RESTRICTED  
  
WT/ACC/KAZ/86  
 
19 August 2014  
(14-4788)  Page: 1/14  
Working Party on the Accession of Kazakhstan   
 
 ACCESSION OF KAZAKHSTAN 
 
SUMMARY OF THE TRANSPARENCY SESSION ON THE TREATY OF 
THE EURASIAN ECONOMIC UNION ("EAEU TREATY") 
Chairperson: H.E. Mr. Vesa Himanen (Finland) 
 
 
   
 
 This is a factual summary record of the Transp arency Session on the Treaty of the Eurasian 
Economic Union ("EAEU Treaty"), which took plac e on 21 July 2014, within the framework of the 
19
th Cycle of Meetings of the Working Party on the Accession of Kazakhstan.  At the Transparency 
Session, the presentation by the Delegation of Ka zakhstan and the subseque nt exchange of views 
with Members of the Working Party took place on the basis of the documentation listed hereunder:  
 - Treaty of the Eurasian Economic Union ("EAEU  Treaty"), unofficial English Translation, as 
notified in the Legislation Notice document, WT/ACC/KAZ/85/Rev.1;  
 
- Information Note on the EAEU Treaty (JOB/ACC/41); and,   
- Presentation (annexed) by H.E. Mrs. Zhanar Aitzhanova, Minister for Economic Integration 
and Chief Negotiator for the WTO Accession  of the Republic of Kazakhstan.   
 
 
_______________ This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility 
and is without prejudice to the positions of Members or to their rights and 
obligations under the WTO. WT/ACC/KAZ/86 
 
- 2 - 
 
   
  
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
 
A. OPENING STATEMENTS ........................................................................................... 3  
B. PRESENTATION ON THE EAEU TREATY BY KAZAKHSTAN ......................................... 3  
C. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS AND RE PLIES BY KAZAKHSTAN ...................................... 7  
D. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 12  
 
 
 WT/ACC/KAZ/86 
 
- 3 - 
 
  A. OPENING STATEMENTS 
1. The Chairperson welcomed the Delegation of  Kazakhstan, led by H.E. Mrs. Zhanar 
Aitzhanova, Minister for Economic Integration of the Republic of Kazakhstan.  He also welcomed 
Members of the Working Party on the Accession of  Kazakhstan and acknowledged the presence of 
the Russian Federation and Belarus, Kazakhstan's partners in the Customs Union (CU).  He noted 
that the presence of a large number of Dele gations in the meeting room underlined the 
significance and interest attached to the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) Treaty which would 
transform the CU into an Economic Union on 1 January 2015. 
2. He noted that the Transparency session was the first meeting initiating the July Cycle of 
meetings of the Working Party scheduled from 21 to  23 July 2014.  This Cycle of the Working Party 
marked the multilateral resumption of the accession negotiations, following a nine-month break 
from the previous Cycle held in October 2013.  Since then, many developments had taken place, 
including the emergence of the EAEU Treaty.  Its effect on the Accession of Kazakhstan would be 
the subject of the discussion at this session. Th e Transparency session had been organized, in 
consultation with the Secretariat, to facilitate and improve the understanding by Members of the 
new Treaty.  
3. The Chairperson recalled that the convening fax for the Transparency Session had been 
circulated on 11 July 2014.  The background information had been made available to Members of 
the Working Party on 15 July 2014.  It included  the Information Note on the EAEU Treaty, 
contained in document JOB/ACC/41, and the unofficial English translation of the Treaty.  The circulated translation was work in progress, and the updated versions would be made 
available, once submitted by Kazakhstan, in due course.  
4. The representative of Kazakhstan conveyed her Government's appreciation to the WTO 
Secretariat and Members of the Working Party for their continued support for Kazakhstan's 
accession.  She recalled that since the 18th WP Meeting had taken place in October 2013, there 
had been no official meetings.  However, Kazakhstan had made efforts in addressing some of the main outstanding issues, including at the Plurilateral meeting on SPS held on 25 June 2014.  
On 22 July 2014, a Plurilateral meeting would be held on tariff adjustment, another outstanding 
issue.  
5. She said that since the previous meeting of the Working Party in October 2013, Kazakhstan 
had worked together with its CU partners on the codification of the legal and regulatory 
framework, which had been adopted among the thr ee countries, upon the establishment of the CU 
and the Single Economic Space (SES).  The legal acts had been codified into the EAEU Treaty, which had been signed by the Presidents of Bela rus, Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, in 
May 2014.  The Treaty would be enacted, ratified by the respective parliaments and was envisaged 
to come into force on 1 January 2015.   
B. PRESENTATION ON THE EAEU TREATY BY KAZAKHSTAN 
6. The representative of Kazakhstan stated that the objective of the EAEU Treaty was to 
'ensure free movement of goods, services, capital and natural persons within the three members 
of the EAEU through coordinated or agreed policies in the sectors of the economy.'  
These objectives were defined in the EAEU Treaty and the international agreements which had 
been signed within the CU/SES framework.  Othe r objectives would be defined in the agreements 
to be signed within the framework of the EAEU.   
7. She noted that the EAEU Treaty was based on the agreements signed within the framework 
of the formation of the CU and the SES.  She also  noted that, as indicated in Kazakhstan's draft 
Working Party Report and the WTO Accession Package of the Russian Federation, the CU members had signed 17 general framework agreements as of 1 January 2012.  Those agreements had been 
codified within the framework of the new EAEU Treaty.  Under those agreements, the CU members 
had established the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) as a supranational body.   
8. On the legal framework of the EAEU, 65 lega l instruments adopted within the CU/SES 
framework had been incorporated into the EAEU  Treaty.  Some documents had been wholly 
incorporated, while others had been incorporated with modifications.  The incorporated legal acts WT/ACC/KAZ/86 
 
