RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
20 February 2003 
 (03-1086) 
Working Party on the 
Accession of the Russian Federation Original:   English 
 
 
 
ACCESSION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
 
 
 Attached is a consolidated list of follow- up comments, proposals and requests for specific 
information or clarification relating to issues in the revised draft of the Working Party Report on the 
Accession of the Russian Federation to the WT O (document WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 refers) 
which were considered by the Working Party at its formal and informal sessions held in January 2003, 
together with comments, proposals and requests for specific information or clarification relating to 
issues which the Working Party will address after the March 2003 formal a nd informal sessions. 
 
     WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
Page 2  
 
  
Paragraph 
No. Comment 
8-10 ECONOMY, ECONOMIC POLICIES AND FOREIGN TRADE 
Economic Policies - Fiscal and Monetary Policies 
11-26 - Foreign Exchange and Payments System 
11-26 Questions on the IMF’s Approval   
 
According to the IMF Report (IMF Country Report No. 02/74), “Restrictions on 
advance import payments (exchange restric tion). The authorities do not freely permit 
the making of all advance payments that are required under valid import contracts. 
Fund approval not granted”. Could Russian Federation explain whether the following regulations are approved by the IMF?  
1. Limitation on the period between a dvance payment and customs clearance 
2. Requirement for Russian importe rs to make a deposit in Rubles 
corresponding to the amount of the advance payment paid in foreign currency. 
 
Specific questions on the draft law “On Currency Regulation and Currency 
Control”  
 
1. Limitation on the period between a dvance payment and customs clearance   
 After enforcing the draft law, will transac tions, for which the period between advance 
payment and customs clearance exceeds 180 days, have restrictions imposed only in 
the three exceptional situations menti oned on page 8 of “WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29”? 
Apart from these three situations, can companies conduct transactions without permission from the CBR?  
Regarding transactions for which the peri od between advance payment and customs 
clearance does not exceed 180 days, are no restrictions imposed?  2) Requirement for Russian importe rs to make a deposit in Rubles 
corresponding to the amount of the advance payment paid in foreign currency  
 
After enforcing the draft law, will the requi rement (for Russian importers to make a 
deposit in Rubles (which is 20% of the a dvance payment) be only imposed when the 
transactions for which the period betw een the advance payment and customs 
clearance exceeds 180 days in the three excep tional situations ment ioned on page 8 of 
“WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29”? 
 
When will this regulation be abolished?  3) The mandatory requirement applicable to exporters of products from Russia 
to convert a certain percentage (from 50% to 30% in the draft law) of their 
foreign exchange earnings into domestic currency  
       When will this regulation be abolished?  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
 Page 3 
 
 
  
11-26 We welcome the new information provide d by Russia on its draft Federal Law "On 
foreign exchange control and foreign ex change regulation".  The inclusion of 
"proposed" elements of Russia's foreign ex change scheme with "existing" elements, 
however, introduces uncertainties as to wh at provisions will apply upon accession. 
 
We suggest that, at an appropriate point, this  entire section of the report be re-drafted 
along the lines suggested in the general comments in WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29, i.e., 
by drawing out clearly which provisions will be superseded by new legislation, and those that will remain the same. 
 
We welcome the statement in Russia's res ponse that, under draft legislation, current 
exchange transactions are to be "free".  In relation to that statement, we seek 
clarification as to whether the proposed re quirement that residents must ensure 
payments are deposited in accounts within a 180 day period in the case of prepaid 
imports will replace the current restriction of 90 days. 
 - What provisions will be made for ci rcumstances where performance of 
contract does not occur within that time period? 
- On page 12, Russia states that "it is  quite possible" to prolong the current 
term beyond 90 days by obtaining CBR permission.  We concur with the 
views expressed by Members under para 23 (page 6 of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29) that the difficulties involved in obtaining approval would pose unnecessary additional transac tion costs on importers (Article III 
of GATT 1994) and should be removed. 
 
In relation to the proposed mandatory sale of export earnings (up to a limit of 30 per 
cent of earnings), we strongly disagree with  Russia's claim that it does not represent a 
violation of Article III or XI of GATT 1994. - Irrespective of whether exporters can ac quire foreign currency on the internal 
market, this regulation requires exporters  to dispose of their foreign currency 
and then re-purchase them at cost (i .e., exchange rate losses, payment of 
conversion margin), affording protectio n to domestic products (Article III). 
- By its very nature this regulation represents a restriction on both the 
importation and exportation of any product (Article XI). 
 
Russia has not addressed concerns raised under para 12 (page 5 of 
WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29) on the WTO inconsiste ncy of the requirement to deposit an 
amount equal in value to the foreign currency purchased for the purpose of prepayment of imports.  We look forwar d to a full response to this and other 
outstanding concerns. 
40-52 - Pricing Policies 
51 As it is stated in paragraph 51 of th e draft report: “international treaties are 
binding throughout the entire territory of the Russian Federation”. However, we are still witnessing violations of commitments undertaken by the Russian Federation under bilateral a nd multilateral arrangements affecting trade in goods 
and services. That is why we need the cl ear commitment to be undertaken by the 
Russian Federation, with reflection in the draft report, that it will strictly observe 
the provisions of international treaties.  We would also like to have a clarifi cation from the Russian Federation on the 
following question: in case if Russia’s dom estic legislation provides for conditions WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
Page 4  
 
 different from those stipulated by international treaties to which Russia is a party, 
can the legal primacy of international treaties over domestic law be enforced 
without the need for complainants to seek  a judgment of a court? If not, what are 
exact procedures to be followed? 
48-58 This delegation is disappointed with deleting the paragraph 72 from the document 
RUS/25, which deals with coordination of  international and foreign economic ties 
of the subjects of the Russian Federation and asks the Secretariat to restore this 
paragraph in the current document toge ther with the question posed by our 
delegation on this very issue which w as reflected in document RUS/25/Add.1.  
 Our delegation wishes to reiterate that th e provisions of the Law of the Russian 
Federation on Coordination of Internati onal and Foreign Economic Ties of the 
Subjects of the Russian Federation are being constantly violated by the subjects of 
the Russian Federation. That is why we  need explanations from the Russian 
Federation how it intends to ensure full obser vance of this law by its subjects. We 
also seek clear commitment from the Russian Federation that its federal or sub-federal entities will act strictly in confor mity with the above-mentioned law fully 
respecting national legislation and interests of partners’ countries. 
48-49 We are still concerned about the latest in formation given by Russian delegation that a 
possibility for discriminatory pricing for transportation on railway freight remains.  
 We would like to express our interest to see what is the deadline for the second stage 
of tariff unification as explained in para 49? 
55-65 FRAMEWORK FOR MAKING AND ENFORCING POLICIES 
Powers of executive, legislative and judicial branches of government; Government entities responsible for maki ng and implementing policies affecting 
foreign trade; 
Division of authority between central and sub-central governments 
55-65 The new information provided in this section is useful.  We encourage Russia to 
address the substance of the questions raised by Members in relation to appeals procedures across other aspects of Russia's  trade regime and how Russia intends to 
ensure action is taken against non-uniform application of trade-related measures. 
98-99 - Other Duties and Charges 
99 Russia should confirm that “other duties and charges” applied to imports will be 
bound at zero in its Goods Market Access schedule. 
98-99 The para. 297 or the draft report states, “For the illegal copies, the right holder could 
request to take them. ...  Concerning the S uperior Arbitration Court's practice, the 
Court issued a decision on confiscation and destruction in cases where the right holder did not request the goods to be transfe rred to him. ”. In this respect, we would 
like to ask for more information on whether this provision relates to films and 
phonograms or to goods produced with violation of rights of holders of trademarks or to all aforementioned? If the provision relate s also to films and phonograms, what is 
the arrangement for the holder to use or se ll these items? Is it stipulated in a legal 
document or it is discretion of the right holder? 
98-99 Russian Federation:  
 We suggest replacing in para. 102 the words “according to the new draft Customs 
Code” with “in accordance with the draft Chapter 25.1 “Customs Duty and Customs 
Charges” of Part II of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and the draft new version of the Customs Code of the Ru ssian Federation”, which would correctly 
reflect the structure of the legislation of the Russian Federation on taxes and levies 
and the content of the above draft laws which have been presented by the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
 Page 5 
 
 
 Government of the Russian Federation to the State Duma. 
98-99 Russian Federation:  
 
