12-4954  JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1         17 September 2012 
 
 
Working Party on the             Original:  English  
Accession of Kazakhstan  
 
 
WORKING PARTY ON THE ACCESSION OF 
KAZAKHSTAN TO THE WTO 
 
Submission by the Republic of Kazakhstan 
 
Revision 
 
 
 The following submission is being circulated to Members of the Working Party, at the request 
of the Delegation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.   
 
 
_______________ 
 JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
Page 2 
 
 
  - Technical Barriers to Trade, Standards and Certification 
(a) Legal Framework 
1. The representative of Kazakhstan said that he r country's legal framework for technical 
regulations, standards and conformity assessment  systems had been governed by international 
agreements of the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC)1 and of the Customs Union (CU)2, 
other EurAsEC and CU legal instruments, and releva nt national legislation of Kazakhstan.  She noted 
that the legal framework outlined in  these Agreements and legal instruments required certain products 
circulating in the territories of the EurAsEC and CU  Parties to meet established technical regulations, 
as well as sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) requi rements established as technical regulations.  
In particular, trade (including both importation and circulation in the domestic  market) in products on 
the territory of Kazakhstan could be restricted or banned if the products in question did not meet these 
requirements.  The CU Parties, all of whom also were members of EurAsEC, had agreed to harmonize 
their policies and regulatory systems in the area  of technical regulation within the established 
EurAsEC system and sought to confirm and to inte nsify their cooperation in this area within the 
framework of the CU.  The goal of this harmonizat ion was to ensure uniform requirements for the 
circulation of goods within the territories of the CU Parties in the area of technical regulation, through 
common technical regulations that had been deve loped using procedures established in conformity 
with CU or EurAsEC Acts adopted as internationa l agreements or decisions among the participating 
EurAsEC and CU Parties.  These technical regulations  were applied directly in the territories of the 
CU Parties, and no separate national legislation was necessary.  The provisions of the EurAsEC and 
CU Agreements and other EurAsE C and CU Acts were based on the WTO Agreement on Technical 
Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), and technical regulations were applied with the purpose of 
protecting the life and (or) health of humans, prope rty, environment, animal and plant life and (or) 
health, and preventing actions that might mislead c onsumers, as well as for the purpose of ensuring 
energy efficiency and saving resources.  The representative of Kazakhstan emphasized that technical 
regulations adopted and applied within the Eu rAsEC and CU were not adopted for any other 
purposes. 
2. The representative of Kazakhstan stated that the legal basis for the common policy was the 
EurAsEC Agreement on the Basics of Harmonization of Technical Regulations of The Eurasian 
Economic Community Members of 24 March 2005 (h ereafter:  EurAsEC Agreement on Basics of 
Technical Regulation Harmonization) and the EurAsEC Agreement on Implementation of 
                                                      
1 Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Kyrgyz Republic, and Tajikistan. 
2 Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, and Belarus.  JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Coordinated Policy in the Field of Technical Regu lation, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of 
25 January 2008 (hereafter -EurAsEC Agreement on Technical Regulation Policy Coordination), as 
well as the Agreement on Uniform Principles and Ru les of Technical Regulation in the Republic of 
Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian  Federation of 18 November 2010 (hereafter – 
CU Agreement on Uniform Technical Regulation Pr inciples); the Rules of the Development of the 
Technical Regulations, approved by EurAsE C Interstate Council Decision No. 1175 of 
17 August 2008, Regulation on development of technical regulations of Eurasian Economic 
Community (EurAsEC Interstate Council Decisi on No. 1175); and Regulation on Development, 
Adoption, Amendment and Cancellation of Technica l Regulations of the Customs Union adopted by 
the Decision of the Council of the Eurasian Economic Commission No. 4 of 20 June 2012.  
These Agreements and Decisions established the main  instruments of the common policy applied in 
Kazakhstan in the following areas: 
- harmonization of national legislation in the area of technical regulation; 
- development and adoption of technical regula tions of the CU and of EurAsEC stipulating 
mandatory and binding requirements for th e goods subject to technical regulation; 
- implementation of common proce dure on development of technical  regulations in the territory 
of each CU and EurAsEC Party; 
- harmonization of standards and the implementa tion of relevant international standards as a 
basis for the elaboration of technical regulations; 
- implementation of common forms and rules for conformity assessment; 
- conducting conformity assessment (confirmation) of products or prod uct-related production 
processes, installation, setup, operation (use), storage, carrying (transportation), sale and 
disposal, including testing and certification; as well as  
- accreditation of certification (conformity confirmation) bodies and test laboratories (centres) 
participating in the process of manda tory confirmation of conformity.  
3. She added that the CU Agreement on the Ci rculation of Goods Subject to Mandatory 
Conformity Assessment on the Customs Territory  of Customs Union of 11 December 2009 (hereafter 
– the CU Agreement on Mandatory Conformity A ssessment) provided for the development of a 
unified list of goods subject to mandatory conform ity assessment within the Customs Union for which 
it was possible to issue a certificate and to regist er a declaration of conformity assessment using a 
common form during the transition period, until the a doption of CU technical regulations (hereafter – 
Unified List).  The Unified List was esta blished by CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 
18 June 2010 "On Technical Regulation in the Cust oms Union" (hereafter:  CU Commission Decision 
No. 319) and later replaced by the CU Commission Decision No. 620 of 7 April 2011 "On the Unified 
List's Update with Regard to Products Subj ected to Mandatory Conformity Assessment 
(Confirmation) within the Framework of the CU w ith Issuance of Single Documents, approved by 
CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 18 June 2010".  In accordan ce with Explanatory Note 1, 
paragraph 2 to the list of products adopted by CU Commission Decision No. 620, a declaration of JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
Page 4 
 
 
  conformity based on the CU common form could not be used for goods produced by foreign 
manufacturers located outside the territory of th e CU.  However, CU Commission Decision No. 620 
still provided for the possibility of using a certific ate of conformity for such goods based on the 
CU common form.  In Kazakhstan, a declaration of conformity for goods manufactured outside of 
Kazakhstan could be done under Law No. 603 "O n Technical Regulating" of 9 November 2004 
(hereafter - Law on Technical Regulation). 
4. Some Members expressed their concern that under CU Commission Decision No. 620 foreign 
manufacturers not located on the territory of the CU, in contrast to manufacturers located within the 
territory of the CU, did not have the option to use declarations of conformity based on the CU 
common form.  For these Members, this constituted discrimination in breach of the TBT Agreement. 
These Members sought a commitment that Kazakhstan, by the date of its accession, would eliminate 
this discriminatory treatment. 
5. [In response, the representative of the Republic of Kazakhstan confirmed that in order to 
comply with the WTO TBT Agreement, and in partic ular Article 2.1 thereof, the said discriminatory 
treatment would be eliminated by the date of accession of Kazakhstan to the WTO through the 
amendment of CU Commission Decision No. 620 of 7 April 2011 "On the Unified List's Update with 
Regard to Products Subjected to Mandatory Conf ormity Assessment (Confirmation) within the 
Framework of the CU with Issuance of Single Documents", approved by CU Commission Decision 
No. 319 of 18 June 2010" to ensure that foreign ma nufacturers not located within the territory of the 
CU would be able to demonstrate the conformity of the products imported into the territory of the 
CU through use of declarations of conformity us ing the CU common form.  The Working Party took 
note of this commitment.] 
6. The Representative of the Republic of Kazakhs tan further explained that CU Commission 
Decision No. 319 also determined the criteria for the inclusion of conformity assessment bodies and 
testing laboratories into a Unified Register of Ce rtification Bodies and Testing Laboratories of the 
Customs Union (hereafter - the Unified Register) and established the rules for the formation and 
maintenance of the Unified List and Unified Register by the national authorised bodies.  
CU Commission Decision No. 319 also established the regulations for importati on of products listed 
on the CU Unified List. Currently a new regulati on governing the importation of products listed on 
the CU Unified List was being drafted.  The Ag reement on Mutual Recognition of Accreditation of 
Certification Bodies and Testing Laborator ies Performing Conformity Assessment of 
11 December 2009 (hereinafter – the CU Agreemen t on Mutual Recognition of Accreditation Bodies) 
established the principles for a common CU system of mutual recognition of accreditation, the  JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  responsibilities of the accreditation bodies of the CU Parties, and general principles of accreditation, 
pending the gradual replacement of this mutual re cognition system by the adoption and application of 
common EurAsEC and CU technical regulations by the CU Parties. 
7. The representative of Kazakhstan further explaine d that in accordance with Article 4 of the 
CU Agreement on Uniform Technical Regulation Prin ciples CU, technical regulations could only be 
developed for goods included into the Unified List  of Products in Respect of which Mandatory 
Requirements Could be Established within  the Framework of the Customs Union,  approved by 
CU Commission Decision No. 526 of 28 January 2011 (hereafter: CU Commission Decision 
No. 526).  Currently the list included 61 produc t groups and could be e xpanded by subsequent 
Decisions of the Eurasian Economic Commission if new risks were identified.  Of these 61 products, 
47 had been identified for priority attention in  the development and adoption of CU technical 
regulations.  To date, of 47 CU technical regulations envisaged in  the Schedule for the Development 
of Priority Technical Regulations of the Customs Union, 31 technical regulations have been adopted, 
including seven technical regulations which entere d into force in 2012 and one technical regulation 
which is planned to be enacted be fore the end of 2012.  Seven techni cal regulations are in the final 
stage of public discussion, the remaining eight tec hnical regulations are in the process of internal 
approval by the CU member state bodies. 
8. The effect of CU technical regulations for a gi ven product had to be te rminated once relevant 
EurAsEC technical regulations for this product came  into force.  Schedules for the development of 
priority EurAsEC and CU technical regulations th at would establish the desired harmonized regime 
were provided in the EurAsEC Interstate Co uncil Decision No. 521 of 19 November 2010 
"The Schedule of Development of EurAsEC First- Priority Technical Regulations" (hereafter:  
EurAsEC Interstate Council Decision No. 521) and CU Commission Decision No. 492 of 
8 December 2010 "On Schedule of Development of First-Priority Technical Regulations of the 
Customs Union" (hereafter:  CU Commission Decision No. 492), respectively, with a view to their 
development during 2011.  Once CU or EurAsEC tec hnical regulations came into effect, they would 
be applied with direct effect, a nd relevant national requirements, est ablished by laws of the CU or 
EurAsEC Parties, would no longer be applied in th e territories of those Parties.  The CU Parties 
ensured the release of products that conformed to CU or EurAsEC technical regulations into 
circulation without (i) laying out additional require ments other than those contained in the CU or 
EurAsEC technical regulations (ii) carrying out  additional conformity assessment procedures.  
In order to ensure the comparability of conformity  assessment results with CU  or EurAsEC technical 
regulations, the CU Parties carried out coor dinated policy aimed at ensuring measurements 
uniformity.  It was expected that, by 31 December 2012, the Eurasian Economic Commission would JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
Page 6 
 
