio n/importation of ethyl spirit had been released during the past 
few years.  Consequently, at present, none of th ese enterprises was using any exclusive or exceptional 
rights to export/import ethyl spirit.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 149 
 
 
 506. Several members requested further information regarding a recent government resolution that 
imposed licensing requirements on procurement, processi ng, storing, and marketing of grain and grain 
products for state needs, as well as on production of  most grain products (bread, flour, etc.), and 
clarification on the purpose of these licenses and on  whether both foreign and domestic companies 
were subject to them.  Concerning reports that 150 bankrupt grain facilities (mills, storage facilities, 
etc.) had been reverted to state control, some me mbers requested clarification on how this process was 
being implemented and what role the Government  would play in the operation and management 
decisions of these facilities.  In addition to listing state-trading enterprises, these members also asked 
for confirmation that, upon accession, the Russian Federation's state-trading enterprises would be 
administered and operated in conformity with WTO provisions, including Article XVII and the 
Understanding. 
507. The representative of the Russian Federation furt her noted that a full list of functions and the 
working procedure of the federal agency for the regulation of the food market was enclosed in 
Government Resolution No. 1224 of 26 Septembe r 1997 "On the Foundation of the State Unitary 
Enterprise – the Federal Agency for Food Market Regul ation by the Ministry of  Agriculture and Food 
of the Russian Federation".  Government Resolu tion No. 414 of 13 June 2002 "On Approval of the 
Regulation of Licensing of the Storage of Grain a nd Products Received as a Result of Its Remaking" 
approved the provision on licensing of storage of grain and products received as a result of its remaking.  The major aim of this provision was for legal entities and individual entrepreneurs to 
observe the rules of storage of grain and other pr oducts.  Government Resolution No. 414 had also 
invalidated former Government Resolution No. 43  of 22 January 2002 "On Licensing of Purchase, 
Remaking, Storage and Realizing of Grain and Products Received as a Result of Its Subsequent 
Remaking Which is Meant for State Needs on Pr oduction of Bread, Macaroni, Flour, Groats and 
Other Grain Foods".  He added that statements on reverting 150 bankrupt grain facilities to State 
control were unfounded. 
508. Members of the Working Party stated that they expected the Russian Federation to ensure that 
the practices of existing state-trading enterprises and other enterprises enjoying special or exclusive 
privileges would be brought into line with relevant WTO requirements as from the date of accession.  
Purchases and sales by such enterprise s, whether state-owned, state-i nvested or enjoying any special 
or exclusive privileges (including practices such as state orders, purchases for state needs, 
state-designated trading, state goods distribution,  and government-to-government agreements for the 
supply/purchase of products), should be based sole ly on commercial considerations, without any 
government influence or application of discriminatory measures. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 150  
 
 509. [The representative of the Russian Federati on confirmed that, from the date of accession, 
State-owned enterprises and other enterprises with special or exclusive privileges, including those 
listed in paragraphs […], would make purchases, wh ich were not intended for governmental use, and 
sales in international trade in accordance with commercial consider ations, including price, quality, 
availability, marketability and transportation, and would afford enterprises of WTO Members 
adequate opportunity in conformity with customar y practice, to compete for such purchases or sales.  
Such enterprises would act in conformity with WTO provisions, including Article XVII of the GATT 
1994, the Understanding on Article VII of the GAT T 1994, and the Understand ing on Article VIII of 
the GATS.  [Additional specific language may be need ed to address fertilizers.  He further confirmed 
that the Federal Agency for Food Market Regul ation, established under Government Resolution 
No. 1224 of 27 September 1997 did not provide dom estic support nor export subsidies in any form. 
He also confirmed that the Russian Federation w ould notify enterprises falli ng within the scope of 
Article XVII prior to accession, and would observe  the obligations of non-discrimination and 
application of commercial c onsiderations for trade tran sactions for these enterprises.] 
510. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, his 
Government would apply its laws and regulations governing exports and imports of goods by the 
state-trading enterprises in conformity with the provisions of Article XVII of the GATT 1994 and the Understanding on the Interpretati on of Article XVII of the GATT 1994.  The Working Party took note 
of these commitments.
] 
Free Zones and Special Economic Zones  
511. The representative of the Russian Federati on noted that, although Russian legislation 
provided for the establishment of free-trade zones.   Only the Kaliningrad region Special Economic 
Zone (SEZ) was operative due to its specific geographi cal location.  Current legislation also provided 
for the establishment of SEZs in the Magadan region and in Nakhodka, but these zones were not 
active. 
512. The Kaliningrad SEZ was directly administered by the regional authorities.  Pursuant to 
Federal Law No. 13-FZ of 22 Ja nuary 1996 "On The Special Economic Zone in the Kaliningrad 
Region" (as amended on 8 December 2003) domestic  and foreign investors and entrepreneurs 
investing in the Kaliningrad Region enjoyed tax and other privileges provided for under the 
legislation of the Russian Federation and the Kalin ingrad Region.  Privileges granted included:   
- exemption from customs duties, VAT and excise taxes;  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 151 
 
 
 - release from mandatory sale by residents of a part of their earnings in foreign currency on the 
internal exchange market; 
- exemptions from trade remedy measures and other measures on State non-tariff regulation of 
foreign trade for goods manufactured in the SEZ and exported to other countries or to the rest of the customs territory of the Russian Fe deration, and for goods imported from other 
countries into the SEZ or exported to foreign countries; and  
- privileges for Russian and foreign banks establis hing in the region, in connection with the 
implementation of the Federal State Progra mme for the Development of the Special 
Economic Zone in the Kaliningrad Region.  Federal Law No. 13-FZ of 22 January 1996 "On 
the Special Economic Zone in the Kaliningrad  Region" did not define any particular 
privileges. Currently, these privileges were not applied. 
513. Under current legislation, no export performan ce or local content criteria were imposed on 
firms operating in the Kaliningrad Region.  In a ddition, the privilege of exemption from VAT and 
excise taxes for excisable goods had been te mporarily suspended between 1 January and 
31 December 2004 pursuant to Federal Law No . 186-FZ of 23 December 2003 "On the Federal 
Budget For the Year 2004”. 
514. Pursuant to Federal Law No. 13-FZ of 22 Ja nuary 1996 "On the Special Economic Zone in 
the Kaliningrad Region" (as amended on 12 Decemb er 2003), products originating from the special 
economic zone (SEZ) territory and exported to the rest of the customs territory of the Russian 
Federation were exempted from import duties and ot her charges, except customs clearance fees.  
Products originating from the SEZ of Kaliningrad a nd exported to other countries were exempted 
from export duties and charges levied, except customs clearance fees.  The origin of goods from the 
SEZ territory had to be confirmed by a certificate issued by the Kaliningrad Chamber of Commerce 
and Industry.  Goods imported to the SEZ from other countries were exempted from import customs 
duties and other charges - except customs fees and, in 2004, excise taxes and VAT pursuant to Federal 
Law No. 186-FZ - upon customs clearance.  Goods  imported to the SEZ from other countries and 
further brought to the rest of the customs territory of  the Russian Federation or to the territory of other 
countries which were parties to the Customs Uni on (except for products transformed in the SEZ and 
considered to originate from the SEZ) were subject to customs duties and other charges upon customs 
clearance.  Profits in foreign currency resultin g from exportation and income generated by the 
application of intellectual property rights in the SEZ territory were not subject to any mandatory sale 
of foreign currency by residents on the domestic fo reign currency market of the Russian Federation.  
515. He further added that under Article 7 of Fe deral Law No. 13_FZ of 22 January 1996 "On the 
Special Economic Zone in the Kaliningrad Region", a product was deemed to be manufactured in the 
Special Economic Zone provided that the processing value added amounted to no less than 
30 per cent - or 15 per cent in the case of electr onics and sophisticated home appliances - and its WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 152  
 
 processing resulted in a change of the HS co de of such product according to the customs 
classification.  The procedure for determining that a product originated in the special economic zone 
was provided in Joint Resolution of the Administration of Kaliningrad Region and the SCC of Russia 
No. 296_r/01_14/1365 of 31 December 1998 "On A pproval of the Procedure for Determination of 
Goods as Originating from the Special Economic Zone  of Kaliningrad Region" (registered by the 
Ministry of Justice in Regulation No. 1892 of 9 July 1999).  Under this Resolution, the following 
products were deemed to be manufact ured in the Special Economic Zone: 
- goods completely manufactured or sufficiently processed in the territory of the Special 
Economic Zone in the Kaliningrad Region by Russian  legal entities or by individual 
entrepreneurs  registered according to the estab lished procedure in the territory of the Special 
Economic Zone; 
- sea fishery products caught and/or manufactured in the World Ocean by vessels belonging to 
economic entities of the Special Economic Zone or by vessels leased (chartered) by such persons; and 
- goods listed in Article 31 of Customs Code (int er alia, products made in this country from 
animals bred herein).   
516. He noted that in order to stabilize the socio-ec onomic situation in the Kaliningrad region, the 
Government of the Russian Federation had the ri ght, upon suggestion of the Administration of the 
Kaliningrad region, to impose limitations on the speci al customs treatment of the Kaliningrad SEZ.  In 
accordance with Government Resolution No. 526 of  14 July 2000 "On Establishing for the Years 
2000-2005 Quantitative Restrictions on Certain Types of Goods Imported from Other Countries to the 
Territory of the Special Economic Zone of the Kaliningrad Region under the Free Customs Zone 
Treatment", goods imported into the SEZ territory in quantities exceeding the quantities determined 
by the Resolution did not enjoy free customs zone treatment.  Goods imported into the SEZ in excess of quota were subject to customs duties and other charges upon customs clearan ce.  Such limitations 
were applied erga omnes according to the applie d customs tariff and did not constitute quantitative 
restrictions.  The main groups of goods mentione d in the Resolution included: foodstuffs, alcoholic 
products, building and construction materials, furn iture, jewellery, and articles made of precious 
metals.  Government Resolution No. 830 of 24 June 1998 "On Establishing for the Years 1998-2000 
Quantitative Restrictions on Certain Types of Good s Imported from Other Countries to the Territory 
of the Special Economic Zone of the Kaliningrad Region under the Free Customs Zone Treatment" 
envisaged the distribution of quotas by auctioning.  The procedure for holding auctions was 
established by Resolution No. 830.  
517. The representative of the Russian Federation fu rther noted that customs control over goods 
entering the territory of the Kaliningrad Region for their subsequent use in the production process (i.e.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 153 
 
 
 spare parts, components, etc.) was performed by the customs authorities of the Kaliningrad region in 
cooperation with companies which had been establis hed on the initiative of and in cooperation with 
the Chamber of Commerce of the Kaliningrad Regi on and the customs authorities.  The companies 
exercised surveillance over the goods entering the Kaliningrad Region free of customs payments 
throughout the whole production process.  An expert opinion of the companies was required to obtain 
the final product and receive a certificate proving that the goods originated in the Kaliningrad Region.  
The opinion had to, inter alia, state the fact that  all imported goods had been used in the production 
process, the calculation of the added value, etc.  This control system prevented the re-exportation, 
from the Kaliningrad Region to the rest of the cust oms territory of the Russian Federation, without 
further processing of goods imported free of customs duties. 
518. Members of the Working Party requested furthe r information in order to assess whether the 
existing free zone in Kaliningrad, or those other free zones provided for in additional legislation, 
might pose certain WTO-consistency problems.  Th ey asked how Russia’s WTO obligations would be 
enforced in the zones after accession, and in par ticular, whether Articles I and III of the GATT 1994 
would be applied and whether incentives granted to firms establishing in the SEZs were or would be 
based on export performance or local content requireme nts.  Other issues rai sed in this connection 
concerned the need to restore any tariffs or taxes  from imported goods or inputs used in the 
manufacturing process to goods eventually exported to  the rest of the Russian Federation.  One 
Member sought information about the basis on which goods manufactured in Kaliningrad were 
deemed to have transformed imported inputs sufficien tly to eliminate the need to pay the duties and 
taxes originally exempted when the inputs were im ported.  Another member noted that no level of 
transformation would be sufficient to eliminate the n eed to restore exempted duties and taxes, as rules 
of origin operated between countries, not parts of  countries.  Other Members sought information on  
what other benefits, if any, in terms of tax exempt ions or otherwise, were available to firms that 
located there.  A description of the provisions fo r firms located in the special economic zones of 
Magadhan and Nakhodka was also requested.  
519. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation info rmed members of the Working 
Party that Federal Law No. 176-FZ of 24 Dece mber 2002 "On the Federal Budget for 2003" had 
abrogated the excise and VAT exemptions for impor ts of excisable goods under free customs zone 
regime of the territory of the Kaliningrad SEZ in th e year 2003.  However, if such goods were later 
exported to other regions of the Russian Federation, customs import duties were payable in full, with 
the exception of goods processed or deemed to have been processed in the Kaliningrad Region. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 154  
 
 520. Current legislation also provided for the estab lishment of SEZs in the Magadan region and in 
Nakhodka, but these zones were not active.  Th e Free Economic Zone "Nakhodka" had been 
established in October 1990, as the Russian Federa tion's first free economic zone.  Its free economic 
regime was regulated by Resolution of the Russian  Federation's Supreme Council of 24 October 1990 
"On Creation of a Free Economic Zone Situated on the Town of Nakhodka of Primorsky Krai", and 
Government Resolution No. 1033 of 8 September 19 94 "On Certain Measures of Development of the 
Free Economic Zone of Nakhodka". Exports and impor ts of goods to and from the Free Economic 
Zone "Nakhodka" were regulated by the ordinary customs regime.  There were no exemptions from 
tariffs, taxes or other trade measures granted to im ports into the Nahodka free zone, as this existed for 
the Kaliningrad Region.  
521. Exemptions granted under the Resolution of the Russian Federation's Supreme Council of 
24 October 1990 included:  exemption from customs duties of goods and other property imported into 
and exported from the Nakhodka Free Economic Zone ; and for goods and other property carried from 
the territory of the Nakhodka Free Economic Zone to other regions of the Russian federation, customs 
duties were imposed only on the portion of the goods  and property of foreign origin, the amount of 
which was determined according to the country of origin rule.  Goods a nd other property imported 
into and exported from the territory of Nakhodka Free Economic Zone were subject to obligatory 
declaration. 
522. The transit or resale of goods that have not  been processed within the zone, through the 
territory of the Nakhodka Free Economic Zone to other regions of the Ru ssian Federation and the 
delivery of goods for export from other areas of th e Russian Federation did not enjoy any tariff or 
customs exemptions. 
523. The representative of the Russian Federation adde d that the SEZ legislation in force creating 
the Kaliningrad Region and the Magadan and Nakho dka free zones did not impose any requirements 
related to export performance or local conten t criteria on companies operating in the SEZs. 
524. The Magadan special economic zone (SEZ) had been established in accordance with Federal 
Law No.104-FZ of 31 May 1999 "On the Special Ec onomic Zone in the Magadan Region".  The SEZ 
was exempted from federal taxes (except deductions made to the Pension Fund and the Social 
Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation) until  31 December 2005.  From 1 January 2006 to 
31 December 2014, subjects of the SEZ would also be exempted from taxes on profits invested in the 
development of production and social sphere in th e territory of the Magadan region.  Goods imported 
into the special economic zone were not subject to customs duties.  Foreign-made goods exported 
from the territory of the Magadan region to the rest of the customs territory of the Russian Federation  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 155 
 