There are no requirements in the Russian consulates to have consular documents 
(consular invoices and certificates) or consular visas for performance of import/export transactions. Furthermore, no special consular fees connected with the 
export or import of goods or services have been instituted. 
 The activities of consulates are governed by worldwide accepted provisions of 
international law (in particul ar Vienna Convention 1963). 
 Thus, the issues on consular fees should be  excluded from the Draft Report as they 
are not connected with importation and exportation. 
100-107 - Fees and Charges for Services Rendered 
100-107 The table of fees levied for consular purposes (Table 12) includes a number of 
consular fees with a potential impact on trade, in particular (1) fees for certification 
and notarisation of documents, (2) fees for notarisation of agreements subject to 
evaluation, (3) fees for notarisation of authentication of signature, (4) fees for consular service of sea- or aircraft, including for issuing certificates of loading or unloading, for notarisation of various certif icates and applications, including the 
cargo certificate, and for notarisation of san itary certificates. Ru ssia needs to respond 
to the questions we have already posed in or der either (a) to demonstrate that in fact 
these fees are not in any way connected with  trade and therefore are not covered by 
GATT Article VIII requirements, or (b) to sp ecify what steps it is taking to ensure 
that such fees are levied on a non-discriminatory and WTO-consistent basis. 
100-107 The text of this Section should be upda ted to give additional specific information on 
the unified customs fee:  
- whether the unified Customs fee will replace all other Customs charges on 
imports except for customs escort, or if not , information on any Customs charges that 
will continue; - the status of the legislation that will establish and administer the fee and 
whether further regulation will be necessary to implement the fee; 
- the scope of application, in terms of goods and exporting countries covered 
or exempted; - the legal basis and level of application; 
- what the revenues collected will be used for; 
- the relationship between the revenues collected and the cost of the services 
for which the fee is applied; and 
- how Russia will insure that the reve nues collected are used solely for 
providing these services, and that none of the revenues are used for the customs clearance of exempted imports or exports. 
103-107 - Stamp Tax, State Duties, and Consular Fees   
 Paras 104-6: Russia should expand the text to distinguish stamp taxes from State Duties in terms of their purpose, inciden ce, and application, and respond to WP 
Members ’ questions and state unambiguously in the text whether customs documents 
are, or are not, considered to be “vital r ecords” or “other legally significant actions 
performed by vital statistics offices,” i.e., subject to the stamp tax or state duties.  Paras 106-7:  The text should include r esponses to Members’ questions concerning 
the extent to which consular fees are applied to pay for services involving import or WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
Page 6  
 
 export documents, which documents requiring the fees are trade-related, and if their 
use in importation and exportation is optional or mandatory. 
Tables 10-13 -  Tables 10-13 should be comprehensive.  If they are not, additional 
information should be provided to make them so.   - Has the legal authorization for the measures noted in the first and third 
“notes” to the Table listing Consular fees been eliminated? 
103-104 Russian Federation:  
 The term “stamp tax” mentioned in the pa ragraphs 103-104 and Table 11 should be 
read “state duty”. 
100-110 - Fees and Charges for Services Rendered 
99-100 Our delegation expresses its concern about  the double standard policy pursued by 
the Russian Federation while collecting the consular fees from Georgian nationals, 
according to which the Russian Federati on accords the privileges to and exempts 
from payment of certain consular fees specific groups of population based on their ethnicity and places of origin and for example, Georgian nationals from Abkhazian and South Ossetian regions are considered/treated as Russian nationals.  
Our delegation urges the Russian Federati on to apply the uniform consular fee 
policy towards all Georgian nationals and e liminate the current practice prior to its 
accession to the WTO. 
111-116 Application of Internal Taxes on Imports 
- Excise Taxes 
111-116 In para 115 a Member raised the issue of the calculation of excise taxes on imports on 
the customs value plus the total of customs duties and levies payable versus the calculation of excise taxes on domestically pr oduces goods on the basis of the actual 
value only and raised the question of its national treatment implications. As it does 
not seems that the Russian delegation addressed this concern, we would welcome an 
answer. 
142-150 - Customs Valuation 
142-150 This Section should be updated to describe how the provisions of the draft Customs 
Code and draft Chapter 25.1 of Part II of the Tax Code will bring Russia into 
conformity with WTO provisions once they are enacted.  - Please include information on what will  be required concerning changes to 
regulations in place and issuing furthe r regulations to fully implement the 
new customs valuation regime. 
- The draft report should also include reference to Member requests for 
commitments on the use of the two WCO decisions on valuation. 
- Please elaborate in the revised draft Working Party Report text on the need 
and operation of the “special technique of customs control” to prevent 
commercial valuation fraud.  What precisely is the “special technique,” how 
is it applied, and does Russia intend to keep using it in future?   
- Please provide a list of products by HS item number currently subject to the 
“special technique,” e.g. flat glass. 
- Please include information on how Russia’s customs regime addresses the 
right to import merchandise under bond. 
- Please include information in the text on the scope for use of transaction 
value in related party transactions, th e need to include the Interpretative 
Notes in Russia’s customs valuation legislation, and respond to the specific concerns noted regarding the determination customs value under transaction value, value of identical merchandi se, deductive value, and the fallback 
method.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
 Page 7 
 
 
 151-158 - Rules of Origin 
151-158 We submitted a number of specific questi ons on Rules of Origin in May 2002, to 
which no response has yet been made.  We invite Russia to respond now. 
151-158 On the basis of the answer from the Russian delegation during the December 2002 
meeting paragraph 153 shoul d be modified, as the requirement of the written 
statement by the consignor will be repeal ed by the draft tax code. We seek a 
confirmation and a commitment from the Russian delegation on this issue. 
151-158 Please provide specific and updated in formation on the new Rules of Origin 
provisions with respect to WTO obligations, e.g., as provided for in the new Customs Code, and the need or existence of any relevant implementing regulations, with 
particular attention to the requirements of Article 2(h) and Anne x II, paragraph 3(d) 
of the Agreement on Rules of Origin. .  Do Russia’s preferential rules of origin fo r the FTAs with CIS, Yugoslavia, or other 
such agreements, reflect the interim rules of the WTO Agreement in Annex II of the 
Agreement?  Please provide specific legal citations. 
151-158 Normally the country of origin will most  often be stated in the  trade documents/ 
invoices. A certificate of origin is normally not necessary, unless requesting 
preferential treatment. Para 152 , as in para 163 of the former document,  uses the 
word ”might” e.g. ”might request a certificat e of origin” or ”might be no mandatory 
requirement to submit a certificate of origin”   Our exporters are confronted with uncertainties as Russian practice can be  unclear 
and opens for high tariffs (double the MFN-rate). This again means that for all 
practical purposes an exporter needs a certific ate of origin even though it shouldn’t 
be necessary when not requesting preferen tial treatment and when the origin is 
reflected in the documentation for cu stoms clearance. The non-clarity and 
unnecessary bureaucratic burdens should be so lved by the time of WTO-accession. 
First there is a need for more information on practice. 
152-156 1. Our delegation wishes to reiterate  the importance of problems described in 
paragraph 153 regarding the custom s regulation and simplification of 
border control measures and necessity of  bringing all these inconsistencies 
under the WTO legal umbrella. 
 We regret that the Russian Federation in stead of understanding the problem raised 
by the member tries to circumvent the question, which has the utmost importance 
and serious economic consequences for the member’s national economy. 
Accordingly, the problems listed in para graph 153 of the draft report still remain 
unresolved and open. Therefore, we seek the commitment from the Russian 
Federation to prevent the illegal flow of smuggled goods from its territory. We 
also urge Russian side to remove all customs formalities, which represent hidden 
barriers to trade and major trade distorting measures, prior to its accession to the 
WTO.  2. Our delegation would like to reiterate that the provisions of decrees of the 
State Customs Committee of the Russian Federation No 961-r dated 4 
October 2001 and No 1002 dated 19 October 2001 run counter the 
provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and namely Article 15 which states that: ”if an international treaty to which the 
Russian Federation is party provides for other rules than those set forth by 
Russian Federation domestic law, the rules of the international treaty 
should apply”.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
Page 8  
 
  
It should be stated that the two above-mentioned decrees of the State Customs Committee violate the provisions of the b ilateral agreement between this member 
and the Russian Federation on Customs Check Points.  
Accordingly, our delegation urges the Russian Federation to immediately 
eliminate these discrepancies and to ensure the consistency of these legislative acts 
with the provisions of the international treaty. 
152 We refer to the reference in paragraph 152 to country quotas and “other methods for 
regulation of foreign economic activities”.  - We seek the inclusion in the draft Report of explanations of the circumstances 
under which these two measures are applied. 
159-163 and 
200-201 - Other Customs Formalities 
200-201 Please identify and describe any other expor t measures like the one described in these 
paragraphs. 
163 Russia should respond to WP Member requests for a commitment addressing the 
issue of reduced access to the Russian market through sel ectively closed and opened 
border crossings.  
159 and 200-201 We are still concerned about the operation of customs check-points, which are from 
time to time promptly closed for certain products under different reasons. This uncertainty over operation of customs ch eckpoints is considerably limiting market 
access for some products. We would like to see a commitment from Russian side to bring its practices in conformity with WTO rules. 
209-225 Technical Regulations and Standards, Including Measures Taken at the Border 
with Respect to Imports 
- Technical Barriers to Trade 
209-225 Under section IV of the document on “b asic administrative measures necessary for 
carrying out activity in the field of medicines” it is not clear if the certificate of 
conformity of the medicines delivered by the Ministry of Health or Gosstandard of Russia or both and what are their respective competence. It would be useful to get 
more information on their respective competence.   
In addition, it is mentioned that the cost for getting a certificate of conformity is 
determined on agreement between an a pplicant and a body of certification. 
Considering Article I and VIII GATT and Ar ticle 5.2.5 of the TBT Agreement, we 
have serious doubts on the cons istency with WTO rules of way the fee requested for a 
certificate of conformity is determined.  
 