 
  have adopted all 47 priority CU technical regulati ons which would enter into force no later than 
15 February 2015, after a transiti onal period before application of  the relevant CU technical 
regulations to allow producers, im porters, and exporters to become acquainted with the new technical 
regulations.  By that date, all ot her national mandatory technical re quirements applied on the territory 
of CU Parties would be replaced by CU technical  regulations or would no  longer be applied. 
9. The domestic legislative framework on technical regulation, standardization, certification and 
accreditation in Kazakhstan was based on the Law "O n Technical Regulation", which had replaced 
Laws No. 433-1 "On Standardization" of 16 Ju ly 1999 and No. 434-1 "On Certification" of 
16 July 1999.  In her view, the new Law took into  account the main principles of the WTO Agreement 
on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), including inter alia  national treatment, 
transparency, and priority consideration given to  international standards in drawing up domestic 
technical regulations and standards.  This Law was the basis for the development of technical 
regulations, standards, procedures for recognition of conformity assessment and accreditation; it was 
aimed at setting a balance between the degree of government intervention and the goal of protecting 
the public.  The two main objectives of the Law were  (i) to ensure the safety of products through the 
application of mandatory technical regulations; a nd (ii) to enhance product competitiveness through 
the application of voluntary standards.  The Law al so ensured that ratified international agreements 
had priority over the national legislation.  Existin g legislation in the area was being brought into 
conformity with the Law "On Technical Regulati on" and the provisions of the TBT Agreement.  
To this end, Law No. 209 "On Am endments and Addenda into Cert ain Legislative Acts of the 
Republic of Kazakhstan on Issues of Technical Regulating" of 29 December 2006 had introduced 
amendments to 33 Laws.  In addition, four new laws  had been adopted – the Laws "On Toys Safety", 
"On Safety of Chemical Products",  "On Safety of Machinery and E quipment" and "On Food Safety".  
In the area of accreditation, two Laws had been adopted – "On Accreditation in the Field of 
Conformity Assessment" of 5 July 2008 No 61-IV  and "On Amendments and Addenda in Certain 
Legislative Acts on the Issues of Accreditation" of 5 July 2008 No 62-IV.  These Laws were aimed at 
building the legal framework for accreditation an d at harmonizing accreditation requirements with 
international standards, including those of the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) and the 
International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC). In addition, new regulatory acts on 
technical regulation were being de veloped and existing ones were being revised.  She held the view 
that the provisions of the national legislation in this area could not constitute a barrier to trade. 
10. The representative of Kazakhstan noted that Eu rAsEC and CU Agreements, and the EurAsEC 
and CU Acts implementing the CU policy on tech nical regulation substantially had replaced the 
Law No. 603 "On Technical Regulation" of 9 N ovember 2004 as the overall legal framework for  JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  technical regulations, standards, and conformity assessment systems in Kazakhstan with the 
establishment of the CU regime on 1 January 20 10.  However, certain provisions of the Law 
"On Technical Regulating" remained in effect (t o the extent they did not conflict with CU and 
EurAsEC Agreement on Technical Regulation Poli cy Coordination and EurAsEC and CU Acts, 
including CU Commission Decisions).  The develo pment and application of standards, conformity 
assessment, State control and supervision, metrolog ical control, and liability issues in Kazakhstan 
would continue to be administered on the nationa l level under the CU and EurAsEC regimes, with 
regard to the following issues: 
- national standards within the meaning of th e TBT Agreement (development, adoption) and 
standards organizations;  
- State control and supervision (inspection) to  ensure compliance with the requirements of 
technical regulations; 
- assurance of uniformity of measurements; 
- violations of technical regulations and wit hdrawal of products from the domestic market;  
- operation of the national aspects of developing and maintaining the system of certificates of 
conformity assessment and declarations of conformity, including national part of the 
Unified Register of certificates and declarations; 
- operation of the national aspects of developing and maintaining the system of certification 
bodies and testing laboratories (centres) of th e CU, including accreditation and national part 
of the Unified Register of certification bodies and testing laboratories; 
- voluntary conformity assessment;  
- rights and obligations of applicants in th e field of mandatory conformity assessment;  
- coordination of the activities, positions and pr ocedures of the Government in the field of 
technical regulation; 
- procedures for the determination of liability in the case of violation of technical regulations 
and sanctions therefore until the decision to transfer these issues to the CU was made; 
- providing required transparency; and  
- financing in the field of technical regulation. 
(b) Institutions 
11. The CU Agreement on Uniform Technical Regulati on Principles provided for the transfer of a 
substantial share of competences in the field of technical regulation from the national level to the 
Customs Union level.  In particular, according to  this Agreement, each Party of the Customs Union 
delegated the authority to establish mandatory Stat e requirements for products to the Customs Union 
Commission, i.e. sovereign rulemaking in this area w as excluded.  None of the Parties was eligible to 
establish additional mandatory requirements at the na tional level other than those established in the 
technical regulations of the Customs Union. 
12. The Eurasian Economic Commission (hereinafter - EEC) had replaced the CU Commission 
since 1 July 2012.  According to the Treaty on EEC of 18 November 2011, the competences in the 
field of technical regulation were divided be tween the EEC Council (responsible for the overall JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
Page 8 
 