 
 were subject to normal customs duties.  The Gove rnment of the Russian Federation could, upon 
request of the authority of the SEZ, impose restricti ons in respect of customs treatment and exceptions 
from customs treatment. The procedure for imposing limitations on special customs treatment in the 
Magadan SEZ was identical to the procedure for im posing limitations on special customs treatment in 
the Kaliningrad SEZ. Currently, no limitations were applied. 
525. Members stressed that the Russian Federation s hould revise its domestic laws and regulations 
to eliminate any measures in place in the Russian  Federation’s free zones or other special economic 
areas that were not in conformity with WTO pr ovisions upon accession, in particular incentives tied to 
export requirements, other subsidies, and TRIMs, so  as to ensure enforcement of its WTO obligations 
in those zones.  Members asked the Russian Federa tion to consider entering a commitment concerning 
these issues.  The commitment should address the a pplication of WTO provisions within the zones, 
and the application of normal customs formalities on goods imported from the zones sold elsewhere in 
the Russian Federation, including the application of  tariffs and taxes that had not been applied to 
inputs imported for processing into manufactures. 
526. [The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that any free zones or other special 
economic areas authorized in the Russian legislatio n, including those in paragraphs […], would be 
administered in conformity with WTO provisions , and that the Russian Federation would ensure 
enforcement of WTO provisions in the zones.  The right of firms to establish and operate in these 
areas would not depend on export performance, trade bala ncing, or local content criteria.  In addition, 
goods produced in these areas under provisions that exempt import from tariffs and certain taxes 
would be subject to normal customs formalities when  entering the rest of the Russian Federation, 
including the application of tariff and taxes.] 
Government Procurement 
527. Members of the Working Party invited the Russi an Federation to provide information on its 
government procurement practices in particular on the existing procurement regime at both federal 
and sub-federal levels. Some memb ers also expressed interest in  a commitment from the Russian 
Federation to become an observer to the WTO Agre ement on Government Procurement and to initiate 
negotiations for accession to this Agreement upon accession.  
528. The representative of the Russian Federation repl ied that "procurement for state needs"  
(Russian legislation did not contain the term "gove rnment procurement") was governed in the Russian 
Federation by the following regulatory acts: the Civ il Code of the Russian Federation; Federal Law 
No. 53-FZ of 2 December 1994 "On Procurement and Deliveries of Agricultural Goods, Raw WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 156  
 
 Materials and Foods for the State Needs"; Federal Law No. 60-FZ of 13 December 1994 "On 
Procurement of Goods for Federal State Needs" (as amended on  23 December 2003); Federal Law 
No. 213-FZ of 27 December 1999 "On the State Defence Order" (as amended on 6 May 1999); 
Federal Law No. 597-FZ of 6 May 1999 "On Tenders  for Placement of Orders for Deliveries of 
Goods, Performance of Works and Provision of Se rvices for State Needs" ; Presidential Decree 
No. 305 of 8 April 1997 "On priority measures to  prevent corruption and reduce budget expenses in 
the course of  organization of procurement of  goods for state needs"; Government Resolution 
No. 1222 of 26 September 1997 "On goods to be proc ured for state needs without conducting tenders 
(auctions)" (as amended on 9 Ja nuary 2001); and Government Reso lution No. 26 of 11 January 2000 
“On the Federal System of Regulation of the Goods  for Federal State Needs.”  A new draft Federal 
Law  "On Placement of Orders for Delivery of  Goods, Performance of Works and Provision of 
Services for State Needs" had been approved by  the Government on 13 May 2004.  The new Law 
would apply to all purchases and deliveries of pr oducts, made  in the territory of the Russian 
Federation  and would be financed by the Federa l budget, budgets of the subjects of the Russian 
Federation, off-budget funds of the Russian Federation and of the subjects of the Russian Federation.  
Purchases for state needs in 2003 amounted to 615 billion Rubles. 
529. The principles and procedures for formation,  placement and fulfilment of orders for 
procurement and delivery of goods and services for state needs were set out in the above-mentioned 
acts and in the new draft law.  These texts took into consideration the provisions of the UNCITRAL 
Model Law "On procurement of goods (works) and services", and therefore corresponded to 
international practices in this field.  The subj ects of the Russian Federation and local Governments 
were required to align their norma tive legal acts with the Federal requirements of the Presidential 
Decree.  The regime for procurem ent for State needs provided for transparency, non-discrimination in 
procurement and required the uniform application of procurement measures at both federal and sub-
federal levels.  It also provid ed for challenging procurements. 
530. Members requested further information on the stat us of the proposed new legislation in this 
area, in particular on the draft federal law "O n Placement of Orders for Delivery of Goods, 
Performance of Works and Provision of Services for State Needs".  In addition, information was 
sought on the involvement of the Russian Government in  barter trade, the role of unitary enterprises in 
purchases for State needs, including the legal basis for those measures.   
531. Members noted that the scope of government “ purchases for State needs”, as provided for in 
current legislation and in the new draft law, a ppeared to go beyond “procurement” as defined in 
Article III:8 of the GATT 1994, i.e., “products pur chased for governmental purposes and not with a  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 157 
 
 
 view to commercial resale or with a view to use in the production of goods for commercial sale,” and 
the goods and services subject to  the WTO Agreemen t on Government Procurement.  Such purchases 
that  were outside the scope of the Article III:8 de finition would not be excluded from the coverage of 
the Agreements in Annex 1 of the Agreement Establishing the WTO.    They noted that under Russian 
law,  “purchases for state needs, ” appeared to include in add ition to goods for governmental 
consumption and support, any products or services needed (a) by the government, (b) to realize 
government programmes, (c) to maintain State material  reserves, or (d) for export deliveries to meet 
international economic commitments, including to  honour the currency credits of the Russian 
Federation.  Consequently, they sought inform ation from the Russian Federation on the kinds of 
purchases of goods and services involved in “purchases for State needs.”  They enquired, for example, whether purchases for State needs could include purch ases of agricultural or other goods for further 
manufacture or distribution to the population.  They also sought confirmation that, in making 
purchases that would not be considered government procurement, the Russian Federation would apply 
normal WTO provisions, including national and MFN treatment. 
532. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that the new draft law aimed 
at:  the creation of a basic statutory legal act that  regulated procurement for State needs; ensuring 
transparency of "procurement for State needs"; stimulation of fair competition and budget economy; 
elimination of possible abusive practices; and fo rmation of the "procurement for State needs" 
legislation of the Russian Federation.  The represen tative of the Russian Federation further noted that 
neither the federal law "On Procurem ent of Goods for Federal State Needs" currently in force nor the 
new draft federal law set forth provisions on purchase of products  for governmental purposes with a 
view to commercial resale or with a view to u se in the production of goods for commercial sale.   
533. The representative of the Russian Federation furt her noted that the draft federal law would 
eliminate certain current restrictions on participati on by foreign suppliers in the deliveries of goods 
and services for State needs.  Clearer regula tions for the conduct of procurement would be 
established.  The draft law would also ensure tran sparency of the procurement of goods and services 
for public needs and stimulate effective competition and effective use of budgetary funds.  He further 
added that the draft federal law covered all goods  and services procurements and deliveries in the 
territory of the Russian Federation financed with the funds of the Federal Budget of the Russian 
Federation, regional budgets a nd non-budgetary funds of the Fe deration and Russian Regions.  
534. The representative of the Russian Federation noted  that according to Article 5 of the draft 
federal law “On Placement of Orders for Delivery of Goods, Performance of Works and Provision of 
Services for State Needs”, State purchasers should be  federal executive bodies, executive bodies of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 158  
 
 the subjects of the Russian Federation, or other entities financed by the budget. State purchasers could 
on the contractual basis delegate the implementation of a part of the tender for purchases to other legal 
entities irrespective of their organization and legal form .  He added, in response to concerns raised in 
paragraph [530], that State and municipal unitary enterprises could, as commercial organizations performing their activities on commercial considerati ons, be involved in the purchase of goods for 
State needs. 
535. Concerning purchases for State needs that went beyond procurement of goods and services 
for direct use and consumption of government ag encies, Presidential Decree No. 305 of 8 April 1997 
prohibited discrimination with respect to suppliers for certain categories of purchases, and Article 6 of 
Federal Law No. 97-FZ provided that foreign supplie rs of goods, works and services had the right to 
take part in tenders, if domestic manufacture was ab sent or economically unjustified.  As for the role 
of unitary enterprises in purchase s for State needs, the representative of the Russian Federation noted 
that neither the Federal Law "On Procurement of G oods for Federal State Needs" currently in force 
nor the new draft federal law set forth provisions on special privileges for unita ry enterprise in this 
area. 
536. Concerning barter trade, the representative of  the Russian Federation stated that legal 
provisions for such trade could be found in Fe deral Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 “On the 
Fundamentals of State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity”, President Decree No. 1209 of 18 August 1996 “On State Regulation of Foreign-trade Barter Transactions” and Government Resolution 
No. 1300 of 31 October 1996 “On the Measures for State Regulation of Foreign Trade Barter 
Transactions.”  Pursuant to Federal Law No. 164-FZ , those normative legal acts should be applied to 
the extent that they did not contradict the provi sions of Law No. 164-FZ, before the adoption of new 
normative legal acts in this area.  
537. The same duties and taxes applied to barter trade transactions as to ordinary commercial 
transactions.  There were no more government-to-gov ernment barter agreements, and special bilateral 
barter arrangements established in the wake of the August 1998 financial crisis  to provide trade in 
vital commodities had lapsed.  
538. [The representative of the Russian Federati on confirmed the intention of the Russian 
Federation to join the WTO Agre ement on Government Procurement and to notify the Committee on 
Government Procurement to this effect at the time of its accession to the WTO and ensure that by this 
date, its public contracting entities would award c ontracts in a transparent manner according to 
published laws, regulations and guidelines.  He al so confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
request observership in the Agreement on Government  Procurement at the time of its accession to the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 159 
 
 
 WTO and would initiate negotiations for member ship in the WTO Agreement on Government 
Procurement by tabling an Appendix 1 offer within [… time] of accession.  He confirmed that, if the 
results of the negotiations were satisfactory to th e interests of the Russian Federation and the other 
Members of the Agreement, the Russian Federation would complete negotiations for membership in 
the Agreement within [... time] thereafter.] 
539. [The representative of the Russian Federation t ook note of concerns e xpressed by members of 
the Working Party.] 
[to be completed] 
Regulation of Trade in Transit 
540. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that, at present, transit of goods  through 
the territory of the Russian Federation was free of customs duties, VAT and excise tax and of the 
application of any economic restrictions and proh ibitions stipulated by the legislation on State 
regulation of foreign trade activity.  The Russian Federation granted freedom of transit through its 
territory as prescribed by Article V of the GATT 1994 as well as on the basis of international treaties to which it was a party.  The only charges  levied  were those for transportation, commensurate with 
administrative expenses or with the cost of services rendered. 
541. In response to the questions concerning the diffe rent rules and practices applied to transit of 
goods through the territory of the Russian Federa tion under different methods of transport, the 
representative of the Russian Federation noted th at Article 31 of Federal Law No 164-FZ of 
8 December 2003 “On the Fundamentals of State Re gulation of Foreign Trade Activity” provided for 
freedom of transit of all goods by railway, road, rive r and air ways mostly convenient for international 
transportation as a basic principle.  Pursuant to  Article 167 of the Customs Code (No. 61-FZ of 
28 May 2003), international customs transit was a customs procedure under which foreign goods, 
which were transiting in the customs territory of the Russian Federation in customs custody between 
the point of their entry to and departure from the cu stoms territory of the Russian Federation (i.e. if 
the said transit constituted a part of their itinerar y which began and ended outside the boundaries of 
the customs territory of the Russian Federation), we re exempted from any customs taxes and duties or 
application of any economic restri ctions and prohibitions.  Any fore ign merchandise could be subject 
to the customs procedure of international custom s transit, except goods whose transit was prohibited 
pursuant to federal laws, other statutes and legal norms of the Russian Federation and international 
treaties to which the Russian Federation was a party.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 160  
 
 542. He further noted that the Customs Code of  the Russian Federation (Federal Law of 
28 May 2003 No 61-FZ) provided that the terms of transit of goods from outside the Russian 
Federation were the same as the terms regulati ng the application of internal customs transit 
procedures.  Pursuant to Article 79 of the Custom s Code, internal customs transit was the customs 
procedure under which foreign goods  were transported within the customs territory of the Russian 
Federation without any payment of customs duties, ta xes, application of restrictions of an economic 
nature established according to Russian legislatio n on State regulation of foreign trade activity.  
Internal customs transit was applied in the transpor tation of goods: from the place of their arrival to 
the location of the customs authority of destina tion (Customs Code, Article 92); from the place of 
location of goods when they are declared to the pl ace of their outbound of the customs territory of the 
Russian Federation; between bonded warehouses, cu stoms warehouses; and in other instances of 
transportation of foreign goods across the customs te rritory of the Russian Federation if no security 
had been provided for the payment of customs ch arges for such goods.  Pursuant to the Customs 
Code, customs transit required a written  permission issued by the customs office.  Permission was 
granted upon the observance of the following requireme nts, stipulated in Article 80 of the Customs 
Code: 1) the goods should not be prohibited from impo rtation into the customs territory of the Russian 
Federation  according to the  legislation in force ; 2) the imported goods should have been subject to 
border control at the point of their entry if the sai d goods were to be subject to such control under 
Russian legislation; 3) the goods should have all requi site permissions and, if required, licenses; 4) the 
goods should have been recorded in respective tran sit declaration and thereby declared to customs 
authorities; 5) the goods should have been properly identified; 6) the means of transport should be 
properly equipped when the goods were to be trans ported with requisite customs seals and stamps 
affixed; 7) all requisite measures required by the customs legislation of the Russian Federation should 
have been observed. 
543. Several members of the Working Party noted  that a sufficient description of Russian 
provisions on transit was still required to confirm whether the Russian Federation's policies for trade 
in transit were in conformity with WTO provisi ons, in particular Article V of the GATT 1994.  
Concerns were raised on SCC Order No.631 of 2 Ju ly 2001 "On the Application of Order of the State 
Customs Committee of the Russian Federation No.25 of 15 January 2001", which appeared to provide 
for measures inconsistent with WTO requirements in this area.  Questions were asked regarding the 
circumstances under which the Russian Federation might  currently impede transit of other countries' 
exports through its territory; the charges for transit escort and the reasons for their application; and the 
provisions for the transit of goods of dual usage.  A Member expressed concerns about the practice of 
the application of specific customs procedures by th e Russian authorities in respect of this Members’ 
transport companies.  That Member noted that co untry-specific restrictive transit procedures were  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 161 
 
 
 incompatible with WTO provisions, notably Articles I and V of the GATT 1994.  It requested the 
Russian Federation to ensure that these and any othe r country-specific measures of transit procedures 
would be brought into conformity with WTO re quirements upon accession.  Other Members  asked 
that the Russian Federation identify how it would eliminate WTO-inconsistent measures, such as 
State Customs Committee Order No.631 of 2 Ju ly 2001.  Those members asked the Russian 
Federation to ensure that all WTO obligations pr oviding for freedom of transit (and associated 
disciplines dealing with, for example, fees and char ges) would be applied to all products.  Those 
members noted, in particular, concerns with regard  to certain transit arrangements for energy products 
such as oil and gas. 
544. With regard to concerns of some WTO member s related to SCC Order No.631 of 2 July 2001 
"On the Application of Order of the State Customs Committee of the Russian Federation No.25 of 
15 January 2001", he confirmed that this Orde r had been abolished by SCC Order No. 517 of 
24 May 2002.  In accordance with the Instruc tions on Levying of Customs Fees for Customs 
Clearance approved by SCC Order No. 640 of 7 June 2004 commodities placed under the customs 
regime of international transit were  subject to customs fees for customs clearance except for cases  
provided for by the normative legal acts of the Russi an Federation, in particular Paragraph 6 of the 
Instructions approved by SCC Order No. 640 of 7 June 2004 
545. In response to questions on the ban on transit ove r the territory of the Russian Federation, the 
representative of the Russian Federation stated that aircrafts carrying armaments, military equipment, 
military property were forbidden to transit the te rritory of the Russian Federation without landing.  
Import to, export from, and transit of explosives for industrial purposes by juridical persons over the 
territory of the Russian Federation as part of the accompanied or unaccompanied luggage and hand 
luggage, and their cargo shipment to  natural persons' addresses was also  forbidden.  Apart from that, 
there was a set of special rules on transit of narco tics, substances with psychotropic effects, poisons 
and substances listed in Tables I and II of the "Convention of the United Nations Organization 
Against Illegal Circulation of Dr ugs and Psychotropic Substances"  of 1988.  These rules complied 
with the norms of international law. 
546. He further noted that upon departure of the goo ds from the customs territory of the Russian 
Federation, the carrier or expeditor had to present th e declaration relevant to the cargo.  Article 87 of 
the Customs Code (Federal Law No 61-FZ of 28 May 2003) defined customs escort of goods as 
escort, by an authorized customs officer, of means of transport carrying merchandise subject to domestic customs transit procedure.  Customs auth orities had the right to put goods in transit under 
customs escort in the following cases: WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 162  
 