According to Paragraph 209 , Gosstandard of Russia is operating in the regulatory as 
well as in the commercial field. Such combination of responsibilities is problematic with regard to impartiality and indepe ndence of Gosstandard. Is it intended to 
separate certain tasks from Gosstandard? Who will in future be responsible for the 
operation of a reliable accreditation system in Russia?  
Paragraph 212  mentions that Government Resolution No. 287 of 29 April 2002 
substantially reduced the list of goods subj ect to mandatory certification. We request 
that an updated list be annexed to the draft report. Are further revisions of this list 
planned in the near future? 
 
Paragraph 214  in principle refers to the list of  products whose conformity may be 
confirmed by conformity declaration.  We do not understand why the Russian  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
 Page 9 
 
 
 Federation also mentions the mandatory cer tification procedure in this context. 
Hence, what would be the difference betw een this list and the list mentioned in 
paragraph 212 above? It would be very useful if the Russian Federation could list and 
explain in a separate paper what conformity assessment procedures must be completed for what types of products, and how the required procedures will look like. 
Such paper should refer to all possible conformity assessment procedures laid down 
in Russian law, from mandatory certification to supplier’s declaration of conformity. 
 Also mentioned in paragraph 214 is the recognition of certificates issued in the 
supplying (foreign) country. Such recognitio n will take place in case the supplying 
country has concluded an interstate agreement or if is participating in an international 
certification system to which the Russian Federation has acceded to. We would like 
to know in what international certifica tion systems the Russian Federation already 
participates. Is a participation in other certification systems planned? 
 
Paragraph 214  refers also to the appeal commiss ion of Gosstandart. As Gosstandard 
itself supplies many of the services that the appeal commission has to decide upon, 
we would like to know how independence a nd impartiality between Gosstandard and 
the appeal commission will be guaranteed.  Paragraph 215  mentions the Draft Federal law "on technical regulation". On 
November 18 2002, we sent written questi ons referring to this Draft law to the 
Russian mission in Geneva. Up to now, we have  not receive any answer to this letter. 
We would like to ask the Russian delega tion until when the Russian answers and 
comments to the Swiss paper can be expected.  
Paragraph 217  states that the overall level of harmonization of domestic with 
international standards is currently about 35 per cent. Is there a specific reason why 
only 35% of domestic standards are harmoni zed with international standards? We 
would like to ask if the harmonization of st ate standards with international standards 
is even below the 35 per cent level for some product sectors. For which specific 
product sector(s) is this the case? 
In the comments provided by Russia in SPEC/R US/29 it is indicated that over 50% of 
state standards were already harmonized w ith international standards and that the 
overall level of harmonization of domestic st andards with international standards was 
currently 35%. What is the difference between domestic and state standards ? How many categories of standards do you have a part from state standards ? 
re: 
Federal 
Law No.27 1. General remark
 
 
The English translation of the federal law “Framework Provisions on Technical Regulation in the Russian Federation” cont ains several terms and definitions that 
seem not to be in line with the agreed terminology under the WTO-TBT Agreement 
(hereinafter the TBT Agreement). The Russian Federation is asked to make broader use of globally agreed TBT terminolog y and of internationally harmonized 
definitions (e.g. ISO Guide 2) 
 2. Preparation, adoption and appli cation of technical regulations of 
(central/local) governmental bodies  
 
- Article 3 of the law on technical regulating lays down the principles of 
technical  regulating in the Russian Federation. One of these principles is the 
“compatibility of technical regulating to the performance of national WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
Page 10  
 
 economy, condition of technical infr astructure and achieved level of 
technological development”. Nothing is said in this article about the compatibility of national technical requirements with internationally 
harmonised standards. We would like to know why the principle of compatibility of national technical regula tions with international standards as 
laid down in Article 2.4 of the WT O TBT Agreement is not included in 
Article 3 of the Russian law on technical regulating. 
- In the same context, Article 9 paragraph 10 stipulates that in the case of non-
compliance of technical regulation with the interests of the national economy, the Government of the Russian Federation may cancel this technical 
regulation or may amend it to make it compatible with these interests of the 
national economy. How will the Government of the Russian Federation decide in the case of such conflict between an international harmonised standard and the interests of the national economy? According to agreed principles, the protection of interests of national economy is in general not a 
legitimate objective to deviate from inte rnational standards (see Articles 2.4 
and 2.2 of the WTO TBT Agreement). 
- Article 11 of the law “Framework Provi sions on Technical Regulation in the 
Russian Federation” deals with the a doption and application of technical 
regulations in case of urgency. Article  2.10 of the TBT Agreement however 
requires adequate consultation of member states and interested parties also in 
those cases where technical regulations must be adopted rapidly. Does the 
Russian law also consider adequate co nsultation procedures for stakeholders 
in case of urgency (possibly afte r adoption of the regulation)? 
 
3. Procedures for Assessment of Conformity
 
 
- Article 20 paragraph 1 differentiates on the one hand between mandatory and 
voluntary conformity confirmation. We would be very much interested in some further information about the on going review of the list of products 
requiring mandatory certification. We would like to express again that past 
lists have been too extensive. Mandato ry certification shall only be required 
for products with a considerable hazard potential. 
- Furthermore, Article 20 paragraph 3 defines the two possibilities for 
mandatory conformity confirmation: S upplier’s declaration of conformity 
/”declaring of conformity” (SDoC) and mandatory certification. What criteria are relevant in order to determine wh ether a product falls under the SDoC- or 
the mandatory certification scheme?  
- With regard to SDoCs (Article 24), we are concerned that the respective 
proposals in the Russian Draft law woul d create unnecessary barriers to trade. 
First, we would like to know in what cases the declaration of conformity based on own proofs must be completed by proofs or certificates of a third 
party (Article 24 paragraph 3). Accord ing to our understanding of SDoCs, the 
participation of conformity assessment bodies shall only be necessary in exceptional cases. Therefore, we propose that the involvement of accredited test labs or certification bodies should on ly be required for products with high 
hazard potential. Second, according to Article 24 paragraph 6, the properly 
issued SDoC must be registered at th e federal executive body in the field of 
technical regulation. We think that such a requirement is not necessary. For the purpose of market surveillance, the SDoC must be available where the product is delivered. Normally this will be the manufacturer or the distributor 
but certainly not the authorities as required in the Russian law.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
 Page 11 
 
 
  
We are of the view that the SDoC-procedur e proposed in the Russian Draft law is too 
complicated and not in line with the intern ationally agreed purpose and the intention 
of SDoC, i.e. to keep the main responsibilit y at the manufacturer himself. Therefore, 
the Russian Federation should modify the proposed SDoC procedure with a view to 
delegate more responsibilities in the fi eld of conformity assessment to the 
manufacturer.  - Article 22 deals with the issue of voluntary conformity markings. How will it 
be guaranteed by the Russian government  that voluntary conformity marks 
are not created as a means to discriminate foreign products against domestic 
products? 
- Article 30 deals with the recognition of results of conformity assessment. 
Article 6.1 of the WTO TBT Agreement obliges member states under clearly defined circumstances to accept results of conformity assessment procedures 
performed in other member states even when those procedures differ from 
their own. According to Article 30 of the Russian law, recognition of results 
of conformity assessment in the Russi an Federation may only be possible 
according to international treaties of the Russian Federation in this field. We would like to know if recognition of r esults of conformity assessment is also 
possible, lacking a specific bilateral ag reement with the Russian Federation. 
In this context we would like to ask the following questions: 
- Can a foreign test lab act as a subcontractor of a Russian certification 
body? Under what preconditions is this accepted? 
 - Under what circumstances can foreign certification bodies issue 
certificates for the Russian market? Would an accreditation in a foreign 
country be sufficient if this country is engaged in international cooperative 
work in the field of accreditation (e.g. ILAC, IAF, EA)?  
- Previous versions of the law on tec hnical regulating contained provisions 
with regard to independence and impartiality between accreditation and certification bodies. This provision has been deleted in the latest version of 
the law. We would like to know the reasons for this modification. In this 
context, we would like to know whet her or not such impartiality and 
independence problems have been  resolved at Gosstandard. 
209-225 a) According to Russia's explanation given at the last WP meeting, following 
the entry into force of the federal law "On Technical Regulation" (hereafter 
"umbrella law"), each technical regula tion will be reviewed over a 7-year 
transition period. With regard to this  review, please indicate the "Responsible 
Authority" and the "Time-Frame" of each Technical Regulation (including 
the "Interstate Sanitary Regulations and Norms").          
  Furthermore, we would appreciate it if Russia could update the document 
"Interdepartmental Program of Measur es to Ensure Full Compliance with the 
Requirements of the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
in 2002-2005Job No. 4930)", which was submitted by Russia to the WTO Secretariat in June 2002.  
 