 
  regulation of integration processes in the CU a nd the Single Economic Space) and the EEC Collegium 
(the executive body of the EEC that made proposals for further integration within the CU and the 
Single Economic Space).  The EEC Council exercised the following functions: 
- approval of the unified list of products in respect of which mandatory requirements were 
established within the framework of the Customs Union, and of the procedure of its 
maintenance; 
- approval of the plans for the development of technical regulations of the Customs Union; 
- adoption, amendment and cancellation of tec hnical regulations of the Customs Union; 
- approval of the common forms of conform ity assessment (confirmation) documents  
(declaration of conformity with the technical regulations of the Customs Union, certificate of 
conformity with the technical regulations of the Customs Union); 
- establishment of the procedure for the developm ent, adoption, amendment and cancellation of 
technical regulations of the Customs Union; 
- approval of the Common Mark of Circulati on of Products on the Ma rkets of the Member 
states of the Customs Union; and 
- approval of the regulation on the Common Ma rk of Circulation of Products on the 
Markets of the Member states of the Customs Union and the procedure for its use. 
The EEC Collegium approved, by qualified majority: 
- the List of international and regional standard s, and in case of their absence – national (State) 
standards, the application of which, on a vol untary basis, ensured compliance with the 
technical regulations of the Customs Union; 
- procedures for the development of the List of in ternational and regional st andards, and in case 
of their absence – national (State) standards, th e application of which, on a voluntary basis, 
ensured compliance with the technical regulations of the Customs Union; 
- standard schemes of conform ity assessment (confirmation); and 
- approval of the regulation on procedure of im portation into the customs territory of the 
Customs Union of products in respect of wh ich mandatory requireme nts were established 
within the framework of the Customs Union. 
13. The EEC Collegium was responsible for impl ementation of the EEC Council Decisions.  
In the field of technical regulation its work was maintained by the Department on Technical 
Regulation and Accreditation.  In addition, th e EEC Collegium Decision No. 1 of 7 March 2012 
established the Consultative Committee on Technical  Regulation, Application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures (hereafter:  the CU Consultative Committee).  The CU Consultative 
Committee was an advisory body that develope d proposals for the EEC Collegium on technical 
regulations and the application of sanitary, vete rinary and phytosanitary measures on the basis of 
agreed positions of the authorised bodies of the CU  member states.  Sub-committees were established 
under the CU Consultative Committee, including  the Sub-committee on Standardization and 
Uniformity of Measurements. 
14. The representative of Kazakhstan added that draft technical regulations were developed in the 
participating countries using internal procedures be fore being proposed by the authorised national  JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  bodies in the field of technical regulation to the designated EurAsEC or CU bodies for harmonization, 
further review, and adoption as provided for in the rele vant international agreem ents or CU decisions.  
For EurAsEC, the Commission for Technical Regulat ion and Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary 
Measures in Trade of the EurAsEC Integration Committee (hereafter:  the EurAsEC Commission for 
Technical Regulation), through the authorised national bodies of the EurAsEC Parties, coordinated 
the Parties' efforts on the development of techni cal regulations, including sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures.  After publishing a draft technical regul ation and collecting public comments, the EurAsEC 
Integration Committee forwarded the agreed draft technical regulation to the EurAsEC Interstate 
Council for adoption as an Agreement, as provided fo r in Article 3 of the EurAsEC Agreement on 
Technical Regulation Harmonization.  In the CU fram ework, this coordination and transparency role 
was fulfilled by the CU Consultative Committee, wh ich received draft technical regulations from the 
authorised bodies of the CU Parties, coordinated the development of the draft text and resolved 
disputes concerning it among the CU Parties' aut horities.  The Consultativ e Committee, with the 
assistance of the Eurasian Economic Commission, then  circulated the draft technical regulation for 
public review and comment and prepared analys is and recommendations on the draft technical 
regulations before forwarding the proposals to  the Eurasian Economic Commission for adoption 
through decisions. 
15. At the national level, the Committee on Technical  Regulation and Metrology of the Ministry 
of Industry and New Technologies of the Republic of  Kazakhstan (hereinafter – the Committee) was a 
competent authority in the field of technical regulati on.  Its competences were stipulated in Article 7 
of the Law on Technical Regulation.  The Co mmittee had three subordi nate organizations:  
the Kazakhstan's Institute of Metrology, the Kazakhstan's Institute for Standardization and 
Certification, and the National Center for Accredita tion.  The Kazakhstan's Institute of Metrology was 
a national institution with the primary task of im proving the technical (etalon) base and harmonization 
of normative documents in the field of metrology for providing uniformity of measurements with 
international requirements.  The Kazakhstan's Ins titute for Standardization and Certification was 
created for developing and enhanci ng the legal and normative basis in the field of technical regulation 
for ensuring the safety and quality of products, works and services, and its harmonization with 
international requirements.  The National Center  for Accreditation was a national accreditation body 
that carried out its activities under the Law "On Accreditation in the Field of Conformity 
Assessment".  JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
Page 10 
 
 
  (c) Technical Regulations, International and National Standards, and Conformity 
Assessment Procedures 
- (i) Technical Regulations 
16. The CU and EurAsEC technical regulations ha d to be developed and adopted only for the 
purpose of: protecting human, animal and plant life or  health, property, and the environment; ensuring 
energy efficiency and resource saving; preventing practices that might mislead consumers (Article 5 
of the EurAsEC Agreement on Technical Regulatio n Policy Coordination and Article 4.2 of the 
CU Agreement on Uniform Technical Regulation Prin ciples).  The CU Parties were not allowed to 
adopt CU and EurAsEC technical regulations for an y other purposes.  The CU and EurAsEC technical 
regulations established requirements for products and product-related processes, in particular:  
maintenance, operation, storage, transportation, realization and utilization, as well as identification 
rules and conformity assessment forms and schemes.  It also could contain requirements for 
terminology, packaging, labeling and SPS requireme nts.  The EurAsEC and CU technical regulations 
had to be developed in accordance with recomme ndations on a module structure laid down in 
Resolution of the Interstate Council of the EurAsE C No. 321 of 21 October 2006.  The representative 
of Kazakhstan affirmed that Article 5.2 of th e EurAsEC Agreement on Technical Regulation Policy 
Coordination and Article 4.4 of the CU Agreem ent on Uniform Technical Regulation Principles 
established that the relevant international standard s and other documents (i.e., rules, directives and 
recommendations or any other documents accepted by  international standa rdizing organizations) 
would be used as the basis for elaborating the Eu rAsEC and CU technical regulations, except in cases 
where such documents were absent, or did not conform to the purposes of the technical regulations of 
the Customs Union, in particular, due to climatic  and geographical factors or technological and other 
particularities.  CU Commission Decision No. 527, which provided for regulations for the 
development, adoption, amendment and cancellation of  technical regulations on the territories of the 
CU Parties, had been replaced by a new Regul ation on Development, A doption, Amendment and 
Cancellation of Technical Regulations of the Cust oms Union adopted by Decision of the Council of 
the Eurasian Economic Commission No. 48 of 20 June 2012 (hereafter:  EEC Council Decision 
No. 48). 
17. The representative of Kazakhstan explained th at in accordance with EEC Council Decision 
No. 48, CU technical regulations were developed in accordance with a plan on the development of 
technical regulations. This plan was prepared on th e basis of proposals from CU Parties or the EEC, 
agreed by the Parties and approved by the EEC C ouncil.  The Party or the Commission responsible 
for the development of a draft technical regulation w as determined in the plan.  The Party responsible  JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
  for the development of the draft technical regulation designated a State body responsible for 
development of the draft technical regulation.  All the CU Parties determined the State bodies that 
would take part in developing the draft technical regulation.  The developer of the draft technical 
regulation prepared the first draft and, taking into  account proposals from the competent authorities of 
the CU Parties, formed a working group on the de velopment of the draft technical regulation.  
The working group included representatives of standardization bodies, industry and business 
representatives.  The developer informed the EE C and other Parties about the formation and 
composition of the working group. 
18. Upon completion of the first draft technical re gulation, the developer sent the draft, an 
explanatory note, and the notification on the deve lopment of the technical regulation to the EEC 
(electronic and hard copy).  The explanatory note to the draft technical regulation had to include: 
- the purpose of the technical regulation; 
- structure and general characteristics of the objects of the technical regulation; 
- main groups of business or other activities, othe r interested persons whose interests would be 
affected by technical regulations; 
- a list of international, regional and nationa l (State) standards, requirements of other 
documents (regulations, directives and reco mmendations and other documents adopted by 
international organizations, and in case of their absence - regional documents (regulations, 
directives, decisions, regulations, and other doc uments), national technical regulations, on the 
basis of which the draft technical regulation was developed; 
- requirements that differed from provisions of inte rnational, regional standards or mandatory 
requirements in force on the territory of th e Parties with a brief rationale for their 
introduction; 
- information on the compliance of the draft technical regulation with the requirements 
ensuring the uniformity of measurements; and 
- the expected date of implementation of the requirements established by the technical 
regulation. 
Notification on the development of the draft techni cal regulation had to be made in accordance with 
the prescribed form and include the following information: 
- the party responsible for the development of the draft; 
- the authorised body of the Party that was responsible for the development of the draft 
(developer of the technical regulation); 
- draft title of the technical regulation; 
- object of the technical regulation; 
- purpose of the development of the technical regulation; 
- reason for the development of the technical regulation; 
- mailing address, telephone number, fax number, e-mail address for comments and proposals 
(review) on the draft; and 
- expected date of completion of public discu ssions (final date for providing comments and 
proposals (reviews) on the draft). JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
Page 12 
 