 - non-payment of customs duties and taxes stipulated by Chapter 31 of the Customs Code; 
- when haulage of specific kinds of goods w as predicated on the risk analysis and risk 
management system stipulated by the Customs Code; 
- failure by the carrier, at least once within a year from the date of application for domestic 
customs transit, to deliver goods to the point of destination; 
- re-exportation of merchandise delivered to th e Russian Federation by mistake or of goods 
whose importation into the Russian Federation w as prohibited, in case the place of the actual 
crossing by the said goods of the customs border of the Russian Federation during their exportation did not coincide with the location of said goods;  
- haulage of the goods subjected to the restric tions and prohibitions stipulated by the Russian 
legislation on the State regulation of foreign trade activity; 
- the place of destination of goods was not a location of a customs office; and - if the goods were prohibited from importation or  did not have all the requisite permits and 
licenses required for their transit along the cust oms territory of the Russian Federation and 
due to that facts the permission for the domestic  customs transit could not be issued, provided 
that the customs body authorised delivery of the said goods to the temporary storage 
warehouse or other places constituting the customs control zone. 
547. Customs escort of goods was to be carried out only to ensure observance of Russian customs 
legislation on internal customs transit.  Expen ses associated with customs escort had to be fully 
reimbursed in the form of customs duties levied in accordance with the Russian legislation on taxes 
and duties. 
548. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
apply all its laws and regulations governing transit of goods, including energy, in conformity with the 
provisions of Article V of the GATT 1994 and othe r relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement.  
[The Working Party took note of this commitment.]] 
Policies Affecting Foreign Trade in Agricultural Products 
549. The representative of the Russian Federation said that the key long-term objectives of the 
Russian agricultural sector were the establishment of an effective and competitive agro-industrial 
production and the provision of a sufficient degree of  food security for the Russian population.  These 
objectives required a comprehensive program of polic y measures of both a shor t-term and a long-term 
nature.  Pursuant to the Protocol No. 25 of 27 Ju ly 2000 on "Priority Trends of Agri-Food Policy of 
the Government of the Russian Federation fo r 2001 – 2010", approved by the Government on 
27 July 2000, the Russian agricultu ral sector needed first and foremost to address the problems that 
had been accumulated over the years preceding the reform and during the reform, and notably the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 163 
 
 
 sectoral imbalance of prices and revenues which was a major adverse factor in agrarian production, 
low profitability, and the development of a material base.   
550. He described the current priorities of the agro -food policy and the agrarian reform in the 
Russian Federation and provided detail on agricult ural support measures and policies falling under the 
green and amber boxes defined under the WTO Agreem ent on Agriculture.  He said that, taking into 
account such factors as the geography of agricultu ral production in the Russian Federation, its vast 
territory, actual state of development of transpor tation system and infrastructures supporting exports 
of agricultural products, use of export subsidies by some of the Russian Federation's major partners 
and also the prevailing conditions for competitio n on world agricultural markets, the Russian 
Government came to the conclusion that export subsidies consistent with the WTO Agreement on 
Agriculture could also be used.  Therefore, the Ru ssian Federation intended to reserve its right to use 
export subsidies subject to: (a) agreed reductions with WTO Members over a fixed period of time;  
and (b) the results of the on-going WTO negotiations on agriculture. 
551. Members noted that a more comprehensive and up-to-date submission of the Russian 
Federation's agricultural support policies was still requi red.  They stressed that such information was 
needed in order to establish a detailed description of  the Russian Federation's agricultural policies on 
which appropriate commitments could be determined .  While recognising the possibility of having 
recourse to "amber box" measures under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, several members 
considered that in determining its requirements and level of commitments the Russian Federation 
should give emphasis to the use of "green box" measures that could achieve the desired reform 
objectives pursued by the Russian Federation in th e field of agriculture.  Some members further 
argued that in the current context they considered  it inappropriate for any country to accede to the 
WTO with export subsidy commitments.  These members stressed the need that the Russian 
Federation should bind its export subsidies at zero.  In this respect, these memb ers also stressed that 
the disciplines contained in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture on export credits, export credit 
guarantees or insurance programmes needed to be a pplied by the Russian Federation so as to avoid 
circumvention of the commitment not to provide export subsidies. 
552. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that by the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would not maintain or introdu ce any export subsidies on agricultural products.  
The Working Party took note of this commitment.]  
553. The Russian Federation's concessions on agricu ltural tariffs, and commitments on domestic 
support and on export subsidies for agricultural products were contained in the Schedule of 
Concessions and Commitments on Goods annexed to the Draft Protocol.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 164  
 
 554. [Commitment language in this section will be cons idered by the Russian Federation at a later 
stage.] 
Trade in Civil Aircraft 
555. Some members of the working Party asked that the Russian Federation enter a commitment to 
join the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft upon accession.  Members of the Working Party also 
requested that the Russian Federation implemen t the agreement without exceptions and without 
recourse to any transitional period, and that the Ru ssian Federation should ensure that all internal 
taxes would be applied to the sale or lease of ci vil aircraft in a non-discriminatory fashion between 
imported and domestically produced goods and between goods imported from third countries. 
556. Some members of the Working Party also requested that Russia provide additional 
information on its current activities, e.g., licensing  and tariff suspensions, that might operate to 
increase market access in Ru ssia for aircraft.  In response, the re presentative of the Russian Federation 
stated that the degree of exploitation of the manuf acturing facilities in the aviation industry in the 
Russian Federation did not exceed 10–15 per cent.  As  a result, most enterprises of the aviation sector 
suffered losses, thus substantially limiting th e possibilities of financing the procedures for 
modernization of the facilities, introduction of modern manufacturing and servicing technologies.  
Over 50 per cent of the currently operated t echnological and experimental equipment required 
renewal.  The integrated corporate structures est ablished in the aviation sector cannot remedy the 
situation due to the shortage of their revenues. He noted that Government Resolution No. 574 dated 
2 August 2001 had cancelled investment incentives (exe mption from customs duties and taxes) in this 
sector.  He further recalled that Government Reso lution No. 574 of 2 August 2001 "On Certain Issues 
of Regulation of Temporary Imports of Forei gn Made Aircraft" had superseded Government 
Resolution No. 716 of 7 July 1998 "On Additiona l Measures of State Support for Civil Aviation in 
Russia".   
557. In response to several members request for a co mmitment by Russia to join the Agreement on 
Trade in Civil Aircraft upon accession, he stated that  the current situation of the aviation sector made 
it impossible for the Russian Federation to join the Agreement On Trade in Civil Aircraft and 
implement its requirements. 
Textiles  
558. Some members noted that upon its accession to the WTO, the provisions of the WTO 
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) would also become relevant for the Russian Federation.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 165 
 
 
 In this connection, a member said that its bila teral quotas on imports from the Russian Federation of 
certain textile and clothing produc ts would become the starting-point for further liberalisation under 
the terms of that Agreement.  In order to ensure an  orderly transfer to this new status and to guarantee 
the benefits of ATC trade liberalisation for Russi an exports, that member sought an appropriate 
commitment in the Draft Report. 
559. Another member of the Working Party stated that the quantitative restrictions on imports 
maintained by WTO Members on textiles and cl othing products originating from the Russian 
Federation that were in force on the date prior to th e date of accession of the Russian Federation to the 
WTO should be notified to the Textiles monitoring Body (TMB) by the members maintaining such 
restrictions and would be applied for the purposes of Article 2 of the WTO Agreement on Textiles and 
Clothing.  Thus, for the purpose of the Russian Fe deration's accession to the WTO, the phrase "day 
prior to the date of entry into force of the Agre ement on Textiles and Clothing" should be deemed to 
refer to the day prior to the date of accession of th e Russian Federation to the WTO.  To this base 
level the increase in growth rates provided for in Ar ticles 2.13 and  2.14 of the Agreement on Textiles 
and Clothing should be applied, as appropriate, in the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing from the 
date of the Russian Federation's accession to the WTO. 
560. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation raised concern in respect of the 
application of the provisions of Article 2 of the WTO Agreement on Textiles and Clothing and stated that this issue required further clarification. 
TRADE-RELATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGIME (TRIPS) 
1. General 
561. The representative of the Russian Federation said that Russian legislation envisaged civil, 
administrative and criminal measures for the prot ection of intellectual property rights.  Civil 
protection of intellectual property was exercised in pursuance with the Civil Code, the Patent Law, the 
Law of the Russian Federation “On Trademarks, Se rvice Marks, and Appellations of Origin of 
Goods”, the Law of the Russian Federation “On Co pyright and Related Rights”, the  Law of the 
Russian Federation “On Legal Protection of Layout D esigns of Integrated Circuits”, the  Law of the 
RSFSR “On Competition and Restriction of Monopoly Activity on Commodity Markets”, the  Law of 
the Russian Federation “On Attainments in Selec tion”, the Federal Law “On Commercial Secrets”, 
etc.  Criminal liability was established in the case of infringement of copyright and related rights 
(Article 146 of the Criminal Code); infringement of  inventive and patent rights (Article 147 of the 
Criminal Code; illegal use of a trademark (Article 180 of the Criminal Code); and illegal receipt and WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 166  
 
 disclosure of information containing commercial, ta x or bank secrets (Article 183 of the Criminal 
Code).  Administrative liability for infringements of copyright and related rights, inventive and patent 
rights was envisaged by Article 7.12 of the Code on Administrative Offences.  Administrative liability 
for disclosure of information, the access to whic h was limited by federal law (except for cases when 
the disclosure of such information involved crimin al liability), by persons who had received access to 
such information in connection with performance of a service or professional duties was envisaged by 
Article 13.14 of the Code and liability for illegal u se of a trademark by Article 14.10 of the Code.  
The new Customs Code of the Russian Federation had a special Chapter 38 on “Measures Taken by the Customs Authorities in Respect of Certain Good s” which dealt with the regulation, by customs 
authorities, of relations on the protection of inte llectual property rights in import-export transactions 
(border measures). In accordance with the Constitution,  federal laws had a supreme juridical force and 
were applied equally on the whole of the territory of the Russian Federation.   
562. In his view, the national system of protection of intellectual property rights complied with the 
basic international standards adopted in this field, including the provisions of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS.  The Constitution determined the basic political  trends in the field of intellectual property in 
Russia. Article 44, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation guaranteed freedom of 
literary, artistic, scientific, technical and other typ es of creative and educational activity and provided 
their legal protection.  The whole system of the Russian legislation in force supported the implementation of that constitutional right.  A numb er of international agreements signed by the 
Russian Federation constituted an integral part of  this system.  Commenting on specific aspects of 
ongoing legislative work in the area of TRIPS and in  response to specific inquiries by some Members 
of the Working Party, the representative of the Russi an Federation noted that the Russian legislation 
on intellectual property rights was consistent with  the national treatment and most favoured nation 
principles. 
563. He further added that regulation and enforc ement of intellectual property rights were 
performed in the Russian Federation by several governmental bodies, namely: 
- the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (performing the functions of 
the former Ministry of Education) and the subordinate Federal Agency for Intellectual Property, Patents and Trademarks (Rospatent);  
- the Ministry of Culture and Mass Media of th e Russian Federation (performing the functions 
of the former Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Press, 
Television and Radio Broadcasts and Mass Me dia of the Russian Federation) and the 
subordinate Federal Service for Enforcement of  the Mass Media Legislation and Protection of 
Cultural Heritage, Federal Agency for Culture and Cinematography and Federal agency for 
Press and Mass Media.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 167 
 