 b) With regard to Article 6 "The Pu rposes of Technical Regulations" of the 
umbrella law, the "protection of state or municipal property" is included as one of the purposes. Please explain how this purpose conforms with the purposes specified in Article 2.2 of th e TBT Agreement, which are legitimate WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
Page 12  
 
 objectives.   
  c) Russia's current "Interstate Sanitary Regulations and Norms" includes 12 
categories of conformity assessment for technical regulation such as that for noise, vibration (general/local), infrasonic, etc. However, we have never 
known cases where the existing WTO Members adopt such categories for the 
conformity assessment of technical regulations for electronics products.   
  We are thus concerned how these categories can justify being adopted as a 
technical regulation for electronics products.   Please explain in detail the 
contents of the "Interstate Sanitary Regulations and Norms", together with 
the justification for imposing this technical regulation, giving such evidence as scientific and technical information and so on. 
  d) Russia also explained that the EU technical regulations and standards 
system will be applied widely in the Russian Federation. Are we to 
understand that the products subjec t to Russia's "Declaration of 
Conformity (DOC) system" will cover such products under the EU technical regulations and standards system, as "Television Receivers", "Audio Products", and "Personal Comp uters and their peripherals"?   
 
e)  After the umbrella law comes into  effect, will the procedures for the 
acquisition of a certification on technical regulation be modified or not?  If so, what kind of modification to procedures is envisaged? 
209-225 Russia's response to this section is lengthy, and includes large sections from the 
existing draft of the WP report.  We ask that Russia re-draft this section in a 
format of specific answers to questions and concerns raised by Members, so as to 
allow an assessment to be made of what issues remain in dispute. 
226-245 - Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
226-245 General comments 
 Valid and well justified comments and request s for further information are raised in 
Doc WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29. Unfortunately Russia fails to provide clear replies.  The Russian response is mainly copied  from the Draft Working Party report 
WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 and includes few new elements. Therefore, it does 
not provide replies for most of the questions raised. The necessary clarification for a 
very confusing description of the vari ous procedures/authorities involved in 
authorising imports of commodities under the SPS rules is still lacking. 
 Import authorisations in general 
 
A “state registration” seems to be an esse ntial part of import authorisations although 
its exact contents remain unclear. Howe ver, Russia now states that the “state 
registration” would only apply from 2006 (pag e 40, first paragraph). Does this mean 
that all points where Russia refers to “state registration” would only apply from 
2006?  
 The connection between the state registration and the import permits issued by the 
Chief Veterinary Officer (MOA) remains unclear . Russia explains that the Ministry 
of Health, in conjunction with the Ministry of Agriculture, is responsible for the state 
registration of imported food products of an imal origin. On the other hand, Russia 
states that a permission from the Chief Veterinary Officer (MOA) is required for all  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
 Page 13 
 
 
 imports of products of animal origin (Ar ticle 14 of the Federal Law on Veterinary 
Services, No 4979-1 of 14 May 1993). Is the Ministry of Agriculture competent only 
for animal health aspects or does it al so cover veterinary public health?  
 In conclusion, there appears to be a dupli cate administrative procedure for authorising 
imports of food products of animal origin as both a state registration and an import 
permit is required. This could create an administrative barrier to trade. Therefore, 
Russia should further clarify this point.  
 Imports of live animals and products of animal origin 
 
Russia provides a new description on the system for authorising imports of live animals and products of animal orig in (page 44 of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29). 
 
As regards the list of “controlled product s” (para 2) a reference is made to the 
Government Resolution of 29 October 1992,  No 830. This contradicts earlier 
statement which says that the list of “contro lled cargoes” is contained in the letter of 
the Veterinary Department, No13-8-01/3009 of  16 May 2000. In any case, if the list 
of products is the one presented in WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/21/Rev.1 (reference paper 
10) it is overwhelming . It includes items for which there should be no need for 
veterinary controls, e.g. products of purely vegetable origin. Certain products on this 
list also appear on the list of goods subject to quarantine and phytosanitary control (reference paper 11) of the same document indicating that the controls are sometimes 
overlapping. We have established a list of pr oducts which have to  undergo veterinary 
border inspection when imported to the EU. This list is laid down in Commission Decision 2002/349/EC
1.  We invite Russia to study this decision. 
 In paragraph 3 Russia states that the import  conditions to be fulfilled by the exporting 
countries are laid down in the “Veterinary re quirements in respect of imports to the 
Russian Federation of animal cargoes, appr oved by the Veterinary Department on 23 
December 1999”, letter No 13-8-01. Howeve r, in the second paragraph on page 42 
Russia states that this letter applies only to imports from countries which do not have bilateral agreements with Russia. Russia  should clarify this issue and provide a 
translated copy of this letter.  
 
In paragraph 4 Russia states that “finishe d products of animal origin that have 
undergone a thermal treatment” do not require  an import authorisation from the Chief 
Veterinary Officer. Instead, in para 6 it is st ated that “imports of finished products are 
administered by the Chief State Veterinary Inspector of the Region in his own 
discretion”. Russia should clarify the definition of a “finished product”  and specify 
which rules apply for their imports. How is  it guaranteed that the regional services 
apply uniform SPS measures for im ports of “finished products”?  
 In paragraph 5 it is stated that the regional veterinary services consider the 
application of an importer on condition that  the importer is able to provide proper 
conditions for storage and processing of products. Russia should further explain 
which criteria is applied for evaluating these conditions and how it is guaranteed that 
uniform criteria is applied in different  regions and for imported and domestic 
products.  
 
In paragraph 6 it is stated that the Chief Veterinary Officer considers the submission 
of the regional services by reference to the epizootic situation in the exporting 
                                                      
1 OJ L 121, 8.5.2002, p. 6 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
Page 14  
 
 country, and issues permission or prohibition to import. In general, a system of 
individual import permits, although not necess arily against the SPS Agreement, risks 
being non-transparent, non-coherent, non-cons istent and discriminatory. Therefore, 
Russia should clarify whether the criteria (the import requirements) for issuing import 
permits is published as legally binding legi slation and uniformly applied to all 
applicants . Moreover, amendments to the import requirements must be subject to 
prior notification in accordance with the SPS Agreement.  In paragraph 9 Russia states that the require ments concerning imports of products of 
animal origin were modified in 1999 so th at they became science based and reflect 
the OIE recommendations. This is contradic ting the information in the Non-Paper of 
17 June 2002 (Interdepartmental Program to  ensure compliance with the TBT and 
SPS Agreements) where in points 1.3.5. and 1.3.6. it is mentioned that the SPS measures should be aligned with the inte rnational guidelines and be science based 
only by 2005. Russia should clarify this issue.
 
 Framework laws 
 The situation with regard to framework le gislation remains unclear. Russia states that 
after entry into force of the Federal Law No 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 “On Fundamentals of technical Regulation in th e Russian Federation” all requirements of 
the WTO SPS Agreement would become manda tory (page 44, second paragraph). It 
seems unlikely that this law would overrule the vertical framework laws on veterinary 
and public health matters. 
 Indeed, in the Non-Paper of 17 June 2002 (Interdepartmental Program to ensure compliance with the TBT and SPS Agreements) in points 1.3.2. and 1.3.9 it is mentioned that amendments are also need ed in the Federal Law on Sanitary and 
Epidemiological Well-Being of Popula tion (No 52-FZ of 30 March 1999) in the 
Federal Law on Veterinary Services (N o 4979-1 of 14 May 1993). Russia should 
explain the foreseen amendments more in detail , in particular their relevance to the 
compliance with the SPS Agreement. 
 Permanent Russian inspectors in the EU 
 
We maintain our position that the requirement for pre-shipment inspection of fresh 
meat by the Russian veterinary servi ces in the exporting countries is not in 
accordance with the SPS Agreement . Therefore, we invite Russia to abolish this 
system and to rely on the certificates signed by the authorities of the exporting countries at latest by the WTO accession.  Russia fails to address this issue in its response in Doc WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29 
although this is specifically asked. 
 In paragraph 237 of the Draft Worki ng Party Report (WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25, 
Rev.1) Russia insists that this system is  in accordance with the OIE Animal Health 
Code. This is not a correct statement since Chapter 1.2.2 of that Code concerning the 
certification procedures does not recognise a system where officials of importing 
country sign export certificates in the exporting country. Instead, Article 1.2.2.3. of the Code clearly states that “Certifying veterinarians should be authorised by the Veterinary Administration of the exporting country  to sign international veterinary 
certificates”.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
 Page 15 
 
 
  
226-245 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29 contains what app ears to be a revision of the SPS  chapter 
of the WP Report.  While we welcome new information provided, we have the 
following concerns:  
It does not directly address many of the qu estions raised by Members on the previous 
draft. - It introduces information on new legislation in the SPS sphere, without an 
adequate description of which aspects of the existing policy regime will 
become redundant and which will remain in effect. 
- It does not assist the Working Party to track and eventually resolve 
outstanding concerns, or move toward s the drafting of commitment language 
in the Working Party report. 
 The steps we feel are needed to take  this process forward are as follows:
 
- Russia needs to restructure and au gment the information provided in 
WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29 by tabulating specific answers against each comment/question made by Members. 
- This chapter of the report n eeds to be re-drafted to: 
- capture outstanding concerns and explain clearly how Russia’s new 
legislation in the SPS/TBT sphere addresses those concerns; 
- include commitment language designed to address concerns. 
 