 
  The EEC sent these documents to the Parties within 5 working days from the date of receipt of the 
mentioned materials. 
19. The EEC ensured the consideration of the first version of the draft technical regulation and 
related set of documents at the meeting of the Consultative Committee.  Following the consideration 
by the Consultative Committee, the decision on possibility, starting date and period of public 
consultations on the draft technical regulation w as made, which was formalized by a Protocol.  
If necessary, the developer of the draft technical regulation within the period established by the 
Consultative Committee revised the draft technical regulation and the set of related document.  
20. The notification on the draft technical regulation was published on the official website of the 
Customs Union (http://www.tsouz.ru/db/techregl am/Pages/Publichnoeobs.aspx), the Committee for 
Technical Regulation and Metrology of the Ministry of Industry and New Technologies of the 
Republic of Kazakhstan (www.memst.kz), the TB T/SPS Enquiry Point (www.wto.memst.kz), as well 
as in the official publication "Bulletin of the Enquiry Point on TBT/SPS." 
21. The period of public consultations of the draft technical regulation (from the moment of 
publication of notification on the development up to the moment of publication of notification on the 
completion of public consultation) had to be no l ess than 60 calendar days.  The public consultations 
period was closed by publishing a notification about the closure of public consultations on the draft 
technical regulation on the official website of the EEC. 
22. The developer of the draft technical regulati on within 30 working days from the date it 
received consolidated comments from the EEC, revised  the draft technical regulation and the related 
documents taking into account comments and prop osals received during the public consultations.  
The revised draft technical regulation, the protocol  of the meetings of the working group, and the 
consolidated comments were sent to the EEC.  The EEC sent the draft technical regulation and related 
documents to the Parties for the internal approva l and published them on the official website.  Upon 
completion of the internal approval of the draft technical regulations by the Parties, the draft technical 
regulation was sent to the Consultative Committee that submitted it to the EEC Collegium for 
approval.  The draft technical re gulation and related docum ents, and disagreements that could not be 
solved during the negotiations were considered by  the EEC Collegium.  After the consideration the 
EEC Collegium submitted the draft technical regula tion and related documents  either to the EEC 
Council for the approval, or to the developer for revision.  The EEC Council adopted the final draft 
technical regulation at its meeting.   JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
  23. The Decision of the EEC Council on adoption of the technical regulation, the Decision of the 
EEC Collegium on approval of the draft technical regulation and Decision of the EEC Collegium on 
the order of entering into force of the technical regul ation were published at the official website of the 
EEC.  The EEC maintained the Register of technical regulations.  
24. The representative of the Republic of Kazakhstan further explained that CU Parties could not 
establish additional mandatory requirements at the na tional level other than those established in the 
technical regulations of the Customs Union.  Thus , no national technical regul ations were developed 
in Kazakhstan at the moment.  Provisions of the Law "On Technical Regulation" were applied to the 
extent they did not contradict the provisions of the Agreements and regulations of the CU and the 
Single Economic Space.  The Law "On Technical Regulation" envisaged mandatory requirements for 
(i) products – aimed at ensuring the protection of human life and health, the environment, national 
security, as well as the prevention of deceptive practices; and (ii) related processes – aimed at 
ensuring product safety.  Technical regulations set  forth mandatory requirements for products (and 
processes), contained an exhaustive list of such requireme nts, and had the status of direct application.  
These requirements were applied in an equal and uni form manner regardless of the product's country 
or place of origin.  The development of technical regulations was based on international and regional 
standards.  Technical regulations were also aimed at eliminating technical barriers to trade and 
increasing product competitiveness. 
25. According to the Law "On Technical Regulati on" natural and legal persons could submit 
proposals to the Committee on Technical Regulation and Metrology of the Re public of Kazakhstan on 
development, amendment, cancellation of technical  regulations and standa rds, and draft normative 
acts in the field of technical regulation.  In case of positive decision, the Committee would submit the 
proposal to the EEC or EurAsEC, as appropriate. 
- (ii) Voluntary National and International Standards 
26. With regard to standards, she said that pur suant to the Law "On Technical Regulation", 
standards were applied on a voluntary basis and e qually regardless of the origin of the product or 
service.  Whereas the application of a variety of st andards had been foreseen (including international, 
regional and national), the applica tion of international standards w ould prevail.  International or 
foreign countries' standards and regul ations were used in drawing up national standards, except when 
such standards were inefficient or  inadequate for achieving the desi red objectives.  National standards 
were developed, reviewed and terminated in accord ance with the National Standard of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan ST RK 1.2-2008 "Procedure for the Deve lopment of National (State) Standard and 
Standards of Organizations" and the Rules for Ha rmonisation, Recording, Approval, Amendment, JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
Page 14 
 
 
  Cancellation and Entering into Force of National (State) Standards, Classifiers of Technical and 
Economic Information approved by Order of the Deputy Minister of Industry and New Technologies 
of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 40 of 23 April 2010.  She added that the Committee on Technical 
Regulation and Metrology of the Ministry of I ndustry and New Technologies was the only authorised 
State body in charge of administering work and issuing standards in the field of technical regulation, 
metrology and certification. 
- (iii) Disposition of Mandatory National Standards of Kazakhsta 
27. Some Members requested information on the e limination of WTO-inconsistent mandatory 
national standards.  In particular, these Members enquired whether there were any explicit plans to 
address such standards.   
28. The representative of Kazakhstan replied that, in  accordance with the Law of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan "On Technical Regulation" in cases wher e a technical regulation for a particular product 
had not been enacted, for the purpose of confirma tion of conformity the manufacturers could apply 
international, regional (interstate) or national (S tate) standards that met the technical regulation 
objectives.  In such cases, compliance with the st andard chosen by the manufacturer was mandatory.   
As soon as the relevant technical regulation was a dopted, standards had to be applied on a voluntary 
basis.  Standards that contained conflicting pr ovisions could not be used for confirming the 
conformity with the technical regulation and became void.  
29. Some Members strongly encouraged Kazakhsta n to bring its standards and technical 
regulations system into compliance with WTO requirements prior to WTO accession.  
The representative of Kazakhstan replied that K azakhstan was currently considering making the 
commitment contained in the following paragraph.  
30. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirme d that upon accession to the WTO, relevant 
international standards or relevant parts thereof would be used for the development of technical 
regulations, unless they were ineffective or inappr opriate means for the fulfillment of the legitimate 
safety objectives.  She further confirmed that from the date of accession, Kazakhstan would ensure 
that all laws, regulations, and ot her measures within the scope of the WTO TBT Agreement, such as 
technical regulations, standards, and conform ity assessment procedures, applied in Kazakhstan 
complied with the provisions of the WTO TBT Agre ement.  The Working Party took note of this 
commitment.]  JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
  31. A Member welcomed the proposed commitment and expressed the view that it should 
explicitly include a commitment to amend or resci nd any existing standard, technical regulation or 
conformity assessment procedure that was not compliant with the WTO TBT Agreement.  
This Member requested further information on how Kazakhstan intende d to implement this 
commitment if all WTO-inconsistent mandatory st andards had not been phased-out and whether these 
mandatory standards would become voluntary. 
32. In reply, the representative of Kazakhstan said that  Kazakhstan, jointly with other CU Parties, 
was actively working on the development of technical regulations which would replace 
WTO-inconsistent mandatory standards.  Thus, st andards containing mandatory requirements, which 
were currently in force, would be replaced by Eu rAsEC and CU technical regulations as part of the 
CU technical regulation harmonization process, based on the work plan and timetable for adoption of 
priority technical regulations contained in CU Commission Decision No. 492 and EurAsEC Interstate 
Council Decision No. 521.  Pending their replacemen t by EurAsEC and CU technical regulations, 
standards containing mandatory requirements were in  force only to the extent that they ensured:  
protection of human life or health; protection of the environment and of animal and plant life or 
health; provision of national security; prevention of deceptive practices and energy efficiency (all of 
which were set out in the Law "On Technical Regulating", the EurAsEC Agreement on Technical 
Regulation Policy Coordination and the CU Agreemen t on Technical Regulation Principles).  Further, 
such national standards, were considered by her G overnment to be "technical regulations" as that term 
was defined in Annex 1 of the WTO TBT Agreemen t.  She also added that national standards 
contradicting the WTO requirements were being re viewed with a purpose to harmonize them with 
international standards.  To date, the total nu mber of national (State) standards of Kazakhstan 
amounted to 4,075 units, of which 2,847 units were harmonized with internati onal standards.  Thus, 
70 per cent of the national standards were harmonized with in ternational standards.  In addition, the 
Law "On Technical Regulating" (sub- paragraph 5 of Article 4) prioritized the use of international 
standards. 
33. [The representative of the Republic of Kazakhsta n confirmed that all standards currently in 
force in the Republic of Kazakhstan containing  mandatory requirements would be applied in 
compliance with the WTO TBT Agreement from the date of accession.  In case of their inconsistency 
with the provisions of the WTO TBT Agreement, such standards would be modified in accordance 
with the procedures set-out in CU Commission Decision No. 527 of 28 January 2011, Regulation on 
Development, Adoption, Amendment and Cancella tion of Technical Regulations of the Customs 
Union and national legislation.  She confirmed that the Republic of Kazakhstan would fulfil all JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
Page 16 
 