 
 - the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation  and the 
subordinate Federal Customs Service (formerly known as the SCC); 
- the Ministry of Industry and Energy of the Russian Federation (performing the functions of 
the former Ministry of Science and Technologies); 
- the Ministry of Health and Social Developmen t of the Russian Federation and the subordinate 
Federal Service for Supervision of Protecti on of Consumers’ Rights and Human Welfare 
(performing the functions of the former State Inspection on Trade, Product Quality and Protection of Consumers’ Rights which was subordinated to the Ministry of Economic 
Development and Trade of the Russian Federation)  and Federal Service for Supervision in the 
Sphere of Public Health and Social Development; 
- the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation; 
- the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation; - the Federal Antimonopoly Service (formerly know n as the Ministry of the Russian Federation 
for Antimonopoly Policy and Entrepreneurship Support (MAP of Russia). 
564. In addition, a Government Commission for C ounteracting Intellectual Property Infringements 
had been appointed to coordinate and guide the joint efforts of these government authorities in the 
field of intellectual property protection. 
565. The main objectives of the Commission were to ensure the implementation of a single 
government policy on protection and use of intellectual property rights, including copyright and 
related rights in the Russian Federation; improve th e legislation on protection and use of intellectual 
property; prevent the illegal turnover of items protected by intellectual property rights, etc.  The Commission was a continuing body, working on a regular  basis according to the Plan of top-priority 
measures for the current year.. 
566. In accordance with the Plan for 2004, the Co mmission led and coordinated the activity of 
authorities in five spheres: legislative, administrative, organizational, preventive and providing information to the public.  In the legislative sphere the Commission had speeded up the work in 
drafting the laws "On Amendments to the La w on Copyright and Related Rights" and “On 
Commercial Secrets” as it was foreseen in the Pl an (these laws had been adopted).  Under its 
leadership a draft Decision “On the Establishm ent of Licensing of Import of Polycarbonates for 
Manufacturing  Optical Carriers of the Information in the Russian Federation” had been elaborated 
and submitted to the Government.  This Deci sion provided for additi onal measures regulating 
manufacture and turnover of the production of optical carriers by establishing import license controls 
for raw material for the manufacturing of such pr oducts.  One of the activities of the Commission in 
the administrative sphere was improving customs and police officials skills in the field of protection of intellectual property rights.  The Commission also took organizational and preventive measures, WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 168  
 
 and measures providing information to the public  with a view of increasing the awareness and 
popularity of legal production and advertising ag ainst counterfeit production in the mass media. 
567. Control and supervision over the implementati on of intellectual property legislation and the 
conduct of preliminary investigations on criminal  cases concerning infringement of copyright and 
related rights and inventor and pate nt rights were carried out by the Office of Public Prosecutor.  
Courts of general jurisdiction and arbitration courts of the Russian Federation heard cases on 
infringement of intellectual property rights in accord ance with the relevant procedural laws.  He 
further noted that his country had been a member of the World Intellectual Property Organization since 1970 and was a party mostly to all the treatie s which had defined internationally agreed basic 
standards of intellectual property protection in each country. Specifically, it concerned international 
conventions mentioned in Article 1:3, includi ng footnote 2, of the TRIPS Agreement.   
568. He also confirmed that the Ru ssian Federation was a party to the "Paris Convention" (the 
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property);  the "Paris Convention (1967)" (the 
Stockholm Act of this Convention of 14 July 1967) ;  the "Berne Convention" (the Berne Convention 
for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works);  the "Berne Convention (1971)" (the Paris Act of 
this Convention of 24 July 1971);  the "Rome C onvention" (the International Convention for the 
Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonogram s and Broadcasting Organizations, adopted at 
Rome on 26 October 1961);  the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of 
Marks (Stockholm Act);  the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT);  the Rome Convention for the 
Protection of Performers;  Producers of Phonogram s and Broadcasting Organizations (1961), etc.  
A more complete list is provided in documen ts WT/ACC/RUS/29 of 13 November 1998, and 
WT/ACC/RUS/29/Rev.1 and WT/ACC/RUS/41 of 26 October 2000. 
569. He added that, despite the fact that the Russi an Federation was not a party to the Treaty on 
Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits (IPIC), adopted in Washington on 
26 May 1989, Federal Law No. 82-FZ of 9 July  2002 "On Amendments to the Law "On Legal 
Protection of Layout Designs of Integrated Circu its" reflected the provisions of the IPIC Treaty. 
Fees and duties  
570. Fees and duties for the patenting of inventi ons, utility models and industrial designs, the 
registration of trademarks, service  marks, and appellations of origin, the granting of rights to use 
appellations of origin, and the official registra tion of computer programs, databases, and layout 
designs of integrated circuits were  collected in  accordance with Council of Ministers/Government  
Regulation No. 793 of 12 August 1993, as ame nded by Government Ordinances No. 382 of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 169 
 
 
 23 April 1994, No. 989 of 9 October 1995, No. 423 of 16 April 1997, No. 1058 of 20 August 1997, 
No. 372 of 31 March 1998, No. 8 of 14 January 2002 and No. 403 of 4 Ma rch 2003.  Legal entities 
and individuals of the Russian Federation and of  countries that were parties to international 
agreements on mutual payments in Rubles with the Russian Federation, paid duties and fees in 
Russian Rubles.  Legal entities and individuals of other countries paid duties and registration fees in 
US dollars. 
2. Substantive standards of protection, incl uding procedures for the acquisition and 
maintenance of intellectual property rights 
Copyright and Related Rights 
571. The representative of the Russian Federation sai d that copyright and related rights were 
protected by Federal Law No. 3531-1-FZ of 9 July  1993 "On Copyright and related Rights", as 
amended on 20 July 2004 by Federal Law No. 72-FZ "On Amendments to the Law on Copyright and 
Related Rights".  Law No. 72-FZ established national tr eatment in respect of protection of copyright, 
retroactive protection of works and aimed at br inging the Law "On Copyri ght and Related Rights" 
into compliance with the provisions of the WIPO  Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performance and 
Phonograms Treaty.  Its provisions were based on the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, Berne 
Convention, and Rome Convention.  In his view, the provisions of the Russian legislation on copyright (including those relating to the protectio n of computer programs and databases) were in 
conformity with the provisions of the Berne Conve ntion for the Protection of Literary and Artistic 
Works (including Article 6 bis) and the relevant  provisions of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS.  
572. In particular, the Russian legislation protect ed not only personal non-proprietary rights of 
authors, such as authorship right, right to name, publication right, right to protect reputation of the author, but also property rights of authors which c ould be inherited. In accordance with Article 9 of 
the Law “On Copyright and Related Rights”, copyright protection was provided for work from the 
date it was created.  
573. In general, copyrights were valid during the lif e of the author and during 50 years after his/her 
death.  In certain cases stipulated by the law, th e term for protection was calculated on the basis of 
other dates ( for instance from the date of latest de ath of a co-author where a work had been created in 
co-authorship).  Federal Law No. 72-FZ extended the te rm for protection to 70 years after the death of 
the author.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 170  
 
 574. Related rights of performers were  protected for 50 years from the date of first performance; in 
the case of phonogram’s producers, protection was provided for 50 years from the date of first 
promulgation or, should the phonogram not have been  promulgated during this period, of first 
recording; rights of TV and radio broadcasting organizations remained valid for 50 years from the date of first broadcast, and the rights of cable TV organizations remained valid for 50 years from the 
date of first cable transmission. 
575. Federal Law No. 72 had introduced national treatme nt in respect of protection of copyright 
and retroactive protection of works.  Previously , under Article 28 of the 1993 Law «On Copyright and 
Related Rights», products which had never been protected on the terr itory of the Russian Federation 
were considered as public domain and not subject to  protection.  Thus, all foreign works published 
before 23 May 1973 (the date at which of the Russi an Federation had joined the Universal Copyright 
Convention of September 1952) were not protected.  However, with the adoption of Federal Law 
No. 72-FZ, the provision on absence of retroactive protection had been excluded. The reservation on 
Article 18 of the Berne Convention would be lifted after the entry into for ce of the Law and some 
internal procedures. 
576. He added that after the entry into force of  Law No. 72-FZ and the implementation of the 
required national procedures, the Russian Federa tion intended to accede to the WIPO Copyright 
Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty.  He  noted that Article 1 of the TRIPS Agreement 
did not require WTO Members to join these treaties. 
577. He further noted that Russia had become a part y to the Rome Convention for the Protection of 
Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcas ting Organizations (1961) on 26 May 2003 with 
the following reservations: non-application of the phonogram criteria (in accordance with paragraph 
1(b) of Article 5 of the Convention); protection of broadcasting in accordance with paragraph 2 of 
Article 6 of the Convention; and non-application a nd limitation of protection under Article 12 of the 
Convention with regard to phonograms. 
Trademarks 
578. The representative of the Russian Federation note d that protection of trademarks and service 
marks was regulated by Law No. 3520-1 of 23 Se ptember 1992 "On Trademarks, Service Marks and 
Appellations of Origin", as amended by Fede ral Law No. 166-FZ of 11 December 2002 "On 
Amending the Law "On Trademarks , Service Marks and Appellati ons of Origin".The amended 
provisions of the Law No. 3520-1 conformed to the provisions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the releva nt provisions of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS,  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 171 
 
 
 including those which governed protection of well-known marks with respect to non-homogeneous 
goods.  The updated Russian legislation in force allowed for protection of well-known trademarks. 
579. The Law No. 3520-1 (as amended by Federal Law No. 166-FZ) included the definition of a 
well-known trade-mark, which was based on the provis ions of the updated law and totally conformed 
to the Joint Recommendation on the Provisions of the Protection for Well-Known Trade Marks of the 
Paris Union Assembly and General Assembly of  WIPO. The legislation did not require the 
registration of well-known trademarks.  Any trademark claiming to be well-known should be 
recognized as such by a competent authority, i.e. the Patent Dispute Chamber of Rospatent. This 
procedure for granting protection was fully consistent with Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention.  The 
provisions of criminal and civil legi slation applicable to "ordinary" tr ademarks were also applicable to 
well-known trademarks. Among the remedies taken were recognition of the right, prevention of 
infringement, compensation of losses, criminal and administrative liability. 
Geographical Indications 
580. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that prior to 1992, geographical 
indications in the Russian Federation were protected  by considering the use of false or misleading 
geographical indications as a form of unfair compe tition or a violation of consumer rights (this was 
done by antitrust -antimonopoly- agencies or courts respectively).  Since 1992, appellations of origin 
were accorded special protection under Law of the Russian Federation No. 3520-1 of 
23 September 1992 "On Trademarks, Service Marks and Appellations of Origin".  Protection for such 
types of geographical indications was provided fo r under Article 6 of that Law, which prohibited 
registration of trademarks containing indications  of the place of production of goods as well as 
trademarks containing false indications or indications which might mislead the customer as to the identity of the producer of goods.  Protection of appella tions of origin existed for all kinds 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 wa s granted to persons and legal entities of those 
States that provided similar rights to Russian persons and legal entities. 
581. The representative of the Russian Federation furt her stated that the provisions ensuring the 
protection of geographical indications in the Russi an Federation complied with the Paris Convention 
for the Protection of Industrial Property and th e relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement on 
TRIPS. The amendments made to Law No. 3520- 1 of 23 September 1992 "O n Trademarks, Service 
Marks and Appellations of Origin" were consistent with those pr ovisions of the TRIPS Agreement 
related to additional protection of geographical in dications of wines and spirits, and extended to WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 172  
 
 geographical indications protected by WTO Members.   National treatment envisaged by the Law was 
restricted by the reciprocity principle.  According to  that principle, the right to registrate appellations 
of origin in the Russian Federation was granted to legal entities and individuals from those States 
which provided similar rights to Russian individuals  and legal entities, i.e. after accession to the 
WTO, the right to registrate appellations of origin  would be given to all na tural persons and  legal 
entities of WTO member-States by virtue of this pr inciple.  The procedure for the application for 
registration of appellations of origin by foreigne rs was similar to a number of other countries where 
registration systems were implemented.  
582. In response, some Members of the Working Pa rty stated that they considered that the 
registration and protection of appella tions of origin should be based on the requirements of the TRIPS 
Agreement, and not depend on whether mutual bilateral recognition agreements existed.   
Inventions and Industrial Designs 
583. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that inventions and industrial designs 
were protected  by the provisions of Patent Law of the Russian Federation No. 3517-1 of 23 September 1992 (as amended by Federal Law No. 22-FZ of 7 February 2003).  Federal Law "On 
amendments to the Patent Law of the Russian Federation" No. 22-FZ reflected the provisions of 
Article 31 of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS by exte nding the scope of currently existing provisions 
on "compulsory licensing". 
584. Under the Patent Law of the Russian Federa tion (as amended by Federal Law No. 22-FZ), a 
patent might not be obtained in relation to the followi ng: plant varieties, animal breeds, layout designs 
of integrated microcircuits, solutions violating social  interests or humanitarian and moral principles.  
This amendment corresponded to Article 27.3 of th e WTO Agreement on TRIPS.  Under the Patent 
Law in force, the validity term of patents for all kind of 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.  The Patent  Law (as amended by Federal Law No. 22-FZ) 
provided for the possibility of extending such term for pharmaceutical products (medicines), 
pesticides and agricultural chemicals, if their use ha d been based on a consent of an authorized State 
body.  In such cases, the general 20 year term coul d be extended for up to 5 years.  The Patent law 
also established civil, administrative and criminal lia bility for illegal use of patents, inventions and 
industrial designs.  In his view, these provisions were  in conformity with the Paris Convention and the 
relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS.      WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 173 
 
 
 585. Some Members expressed concern that the Law di d not provide for the reversal of the burden 
of proof in judicial proceedings involving process patents, as required by Article 34 of the TRIPS 
Agreement.  
586. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration noted, that the approach envisaged 
by Article 34 of the TRIPS Agreement in respect of  the method of receipt of a product was reflected 
in paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Patent Law.  If the product received as a result of the patented 
method was a new product, an identical product woul d be considered as received as a result of the 
patented method if not proved otherwise.  The bur den of proof was therefore with the defendant.  
Plant Variety and Animal Breed Protection 
587. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that plant varieties and animal breeds 
were protected in accordance with Law of the Russian Federation No. 5605-1 FZ of 6 August 1993 
"On Selection Attainments".  In his view, the pr ovisions of this Law were in conformity with 
international legal instruments, such as the UPOV Convention and the WTO Agreement on TRIPS. 
Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits 
588. The representative of the Russian Federation said th at layout designs of integrated circuits 
were protected in accordance with Law of the Ru ssian Federation No. 3526- 1 of 23 September 1992 
"On Legal Protection of Layout Designs of Integrated  Circuits".  In the Russian Federation's view, the 
provisions of this Law were in c onformity with the provisions of the Treaty on Intellectual Property in 
Respect of Integrated Circuits (Washington Tr eaty).  In addition, Federal Law No. 82-FZ of 
9 July 2002 "On amendments to the Law 'On Lega l Protection of Layout Designs of Integrated 
Circuits' " contained provisions aimed at satisfyi ng the requirements of the TRIPS Agreement which 
were additional to those of the Washington Treaty. 
Requirements on undisclosed information, including trade secrets and test data 
589. The representative of the Russian Federation said that apart from the above mentioned 
normative legal acts, Russian legislation containe d a number of normative legal acts which regulated 
and determined the mechanism for ensuring protecti on of undisclosed information, namely Federal 
Law No. 24-FZ of 20 February 1995 «On Informati on, Providing and Protec ting Information” (as 
amended on 10 January 2003),  Law of the Russi an Federation No. 5351-1 of 9 July 1993 “On 
Copyright and Related Rights” (as amended on 19 July  1995 and on 17 July 2004), Patent Law of the 
Russian Federation No. 3517-1 of 23 September 1992  (as amended on 7 Februa ry 2003), Federal Law WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 174  
 