Working Party Report Chapter on SPS Issues 
- As it stands, this section of the draf t report represents a description of 
Russia’s SPS policy framework, relevant  laws and regulations, and some 
detail on requirements for the export of  products to the Russian market.   
- It has a number of problems and gaps that need to be addressed.  Members 
have sought to rectify these shortcomings, but insufficient responses from Russia have meant that there has been little progress in resolving outstanding 
concerns. 
- There are a number of aspects of the draf t that need to be addressed for this 
aspect of the accession to move ahead, and appropriate commitments to be identified.  The information provided on  new legislation in the SPS sphere is 
useful, but does not adequately address how Russia’s system will meet key 
aspects of the SPS agreement.  
- Below is a list (not exhaustive) of th e key concerns we consider should be 
reflected in additional paragraphs for th e report.  We ask that Russia provide 
a full response to each of these issu es and explain how they will be 
addressed.  We reserve the right to provide more detailed text for future discussions on SPS issues as the draft report evolves. 
 Basic Rights and Obligations 
- A key requirement of Article 2 of the SPS Agreement is that SPS measures 
should be applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal, or 
plant life or health.  Russia describ es a list of multiple certification 
requirements associated with exporting products of animal origin to Russia, 
with insufficient explanation of th e need for these various layers of 
certification in protecting human, animal, or plant life and health. 
- Members are concerned that Russia applies discriminatory measures, 
including requirements affecting imports that are more restrictive than those WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
Page 16  
 
 affecting domestic production, despite si milar or identical conditions.  For 
example, more stringent testing or c onformity assessment is required of some 
imported products than is applied to  the domestic product despite similar 
risks to plant, animal or human life.   These constitute disguised restrictions 
on international trade (Article 2:3 of the SPS Agreement).
For example, in relation to dairy products, Russia requires exporting 
countries to certify freedom from certain diseases that are prevalent on its own territory (and have been notified to the OIE). 
 
Transparency 
The draft report currently does not a ddress how Russia will meet the various 
requirements of the SPS Agreement in relation to Transparency and Notification of measures.  Members are concerned about insufficient periods of notification of new or amended measures, which in effect do not allow time for producers in exporting 
Members to adjust to new conditions.  
 Recognition of Disease-Free Status 
The draft report does not address Members’ concerns that Russia does not fulfil 
Article 6 of the SPS Agreement in relation to the importation of some products of animal origin.  In particular, Russia con tinues to make the export of some products 
conditional upon testing for diseases which are not prevalent in the exporting 
Member’s territory.  In the case of wool, Russia requires national registration and 
full-time monitoring of production of wool in the territories of some Members, despite the absence of diseases that could contaminate product. 
 
Assessment of Risk 
The draft report does not address Members’ concerns that Russia does not ensure SPS 
measures are based on a true assessment of the risks to human, animal or health life, taking into account risk assessment t echniques developed by the relevant 
international organisations.  For example, in  the case of fish exports, Russia requires 
that the fisheries products contain no preserva tives.  This is despite the fact that the 
use of a form of salt preservation is used  throughout the world in prawn industries 
and is an international standard.    
Equivalence 
Members are concerned that Russia does not have adequate policies and measures in 
place to accept the sanitary and phytosan itary measures of other Members as 
equivalent in achieving Russia’s level of san itary and phytosanitary protection.  In 
particular, Members are concerned that Russia requires more frequent access to establishments within exporting Members fo r the purposes of inspection and testing, 
but with little attempt to eventually rec ognise the equivalence of those Members’ SPS 
measures.  
 Transit Provisions 
The draft report does not address Members’  concern about Russian non-compliance 
with WTO rules on transit trade.  In particular, a requirement that the transit of product through third countries to Russia be  conditional on obtaining a “permit” and 
agreement on the itinerary of the cargo does not  comply with Article V(3) and V(1) 
of GATT 1994.   Furthermore, details of the requirements underpinning such 
“permits” is required to assess consistency with the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.   
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
 Page 17 
 
 
 Import Licensing 
Russia appears to apply a form of non-au tomatic licensing to the importation of 
products of animal origin.  Members are concerned that Russia may not apply that scheme in accordance with the provision of the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures and other relevant GATT articles.  In particular, Russia 
requires importers to demonstrate adequa te facilities for storage/processing imported 
product such as meat, but it is not clear th at the same requirement is applied to 
purchasers of domestically-produced product in compliance with GATT Article III. 
Other Issues 
Change of Buyer Status
:  Members have concerns that Russian procedures that are 
applied where is a change in Russian consignee for a shipment, involving the 
reconsideration by Russian authorities of veterinary certificates, do not comply with relevant WTO provisions.  This issue, including full procedures involved, will need to be addressed in the Working Party report. 
268-271 - Government Procurement 
268-271 Russian Federation:  
 
Draft Federal Law “On Placement of Orders  for Deliveries of Goods, Performance of 
Works and Provision of Services for Public Needs” is addressing the following key 
tasks:  - to systematize the legislation of the Russian Federation on state procurement; 
create a framework normative legal act to  regulate civil law and procedural 
aspects of such procurement; 
- to ensure transparency of the mechanism of procurement of products for 
public needs; to stimulate good compe tition and effective use of budgetary 
funds; 
- to eliminate regulatory loopholes encouraging malpractices by stricter 
regulation of procurement procedures; 
- to bring the Russian state procuremen t legislation into conformity with 
international laws, to profit by pos itive regulatory experience of foreign 
states in state procurement and to implement regulatory and legal acts of international organizations. 
 
The draft federal law: 
 - lifts the existing forbidding limitations  for engagement of foreign suppliers 
for product deliveries for public needs, and systematizes the procedure for participation of such fore ign suppliers in tenders; 
- allows qualifying mediation agencies to participate in tenders and deliveries 
of products for public needs; 
- clearly distinguishes tender and non-tender procurement methods (buying 
from single source); 
- extends the powers of the relevant exec utive authority in respect of  control 
of compliance with procurement procedure; 
- provides a mechanism of bid processing; 
- establishes generally recognized criteria of evaluation of bids and 
determination of the winning bidder; 
- provides for protection of rights and lawful interests of affected persons in 
respect of placement of orders for deliveries for public needs; 
- the scope of the draft law includes all product procurements and deliveries on WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
Page 18  
 
 the territory of the Russian Federation financed with the funds of the Federal 
Budget of the Russian Federation, re gional budgets and non-budgetary funds 
of the Russian Federation and Russian Federation Regions. 
272-275 - Regulation of Trade in Transit 
272-275 Our delegation would like to tha nk the secretariat for accurate drafting of 
questions in this section. We also a ppreciate response provided by the Russian 
Federation, however it should be mentioned that the response is not sufficient one and needs to be further broadened in or der to address specific issues raised by 
members. 
 Our delegation once again would like to ask the Russian Federation to provide 
detailed information on questions that are still outstanding in this section, 
including those on: transit of goods of dual usage, circumstances under which the Russian Federation may impede transit of other countries’ exports through its 
territory, etc.  
 We would also welcome the clarifications from the Russian Federation what is the rationale for making the distinction between  the humanitarian cargoes if they consist 
of the same goods but they have diffe rent recipients - governmental or non-
governmental institutions, as it is provided  by the Decree of the State Customs 
Committee of the Russian Federation No 10 55 dated 6 November 2001. For example, 
if clothes or other goods are destined for in stitutions financed by state budget they are 
treated as humanitarian cargo but if the sa me category of goods is destined for non-
budgetary organizations they are not consid ered as humanitarian cargo. Do these 
provisions apply to humanitarian cargoes destined to other countries and going in 
transit through the territory of the Russian Federation? 
285-287 TRADE-RELATED INTELLECTUAL  PROPERTY REGIME (TRIPS) 
General 
285-304 The TRIPS Agreement allows Members so me discretion in the measures that are 
implemented.  For example, Article 27(3)  provides exclusions from patentability. 
- What exclusions from patent ability will Russia be applying? 
Russia has commented on the legal provisi ons that will be in place to combat 
infringements of intellectual property rights.   However, these provisions will only be 
effective if the owners of intellectual prop erty rights and the public are aware of the 
intellectual property system and those rights. - We ask Russia to provide information on what action the Russian authorities 
are taking to increase awareness of in tellectual property rights among the 
public, the judiciary, education an d research institutions, industry and 
businesses. 
WTO Members are bound by the provisions  of the TRIPS Agreement which subject 
their pharmaceutical industries to 20 years of patent protection.  We would expect this minimum patent protection to be implemented by Russia. - Will Russia subject its pharmaceutical indus try to a term of patent protection 
of not less than 20 years?  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
 Page 19 
 
 
 285-287 Russian Federation:  
 