 
  requirements of the WTO TBT Agreement, includi ng those on notifications, as of the date of 
accession.  The Working Party took note of this commitment]. 
- (iv) Conformity Assessment Procedures including the Accreditation of Conformity 
 Assessment Bodies 
34. Accreditation of conformity assessment bodies enabled a conformity assessment body 
included in the Unified Register of Accredited Ce rtification Bodies and Testing Laboratories of the 
CU (hereinafter - Unified Register) to issue doc uments on conformity assessme nt within the area of 
its accreditation that would be accepted within the terr itory of Kazakhstan, as well as the rest of the 
CU.  Articles 2 and 3 of the CU Agreement on Mandatory Conformity Assessment established the 
responsibility of the CU Parties' accreditati on bodies to conduct comparative examinations 
(peer assessment) of procedures in the bodies of othe r CU Parties and to implement, where possible, 
relevant international standards in the national accr editation system; to maintain the national Register 
of accredited certification bodies and laboratories; and to consider complaints from enterprises 
connected with an accredited certification body or laboratory.  Apart from the Unified Register, the 
EEC also adopted common forms for the certificati on and declaration of conformity; and the Unified 
Registry of Certificates of Conformity and Declara tions of Conformity.  In contrast, EurAsEC did not 
maintain either a unified registry of certification bodies and testing laboratories or a unified list of 
products subject to technical regulations and ma ndatory conformity assessment at the Community 
level.  Therefore, each EurAsEC Party determined the products subjected to mandatory confirmation 
of conformity with respect to EurAsEC technical regulations.  The same situation currently existed 
with certification bodies and test laboratories.  With time, as the CU and EurAsEC systems of 
technical regulation evolved, it was expected that  the EurAsEC Interstate Council would adopt the 
CU Unified Register of Accredited Certification Bodies and Laboratories, but currently, each 
EurAsEC Party determined its own list of certification bodies and laboratories.   
35. Products subject to CU and EurAsEC technical re gulations could be released for circulation 
within the CU customs territory provided they  had undergone all necessary conformity assessment 
procedures established by the relevant CU te chnical regulations.  The CU Parties conducted 
conformity assessment in accordance with CU or EurAsEC technical regulations.  Conformity 
assessment had to be carried out in the form of registration, testing, expertise and conformity 
verification.  As set out in Article 6.1 of th e EurAsEC Agreement on Technical Regulation Policy 
Coordination and Article 7.2 of the CU Agreem ent on Uniform Technical Regulation Principles, 
mandatory assessment (confirmation) of conformity (compliance) of products with requirements of 
EurAsEC and CU technical regulations was confirme d by a declaration of compliance or certificate  JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
 Page 17 
 
 
  that was issued by a certification body listed in the Unified Register based on tests performed by 
accredited laboratories and testing centres.  For the purposes of the registration of declaration of 
conformity, the following persons could act as app licants:  a juridical person or a natural person 
registered as an individual entrepreneur in accord ance with national legisla tion of CU Parties or a 
person acting as a producer/seller or performing the duties of a foreign producer on the basis of a 
contract, concluded with the producer.  CU Comm ission Decision No. 621 of 7 April 2011 "On the 
Regulation on the Application of Model Schemes of Conformity Assessment (Confirmation) in the 
Technical Regulations of the Customs Union" (hereafter:  CU Commission Decision No. 621), 
established common forms and regulations on th e application of model conformity assessment 
schemes to ensure compliance with the requirements of technical regulations of the Customs Union. 
36. Pursuant to Article 8 of the CU Agreemen t on Uniform Technical Regulation Principles, 
activity related to conformity assess ment had to be carried out by the accredited certification bodies 
and testing laboratories included into the Unified Register.  The Unified Register was formed in 
accordance with the CU Agreement on Products Ci rculation.  Recognition of results issued by 
accredited certification bodies and testing laboratories had to be carried out in accordance with the 
CU Agreement on Mutual Recognition of Accreditation Bodies.  Results of conformity assessment of 
products for which no technical regulations of th e CU or EurAsEC came into force had to be 
recognised in accordance with the Agreement on Products Circulation. 
37. For the purpose of conformity assessment, the CU Parties, in accordance with Article 6 of the 
CU Agreement on Uniform Technical Regulation Pr inciples and Article 6 of the EurAsEC Agreement 
on Technical Regulation Policy Coordination, could a pply international and re gional standards and in 
the absence thereof - national standards.  The a pplication of these standards on a voluntary basis 
ensured the compliance with CU or EurAsEC tec hnical regulation requirements.  The Eurasian 
Economic Commission adopts a list of such standards (h ereinafter – List of Standards).  The national 
standards contained rules for testing and measure ment techniques, including rules of sampling 
required for application and implementation of technical regulation requirements and conduct of 
conformity assessment Application of international,  regional and (or) national standards included into 
the List of Standards on a voluntary basis was a su fficient condition to constitute compliance with 
CU technical regulation requirements.  However, non-compliance with the standards included into the 
List of Standards did not mean non-compliance with the CU technical regulations.  
38. Pursuant to Article 9 of the CU Agreement on Uniform Technical Regulation Principles, the 
liability for non-compliance with requirements of CU  technical regulations, as well as for violation of 
conformity assessment procedures, was established by legislation of each member state.  JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
Page 18 
 
 
  Each CU member state had a right to take all appropriate measures whenever it ascertained that 
products did not conform to the requirements of CU  technical regulations.  Such measures included 
actions aimed at prohibiting their placement on the market, withdrawing the products from the market 
in accordance with the national legislation of CU Pa rties and informing other members states thereof.  
CU Parties aimed to harmonize all relevant legisl ation in the sphere of establishing liabilities for 
violation of the requirements of CU techni cal regulations as well as conformity assessment 
procedures.  With this view, the CU Parties de veloped a draft Agreement submitted for approval by 
the CU Parties establishing types of administrative vi olations in the sphere of  technical regulation and 
the application of the sanitary, veterinary, and phyt osanitary measures which had been expected to be 
approved and ratified by the CU Par ties before the end of 2012.  Furthermore, CU Parties had a right 
to take emergency measures to prevent entry of hazardous products into the CU market.  Any CU 
Party seeking to apply such measures had to notify the other CU Parties of taking them. 
39. With respect to conformity  assessment, she said that at the national level the Law 
"On Technical Regulation" provided for (i) "conformity recognition" – a procedure that resulted in a 
documental certification (in the form of declarati on of conformity or conformity certificate) of 
conformity of an object (product or process) to th e requirements established in technical regulations 
or standards; and (ii) "accreditation" – an o fficial recognition by an accreditation body of the 
competence of juridical persons to perform confor mity recognition works.  Conformity recognitions 
could be (i) mandatory – in the form of certifica tion by an accredited conformity assessment body or a 
producer's declaration of conformity (for products subject to technical regulation requirements); and 
(ii) voluntary – in the form of certification or a c onformity declaration of a producer/seller indicating 
that the requirements of standards, other documen ts or special requirements were met (for products 
not subject to mandatory conformity recognition). 
40. In response to a Member enquiring how a manufacturer could obtain a certificate, the 
representative of Kazakhstan said that the procedure for issuing conformity certificates was stipulated 
in the technical regulation  "Procedures of Conformity Certification" adopted by Government 
Resolution No. 90 of 4 February 2008:   (i) the applicant submitted to a conformity certification body 
an application for carrying out certification; (ii)  the conformity certification body reviewed the 
application and informed the applicant of its decision within three days upon receipt of the 
application; (iii) the decision for carrying out th e certification procedure had to contain all basic 
certification conditions based on the established certifi cation procedures for the type of product being 
certified; it also had to contain the proposed certification scheme, list of the necessary technical 
documents, list of the parameters, inspection cond itions and title of an accredited laboratory/centre 
(further – laboratory) which carried out the testing; (i v) if the applicant agreed with the conditions of  JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
 Page 19 
 
 
  the certification procedures, they concluded a cont ract for carrying out the works; (v) tests were 
carried out on the samples, the design, structure and production technology of which had to be the 
same as that of the product supplied to consumers; (vi) the conformity assessment body or an 
accredited laboratory, upon request of the confor mity assessment body or a commission consisting of 
auditors appointed by the applicant, carried out sam pling.  Quantity of samples, procedure for their 
selection, as well as storage rules, were established in accordance with the re gulatory and methodical 
documents on certification and testing methods of a specific product; (vii) the applicant had to submit 
technical documentation for the samples, the struct ure and content of which were established in the 
normative documents of a specific product as well as the technical documents to be submitted in 
accordance with the basic certification conditions, me ntioned in item (iii) above; (viii) accredited 
laboratories carried out testing on the samples provided to the conformity assessment body; 
(ix) certification tests had to be carried out in  accordance with the methods and within the terms 
stipulated in the regulatory documents designed for a specific product but no longer than 30 calendar 
days; (x) after analysis of the test results, and other documents on product conformity, the conformity 
assessment body conducted conformity assessment.  The conformity certificate was issued by the 
conformity assessment body on the basis of the expert  conclusion.  In case of negative testing results, 
the conformity assessment body had to issue th e decision indicating the reasons for refusal. 
41. The representative of Kazakhstan further descr ibed that Government Resolution No. 367 
"On Mandatory Conformity Assessment of Products in the Republic of Kazakhstan" of 20 April 2005 
established two lists of products subject to ma ndatory conformity assessment in Kazakhstan:  
(i) List of Products and Services subject to Mand atory Certification; and (ii) List of Goods 
Conformity of which could be Verified by Declarat ion of Conformity.  To circulate as well as enter 
into Kazakhstan's market, the listed products had to undergo conformity assessment for the purposes 
of mandatory requirements and had to be accompanie d with a conformity certificate or a declaration 
of conformity.  With respect to the relationship of the two lists with the Unified List adopted by 
CU Commission Decision No. 620 of 7 April 2011 , the representative of Kazakhstan noted that 
products, that passed mandatory conformity assessment  in Kazakhstan, would still need to receive 
conformity certificate or declaration of conformity  in a CU Party, when being exported to such 
CU Party, if the products were not included in the Unified List.  She recalled that these CU and 
national lists were subject to revision upon adopti on of a relevant CU technical regulation on a 
product included into the lists mentioned above. 
42. Referring to a previous statement of Kazakhsta n on revisiting and subse quent elimination of 
the list of products subject to mandatory certifica tion upon adoption of relate d technical regulations, a 
Member commented that this was over-optimistic a nd could even be misleading since some categories JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
Page 20 
 