 No. 98-FZ of 29 July 2004 “On Commercial Secrets”, as well as a number of regulations, in particular 
President Decree No. 188 of 6 March 1997 “On A pproving a List of Confidential Data”.   
590. These normative legal acts prohib ited disclosure of commercial se crets and/or its illegal use 
without the owner’s consent.  They granted the owne rs and other eligible persons protection of their 
legitimate rights, inter alia, by stopping actions wh ich could infringe or threaten an infringement of 
their rights.  Persons who followed the mandatory  procedure for submitting the documents to the 
authorized State bodies and organizations were not deprived of their legal rights to these documents 
and to the use of the information contained therein.   
591. According to Federal Law No.24-FZ of 20 February 1995 “On Information, Providing 
Information and Protection of Information”, conf idential information was understood as documentary 
information, the access to which was limited in ac cordance with Russian legislation.  President 
Decree No. 188 of 6 March 1997 established the list of data of confidential character.  This list 
included: (i) secret of private (individual) life (information on the facts, events and circumstances of private (individual) life of a citizen allowing the iden tification of his personal identity (personal data), 
except for the information subject to disseminati on in mass media in cases envisaged by federal laws; 
(ii) information related to professional activity w ith limited availability acco rding to the Constitution 
of the Russian Federation and federal laws (medical, notarial, lawyer secrecy, secrecy of correspondence, telephone conversa tions, mail, telegraph and other messages, etc); (iii) service 
secrets; (iv) commercial secrets; and (v) informati on on the contents of inve ntions, utility models and 
industrial designs prior to the official publication of information about them.   The protection of such 
information was guaranteed by application of the civ il, labor, administrative and criminal legislation.  
592. In addition, protection of undisclosed information, as provided in Section 7 of the WTO 
Agreement on TRIPS, was ensured by virtue of Artic le 139 of the Civil Code.  In particular, this 
Article stipulated legal protection of undisclosed  information, which constituted official or 
commercial secrets, including information re lated to products yet to be patented.  
593. According to Article 139 of the Civil Code, in formation constituted official or commercial 
secret, when such information had real or poten tial commercial value because it was secret, i.e. not 
known to third persons, when there was no free legal acce ss to it and that its holder had taken steps to 
protect its confidentiality.  The Russian legislati on provided instruments for protection of the holder's 
legal rights, including the right to put an end to activities violating his/her rights or threatening to violate them.  These provisions fully corresponded to the requirements of Article 39, paragraph 2, of 
the TRIPS Agreement.  Persons having obtained info rmation containing official or commercial secrets 
by illegal means were obliged to compensate th e damages caused.  So were employees having  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 175 
 
 
 disclosed official, commercial or other secret in violation of their labour contract, contract, or law, and 
contractors having disclosed official, commercial or ot her secret in violation of their civil contract 
(Articles 57 and 243 of the Labor Code of the Ru ssian Federation).  Different kinds of liability 
(administrative, criminal, etc.) could be applied to officials having disclosed such information, 
including officials who had used undisclosed inform ation presented for clinical tests of medicinal 
products without the consent of the holder  
594. The Code of the Russian Federation on Administ rative Offences provided for administrative 
responsibility (in form of fine) for offences in the field of information, including responsibility for 
disclosure of information, the access to which w as limited by federal law (except for cases when the 
disclosure of such information involved criminal liability), by persons who had received access to 
such information in connection with performance of a service or professional duties (Article 13.14 of 
the Code of Administrative Offences).  Article  183 of the Criminal Code established criminal 
punishment for illegal receipt and disclosure of in formation containing commercial, tax or bank 
secrets. 
595. Federal Law No. 98-FZ of 29 July 2004 “On Comme rcial Secrets” regulated the protection of 
commercial secrets, ascription of information to comme rcial secrets, transfer of such information, and 
protection of its confidentiality.  It also determined  the list of data that could not be considered a 
commercial secret (for example, data containing c onstituent documents of a legal entity).  The Law 
applied to information that contained a commercia l secret independently of the type of media on 
which it was stated.  Scientific, technical, technologi cal, industrial, financial, economic and any other 
type of information (including know -how) that had real or potential commercial value because it was 
secret, i.e. not known to third persons, had no free le gal access and was subject to an obligation of 
commercial secrecy by its holder could be considered a commercial secret. 
596. The Law also provided the information holder w ith the right and possibility to prevent third 
persons from obtaining, disclosing, or using confid ential information without his/her permission by: 
(i) limiting or prohibiting access to the informa tion containing a commercial secret, defining the 
procedure and conditions of access to this informati on; (ii) requesting the na tural persons and legal 
entities who had gained access to commercial secrets, and State and local authorities to which the 
commercial secret had been given, to observe the obligations of confidentiality of information; and 
(iii) protecting his rights in case of disclosure, illegal receipt or illegal use of the information 
containing a commercial secret by third persons, including the demand of compensations of damages 
caused by violation of his rights.  If necessary, the hol der of a commercial secret had the right to apply WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 176  
 
 means and methods of technical pr otection of confidentiality of information, and other means that 
were in compliance with the Russian legislation. 
597. The Law also contained provisions protecting confidentiality of information within the 
framework of labor and civil relations and when such information was provided to State bodies. 
Article 13 of the Law required State and munici pal authorities to create conditions guaranteeing 
protection of confidentiality of information provid ed to them by juridical persons and individual 
entrepreneurs.  State and municipal authorities' offici als could not disclose, transfer to third persons or 
other State and municipal authorities or take personal advantage of in formation containing a 
commercial secret that had become known to them in the course of their duties, while providing 
services, without permission of the holder.  In case of violation of confidentiality of information, State 
and municipal authorities' officials were subject to  disciplinary, civil, administrative and criminal 
liability in accordance with Russian legislation. 
598. The acquisition, use, or disclosure of sci entific, technical, production, or commercial 
information, including commercial secrets, without  the owner's consent were not permitted pursuant 
to Article 10 of Law No. 948-1 of 22 March 1991 "On Competition and Restriction of Monopoly 
Activity on Commodity Markets". 
599. The provisions of the above-mentioned laws prohibited the use of undisclosed information 
without the consent of the right holder.  All these  provisions (including the prohibition of disclosure 
and use of confidential (undisclosed) information w ithout the owner’s permission) were applicable to 
the protection of confidential (undisclosed) inform ation related to pharmaceutical and argochemical 
products containing new chemical substances.   
600. In addition, the Rules of Laboratory Practice (Ord er of the Ministry of Health of the Russian 
Federation No. 267 of 19 June 2003) envisaged by  Law No.86-FZ of 22 June 1998 “On Medicines” 
protected undisclosed information related to tests on medicines.  The Rules determined mandatory 
requirements concerning the holding and carrying out of pre-clinical tests on medicines to protect 
undisclosed information. 
601. The Rules of Clinical Practice (Order of Minist ry of Health and Social Security No. 266 of 
19 June 2003) established requirements in terms of planning, realization, control of clinical researches 
and documentary registration of their results aimed at ensuring reliability and accuracy of information 
received during the tests.  According to Article 11 of the Patent Law, the carrying out of clinical tests 
on medicines was not considered a violation of the exclusive right of the patent holder (owner of a 
patent on a medical product).  At the same time, if a new medicine was identical to a medicine  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 177 
 
 
 protected by a patent for invention, the release of  such medicine into th e market was possible only 
with the permit of the legal owner. 
602. He added that regarding patented pharmaceuti cals and agrochemical products, protection of 
undisclosed information provided under Russian legisla tion was in conformity with Article 39 of the 
TRIPS Agreement.  Protection was not applied to the information, which could be published or had 
been published, according to the Patent Law and the procedure described in this Law (application for 
invention, formula of the invention, its description). 
603. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that Russia would, in compliance 
with Article 39.3 of the TRIPS Agreement, ensure  that the legislative provisions required the 
pharmaceutical registration authorities to provide a pe riod of at least 6 years of protection against 
unfair commercial use starting from the date of receipt  of the data.  During th is period no person other 
than the person who submitted such data could w ithout the explicit consent of the person, who 
submitted the data, rely on such data in support of an application for product approval.  During this 
period any subsequent applicant for marketing appr oval would not be granted a market authorization 
unless he submitted his own data. Furthermore, the Russian Federation would guarantee, during this 
period, the protection of such data against disclosur e, except where necessary to protect the public, or 
unless steps were taken to ensure that the data are protected against unfair commercial use.  The 
Working Party took note of these commitments.] 
3. Enforcement Criminal Measures 
604. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated 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 Viola tions); and Article 180 (Trademark Violations).   
605. Article 146 of the Criminal Code (as amended on 8 April 2003) reinforced criminal liability 
for illegal use of objects of copyright and related rights as well as for purchase, storage, transportation 
of counterfeited works of art or phonograms for the purpose of their sale in large quantities.  This new 
legislation increased the penalty up to five years of imprisonment. 
606. In accordance with Article 147, the illegal use of an invention, utility model and industrial 
design, or disclosure of the essence of an invention, utility model or industrial design, without the 
consent of its author or applicant before any o fficial publication of information about them; illegal WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 178  
 
 acquisition of authorship; or compelling of co-a uthorship were punishable by fines of up to 
300.000 Rubles (more than US$ 10.000), or amounting to up to two years of wage, salary, or any 
other income of the convicted person, arrest for up to six month, or deprivation of liberty for up to 
five years, should these acts have inflicted serious  damage to a person.  In accordance with Article 
180, the illegal use of a trademark or service mark, appellation of origin, or similar designations for 
homogeneous goods, as well as the illegal use of a sp ecial marking designating a trademark or an 
appellation of origin which had not been register ed in the Russian Federation were punishable by 
fines of up to 300.000 Rubles or amounting to up to two years of wage, salary, or any other income of 
the convicted person, arrest for up to six months, or deprivation of liberty for up to five years, should 
these acts have taken place more than once or ha ve inflicted serious damage to a person. 
607. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that confiscation of illegal goods, 
materials and equipment used for their manufacturi ng was not directly stipulated under Articles 146, 
147 and 180 of the Criminal Code.  Decisions on c onfiscation and destructi on of counterfeit products 
and equipment used in their produc tion were taken within the framework of criminal prosecution as 
provided in Articles 81 and 82 of the Criminal Pro cedure Code.  It was normal practice, however, to 
confiscate these goods and machinery as material eviden ce.  Criminal procedure rules (Article 81 of 
the Criminal Procedure Code) were also applied with  regard to destruction of confiscated “pirated” 
products.  Under this Article, items which were u sed as “instruments of crime”, “preserved traces of 
crime”, or “which could serve a means for detecting a crime and establishing circumstances of a 
criminal case” were recognized as material evidence, filed to the criminal case, and could not be 
destroyed prior to the court decision.  Pursuant  to the Criminal Procedure Code, when passing 
sentence, a court must decide whether to order  seizu re or destruction of  ma terial evidence (including 
goods and machinery). 
608. He added that since 1999 there had been a sp ecial department dealing with intellectual 
property crimes within the Main Economic Crime Divisi on of the Ministry of Interior (and its regional 
departments).   
Criminal Procedures 
609. In accordance with the legislation in force intellectual property violations provided by 
Article 146, paragraph 1, and Article  147, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Code were subject to private 
complaint, and criminal procedure could not be initiated without a complaint by the right holder 
(Article 20 of the Criminal-Procedur e Code).  Other intellectual property criminal offences were cases 
of public accusation and did not need a complaint by the right holder (“ex-officio”).  The time limits 
for investigation and final decision on cases provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 180 of the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 179 
 
 
 Criminal Code in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code were initially 20 days and, for 
complex cases, 30 days from the date of institution of the criminal case.  The time limits for 
investigation and final decision on cases provided for in  Articles 146 and 147 of the Criminal Code in 
accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code we re initially up to 2 months from the date of 
institution of the criminal case. This term could be prolonged to 12 months in complex cases.  Official 
state examination might be done by the Centre for Expe rtise of the Ministry of Interior.  At the request 
from an anti-trust or law enforcement body and on the basis of a relevant court order, Rospatent 
experts provided an opinion regarding a trademark, i nvention or another intellectual property issue.  
An investigator, prosecutor or court would then  make a decision based on the results of the 
examination.  The examination initiated by th e law enforcement bodies was free of charge.   
Border Measures 
610. The representative of the Russian Federation stated  that that  Chapter 38 of the Customs Code 
on “Measures Taken by the Customs Authorities in Respect of Certain Goods” regulated protection of intellectual property rights by customs authorities in import-export transactions (border measures).  
Pursuant to the provisions of the new Code, cust oms authorities were vested with additional powers 
related to the protection of intell ectual property rights, namely the authority to suspend the release of 
goods which contained intellectual property objects re gistered by the customs on the basis of right 
holders’ applications.  A uniform procedure for en suring protection of intellectual property rights by 
customs authorities, including the procedure for filing applications requesting measures to be taken to 
suspend release of goods, requirements in respect of the content of such application depending on the 
type of intellectual property, and rules for mainta ining the customs register of intellectual property 
had been established by SCC Order No. 1199 of 27 October 2003 «On the Approval of Regulations 
on Intellectual Property Rights Protection by Customs Authorities». 
611. The Code of Administrative Offences, in force since 1 July 2002, had introduced 
administrative liability for infringements of intellect ual property rights (Article 7.12 “Infringements of 
Copyright and Related Rights, Inventive and Pa tent Rights” and Article 14.10 “Illegal Use of a 
Trademark”), inter alia, in performing import-e xport operations, and vested the customs authorities 
with the powers to exercise administrative prosecution where infringements were detected. 
612. In response to concerns of some Members, the representative of the Russian Federation stated 
that with regard to ex officio authority, th e new Code of Administrative Offences provided 
administrative responsibility for imports of goods infri nging IPRs in its Articles 14.10 and 7.12.  In 
accordance with Chapter 28 (Articles 28.2 and 28.3) of this Code, customs authorities could, upon 
their own initiative if they had acquired prima faci e evidence, initiate an administrative investigation WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 180  
 
 in this case.  In the course of such investigation,  customs authorities were authorized to suspend the 
release of suspected goods (to execute requisitio n or seizure) and seek from the right holder any 
information that may assist them in the investig ation.  All persons concerned had the right to 
familiarize themselves with the record of the case, as well as submit explanations and comments, 
which were attached to the record of the case.  The suspension of the release of suspected goods 
normally lasted one month (a period prescribed for the administrative investigation) and could be 
extended for a further period, but not more than for six months.  Final decisions on administrative 
offences were taken by court.  Thus, the custom s authorities were endowed with powers to fully 
exercise the function of protecting intellectual property rights in the course of export and import operations both on the basis of the right holder’s ap plication or without one, in accordance with the 
“ex officio” principle of Article 58 of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS. 
Civil and Administrative Procedures and Remedies 
613. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that remedies currently available under 
the Civil Code included confirmation of rights;  prohibition of actions violating rights;  imposing 
fines;  compensation of damages caused to th e right holder;  statutory compensation  and 
compensation of income received by the infringe r. The latter measure was available only for 
copyrights. Regarding claims for damages and asse ssment of damages, civil law cases provided for 
the general principle of full recovery of damage s.  The amount of damage was calculated in 
accordance with the general norms of the Civil C ode 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 plainti ff who had the burden to prove the fact of damage 
caused without calculating the amount.  It was furt her assessed by the court based on the nature of 
infringement, income received by the infringer and other relevant facts.  Civil legislation also 
provided possibility of confiscation and destruction of counterfeit products as well as confiscation of 
materials and equipment used for their production.  
614. The Law «On Copyright and Related Rights» (as amended by Federal Law No. 72-FZ as of 
20 July 2004) provided that counterfeit copies of wo rks of art or phonograms, as well as materials and 
equipment used for reproducing counterfeit copies of  works of art or phonograms, were subject to 
confiscation by judicial decision.  Confiscated counterfeit copies of works of art or phonograms were 
subject to destruction (by decision of court), safe for cases of their transfer to holders of copyright and similar rights at their request (by decision of court) .  According to the Superior Arbitration Court's 
practice, the Court would issue a decision on confi scation and destruction when the right holder had  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 181 
 
 
 not requested the goods to be transferred to him/her.   Should the court not order confiscation of illegal 
goods in civil proceedings, the right holder could appeal. 
615. The final decision on the amount of compensation rested with the court.  Regarding 
provisional measures under Article 90 of the new Arb itration Procedure Code, the arbitration 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 back accounts, seizure of doc uments and other evidence.  The judge handling 
the case should make a decision the next day after the petition was filed without  the representatives of 
the parties.  Provisions stipulating similar meas ures were also provided in Chapter 13 "Provisional 
Measures" of the new Civil Procedure Code No. 138-FZ of 14 November 2002.  In his view, these provisions fully complied with the requirement s of Article 50 of the TRIPS Agreement. 
616. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that Articles 7.12, 7.28 and 14.10 of the 
new Code of Administrative Offences established admi nistrative liability for violation of copyrights 
and related rights, rights regard ing inventions and industrial designs, trademarks, service marks and 
appellation of origin.  In addition to fines up to 40.000 Rubles (i.e. about US$ 1.400), administrative 
sanctions included obligatory confiscation of count erfeit products, materials and equipment used in 
their production and other instruments used in co mmitting the administrative offence.  In accordance 
with Article 32.4 of the Code, confiscated produc ts, materials, equipment and instruments were 
subject to destruction or, at the request of the right holder, transferred to him/her. 
617. In addition, anti-monopoly legislation provided certain sanctions that were administered 
directly by the Federal Anti-Monopoly Service.   Any commercial legal entity whose rights of 
intellectual property had been violated by another commercial legal entity coul d apply to the Service 
to start the proceedings against the offender.  Th e Service  could issue a decision imposing fines or 
demanding certain actions or prohibiting infringi ng actions.  The procedure normally took between 
one and two months, and in complicated cases between three and six months.  
618. In response to questions concerning appeals processes in intellectual property matters, he 
further noted that the Chamber on Patent Disputes of  Rospatent heard disputes arising out of use of 
objects protected by the Russian laws regulating intellectual property issues (Articles 13, 19.2, 28, 29, 
34, 42, 42.1 of Law of the Russian Federation of 23 September 1992, No. 3520-1 "On Trademarks, 
Service Marks and Appellations of Origin of Goods" (as amended by Fe deral Law No. 166-FZ of 
11 December 2002), Articles 21, 29 of Patent Law of the Russian Federation No. 3517-1 of 
23 September 1992).     WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 182  
 