Pursuant to the amendments made by Fe deral Law 22-FZ of February 7, 2003 “On 
Making Amendments and Supplements to the Patent Law of the Russian Federation” 
the following are now considered to not be  patentable: types of plants, species of 
animals; layout designs of integrated ci rcuits; solutions incompatible with public 
interests, principles of humanity and mora ls. This amendment is entirely consistent 
with the requirements of para. 2 and 3 of Article 27 of the TRIPS Agreement. 
 Russia currently strongly emphasizes media c overage of issues related to intellectual 
property rights, and keeping citizens, judiciar y and business informed of the IP rights. 
Training programs are run regularly under the auspices (or with participation) of 
Rospatent to provide training and skills upgrade to experts in intellectual property 
protection, and other events to encourage invention process (conferences, seminars) are held. The underlying legal acts, informa tion on the activity of Rospatent and other 
information are published on the official Rospatent website. 
 Evidencing the attention given by the regul ators to public awareness of intellectual 
property rights, a special meeting of the Russian Federation Government was 
convened on 3 October 2002 devoted to means of supporting legal dealing in 
products containing intellectual property ob jects and protection of the consumer 
market from the spread of counterfeit goods in Russia. The meeting took a number of 
important decisions concerning measures to e nhance and coordinate the efforts of the 
competent authorities in prevention and combat of IP rights infringements and in increasing public awareness of the measures undertaken. E.g. the Ministry of Press, 
TV and Radio Broadcasts and Mass Media was instructed to provide mass media 
coverage of any actions taken against IP infringements. 
 Under the Patent Law, including ame ndments made by Federal Law 22-FZ of 
February 7, 2003 “On Making Amendments and Supplements to Patent Law of the 
Russian Federation”, the validity term of pa tents for all types of inventions without 
exception is 20 years from the date of  applica tion, which is consistent with Article 33 
of the TRIPS Agreement. The new law provi des for possible extension of this term. 
The validity term of the patent for an inven tion that is a medicine, a pesticide or an 
agrochemical the use of which requires statutory permission, may be renewed by the federal executive authority for intellect ual property based on the patentholder’s 
application, for a term calculated as the period between the date of application for 
invention and the date of permission for u se being first granted less five years. The 
term of such renewal cannot exceed five years. 
285 Russian Federation:   
 
The representative of the Russian Federation said that 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 framework of the Russian Federation's policy on intellectual property 
was determined by the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 44, item 1) 
which in particular guaranteed freedom of literary, artistic, scientific, technical and other types of creative activity, and provi ded protection for such activities.  The 
whole system of the Russian legislation in  force supported the implementation of this 
constitutional right.  A  number of international agreements signed by the Russian 
Federation constituted an integral part of this  system.  He also informed that the new 
Arbitration Procedure Code (Federal Law No. 95-FZ of 24 July 2002 on "Arbitration WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
Page 20  
 
 Procedure Code") would enter into force on 1 September 2002. The draft law on 
amendments to the Patent Law set forth that plants, animals, layout-designs of 
integrated circuits, decisions that were cont radictory to public interests, principles of 
humanity and moral were excluded from patentability. 
286 Russian Federation:  
 He noted that the Russian Federation applie d national treatment to the legal entities 
and individuals of those countries which had signed the treaties providing for such 
treatment (in particular, the Paris Conve ntion for the Protection of Industrial 
Property, the World Convention on Copyright, and the Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works) both directly pursuant to such covenants 
(Clause 4 of Article 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation provided for the 
direct application and prevalence of international agreements) in accordance with the 
obligations undertaken under these treati es and in accordance with applicable 
provisions of legislative acts of the Russ ian Federation (in par ticular, Articles 36 and 
37 of the "Patent Law of the Russian Federation" No. 3517-1 FZ of 23 September 1992; Articles 47 and 48 of Federal Law No. 3520-FZ of 23 September 1992 "On 
Trademarks, Service Marks, and Appellations of Origin";  Article 3, Article 5:1 and 
Article 35:4 of Federal Law No. 5351-1 FZ of 9 July 1993 "On Copyrights and 
Related Rights";  Article 7 of Federa l Law No. 3523-1 FZ of 23 September 1992 "On 
the Legal Protection of Computer Progr ams and Databases"; and Articles 13 and 14 
of Federal Law No. 3526-1 FZ of 23 Sept ember 1992 "On the Legal Protection of 
Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits").  The application of  most-favoured-nation 
treatment (subject to exceptions regarding certain preferences granted by the Russian 
Federation under certain treaties including tho se with CIS countries) as to intellectual 
property was additionally provided for under the treaties signed with the European Union and ourselves.  As a party to th e Euroasian Patent Convention the Russian 
Federation granted no advantages and pr ivileges to other parties under this 
Convention.  Any party to this Convention which used the procedure set out in the 
Convention could obtain the benefits of be ing a party to the Convention within the 
territory of any signatory. 
287 Russian Federation:  
 
Commenting on specific aspects of ongoing legisl ative work in the area of TRIPS and 
in response to specific enquiries by member s, the representative of the Russian 
Federation provided the following information. 
288 - Copyright and Related Rights 
288 Russian Federation:  
 Overall, the provisions of the Russian legislation on copyright (including those 
relating to protection of computer progra mmes and databases) were in conformity 
with the provisions of the Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic 
Works (including Article 6 bis) and the re levant provisions of the WTO Agreement 
on TRIPS.  In particular, the Russian legislation protected 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 could be inherited.  Thus copyright s were valid during the life of the author 
and during 50 years after his/her death.  In certain cases stipulated by the law, the 
term for protection was calculated on the b asis of other dates ( for instance from the 
date of latest death of a co-author where a work had been created in co-authorship).  
The draft law under consideration by the Duma intended to extend the term for 
protection to 70 years after the death of the author. At the same time, further to the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
 Page 21 
 
 
 declaration made by the Government of the Russian Federation when joining the 
Bern Convention, the provisions of the la tter did not applied to literary and artistic 
works which were of public property when the Convention came into force for the 
Russian Federation.  In accordance with Ar ticle 28 of Federal Law No. 3531-1-FZ of 
9 July 1993 "On Copyright and Related Rights", works for which the term of 
copyright had elapsed as well as works wh ich had never been protected in the 
Russian Federation were considered to ha ve become public property.  The Russian 
authorities intended to further amend this law so as to bring it in full conformity with 
the respective requirements of the Bern Convention and WTO Agreement on TRIPS.  
289 - Trademarks 
289 Russian Federation:  
 
Overall, the provisions of the Russian le gislation relating to the protection of 
trademarks and service marks were in confor mity with the provisions of the Paris 
Convention for the Protection of Industrial Pr operty and the relevant  provisions of the 
WTO Agreement on TRIPS, except for those which governed well-known marks protection with respect to non-homogeneous  goods.  Additions reflecting these 
provisions of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS we re contained in the draft federal law 
submitted to the Duma "On amending the Federal Law "On Trademarks, Service 
Marks and Appellations of Origin".  The Russian legislation in force allowed for 
protection of well-known trademarks.  The legal basis was Articles 2 and 7 of the 
Federal law No. 3520-FZ of 23 September 1992 "On Trademarks, Service Marks and 
Appellations of Origin" as well as the Regulation on recognition trademark as 
well-known in the Russian Federation.  The le gislation did not require the registration 
of well-known trademarks.  Nevertheless, any trademark pretending to be 
well-known should be recognized as such by a competent authority, i.e. the Higher Patent Chamber of Rospatent.  Such a procedure of granting protection was fully 
consistent with Paris Convention.  The pr ovisions of criminal and civil legislation 
applicable to "ordinary" trademarks were also applicable to well-known trademarks.  
Among the remedies there were the recognition of the right, prevention of the 
violation, compensation of losses, cr iminal and administrative liability. 
290-291 - Geographical Indications 
290 Russian Federation:  
Prior to 1992 geographical indications in  the Russian Federation were protected 
mostly by considering any false geographical indications as a form of unfair competition or a violation of consumer rights (this was done by antitrust -antimonopoly- agencies or courts respectiv ely).  Since 1992 one important category 
of geographical indications - appellations of  origin - was accorded special protection 
through their State registration in line with the procedure set forth in the Federal Law 
No. 3520-FZ of 23 September 1992 "On Trademarks, Service Marks and 
Appellations of Origin".  Protection for su ch types of geographical indications was 
provided for under Article 6 of the said law which prohibited to register trademarks 
containing indications of the place of production of goods as well as trademarks 
containing false indications or indications which might mislead the customer as to the 
identity of the producer of goods.  Protection of appellation of origin existed for all 
kind of goods – food and manufactured goods a like.  According to Article 47 of the 
same law, the right to register an appella tion of origin in the Russian Federation was 
granted to persons and legal entities of those states that provided similar rights to 
Russian persons and legal entities. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
Page 22  
 