 
  of products would always require mandatory cer tification (i.e. pharmaceuticals, some medical 
devices, etc.).  In this regard, this Member asked  Kazakhstan to confirm whether it was considering it, 
and if yes, then, would products like pharmaceutic als and medical devices be subject to mandatory 
conformity certification.   
43. The representative of Kazakhstan replied that Kazakhstan currently did not foresee to cancel 
mandatory conformity assessment requirements for al l products.  In general, a conformity assessment 
scheme for a specific product would be establishe d in a relevant Customs Union or EurAsEC 
technical regulation. 
44. As for pharmaceuticals and medical devices, the representative of Kazakhstan said that, in 
accordance with the national legislation, na mely the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan 
"On Amendments and Addenda into  Some Legislative Acts of th e Republic of Kazakhstan on State 
Monopoly Issues" of 10 July 2012, medicines were subject to mandatory conformity certification.  
In order to receive access to Kazakhstan's market , medicines were subject to State registration 
conducted by the Ministry of Health.  Within the fra mework of CU, medicines were not included into 
the Unified List of Products Subject to Mandatory  Requirements within the Framework of Customs 
Union adopted by the CU Commission Decision No. 526 of 28 January 2011.  Therefore, 
the development of a CU technical regulation for medi cines was not planned.  With respect to medical 
devices, the representative of Kazakhstan noted that  within the framework of the Customs Union, 
medical devices were included into the Unified List.  However, in the course of discussion of the draft 
CU technical Regulation "On Safety of Medical De vices", taking into account international practice, 
the CU Parties took a decision on the inexpediency of  its adoption and necessity of developing a draft 
(i) Agreement on Conducting of Common Policy in th e Sphere of Circulation of Medical Devices; 
and (ii) Action Plan of harmonizati on CU Parties' legislation of in the sphere of circulation medical 
devices.  Therefore, medical devices would be excluded from Unified List. 
45. A declaration of conformity could be prepared  on the basis of evidence collected by the 
applicant alone or on the basis of evidence obtained with the participation of a conformity assessment 
organization.  The declaration of conformity ha d to be registered by the relevant accredited 
conformity assessment organization and was valid – similarly to a conformity certificate – on the 
entire territory of Kazakhstan.  
46. Recognizing the need for keeping track of ma nufacturer's declarations of conformity, a 
Member expressed concern that instituting an official  register/requiring official registration could be 
disproportionate and unnecessarily trade-restrictive,  especially concerning imports, since it would be 
certainly more burdensome in practice for non-domes tic suppliers to apply for this registration.   JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
 Page 21 
 
 
  This Member's country required the manufacturer to keep a full technical file with the specifications 
of the product including the supplier declaration of c onformity.  This file had to be made available to 
public authorities (mainly in the framework of market surveillance) under their simple request.  In this 
regard, this Member requested information on (i) th e formalities to accomplish in order to have a 
supplier declaration of conformity registered ; (ii) if any, costs to be borne by the 
manufacturer/importer/legal representative; (iii) the length of registration pro cedure; and (iv) grounds 
of refusal.  In addition, this Member enquired wh ether Kazakhstan considered less trade-restrictive 
modalities to process supplier's declaration of conformity, such as allowing the 
manufacturer/importer/legal representative to keep a full technical file (including the declaration) at 
the disposal of the authorities under their simp le request.  This Member also enquired how 
Kazakhstan intended to avoid that this provisi on put foreign manufacturers in a less favourable 
position compared to domestic ones. 
47. The representative of Kazakhstan replied that  currently the CU legal framework did not 
stipulate uniform procedures in the sphere of declar ation of conformity.  Therefore, with respect to 
requirements and procedures related to declaration of  conformity the national legislation applied.  
Chapter 4 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kaza khstan No. 90 "On Approval 
of the Technical Regulation "Conformity Confirma tion Procedures" of 4 February 2008 established 
the following procedure for declaration by mark et participants.  The manufacturer (performer) 
undertook a declaration based on the documents c onfirming the conformity of products to the 
specified requirements.  The following documents  could be used as a basis for declaration by 
manufacturer (performer):  (i) protocols of a pproval and other control testing conducted by the 
manufacturer (performer) and/or accredited testing labor atories; (ii) previously obtained certificates in 
force, or testing protocols for primary products, mate rials, components; (iii) statement of State control 
confirming the product compliance with the require ments of the legislation of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan; and (iv) documents confirming the confor mity of products to the specified requirements 
(deliveries of primary products, production pro cess, assembling, finished products, package, 
marking), quality management system certificates.  In this regard, considerati on and registration of the 
declaration of conformity by a conformity assessme nt body had to be paid by the manufacturer 
(performer) on a contractual basis.  Declaration c ould be undertaken for specific products or a group 
of homogeneous products in relation to which the common requirements were established.  
Declaration could be taken for th e period determined by the produc ts manufacturer (performer) based 
on the planned period of production of such products or the sales period of a products lot, but not 
longer than for one year.  Declaration accepted by the manufacturer (performer) had to be registered 
in an accredited conformity assessment body.  W ithin a period not exceeding three days, the 
conformity assessment body had to consider and check  the following:  (i) presence of this kind of JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
Page 22 
 
 
  products in the list of the products conformity of  which could be verified by the declaration; 
(ii) eligibility of manufacturer (performer) to undertake the declaration; (iii) completeness and 
accuracy of the indication of the regulatory standa rdization documents provided for the confirmation 
of these products conformity; (iv) presence of a ll documents provided by the legislation of the 
Republic of Kazakhstan for the manufacturing of these products; and (v) accuracy of filling the 
declaration.  After considering and checking the products, the conformity assessment body registered 
the declaration in a special section of the registered  declarations record.  The registered declaration 
had to be kept by manufacturer (performer) al ong with the documents on the basis of which the 
declaration had been filed, within the period no less than three years after its expiry date.  Within the 
same period, the conformity assessment body shall keep  a copy of the registered declaration and the 
supporting documents.  If the requirements of regul atory documents indicated in the declaration as 
well as reorganization of the legal person had change d, the manufacturer (performer) had to issue a 
new declaration and submit it for registration to the conformity assessment body.  With respect to 
costs involved, she stated that the amount of payments for the works on review and registration of the 
declarations had to be determined on a contr actual basis between conformity assessment bodies and 
producers (performers).  As for the reasons for refusal  of registration of conformity declaration, the 
representative of Kazakhstan said that the registrati on could be refused only for the following reasons: 
(i) a product's conformity could be verified only in  the form of certification; and (ii) the presented 
materials were not sufficient to verify the confor mity of a product with safety requirements provided 
for in the relevant technical regulation or, when th e technical regulation had not been developed - to 
the relevant regulatory legal act.  In conclusion, the representative  of Kazakhstan stated that the 
requirements were the same for domestic and fore ign suppliers.  Thus, the registration requirement 
equally extended to both domestic and foreign suppliers.  Therefore, there was no provision in the 
legislation that put foreign ma nufacturers in a less favourable  position compared to domestic 
manufactures.  The representative of Kazakhstan adde d that the Customs Union was in the process of 
simplifying the procedure of registration of declarat ions of conformity by introducing the electronic 
registration.  Electronic registration would allow the manufacturer to register its declaration of 
conformity in the electronic Unified Register by filling out an electronic application form, submitting 
the declaration of conformity signed with an electronic signature, and the relevant evidence. 
48. Asked specifically about the existence of an a ppeal process, she said that an applicant could 
appeal decisions on conformity recognition to th e Board of Appeals of the conformity recognition 
organization concerned, and then to the Board of  Appeals of the Committee on Technical Regulating 
and Metrology of the Ministry of Industry and New Technologies; the decisions of the latter could be 
appealed in court.  Pursuant to State standard  ST RK 3.10-2007 "The Order of the Examination of 
Appeals", an appeal had to be filed in writing, en closing all relevant documen ts, within one month of  JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
 Page 23 
 