 619. He further noted that the Patent Disput e Chamber performed the following functions: 
- Considered objections to refusals to issue patent for an invention, industrial design or 
certificate for utility model or to accept an a pplication for trademark, service mark or 
appellation of origin based on the results of a formal examination. 
- Considered objections to refusals to issue pate nt for an invention, industrial design or to 
register a trademark, service mark, appellation of origin and/or to grant the right to use an 
appellation of origin, based on an on the merits examination of applications and examination 
of the designations applied for. 
- Considered objections from individuals and legal entities against issuance of patents for 
inventions, industrial designs and certificates for utility models in violation of existing 
Russian copyright certificates for inventions and certificates for industrial designs, and against registration of trademarks, service marks, appellations of origin, and issuance of 
certificate for the right to use appellations of origin. 
- Based on the results of hearings of the above ob jections held in accordance with the Rules of 
Hearing Objections by the Patent Dispute Ch amber, the Patent Dispute Chamber passes a 
decision. 
- Provided confidentiality of hearings of any objections by the Patent Dispute Chamber. 
- Prepared publication of its results in the official press organs of Rospatent. 
- Performed registration of documents confirming payment of fees required by law for lodging 
an application with the Patent Dispute Cham ber and for an act thereof by the Chamber. 
620. He further noted that pursuant to Article 43. 1 of the Law "On Trademarks, Services Marks 
and Appellations of Origin of Good s", and Article 21 of the Patent Law, the decisions of the Patent 
Dispute Chamber and the procedure for considerati on of disputes were determined by the federal 
executive authority for intellectual property (Rospate nt).  The procedure for lodging objections and 
applications to the Patent Dispute Chamber and the procedure for their consid eration were determined 
by Rospatent.  Decisions of the Patent Dispute Ch amber were subject to appr oval by the Chief Officer 
of Rospatent, took effect from the date of their a pproval and could be appealed in court in accordance 
with the legislation of the Russian Federation. 
621. Noting all the above, Members of the Working Party sought a commitment that the Russian 
Federation would be in compliance with the WTO Agreement on TRIPS, including its enforcement 
provisions, as from the date of accession, without  recourse to transitional arrangements.   
622. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
apply fully the provisions of the WTO Agreement on  Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property 
Rights (TRIPS) from the date of accession to the WT O, including provisions for enforcement, without 
recourse to any transitional period.  He confirmed that the Russian Federati on would provide effective  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 183 
 
 
 protection against unfair commercial use of undisclosed  test or other data submitted to authorities in 
the Russian Federation, in support of applications  for marketing approval of pharmaceutical or of 
agricultural chemical products which utilized new chem ical entities, for a period of at least six years 
from the date on which the Russian Federation gr anted marketing approval to the person submitting 
the data.  He also confirmed that the Patent Law had been amended to better specify the legal 
framework for decision-making with respect to i ssuance of compulsory licenses (this amendment 
brought the Patent Law in conformity with the requ irements Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement);  the 
Law on Trademarks brought the Russian legislation in this area in conformity with TRIPS requirements (including immediate publication after registration, additional protection for well-known 
trademarks against bad faith registration and use on dissimilar goods, and additional protection 
against trademarks registration containing geograph ical indications); the law on the introduction of 
amendments and addenda to Federa l Law "On Legal Protection of La yout Designs  of Integrated 
Circuits" implemented all the TRIPS requirements in  this area and ensured the granting of protection 
against articles embodying an integrated circuit c ontaining an unlawfully reproduced topography; the 
federal law on introduction of amendments and a ddenda to Federal Law "O n Legal Protection of 
Computer Programmes and Databases" made clear its relationship, as 'lex specialis' to the Copyright 
Law and that the Russian Federation would impl ement all TRIPS obligations with respect to 
Computer Software and Databases; the Federal la w on introduction of ame ndments to Federal Law 
"On copyright and related rights" in troduced amendments that allowed the application "in toto" of the 
provisions of Article 18 of the Berne Convention to foreign works and phonograms, including the 
granting of retroactive protection to foreign works or phonograms; and that current revisions of the 
Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code , the Civil Procedure Code and the Code of 
Arbitration Procedure and the Customs Code would allow for the correct implementation of Articles 
41-61 of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS and the enforcem ent by the Russian Federation of intellectual 
property rights.] 
623. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would conform with the provi sions of the TRIPS Agreement without having 
recourse to transitional period.  The Working Party took note of that commitment.] 
[to be completed] 
POLICIES AFFECTING TRADE IN SERVICES  
624. The representative of the Russian Federation noted  that the Russian market for services began 
to develop only in the first part of the 1990s, following the domestic process of economic reforms, 
privatization and liberalization of the whole system of the Russian Federation's economy.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 184  
 
 625. He further stated that the reform of the Ru ssian economy during the last decade called into 
being new services sectors as well as contributed to the development of existing ones.  At the same 
time, be they old or new, services providers in some sectors operated within insufficient regulatory 
and institutional framework and suffe red from an unstable market structure.  As "infant industries", 
those services sectors were liable to positive and ne gative economic and social variations that could 
have a serious impact on the economy as a whole.  
626. He noted that economic developments in servi ces were supported by the legislative process. 
Many laws and regulations were adopted to establis h a legal framework for provision of services in 
general or in specific sectors.  However, the dy namism of services markets was still not adequately 
reflected by the domestic regulatory system. As an example, the Russian banking crisis in August 1998 was particularly associated with in adequate approaches to, and lack of effective 
prudential arrangements in, the established banki ng activities following the extreme dependence of 
the domestic financial system from the situation in short-term foreign capital markets. For the 
purposes of creating a favourable economic and investment climate, including in the sphere of services, the Russian Federation had embarked on a series of measures to reduce restraints on the 
economy involving streamlining of the procedures of  company registrations, downsizing the list of 
types of activities subject to licensing and a reduction of the frequency of inspections of enterprises. It 
could be expected that regulatory framework of the Russian Federation govern ing the services sector 
would, at the same time, be continuously subject to  frequent adaptations and improvement in light of 
experience and of progress made in building na tional capacity to supply services on a competitive 
basis.   
627. Answering to the questions of members on the sy stem of licensing in the sphere of services 
the representative of the Russian Federation inform ed that the existing legal framework rendered 
some types of services subject to licensing. The fundamentals of the regulation of licensing in the area 
of services were laid in the Federal Law "On Licensing of specific types of activity" No. 128-FZ of 
8 August 2001 and limited number of  other Federal Laws, regulating individual services sectors. The 
Law "On Licensing of specific types of activity" had been adopted in the context of the governmental 
program of "debureaucratisation" of the economy and established a unified and transparent licensing 
procedure aimed at removal of excessive administrative regulation and barriers for market access. 
Another Law, which had been passed in the contex t of this program, was the Federal Law No. 129 – 
FZ of 8 August 2001 "On State Registration Of Juridical Persons".  
628. The representative of the Russian Federation clar ified that according to the Civil Code of the 
Russian Federation ajuridical person was an organi zation that had separate property under ownership,  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 185 
 
 
 economic management, or operative administration and that was liable for its obligations with that 
property and that might, in its own name, obtai n and exercise property and non-property personal 
rights, bear duties, and be a plaintiff and defenda nt in court. Juridical persons must have an 
independent balance sheet or budget. Branches were not juridical persons but a separate subdivision 
of a juridical person located outside the place wher e the legal person was located and conducting all 
its functions or part of them. Representativ e offices were not juridical persons either. 
629. In accordance with the Civil Code  of the Russian Federation the juridical persons might be 
organized as commercial organizations, which saw ma king profits as the chief goal of their activity, 
and as non-commercial organizations, which did not see making profits as such a goal, and which did 
not distribute the derived profit among their pa rticipants. The juridical persons that were non-
commercial organizations, might be set up in th e form of state-corporations, non-commercial 
partnerships, institutions, aut onomous non–commercial organizations , consumer cooperatives, public 
or religious organizations (associations), financed by  the owner of the institutions, in the form of the 
charity and other funds, and associations combination of juridical persons (associations and unions). 
630. He further noted that the Russian Federation ex ercised its sovereign rights over subsoil and 
mineral resources, underground resources within the territory of the Russian Federation, including 
subsoil domain and mineral resources contained ther ein, energy and other resources.  Subsoil areas 
could not be subject to purchase, sale, gift, inhe ritance, deposit, pledge or any other form of 
alienation.    
631. Regarding the energy sector, some members noted that the Russian Federation had so far 
made no commitments on mining, oil drilling and pi peline services. In this regard, these members 
requested details of the relationship, if any, be tween the lack of any commitments in these activities 
and the exercise of the Russian Federation's sovere ign rights over its subsoil and mineral and energy 
resources.  They further asked a clarification on the Russian Federation's intentions in respect of the 
development of a market environment in relation to the provision of mining, oil-drilling and pipeline 
services and whether these would be consistent with  the role that the Russian Federation saw for the 
conclusion of production sharing agr eements and concession arrangements. 
632. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration explained that the current legislation 
of the Russian Federation did not guarantee full ma rket access of foreign services suppliers with 
respect to energy related services in GATS terms, a nd there were no plans to amend this legislation. 
He further explained that Production sharing agr eements were concluded in accordance with the 
Federal Law No. 225-FZ of December 30, 1995 “On production sharing agreements”. This law 
applied to all Agreements concl uded after its entry into force.  Agreements concluded prior to the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 186  
 
 entry into force of the Law should be implemented in accordance with their terms and conditions. At 
that the provisions of the Law would be applicable  to the above-mentioned Agreements to the extent 
its application did not contradict the te rms and conditions of such Agreements.  
633. In accordance with Article 7 of this Fede ral Law, the production sharing agreement may 
establish certain  obligations for Investors, who we re defined as those persons  who contributed their 
own, borrowed or attracted funds, either in the fo rm of property or property rights, to exploration, 
development and production of mineral raw materials and were the users of subsoil areas covered by 
the production sharing agreement. Thus, Investors are obliged to employ citizens of the Russian 
Federation, their proportion being no less than  80 per cent of all employed personnel. 
634. The representative of the Russian Federation al so noted that the Russian authorities were 
aware of ongoing negotiations within the WTO with  a view to developing the necessary multilateral 
disciplines to avoid trade distortive effects of subsidies and addressing the appropriateness of 
countervailing procedures. Taking into account the fact  that the Russian Federation did not take part 
in the negotiations as a fully-fledged participant and thus was not able to adequately secure its 
particular interests in this respect, the Russian Fede ration had to reserve the right to maintain subsidy 
measures according to national legislation and practices.  
635. For instance, under Russian legislation, state s upport for juridical persons could be subject to 
criteria or conditions such as inter alia, employment  or provision of services to persons suffering from 
unfavorable social and economic pos ition or being  entities of social importance or as  small business 
enterprises. Mentioned criteria were applied on non -discriminatory basis in dependently of foreign 
participation in juridical person.  
Under current legislation: 
- persons suffering from unfavorable social a nd economic position include d persons of limited 
abilities due to illness or age, jobless persons, orphans, persons suffering from low income, 
natural and other disasters, war or social conflict and other circumstances which deny 
common conduct of life and could not be solved by these persona themselves; 
- entities of social importance included entities providing services of mutual social use and/or 
services consumption of which 
could be of a principle impo rtance to any of juridical 
persons and/ or individuals and/or entities being of key importance as a source of job within a 
respective region or economy in general a nd entities providing services which are closely 
connected to the production of services men tioned above for example as a part of 
technological process of such production or as a condition of production.  
- small business enterprises were those commercia l organizations in which the average number 
of workers does not exceed in the reporting period the following maximum levels: 100 in 
industry and construction, 80 in agriculture , 60 in the scientific and cultural sphere, 30 in  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 187 
 
 
 retail trade and domestic services and 50 in whol esale trade and in other activities or branches 
of activity as well as participation in capital of juridical persons not being small business 
enterprises less than 25%. 
636. Several members of the Working Party stressed the need for more information on the Russian 
Federation's progress towards establishing the required inquiry point and other transparency and procedural requirements for complying with the GA TS.  These members requested confirmation that, 
in services sectors requiring licensing, foreign natu ral and juridical persons needing activity licenses 
could obtain them on the same terms as Russian na tural and juridical persons.  Some members noted 
that the Russian Federation had used the "infant i ndustry" argument to justify a certain level of 
protection to its services sector and asked how the Russian Federation would implement measures in this regard, considering that the GATS did not contemplate any safeguards mechanism.  
637. Regarding the banking sector, some members expressed concern that the two largest 
commercial banks in the Russian Federation (Sberb ank and Vneshtorgbank) were currently owned by 
the CBR.  Taken together these two banks held a dominant position on the Russian market and their 
ownership by the CBR created a clear potential conf lict of interest with the CBR's prudential and 
other tasks.  While welcoming the information on  plans to divest the CBR holdings in commercial 
banks, these members invited the Russian Federation to indicate a firm date by when the ownership of 
these banks and their commercial activities would be legally and in practice separated from the CBR.  
In addition, these members expressed further concern about the distortions of competition created by the unlimited (i.e. 100 per cent) state guarantee given to deposits in accounts held with Sberbank.  No 
state guarantee at all existed for deposits held in  accounts with other banks, whether Russian or 
foreign.  As this would foster  equal conditions of competition in the Russian banking sector and 
would help improve the solidity an d functioning of the financial sector more generally, these members 
expected that the Russian Federation would commit by  an agreed timeframe to divest or bring under 
the responsibility of another branch of government  the commercial activities of the CBR and to ensure 
that there was no discrimination between establishe d banks as regards the guarantee of deposits.  One 
member of the Working Party expressed concern over the current regulations of the CBR regarding qualification of certain countries as off-shore zon es and other discriminatory measures in the banking 
sector and requested the Russian Federation to bring these regulations in conformity with 
internationally recognized practices. 
638. Responding to the concerns expressed by some me mbers with respect to potential conflict of 
interest with the Bank of Russia as a supervisory body and the stakeholder in some of commercial 
banks as well as possible distortions of competition created by the unlimited state guarantee given to WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 188  
 