  
291 Russian Federation:
 
 
On the whole, the provisions in accordan ce to which geographical indications were 
protected in the Russian Federation were in  conformity with the Paris Convention for 
the Protection of Industrial Property a nd the relevant provisions of the WTO 
Agreement on TRIPS.  The draft law "On amendments to Federal Law No. 3520-FZ 
"On Trademarks, Service Marks and Appella tions of Origin" would allow protection 
not only for appellation of goods duly registered in the Russian Federation but for geographical indication of wines and spirits as well, in line with the provisions of 
Article 23.3 of the WTO Agreement on TRI PS.  Such additional protection was not 
maintained for any other goods.  
292 - Inventions and Industrial Designs 
292 Russian Federation:  
 On the whole, the provisions of Fede ral Law No. 3517-FZ of 23 September 1992 
"Patent Law of the Russian Federation on the protection of inventions and industrial 
designs" were in conformity with the Pari s Convention and the relevant provisions of 
the WTO Agreement on TRIPS.  The amendmen ts to the Patent Law of the Russian 
Federation (Federal Law No. 22 dated Febr uary 2003) reflected the provisions of 
Article 31 of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS by extending the scope of currently existing provisions on "compulsory licensing".  Under this law, a patent might not be 
obtained in relation to the following: plant varieties, animal breeds, solutions violating social interests or humanitarian and moral principles. This amendment 
corresponded to Article 27.3 of the WTO Ag reement on TRIPS.  Under the amended 
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. Moreover, the amended law provided for the possibility of extending such term for pharmaceutical products (medicines) , pesticides and agri cultural chemicals, 
if their use had been based on a consent of  an authorized state body. In these cases, 
the general 20 year term might be extended for up to 5 years.   
293 - Plant Variety and Animal Breed Protection 
 
293 Russian Federation:  
 
Plant varieties and animal breeds were protected in accordance with Federal Law 
No. 5605-1 FZ of 6 August 1993 "On Selection Attainments".  The provisions of this 
Law, in the Russian Federation's view,  we re in conformity with the WTO Agreement 
on TRIPS and the UPOV Convention (International Union for Protection of New 
Varieties of Plants) to which the Russian  Federation became a member in 1998. 
294 - Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits 
294 Russian Federation:  
 Layout designs of integrated circuits were  protected in accordance with Federal Law 
No. 3526-1 of 23 September 1992 "On Lega l Protection of Layout Designs of 
Integrated Circuits".  In general, the provi sions of this Law were in conformity with 
the provisions of the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits 
(Washington Treaty) despite the fact, that the Russian Federation is not a party to this 
agreement. In addition the Federal law No.82-FZ of 9 July 2002 “On Amending the 
Law on Legal Protection of Topologies and In tegrated Designs” contains provisions 
aimed at bringing in compliance with the WTO Agreement which supplement the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
 Page 23 
 
 
 Washington Treaty.  In addition, the Fe deral Law No. 82-FZ of 9 July 2002 "On 
amendments to the Law "On Legal Protec tion of Layout Designs of Integrated 
Circuits" contained provisions aimed at satisfying the requirements of the WTO Agreement which were additional to those of the Washington Treaty. 
295 - Requirements of undisclosed info rmation, including trade secrets and 
test data 
295 Russian Federation:  
 
Protection of undisclosed information, as in Section 7 of the WTO Agreement on 
TRIPS, was ensured in the Russian legisla tion by virtue of Article 139 of the Civil 
Code.  In particular, this article stipulat ed legal protection of undisclosed information 
which constituted official or commercial secret s.  In addition, the acquisition, use, or 
disclosure of scientific, technical, producti on, or commercial information, including 
commercial secrets, without the owner's c onsent were not permitted by virtue of 
Article 10 of Federal Law No. 948-1 of 23 March 1991 "On Competition and 
Restriction of Monopoly Activity on Commodity Markets".  The provisions of the above-mentioned laws prohibited the use of undisclosed information without the 
consent of the right holder.  All these provisions were applicable to the protection of confidential (undisclosed) information rela ted to pharmaceutical and argochemical 
products containing new chemical substances.   Following the opinion of the Ministry 
of Health of the Russian Federation the term of six years was sufficient to protect undisclosed information obtained during clinical  tests of new medicines.  In the event 
that protection of undisclosed information could endanger the human life and health such information could be published before the expire of this term. 
296-297 - Enforcement 
 - Criminal Measures 
296 Russian Federation:  
 
Since 1999 there had been a special depart ment dealing with intellectual property 
crimes within the Main Economic Crime Divi sion of the Ministry of Interior (and its 
regional departments).  As for criminal sa nctions, the Criminal Code of 13 June 1996 
included three articles specifically dealing with intellectual property: Article 146 (Copyright and Related Rights Violations);  Article 147 (Patents Violations); and 
Article 180 (Trademark Violations).  While copyright violations were punishable by 
fines and imprisonment, for other intell ectual property violations no imprisonment 
had been provided until December 2001 where a new paragraph was introduced to the Criminal Code providing for liability for illegal use of trademarks. In addition to fines, this paragraph stipulated that sancti ons up to five years of imprisonment.  The 
legislators continued their work on the Criminal Code with a general intention of 
establishing an even wider scope of liability. 
On 13 June 2002 the project of the Fede ral law “On Amending Article 146 of the 
Criminal Code of the Russian Fderation” was adopted in the second hearing by the 
State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. The project law suggests specifying the objective part of respective corpus delicti by introducing the 
notion “heavy proportion” instead of “heavy damage”, the former establishing the 
amount of 200 minimal wages. The law also suggests increasing the liability to up to 6 years of imprisonment with and without confiscation of property. Abandoning the 
assessment criterion “heavy damage” will, on the one hand, enable to unify the 
criteria of protection of constitutional rights  of composers and performers and, on the 
other hand, to increase the effectiveness of the application of the mechanism of 
criminal liability for the offence.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
Page 24  
 
 297 Russian Federation:
 
 
Since intellectual property crimes were not considered to be "grave" crimes, 
enforcement bodies used other articles of th e Criminal Code where appropriate such 
as smuggling, consumer fraud, etc.  In 1997, there were 720 intellectual property 
violation cases; in 1998, 950; in 1999, 1300; in 2000, 2000 including 1,117 cases on 
copyrights and related rights violations.  In 1999, 125 illegal manufacturing facilities 
were closed down and 30 million illegal units were confiscated.  In 2000, 334 
manufacturing facilities were closed down and 50 million units were confiscated.  
Confiscation of illegal goods, materials a nd equipment used for their manufacturing 
was not directly stipulated under Articles 146, 147 and 180 of the Criminal Code.  It 
was normal practice, however, to confiscate these goods and machinery as material evidence.  For the illegal copies, the right holder could request to take them. For machinery, the matter had to be decide d by courts.  Concerning the Superior 
Arbitration Court's practice, the Court issued a decision on confiscation and 
destruction in cases where the right holder di d not request the goods to be transferred 
to him.  Where a court did not order confi scation of illegal goods in civil proceedings, 
the right holder might appeal. 
Pursuant to the project of the new Custom s Code of the Russian Federation protection 
of intellectual property rights may be provided by customs authorities upon a written 
request of a right holder. The suspension of launch of goods which cross the border of 
the Russian Federation and are recognized as counterfeit may be done upon the customs procedure and customs control. Th e project was discussed by the committees 
of the State Duma of  the Federal Assembly  of the Russian Federation. Devoted to the 
protection of the intellectual property rights by the customs authorities no amendments were made to it that would be  inconsistent with the TRIPS Agreement. 
298  - Criminal Procedure 
298 Russian Federation:  
 
In accordance with the legislation in force, the enforcement bodies had no responsibility for discovering or identifying cr iminal violations.  Since intellectual 
property violations were within the categor y of private accusation, criminal procedure 
could not be initiated without a complaint by the right holder.  The time limits for investigation in accordance with the Crimin al Procedure Code was initially 10 days 
and 30 days for the final decision in complex cases.  Normally, the statement that the 
goods were counterfeit was made by the right  holder.  Official state examination 
might be done by the Centre for Expertise of the Ministry of Interior.  At the request from an anti-trust or law enforcement body a nd on the basis of a relevant court order, 
Rospatent experts provided an opinion rega rding a trademark, invention or another 
intellectual property issue.  An investigat or, prosecutor or court would then make a 
decision based on the results of the examin ation.  The examination initiated by the 
law enforcement bodies was free of charge.  
299  - Administrative Measures 
299 Russian Federation:  
 A new Code of Administrative Offences was in force since 1 July 2002. Articles 
7.12, 7.28 and 14.10 of this Code establis hed liability for violation of copyrights and 
related rights, rights to inventions, usef ul models and industrial designs, service 
marks and appellation of origin.  The administrative sanctions, in addition to fines, included confiscation of count erfeit products.  In additi on, anti-monopoly legislation 
provided certain sanctions that were administered directly by the Ministry of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
 Page 25 
 
 
 Anti-monopoly Policy and Support for Business. Any business entity whose rights of 
intellectual property were violated by another business entity could apply to the 
Ministry to start the proceedings against the offender.  The Ministry could issue a 
decision imposing fines or demanding certain actions or prohibiting infringing actions.  The procedure normally took between one and two months, and in 
complicated cases between three and six months.  
300-301 - Border Measures 
300 Russian Federation:  
 Article 10 of the Customs Code referred intellectual property protection to the 
competence of the Customs authority. Since 1998, the State Customs Committee 
accepted applications from right holders fo r the customs measures.  The following 
documents had to be presented: confirmation of the intellectual property rights, power 
of attorney (when necessary) and inform ation on the violation (description of goods) 
as well as any additional information availabl e from the right holder.  The Code of 
Administrative Offences in force since 1 Ju ly 2002 introduced administrative liability 
for import of goods violating intellectual property rights.  
301 Russian Federation:  
 