 
  the contested decision of the accredited certification body.  The Board took a decision within 15 days 
and the applicant was notified in the following 10 days. 
49. She added that any domestic or foreign organi zation could act as a conformity certification 
body or a test laboratory as long as it had recei ved accreditation in accordance with established 
legislation of Kazakhstan.  Certification bodies or la boratories were not allowed to operate (e.g. issue 
conformity assessments) outside their scope of accred itation.  Foreign conformity certificates, test 
protocols, accreditation certificates, and other docum ents issued by foreign accreditation bodies would 
be recognized in accordance with international treat ies/agreements.  Asked to provide more specific 
information on the foreign conformity certificates, th e representative of Kazakhstan said that in this 
case, the international treaties/agreements were the bilateral or multilateral treaties/agreements signed 
by Kazakhstan with foreign countries which provi ded for the unilateral or mutual recognition of 
conformity assessment results.  In the absence of inte rnational treaties/agreements, test results issued 
by foreign authorised bodies would only be r ecognised through the accreditation of these foreign 
bodies in Kazakhstan's national accreditation system, in line with Article 6.1 of the 
WTO TBT Agreement.  At present, there were no foreign bodies accredited as conformity assessment 
organizations in Kazakhstan.  The representative of Kazakhstan also noted that according to the 
Article 33 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhsta n "On Technical Regulating":  (i) certificates of 
conformity, test protocols, and conformity marks of foreign countries were recognised in accordance 
with international agreements; (ii) procedures for recognition of foreign conformity certificates, test 
protocols, conformity marks a nd of other documents in the co nformity assessment sphere were 
established by the Committee on Technical Regulation and Metrology.  She also added that, 
according to the Rules on Recognition of Foreign Certificates of Conformity, Test Protocols, 
Conformity Marks and of Other Documents in the Conformity Assessment Sphere (approved by the 
Order of the Chairman of the Committee on Tec hnical Regulation and Metr ology on 22 April 2005), 
recognition of foreign certificates of conformity was carried out in accordance with international 
agreements to which Kazakhstan was a party.  Asked to clarify this statement, the representative of 
Kazakhstan said that in this case, international agre ements were bilateral or multilateral agreements 
signed by Kazakhstan with foreign countries on rec ognition of the results of conformity assessment.  
In this regard, she referred to Article 6 of th e WTO TBT Agreement which provided a possibility to 
conclude such agreements.  In the absence of the international agreement, conformity assessment of 
imported products was implemented in accordance with  the same rules and regulations set forth for 
domestic products. 
50. Asked whether Kazakhstan considered the WTO TBT Agreement as an international 
agreement or treaty, the representative of Kazakhs tan replied that her country considered the JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
Page 24 
 
 
  WTO TBT Agreement as an international agreement,  and would comply with its requirements upon 
its accession to the WTO.  In particular, in accord ance with Article 6 of the WTO TBT Agreement, 
the results of conformity assessment procedures of foreign countries, distinct from Kazakhstan's 
procedures, would, wherever possible, be rec ognised by Kazakhstan provided that conformity 
assessment bodies of foreign countries were accred ited in the national accreditation system of the 
Republic of Kazakhstan.  
51. This Member further commented that while  Article 6.3 of the WTO TBT Agreement 
encouraged Members to be willing to enter into ne gotiations on agreements for mutual recognition of 
each other's conformity assessment procedures, Article 6.1 clearly envisioned other ways to arrive at 
mutually satisfactory understandings  on recognition.  This Member asked Kazakhstan to describe and 
cite in the Working Party Report Kazakhstan's legislation that established non-discriminatory 
conformity assessment procedures that would allow foreign certification bodies to certify conformity 
of exports to Kazakhstan.   
52. The representative of Kazakhstan replied that Article 6.1 of the WTO TBT Agreement 
provided that WTO Members, whenever possible, ha d to recognize conformity assessment results of 
other WTO Members if such procedures were diffe rent from national proce dures.  Kazakhstan would 
recognize conformity assessment procedures different  from national procedures unilaterally if such a 
possibility was provided in a bilateral or multilatera l agreement signed by Kazakhstan.  Hence, the 
understandings referred to in Article  6.1 would be implemented by Kaza khstan in the form of bilateral 
or multilateral agreements.  She added that pur suant to Article 33 of the Law "On Technical 
Regulation", certificates of conformity of foreign countries, testing results, conformity marks were 
recognized in accordance with international (bil ateral or multilateral) agreements signed by 
Kazakhstan.  Procedures of Recogn ition were determined by the Rules of Recognition of Certificates 
of Conformity of Foreign Countries, Testing Resu lts, Conformity Marks and Other Documents Issued 
in Foreign Systems of Conformity Assessment, adopted by the Chairman of the Committee of 
Technical Regulating and Metrology on 22 April 20 05.  Paragraph 5 of these Rules confirmed that 
foreign conformity certificates, testing protocols, conformity marks, and other documents had to be 
recognized if there was an international (either b ilateral or multilateral) agreement with a country 
issuing the document, i.e., agreement on recognition of conformity assessment results .  If there was no 
such international agreement, conformity assessment  of imported products ha d to be conducted in 
accordance with the rules and regulations in this sp here established for domestic products.  She added 
that at the CU level CU Commission Decision No. 621 of 7 April 2011 established scheme No. 9 
which addressed the recognition of certificates of conformity issued by third-country conformity 
assessment bodies.   JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
 Page 25 
 
 
  53. Asked to provide information on international conformity assessment bodies which issued 
certificates that were recognised in Kazakhstan, th e representative of Kazakhstan said that conformity 
certificates were mutually recognised in accordance w ith signed international agreements.  At present, 
such mutual recognition agreements existed onl y with CIS Parties – (i) the Agreement on the 
Coordinated Policy on Standardi zation, Metrology and Certifica tion of 13 March 1992, which had 
established the Interstate Council for Standardizati on, Metrology and Certification (EASC) to carry 
out work on harmonizing standardization and c onformity assessment legislation; and (ii) the 
Agreement on Principles of Mutual Recognition of Certification Activities with the CIS Countries of 
4 June 1992, in the context of which Kazakhstan had agreed to recognise conformity certificates 
issued by CIS countries and to apply intergovernmental standards (GOST) alongside national 
standards (SS RK).  Moreover, Kazakhstan planed to sign the draft Agreement on Mutual Recognition 
of Results of Accreditation of Test Laborator ies (Centers) Conducting Conformity Assessment 
(Confirmation) Works of the CIS Member states.   
54. In addition, in 2010 the National Center of Accreditation had become full member of ILAC 
and had signed the Multilateral Agreement on Recognition of Testing Results (ILAC MRA).  
In continuation of the work in this direction, on 3 February 2011 the National Center of Accreditation 
had signed an agreement with ILAC on the use of ILAC MRA mark.  ILAC membership provided the 
basis for acceptance of test, inspection and calibratio n data issued by laboratories accredited by other 
ILAC members.  
55. In response to Members enquiring whether the provisions of the bilateral agreements on 
standards with China and Turkey would be applie d on a MFN basis, the representative of Kazakhstan 
said that the Intergovernmental Agreement on Coope ration with the People's Republic of China on 
Quality Assurance and Mutual Inspection of Expor ted and Imported Products of 5 July 1996 provided 
for information exchange on legislation, conform ity recognition and product supervision procedures 
applicable to both sides.  To implement the provisi ons of this Agreement, the two parties had signed a 
Memorandum on Mutual Understanding on 17  November 2006.  Also a Memorandum of 
Understanding between the Committee of Technical  Regulating of the Republic of Kazakhstan and 
the State Department of Standardization of  Chinese People's Republic had been signed on 
1 September 2011 providing for the development of c ooperation in the sphere of standardization on 
the basis of internationally accepted principles.  Kazakhstan had also conc luded intergovernmental 
bilateral agreements on cooperation in the area of standardization, metrology and certification with 
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Israel, Qatar, Lithuania and Turkmenistan, as well as 
interdepartmental agreements be tween the Ministry of Industry and New Technologies and its 
counterparts in the Czech Republic, Germany, Moldova, Singapore and the Slovak Republic.  JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
Page 26 
 