 deposits in accounts held with Sberbank, the re presentative of the Russian Federation noted the 
following: 
- The Bank of Russia held a 63% stake in Sberbank. The remaining shares were owned by non-
governmental investors, including foreign investors, which ensured well-thought-out decision 
making and contributed to a high level of tran sparency of the bank’s policy for minority 
shareholders and the general public. 
- In the Bank of Russia the functions with resp ect to control over Sberbank were strictly 
divided. Management of Sberbank as an obj ect of ownership was performed by those 
divisions of the Bank of Russia that did not exercise banking supervision. At the same time, 
banking supervision divisions applied to Sberba nk the same supervision rules and norms as 
those applied to any other bank.  
- The Bank of Russia had transferred to the repr esentatives of the Government of the Russian 
Federation part of its seats on Sberbank’s  Board of Directors, which promoted 
implementation of government  policy with respect to Sberbank’s activities. 
- Sberbank maintained a historically leading ro le in the personal deposits’ market (at present, 
about 68%), although its share of individual de posits had been gradually decreasing (in early 
2002, for example, it constituted almost 75%). Sb erbank remained a socially significant bank, 
since the majority of its depositors were indi viduals with low-income, primarily pensioners 
(retired people). It was impossible to indicate a firm date by when the Bank of Russia would withdraw from Sberbank’s capital. 
639. He further noted that the issue of Sberbank's participation in the system of guaranteeing 
deposits had already been resolved in the Fe deral Law of 23 December 2003 No. 177-FZ "On 
Insurance of Deposits of Physical Persons  in Banks of the Russian Federation". 
640. One member of the Working Party expressed de ep concern over the Russian Federation's 
maintenance of a discriminatory regime with regard to the supply of services on the Russian 
Federation's services' market by his country's nationa ls residing in different regions of his country, 
under the mode of supply –"commercial presence" a nd "movement of natural persons".  A member 
requested the Russian Federation to make the necessa ry adjustments in order to avoid discriminatory 
treatment and to allow all his nati onals to provide services on the Russian  market on an equal footing.   
641. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated th at the nature and origin of 
this situation was due to complicated historical factors.  The Russian Federation felt that the 
settlement to those problems which were outside the WTO, could be achieved through bilateral  
negotiations and was prepared to take all reasonable  steps in this regard. 
642. Another member requested confirmation regard ing the Russian Federation's intention to 
introduce international accounting standards (IAS) a dopted by the International Accounting Standards 
Board (IASB) for banks by 1 January 2004 and for a ll listed companies by 1 January 2005.  That  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 189 
 
 
 member asked the Russian Federation to confirm this  information and indicate the steps by which it 
intended to achieve this objective.  He also requ ested the Russian Federati on to provide information 
on the actual application of IAS by Russian companie s.  Another member asked whether the financial 
measures described by the Russian Federation in re lation to currency regulatio ns and controls were 
not already covered by Article XII of the GATS and paragraph 2 of the Annex on Financial Services. 
643. The representative of the Russian Federation replie d that it was the plan of the Government to 
introduce international accounting standards in due tim e. He also stated that in the services sectors 
inscribed in the Russian Federation's Schedule of  Specific Commitments, WTO Members' nationals 
who were services suppliers should be accorded treat ment no less favorable than that provided for 
under the terms, limitations and c onditions and subject to qualificati ons specified in its Schedule as it 
was provided by GATS.  He  noted that the re quirement for establishing a GATS enquiry point was 
being addressed.  He further noted that the Russi an Federation had a limited number of bilateral 
agreements related to debt settlements and tec hnical assistance measures resulting from agreements 
on legal assistance which contained some preferenti al provisions, and agreements on conditions of 
activity on the territory of Russia of Severniy Investitsionniy Bank (North Investment Bank) and 
Tchernomorskiy Bank Torgovliy i Rasvitiya (Tcher nomorskiy Bank of Trade and Development).  The 
Russian Federation understood that WTO provisions  should not be construed as preventing the 
Russian Federation implementing these bilateral agreemen ts for the period of th eir validity.  For the 
purpose of the protection of interests of investor s, depositors and policy-holders, the protection of 
national currency of the Russian Federation and also for the purpose of ensuring the stability and 
integrity of the financial system, the Russian Fede ration did not exclude the possibility of applying 
measures affecting currency regulation and cu rrency control and any transaction involving 
instruments of the internal debt of the Russian Fede ration and raising credits or loans at international 
financial markets by issuance and placement of bonds and other issue-grade securities outside the 
territory of the Russian Federation. 
644. Concerning horizontal measures of regulation,  the representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that services considered as public utilities a nd referred to in the Horizontal part of the 
Schedule of specific commitments of the Russian Fe deration in services, could be subject to public 
monopolies or exclusive rights granted to private operators. Exclusive rights on such services could be 
granted to private operators, for instance operato rs with concessions from bodies of state power and 
local self-governmental bodies, subject to specific services obligations. The foreign services suppliers 
can apply for these exclusive rights on equal term s with national services suppliers. Services 
considered as public utilities were supplie d on the basis of public contract.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 190  
 
 645. He stated that the policy of the Russian Federation in preserving, developing, and 
disseminating culture, required an authorization wi th respect to the acquisition of control over a 
juridical person of the Russian Federation related to the cultural heritage of Russian Federation and/or 
being a cultural property of the peoples of the Russ ian Federation.  Also the number of services 
suppliers and scope of their ope ration could be limited on non-discriminatory basis on the specially 
protected territories.   
646. He noted that for the purpose of the protec tion and preservation of indigenous persons and 
exiguous ethnic communities, measures directed at the protection and preservation of the territories of the traditional habitation of these group could be a pplied, and preferences to these group could be 
granted with respect to their traditional economi c activity on the territory of their traditional 
habitation. For the purpose of the protection and preservation of indigenous  persons and exiguous 
ethnic communities, a special regime of the use of  land of their traditional residence and economic 
activity had been established. According to that regime they have, inter alia, a priority right to  the use 
of the wild life  or natural resources in that land and they have to give their conformity for any  use of 
natural resources in that land. 
647. For the purpose of national security reasons, th e Russian Federation could use measures to 
regulate economic and entrepreneur activities with r espect to trade in services, including possession, 
use and disposal of land, natural resources and imm ovable property, entry and/or permanent stay of 
physical persons could be limited or prohibited wi thin the border zones a nd closed administrative 
areas.   
648. Answering to the concerns of some Members,  the representative of the Russian Federation 
confirmed that commitments on "tour operator a nd tour agency services CPC 7471" include, services 
rendered for passenger travel by tour agencies, tour op erators, and similar services; travel information, 
advice and planning services; services related to a rrangement of tours, accommodation, passenger and 
baggage transportation; ticket issuance services.   
649. Members of the Working Party stated that they  expected the Russian Federation to make a 
commitment to guarantee transparency of licen sing requirements and procedures, qualification 
requirements and procedures as well as of other author isation requirements, in particular with respect 
to obtaining, extending, renewing, denying and te rminating licences and other approvals required to 
provide services in the Russian Federation's market and appeals of such actions. The Russian Federation's licensing procedures and conditions should  not in themselves act as a barrier to market 
access and should not be more trade restrictive than necessary.  The Russian Federation should 
publish a list of authorities responsible for authoris ing, approving or regulating those service sectors  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 191 
 
 
 in which the Russian Federation makes specific co mmitments and the Russian Federation's licensing 
procedures and conditions. Members also expected th e Russian Federation to make a commitment to 
guarantee that for those services that would be included in the Russian Federation's Schedule of 
Specific Commitments, relevant regulatory authoritie s would be separated fro m, and not accountable 
to, any service suppliers they regulate. Members fu rther expected the Russian Federation to make a 
commitment to guarantee that foreign service s uppliers remain free to choose their partners. 
650. [In response, the representative of the Russi an Federation noted that with respect to 
transparency of licensing requirements and proce dures, qualification requirements and procedures as 
well as other authorization requirements, the Ru ssian Federation would make commitments in 
accordance with GATS and as provided for under the te rms, limitations and conditions and subject to 
qualifications specified in its Schedule.] 
651. The Russian Federation undertook market access ne gotiations in services with members of 
the Working Party.  The Russian Federation's comm itments in services are contained in the Schedule 
of Specific Commitments, reproduced in Annex … to the Draft Protocol. 
652. [Commitment language in this section will be cons idered by the Russian Federation at a later 
stage.] 
[to be completed] 
TRANSPARENCY 
Publication of Information on Trade 653. Members of the Working Party requested a de scription of the legal authorization to 
implement Article X of the GATT 1994 and the othe r transparency provisions required under WTO 
Agreements together with a confirmation that th ese provisions would be applied upon accession.  A 
clarification was particularly sought on where the Russian Federation' s laws, decrees, resolutions, 
orders, letters, etc. were published to fulfill th e requirements of Article X of the GATT 1994 and the 
transparency provisions in other WTO Agreements, including GATS and TRIPS. 
654. Some members of the Working Party stated th at access to customs regulations and decrees 
was vital for traders attempting to import and export.  In this regard, those members noted that there 
were currently over 4,500 customs regulations and "i nstructions".  Access to the published versions of 
those provisions was very difficult, notwithstanding th at they were considered to be regulatory and 
normative acts, legally binding and of general app lication, and the State Customs Committee did not WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 192  
 
 provide them to importers (or Embassies) upon requ est.  Those members requ ested that the Russian 
Federation elaborate how it was approaching this issue,  e.g., the need to facilitate access to customs 
regulations and other s ubsidiary legislation. 
655. The representative of the Russian Federation replie d that in accordance with Article 5.3 of the 
Constitution, laws and other regulatory acts relating to human rights, freedom and duties were subject 
to official publication.  This provision was deve loped in Federal Law No. 5-FZ of 14 July 1994 "On 
the Procedures for Publishing and Entering into Fo rce of Federal Constitutio nal Laws, Federal Laws, 
and Acts passed by the Chambers of the Federal Assembly"; and Presidential Decree No. 763 of 23 
May 1996 "On the Procedures for Publication and Entering into Force of the Acts of the President of the Russian Federation, the Government of the Ru ssian Federation and the Normative Legal Acts of 
the Federal Executive Bodies".  According to Artic le 4 of Federal Law No. 5-FZ, the date of 
publication of a federal constitutional law, federal la w or act passed by the Chambers of the Federal 
Assembly should be the date of the first publication of their full text in the "Parlamentskaya Gazeta", 
"Rossiyskaya Gazeta" or in the digest "Sobran iye Zakonodatelstva Rossijskoj  Federatsii".  Federal 
constitutional laws, federal laws a nd acts of the Chambers could also be published in other press 
sources and brought to general knowle dge through media, distributed to state authorities, officials, 
enterprises, establishments and organizations, tran smitted via communication channels or distributed 
in machine-readable formats.  He also noted that a great deal of draft legislation was made available 
on various governmental and parliamentary, (e.g. the State Duma) websites from the time it was 
formally proposed to the State Du ma.  The Government intended to c ontinue and expand this practice. 
656. He added that in accordance with paragraph 2 of Presidential Decree No. 763, acts of the 
President of the Russian Federation and of the Government were subject  to official publication in the 
"Rossiyskaya Gazeta" and in the digest 'Sobraniy e Zakonodatelstva Rossijskoj Federatsii" within ten 
days after their signing. Distribution of the act s of the President and the Government in a 
machine-readable form by the scientific and techni cal centre of legal information "Systema" was also 
deemed to constitute an official publication. More over, in accordance with paragraph 8 of Presidential 
Decree No. 763, regulatory legal acts of federal exec utive bodies related to human rights, freedom and 
duties or establishing the legal status of  organizat ions or acts of inter-departmental nature were 
subject to official publication in the "Rossiyskaya Ga zeta" within three days of their registration, and 
in the "Bulletin of Normative Acts of the Fe deral Bodies of Executive Power" published by the 
publishing house "Yuridicheskaya Literature" of the Administration of the President.  This Bulletin was distributed in a machine-readable form by "Systema".  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 193 
 
 
 657. He noted that in accordance with Fe deral Law No. 164 of 8 December 2003 “On 
Fundamentals of State Regulation of Foreign Tr ade Activity” (Article 16), new Customs Code 
No. 61-FZ of 28 May 2003 (Article 24) and Govern ment Resolution No. 98 of 12 February 2003 “On 
Access to Information on Activities of the Gove rnment of the Russian Federation a nd Federal 
Executive Bodies”, all federal executive bodies were required to ensure public  access to information 
with regard to laws, Presidential decrees, govern ment resolutions, as well as their own regulations, 
orders, rules, instructions, recommendations, letters , telegrams, teletype messages, etc., having an 
impact on trade, including by placing this informat ion on the Internet. He also confirmed that his 
Government had set up an operational enquiry point in  conformity with the requirements of the WTO 
Agreements on TBT and SPS and was establishing opera tional enquiry points in conformity with the 
requirements of Article III of the Gene ral Agreement on Trade in Services.  
658. Members requested further information on any legal requirements in the Russian Federation 
that judicial decisions pertaining to the issues covered by the GATT 1994, the GATS and other WTO Agreements also be published "in such a manner as  to enable governments and traders to become 
acquainted with them" prior to their entry into forc e.  In particular, they asked for information on 
where information on laws and regulations affec ting the GATS and Intellectual Property Protection 
might be published.  They also suggested that the Russian Federation consider  posting the contents of 
"Rossiyskaya Gazeta, "Sobraniye Zakonodatelstv a Rossijskoj Federatsii," and "Parlamentskaya 
Gazeta"on the Internet to improve access by the ge neral public.  While many legal provisions existed 
that laws, regulations, decrees, instructions, etc. be published and be availa ble approximately at the 
time of implementation, some impor tant rulings, particularly in the area of customs activities, were 
not easily accessible, and there were few facilities to  acquaint traders and the general population with 
these provisions prior to their enactment or to provide an opportunity for comment.  Members also expressed concerns about the lack of opportunity to  provide comments and views on laws, regulations 
and other measures prior to their implementation. 
659. Members noted that in the areas of licensing of  services, it was often difficult to identify the 
responsible authorities.  Moreover the operation of  Russian agencies responsible for authorizing, 
approving or regulating services activities, whether th rough grant of license or other approval, lacked 
transparency and procedures were often unpredictable.  
660. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation noted that Federal Law No. 128-FZ 
of 8 August 2001 "On Licensing of Specific Typ es of Activity” (as amended on 23 December 2003) 
imposed specific procedural requirements, including criteria and time limits for decisions on licensing 
and licensing authorities, and requirements for writte n notification of decisions.  Under Federal Law WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 194  
 