At present, the Customs Code did not a llow the Customs bodies to act fully in 
accordance with the all provisions of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS in terms of 
supplying the right holder as a third party w ith information and of providing the right 
holder with an opportunity to inspect deta ined goods and take samples.  The draft 
new Customs Code included a new secti on dealing with intellectual property 
protection which effectively addressed these issues as well.  When goods were detained, the Customs had ten working days to inspect all goods.  Particular attention 
was paid to the goods indicated by the right holder.  The term could be extended for 
another 20 working days or 31 calendar days. According to the existing practice, if during this period a violation of intellect ual property was confirmed, the Customs 
transferred the evidence to the Police and prosecutors, and, since 1 July 2002, the 
Customs would also draw up a protocol of administrative offence. The right holder 
could then bring a civil law case to the court.  As for the possibility of obtaining from 
the Customs bodies information about the infringing company, its history and 
activity, the new draft Customs Code stipul ated that such information would be 
available in relation to im porters as well as imported goods.  
302-303 - Civil Law Remedies and Procedures 
302 Russian Federation:  
 
The Higher Arbitration Court of the Russian  Federation had drafted a Code of the 
Arbitration Procedure Code which was curre ntly under examination by the Duma.  
This draft code reflected the latest intern ational developments in  the organisation and 
administration of economic justice, and est ablished new mechanisms essential for an 
effective application the WTO Agreements . For example, these mechanisms included 
preliminary interim measures which would prom ote realisation of Section 3 of Article 
44 of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS.  The draft code also contained an updated 
section on consideration of economic disputes with participation of a foreign party 
which introduced application of the principle of reciprocity in the enforcement of 
court orders and awards; national treatment fo r foreign participants in respect of the 
procedure; and the abandonment of the prin ciple of absolute immunity.  Remedies 
available under the Civil Code included conf irmation of rights;  prohibition of actions 
violating rights;  imposing fines;  comp ensation of damages caused to the right 
holder;  and compensation of income re ceived by the infringer and statutory WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
Page 26  
 
 compensation. The last two  measures we re available only for copyrights.    
303 Russian Federation:  
 
Regarding claims for damages and assessment of damages, civil law cases provided 
for the general principle of full recovery of damages.  The amount of damage was 
calculated in accordance with the general norms  of the Civil Code based on the prices 
of corresponding legitimate goods adjusted for actual damage and forgone profit of 
the right holder.  As for the statutory compensation, it was initially defined by the plaintiff who had the burden to prove the fact of damage caused without calculating the amount.  Then it was further assessed by the court based on the nature of infringement, income received by the infringer, etc.  The final decision on the amount of compensation rested with the court. Regarding provisional measures under Article 
75 of the Arbitration Procedure Code, the court could issue an order for preliminary 
injunction based on the plaintiff's petiti on.  Such measures should be aimed at 
securing the claim. Provisional measures included: prohibition of infringing actions, arrest of property including back accounts, seizure of documents and other evidence.  The judge handling the case should make a d ecision the next day after the petition 
was filed without the representatives of the par ties.  Under the current legislation, any 
petition for provisional measures could be filed after the civil procedure was initiated.  
However, the draft amendments to the C ode of Arbitration Procedure proposed to 
allow provisional measures to be obtained before filing the claim.  
305-326 TRADE-RELATE D SERVICES REGIME 
Policies Affecting Trade in Services 
305-326 Some important changes made to the text, especially that the reference to natural 
monopolies has been deleted. We take that as a reflection of the fact that the issue of 
monopolies is in essence a market access restri ction that is part of the specific 
commitments negotiations. However, it is im portant to have some detailed references 
to the regulatory framework concerning monopolies in the WP report.   We refer to some of the comments we made on natural monopolies at the plurilateral on services on November 1:  
- Two issues related to natural monopolies 
- natural monopolies as an argument for not allowing market access, and 
- the regulations on natural monopolies,  and whether some of these are in 
contradiction to the GATS or fall under the GATS,  esp. Art VIII on monopolies and exclusive service suppliers and art IX on Business Practices. 
We agree that these articles are relatively narrow. 
- On 1: We do not accept the argument t hat for sectors dominated by so-called 
natural monopolies, it is  impossible  or extremely difficu lt to increase market 
access.  For the energy se ctor, the only natural monopoly with decreasing 
marginal costs would be the trans portation/distribution networks (gas 
pipelines, electric power transmission and distribution lines), i.e. the lines 
not the transportation as such. The same  goes for telecom and some areas of  
the transportation sector (services connected to ports, terminals etc. are ”unbundled” and not  naturally part of monopoly). For natural monopolies 
in infrastructure, it is important to  ensure that both producers and consumers 
have non-discriminatory access to them on transparent and objective terms, 
similar to those established for in stance through the Reference Paper for 
Telecommunications.  
- On 2: The test of whether anti-monopoly regulations might not be conform 
with the GATS, is to look to art II on  MFN, art XVI and art XVII specifically.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
 Page 27 
 
 
  
306 If measures are to be taken for safeguard rea sons, they have to be in conformity with 
the GATS, regardless of whether it is for infant industries or other business. 
307 Russia is intending to maintain its subsid ies to domestic service providers, the bulk of 
which go to large service providers such as Rostelekom, Ingostrakh, Aeroflot, etc. 
- We seek the inclusion in this section of  the draft Report of factual information 
on the types and levels of subsidies currently provided; Russia’s intentions in respect 
of areas currently not receiving any subs idies; and an undertaking by Russia to phase 
out its system of subsidies. - We seek the inclusion in this section full responses to questions raised by 
Members. We note that a number of issues are still subject to the broader plurilateral 
discussions, and we reserve the right to requ est further changes in this section 
pending their outcome. 
320 We assume that the measures referred to either come under prudential measures or 
BOP-measures and should be conform with the GATS. 
321-324 Para 321-324 are as before and do not reflect discussions at the plurilateral on 
services. We therefore reiterate some of our comments. 
321 The use of public utilities argument cannot be used for protectionist purposes or in 
areas where the services are of a narrow nature that cannot be defined as a general 
public service. Specifically on environmental services, no intention to undermine the 
freedom for local government, municipalities  to decide wheth er they themselves 
operate or by tender open up to private actors to operate e.g., sewage treatment 
facilities or refuse disposal. Does not undermine government’s rights to formulate 
and implement national environmental policies.  In taking commitments in the area of 
public utilities it is possible to make the di stinction between statutory work on behalf 
of and delegated by governme nt, and commercial services in the area  and we would 
urge the Russian delegation to look further into this matter. 
322 - On culture, comparing the WP dra ft report and the Russian services offer, 
the report text seems wide open as to when and were there might be 
authorization requirements in place, while  in the offer it seems only related 
to education. The working party text cannot be that general because it can imply a national treatment restriction. We would like a confirmation that where specific commitments are made, no new (Art XVI- and Art XVII-) restrictions based on cultural concerns suddenly pop up. 
- On specifically protected natural territories, we would think that the 
regulations to protect such territories would be the same for all, and as such are covered by  the GATS (relevant articles are preamble and art VI on 
domestic regulation, and Art XIV (b)). 
 Our delegation is still deeply con cerned over the Russian Federation’s 
maintenance of a discriminatory regime w ith regard to the supply of services on 
Russian services’ market by Georgian nationals residing in different regions of Georgia, under the modes of supply - “commercial presence” and “movement of 
natural persons”. We urge the Russia n Federation to make the necessary 
adjustments prior to its accession in order to avoid the discriminatory treatment and to allow all nationals of Georgia to provide services on the Russian market at the equal footing. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 
Page 28  
 
  
327-330 TRANSPARENCY 
- Publication of Information on Trade 
327-330 The publication of customs regulations a nd decrees is vital for traders attempting to 
import and export.  We understand, however , that this is often a problem for 
importers.   
 
- We understand that there are over 4,500 customs regulations and 
"instructions".  While it is possible that these exist somewhere in published form, it is not easily accessible to traders, and the State Customs Committee does not provide them to importers (or to Embassies) upon request.  This information should be noted in the WP report text. 
- Russia should elaborate on how it is approaching this issue, e.g., the  need to 
improve and systematize the availab ility of customs documents, and to  
simplify the current system of customs regulations in its draft customs code.  
 There is a larger problem of operational tran sparency.  This has become clear in the 
area of e.g., Telecommunications and energy,  where the market can be manipulated 
with little scrutiny by major players.   
329 There is a crucial typo in the penultimate sentence.  It should read “three” days rather 
than “the” days. 
330 It would be useful to have information rega rding elements in this paragraph, e.g., can 
Russia identify the publication or publications referred to in this paragraph.  We note 
that GATT 1994 and GATS requirements are specifically mentioned, but that TRIPS Agreement transparency requirements are not mentioned.  This needs to be 
addressed. 
331 Notifications 
331 Is this text acceptable to Russia?  What steps is Russia taking to develop the required 
initial notifications? 
 
__________