 
  These bilateral agreements were aimed at removi ng technical barriers in mutual trade as well as 
cooperating in the sphere of research and t echnology by means of mutual recognition of 
standardization, metrology and certification systems, including conformity certificates.  She said that 
Kazakhstan stood ready to negotiate a bilateral agreement on standards with any WTO Member.  
She confirmed that upon WTO accession, Kazakhstan would provide WTO Members with MFN 
treatment in relation to the application of technical barriers to trade. 
56. A Member expressed concerns regarding the application of Kazakhstan's conformity 
assessment procedure in practice, notably in the case of pharmaceu ticals, noting that the resulting 
process seriously distorted trade, as it was time-cons uming and costly, and as such was incompatible 
with the WTO TBT Agreement.  Some Members so ught information on the requirement to receive 
separate permissions from the chief veterinarian to transport imports within Kazakhstan, even after 
obtaining a valid certificate of conformity.  These Members also enquired why new certificates of 
conformity were needed for the import of pharma ceuticals that had already obtained certificates of 
conformity.   
57. The representative of Kazakhstan replied that  these requirements c ould be justified under 
Article 2 of the WTO TBT Agreement, namely the objective to protect the health and safety of people 
or animals.  These procedures were mandatory for importers, as well as domestic producers, for the 
transportation of goods subject to State veterinary cont rol or included into the official list of products 
requiring mandatory certification.  She also ac knowledged that Kazakhstan's conformity assessment 
procedure provided for several schemes (modules) of  conformity confirmation, during which several 
consignments of identical products were tested.  If the nationally-accredited foreign certification body 
had performed all necessary conformity assessment procedures, the imported goods' certificate would 
be recognised and there would be no need to certify individual consignments.  She noted that the same 
certification rules and procedures were applicable to both imported and domestic goods.  With respect 
to permissions from the chief veterinarian to tran sport imports within Kazakhstan, the representative 
of Kazakhstan noted that Kazakhstan did not requ ire permission from the chief veterinarian to 
transport imported pharmaceuticals within the country. 
58. A Member requested more information on the implementation of the provisions of the new 
Law "On Technical Regulating", enquiring specif ically about the application of mandatory 
requirements in the area of telecommunications within the framework of the new legislation.  In reply, 
the representative of Kazakhstan said that the teleco mmunications sector, like all other sectors, fell 
within the coverage of the Law "On T echnical Regulating".  Accordingly, the 
Law "On Communications" had been amended, in partic ular Article 7 (stipulating the authority of the  JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
 Page 27 
 
 
  Government to approve technical regulations) and Article 16 (conformity assessment in the area of 
telecommunications).  
- (d) Transparency 
59. With regard to the transparen cy and publication requirements of the WTO TBT Agreement, 
the representative of Kazakhstan said that, for ad ministrative reasons, individual EurAsEC Parties 
established their own national enquiry points on tec hnical regulations and sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures.  In the case of Kazakhstan, the combin ed TBT/SPS Enquiry Point (Information Centre) had 
been established through Government Resolution No. 718 of 11 July 2005.  Any interested party 
could approach the enquiry point for information.  She also added that units responsible for providing 
information on SPS measures to the Enquiry Point had been created at the Ministries of Agriculture 
and Heath.  The main functions of the Enquiry Point for SPS and TBT measures were (i) interaction 
with the WTO Secretariat, WTO Members and inte rnational organizations to provide interested 
parties and foreign States with the following in formation and documents upon their request:  
(a) copies of documents and information on adopte d or proposed technical regulations, standards, 
sanitary and phytosanitary measures, amendmen ts made to them, (b) conformity assessment 
procedures, (c) membership or participation of  the Republic of Kazakhstan in international 
organizations and international treaties on standardization, SPS measures, conformity assessment, 
bilateral and multilateral accreditation, and (d) sour ces of publications of drafts, technical regulations, 
SPS measures and standards; and (ii) publication of notifications in the Enquiry Point's Journal.  
The representative of Kazakhstan further noted that to date there were no plans to divide the 
Enquiry Point on TBT and SPS into two separate e nquiry points.  The Enquiry Point could be 
contacted at:  
Address: Astana city, Left Bank district,  
  Orynbor st. 11, 
  Astana 010000, 
  Republic of Kazakhstan 
 
Telephone: +7 (7172) 22 66 63 
Fax:  +7 (7172) 20 64 81 
E-mail:  enquirypoint@mail.ru  
Website: www.wto.memst.kz 
60. Adopted and draft regulations on SPS and TB T (technical regulations, sanitary rules and 
norms) were regularly published for comment on th e websites of the Enquiry Point, Ministries of 
Health and Agriculture, local executive bodies and on the websites of accredited public associations. 
These regulations were also published in the j ournal "Bulletin of the TBT/SPS Enquiry Point". JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
Page 28 
 
 
  61. Draft technical regulations were developed a nd examined by working groups, which were 
composed of representatives of State bodies, technical committees on standardization and other 
interested parties (including public organizati ons, scientific unions, businesses and entrepreneurial 
associations).   
62. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that, in accordance with EEC Council Decision 
No. 48, the period for public cons ultations for draft technical regul ations had to be no less than 
60 days from the day of the placement of the draft technical regulation on the official website of the 
Commission. Neither the Law "On Technical Regula ting" nor CU and EurAsEC agreements and acts 
on standardization or technical re gulation defined or limited the num ber or character of interested 
persons who could submit commentary or suggestions to  drafts of technical regulation.  EEC Council 
Decision No. 48 explicitly provided fo r participation of all interested  persons.  Draft amendments 
would be revised after taking into account the comme nts of interested persons received during the 
public consultations of the CU dr aft technical regulations.  She also noted that the relevant 
international agreements and other legal acts did not provide for any r estrictions on foreign persons to 
participate in the public consultations of draf t technical regulations as interested parties.  
In accordance with the EEC Council Decision No. 48, interested persons, including persons from third 
countries, could submit their proposals and comments on draft CU technical regulations to the EEC.  
The EEC published the proposals and comments on draft technical regulations on its official website 
as soon as they were received.  Upon review of th e proposals, a summary of comments on the draft of 
the technical regulation and a decision on each of th em would be prepared, including reasons for such 
decisions.  Comments and proposals on a draft EurA sEC technical regulation had to be submitted to 
the Integration Committee of EurAsEC.  
63. A Member asked how Kazakhstan envisaged to  cope with its forthcoming obligations 
resulting from the TBT Agreement, for example notifi cation of draft technical regulations, taking into 
account ongoing transfer of competences in the field of technical regulation to the CU/EurAsEC. 
In response the representative of the Republic of Kazakhstan explained that  Kazakhstan was actively 
involved in all works undertaken at the Customs Un ion level and could fulfill its commitments as a 
WTO Member, including the commitment to forward notification of draft CU technical regulations.  
From the date of accession of Kazakhstan to the WTO, the TBT/SPS Enquiry Point would fulfill all 
obligations on notifications specified by the WTO Agreements on TBT and SPS, including 
notifications on the proposed technical regulations of the Customs Union to the WTO Secretariat, the 
Committee on TBT, the Committee on SPS Measures a nd will provide WTO Members with copies of 
proposed technical regulations upon request.  Mo reover, in accordance with the Regulation on 
Development, Adoption, Amendment and Can cellation of Technical Regulations of the  JOB/ACC/32/Rev.1 
 Page 29 
 
 
  Customs Union, during public consultations CU dr aft technical regulations, notifications about the 
commencement and completion of public consulta tions on draft CU technical regulation were 
published on the official website of the EEC.  The Committee on Technical Regulation and Metrology 
of the Republic of Kazakhstan also published this information on its official website and in its 
bulletin.  Upon the development of the first draft of  a technical regulation or upon the completion of 
public consultations, a developer of the draft t echnical regulation (a designated State body of 
Kazakhstan) prepared and sent the relevant notif ication to the Enquiry Point on TBT/SPS of the 
Republic of Kazakhstan. 
64. As for standards, these were developed by t echnical committees on standardization, which 
included Government representatives and interested parties (including public organizations, scientific 
unions, businesses and entrepreneurial associations).   Comments were taken into account in the 
process of finalising draft standards, and the ag reement of all interested parties was sought.  
All interested parties could request copies of draft standards, as well as copies of the comments 
received on a draft.  Following review and approva l at the inter-agency committee level, the draft 
would be submitted to the Government for approval.   Once adopted, the standard would be published 
in the "Code of Normative Acts of the President of the Republic of Kazakhs tan and Government of 
Kazakhstan", the republican level newspaper, th e official publication of the authorised body 
("Technical Regulation Bulletin"), and on the web (http://www.memst.kz).  A draft Plan on the 
development of standards was printed in the monthl y "Informational Catalog (re gister) of Standards" 
(ICS), published by Committee on Technical Regulati on of the Republic of Kazakhstan to enable 
interested parties to submit comments on drafts.  Dr afts were published in the official publication of 
the Committee.  In addition, tw o subordinate State enterprises of  the Committee – the Kazakhstan's 
Institute of Standardization and Certification, a nd the Kazakhstan's Institute of Metrology issued 
periodic publications ("Gosstandard News", "Met rology", and "Monthly Informational Index of 
Standards").  Electronic versions of the plans for development of technical regulations and standards 
were put on the web at http://wto.memst.kz.  The CU Commission website, www.tsouz.ru, was the 
point of publication for documents related to the development, adoption, and application of 
CU technical regulations.  For EurAsEC technical regulations, the website was www.evrazes.com.   
 
__________