 No. 128-FZ licensing procedures and authorised bodi es were established by Government Resolutions 
(according to Article 5 of that Federal Law).  All acts of the Government of the Russian Federation 
were subject to official publication before they came into effect.  
661. Members welcomed this information, but noted that the Law did not cover important sectors, 
such as activities in the field of communications, production and sale of ethyl alcohol and alcohol 
products, and market activity. 
662. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation noted that though Federal Law 
No. 128-FZ did not cover a certain range of activ ities, including communications, production and sale 
of alcohol, etc., specific requirements on transparen cy, including criteria and time limits for decisions 
on licensing and licensing authorities, and requirement s for written notification of decisions, were 
stipulated in the special Federal Laws  regulating those types of activity.  
663. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that from the date of accession all 
laws, regulations, decrees, decisions, judicial d ecisions and administrative rulings of general 
application related to trade would be published promptly in a manner that fulfills WTO requirements, 
including Article X of the GATT 1994. He also conf irmed that the Russian Federation would observe 
the transparency requirements of the GATS, partic ularly Article III, and Article 63 of the TRIPS 
Agreement from the date of accession.  As such, no law or regulation related to international trade 
would become effective prior to such publication in one or more official publication specifically 
identified for this purpose from the date of acce ssion.  His Government would review and, as 
necessary, amend current legislation to ensure that such measures would be implemented.  He further 
confirmed that his Government had decided to e xpand the transparency provided with regard to 
legislation and measures having similar effect in the areas of trade and investment.  In this regard, the Russian Federation would, from the date of accession , establish or designate a single official journal 
or website, published or updated on a regular basis and readily available to WTO members, 
individuals and enterprises, dedicated to the pub lication of all regulations, decisions, orders, 
administrative rulings of general application, and other normative measures pertaining to or affecting 
trade in goods, services, and TRIPS prior to enact ment.  The government would provide a reasonable 
period, i.e., no less than 30 days, for comment to  the appropriate authorities before such measures 
would enter into force, except for those regulati ons and other measures i nvolving national emergency 
or security, or for which the publication would impede law enforcement.  The publication of such regulations and other measures would include the na mes of the authorities (including contact points) 
responsible for authorizing, approving or regul ating services activities, whether through grant of 
license or other approval, including those organizat ions which had been delegated authority from  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 195 
 
 
 federal authorities.  Procedures and conditions for obtaining such licenses or approval would also be 
published.  Published information w ould also include the effective date of these measures and list the 
products and services affected by the particular measure, identified by appropriate tariff line and 
classification.  The Government would take into account any comments received during the period for 
commenting, and if so requested, would reply as pr omptly as possible.  He added that the Russian 
Federation intended to post the contents of curre nt and past editions of "Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 
“Sobraniye Zakonodatelstva Rossijskoj Federatsii,” a nd "Parlamentskaya Gazeta" on this website as 
well, and keep them current.  The Worki ng Party took note of these commitments.] 
664. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would conform with the provisi ons of Article X of the GATT 1994, Article III of 
the GATS.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.] 
Notifications 
665. Members of the Working Party noted that all me mbers of the WTO were obliged to  provide 
notifications to the various subsidiary bodies of the WTO, pursuant to the covered Agreements.  
Members of the Working Party requested  a specifi c commitment that the Russian Federation would 
provide, as from the date of accession, initial notif ications for all WTO Agreements, and that 
regulations subsequently enacted by the Russian Federation which would give effect to the laws 
enacted to implement any of the WTO Agreements would also conform to the requirements of that 
Agreement.   
666. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that upon accession, the Russian 
Federation would submit all initial notifications re quired by any Agreement constituting part of the 
WTO Agreement.  Any regulations subsequently enac ted by the Russian Federa tion which gave effect 
to the laws enacted to implement any Agreement constituting part of the WTO Agreement would also 
conform to the requirements of that Agreement.] 
667. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that after accession the Russian 
Federation would submit notifications  in conformity with WTO rules and procedures.  The Working 
Party took note of this commitment.] 
FREE TRADE AND CUSTOMS UNION AGREEMENTS 
668. Members of the Working Party noted that the Ru ssian Federation participated in a number of 
preferential trade agreements, and that it was custom ary to provide a detailed description of the scope, 
nature, and status of such agreements.  This was required to ensure that the value of MFN WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 196  
 
 commitments negotiated in the schedules would be know n to all parties.  These agreements currently 
included: bilateral free trade agreements with CIS Member States and a bilateral free trade agreement 
(signed on 18 August 2000) with th e Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia and Montenegro); 
the “Agreement on the Creation of Free Trade Area” between CIS countries of 15 April 1994; the ‘Agreement on Customs Union and Common Economic  Area’ of 26 February 1999 and subsequent 
‘Agreement on the Establishment of the Eurasi an Economic Community’ with the Republics of 
Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic of 10 October 2000; the ‘Agreement on the 
Creation of a Unified State’ with the Republic of Belarus of 8 December 1999; and the ‘Agreement on 
the Establishment of a Common Economic Area’ with Ukraine, the Republics of Belarus and 
Kazakhstan of 19 September 2003. 
669. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that, at present, trade and economic 
relations between the Russian Federation and the other CIS countries (the Republics of Azerbaijan, 
Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan 
and the Kyrgyz Republic) were determined by a number of multilateral and bilateral agreements.  
These Agreements  had established a regime of fre e trade in goods among the Parties that covered a 
substantial part of trade in goods between them.  In accordance with the agreements on free trade with 
CIS countries and the Republic of Serbia and M ontenegro, the importation of nearly all goods 
(including agricultural products) originating from these countries into  the customs territory of the 
Russian Federation was not subject to customs du ties.  The Russian Federation believed that an 
obvious advantage of WTO membership for CIS Me mber States would be implementation of the 
WTO requirement to bring the legislation of its memb ers into compliance with its norms and rules. As 
a result, trade among CIS countries was likely to become more efficient. When expanding and 
implementing trade and economic agreements with CIS counties, including the Eurasian Economic 
Community, at both multilateral and bilateral leve ls, the Russian Federation currently took due 
account of existing or future obligations of these c ountries as current or potential WTO members.  He 
also noted that Georgia, Moldova, the Kyrgyz Rep ublic and Armenia, which were parties to a number 
of these preferential agreements with the Russian  Federation, had joined the WTO between 1998 and 
2003.  He recalled that those respective agreemen ts had also been discussed in the respective 
accession Working parties of these countries. 
670. He noted that the preferential trade agreements concluded by the Russian Federation had 
effectively led to the elimination of customs duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce in respect of substantially all trade between the Russi an Federation and the parties to these agreements.  
Trade preferences were granted to goods originating in  respective territories of parties to preferential 
agreements on the basis of a certificate of origin as pe r the rules of origin incl uded in the agreements.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 197 
 
 
 671. On 15 April 1994, CIS Member States had signe d a multilateral "Agreement on Establishing 
a Free Trade Area". This agreement provided for the gradual elimination of customs duties, taxes and 
charges and other limitations and obstructions to free movement of goods.  The Agreement had been 
further modified by the "Protocol on Amending the Agreement on Establishing a Free Trade Area" 
signed by CIS Member States on 2 April 1999.  The Pr otocol established that the free trade area was 
to be implemented via existing or future bila teral agreements and pr otocols on exemptions.  
Preferences were granted on the basis of a certif icate of origin, provided that the goods met the 
required rules of origin and the exporter was a resi dent of the exporting country.  He added that the 
Russian Federation had not yet ratified the multilateral Agreement and the Protocol.  
672. The "Agreement between the Government of th e Russian Federation and the Government of 
the Federal Republic Yugoslavia on Free Trade" ha d been concluded on 28 August 2000.  It had not 
been ratified by the Russian Federation and was bei ng applied provisionally in the interim. Article 1 
of this Agreement stipulated that the Parties w ould liberalize trade in accordance with the provisions 
of the Agreement and WTO rules in order to creat e a free trade regime.  The Agreement provided for 
the duty free movement of goods between the Parties covering substantially all trade. 
673. The representative of the Russian Federation added that the "Agreement on the Customs 
Union and Common Economic Area" had been signe d on 26 February 1999 with the Republics of 
Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan and the Kyrg yz Republic.  The Agreement foresaw the gradual 
creation of a free-trade area and a customs union, and covered trade in go ods and services and the 
movement of capital.  In particular, the Agreement set the objective of the elimination of all customs 
tariffs and other restrictions related to trade in  goods between the Parties except those allowed under 
the WTO agreement.  With referen ce to trade in services, the Parties would aim at providing national 
treatment with respect to access to services market s, including the gradual elimination of existing 
restrictions on juridical and natural persons.  In order to formally establish the common economic area 
and customs union, the "Agreement on the Establishment of the Eurasian Economic Community" 
(EAEC) had been signed on 10 October 2000 and had entered into force on 30 May 2001.  He added 
that the aims of these agreements had not been reac hed yet.  The Heads of Governments of the EAEC 
had adopted a “List of Activities on Creating the Eurasian Economic Community for the years 2003-
2006.”  These Activities included th e implementation of previously adopted decisions and concluded 
international treaties as well as the preparation of new documents.  In all, 57 additional agreements 
had been concluded under the auspices of the Cu stoms Union and the EAEC, 48 of which were in 
force.  These Agreements aime d at fostering economic coopera tion between entities of counties-
members; unification of foreign trade, customs po licies and trade remedies; cooperation between the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 198  
 
 financial and banking systems; cooperation in social  and humanitarian areas; and cooperation in the 
field of legal regulation.   
674. In order to continue developing the integra tion process between the Russian Federation and 
the Republic of Belarus, the ‘Agreement on the Creation of a Unified State’ and the associated 
‘Program of Actions of the Russian Federation a nd the Republic of Belarus on the Realization of 
Provisions of the Agreement on the Creation of a Un ified State’ had been concluded on 8 December 
1999.  The Agreement had been ratified by the Ru ssian Federation on 2 January 2000. The purpose of 
this Agreement was, inter alia, the establishmen t of a common economic area and the setting of a 
legal basis for a common market providing for free trade in goods and services, and free movement of capital and labor within the territory of the Par ties, including equal conditions and guarantees for 
business, as well as implementation of a common external trade and custom tariff policy.  
675. On 19 September 2003, the Presidents of the Russian Federation, Ukraine and the Republics 
of Belarus and Kazakhstan signed an ‘Agreeme nt on the Establishment of a Common Economic 
Area’.  Parties to the Agreement intended to prom ote mutual trade and investment on the basis of 
fundamental principles and norms of international law, including WTO rules, and also to increase the 
competitiveness of their economies via, inter alia, the creation of a free-trade area and possibly of a 
customs union.  No specific agreements aimed at  realization of this Common Economic Area had 
been concluded so far.  According to the Agre ement, the Common Economic Area would be created 
by stages, taking into account the possibility of  different implementation rates and levels of 
integration.  Transition from one stage to anot her could be achieved by those Members who had 
performed all the measures envisaged in the prev ious stage.  Each Member would determine 
independently which integration measures it would adopt  and the rate and degree of such integration. 
676. Members of the Working Party required further clarification on how the Russian Federation 
intended to ensure compliance between its pr ocess of accession to the WTO and its commitments 
undertaken in the framework of the Customs Union,  notably with respect to the establishment of a 
common external tariff considering that a Customs Union country was already a Member of the WTO. Some Members sought a more detailed explanation of the reasons why MFN exemptions would be needed in the Russian Federation’s GATS Schedule if, as the Russian Federation had 
claimed, the customs union arrangements would be in conformity with Article V of the GATS.  
Another Member inquired whether the Russian Fede ration would confirm that preferential access to 
exports of other CIS countries to the Russian market was limited to exporters resident in the exporting 
countries as, if this was the case, this provisi on would be inconsistent  with WTO obligations.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
 Page 199 
 
 
 Members also requested further information a bout the Russia-EU Partnership and Co-operation 
Agreement (PCA). 
677. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that nothing in its agreements 
on the creation of customs unions limited its ability to  accede to the WTO in accordance with its rules 
and to implement WTO commitments upon accession.  The Russian Federation had submitted new 
proposals on the MFN exemptions list of its servi ces offer, which took account of the concerns of 
WTO Members. The purpose of that list was to ensure the possibility of implementation of 
preferential agreements covering some specific services sectors or specific issues.  The residency requirement for free trade between CIS countries wa s necessary for the effective implementation of 
those preferential agreements, to avoid false declarat ions of origin and combat money laundering, and 
did not have practical effects for trade. As far as  the PCA was concerned, it had been ratified by the 
Russian Federation on 25 November 1996, and was one of more than 100 non-preferential trade 
agreements the Russian Federation had concluded with its trading pa rtners.  The PCA set out both the 
general principles and detailed provi sions that governed relationships between the EU and the Russian 
Federation in the field of trade in goods and servi ces and related issues. The main objectives of the 
PCA were: to provide an appropriate framework for political dialogue; to promote trade and 
investment and harmonious economic relations; to  strengthen political and economic freedoms; to 
provide a basis for economic, social , financial and cultura l cooperation and to pr ovide an appropriate 
framework for the further integration between the Russian Federation and a wi der area of cooperation 
in Europe.  The PCA had created different institutio ns to attain the objectives of the agreement: the 
Cooperation Council, the Cooperation Committee and the Parliamentary Cooperation Committee. As 
far as trade in goods was concerned, the PCA for esaw MFN treatment for goods and provided for the 
application of certain GATT principles.  It further promoted legislative harmonization.  In the area of 
investment, it contained provisions that aimed at improving the environment for the establishment and 
operation of companies of both sides.  The PCA al so addressed the issues of current payments and 
movement of capital, competition and intellectual property.  
678. Members of the Working Party sought a comm itment that the Russian Federation would 
observe Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 and Article V of the GATS in its participation in trade 
agreements, and would ensure that the provisi ons of these WTO Agreements for notification, 
consultation and other requirements concerning fr ee trade areas and customs unions were met upon 
accession, and that any subsequent legislation or regulations enacted or altered under these 
agreements would remain consiste nt with the provision of the WTO. More specifically, the Russian 
Federation should notify its Free Trade Areas, Cust oms Unions and Economic Union Agreements for 
review by the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA) upon accession. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.3 
Page 200  
 
 679. [The Representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that his Government would observe 
the provisions of the WTO including Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 and Article V of the GATS in 
its participation in trade agreements, and would en sure that the provisions of these WTO Agreements 
for notification, consultation and other requireme nts concerning free trade areas and customs unions 
of which the Russian Federation was a member were met from the date of accession. He confirmed that the Russian Federation would, upon accession, submit notifications and copies of its Free Trade 
Area and Custom Union Agreements to the Commi ttee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA). He 
further confirmed that any legislation or regulations  required to be altered under its Trade Agreements 
would remain consistent with th e provision of the WTO and would, in any case, be notified to the 
CRTA during its examination of the same.] 
680. [The representative of the Russian Federation stated that the Russian Federation would 
observe the provisions of Article XXIV of the GA TT 1994 and Article V of the GATS in its future 
preferential trade agreements.  The Worki ng Party took note of this commitment.] 
CONCLUSIONS 
[to be completed]