- 4 - 
 
  would be terminated upon entry into force of th e EAEU Treaty on 1 January 2015.  The acts which 
had not been incorporated into the EAEU treaty woul d remain in force.  Examples of the legal Acts 
that would remain in force included: (i) the Cu stoms Code of the CU, (ii) the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the CU within the Multilateral Trading System of 19 May 2011 and, (iii) Decisions of 
the CU Commission and the EEC.  The Treaty on the Functioning of the CU within the Multilateral 
Trading System ensured that the CU parties' commitments in the WTO would be incorporated into the legal framework of the CU/SES and would be implemented through the CU/SES regulations.  
9. Regarding the institutional structure of the EAEU, she stated that the existing CU/SES 
structure would be adopted with some modifications.  The current CU/SES structure included: (i) the Supreme Council, consisting of the Heads of State or Government, as the highest decision making organ; (ii) the EEC which was the working body of the CU/SES and; (iii) the Court of the 
Eurasian Economic community (EurAsEC).  The EEC consisted of two bodies: (i) the Council of the 
Commission, at the level of Vice Prime Ministers and (ii) the Collegium of the Commission consisting of nine members with three representatives from each CU member State.  
10. The institutional structure of the EAEU would be made of: (i) the Supreme Council, 
consisting of the Heads of State, and, (ii) the Intergovernmental Council, consisting of the Heads 
of Government, (iii) the EEC and, (iv) the Court of the EAEU.  The Supreme Council would be the 
highest decision making body.  Decisions of the Supreme Council and the Intergovernmental 
Council would be made by consensus.  
11. The EAEU Commission would have a two-level structure.  The Council of the EAEU 
Commission would consist of representatives of governments at the level of Vice Prime Ministers.  
All its decisions would be made by consensus.  The Collegium of the EAEU Commission would 
consist of nine Ministers.  Its decisions would be made by a two-thirds majority voting.  Where decisions were not reached through a two-thirds majority, a qualified majority voting method 
would be used.  The Supreme Council would define the list of issues on which decisions would be 
taken by consensus. 
12. On the transparency mechanisms under the EAEU  Treaty, all decisions of the EAEU bodies 
would be subject to publication.  The requirement for publication would apply to prior publication 
of draft decisions to facilitate consultations with concerned stakeholders.  The EAEU Commission would be mandated to consider comments made by relevant stakeholders on the EAEU's draft decisions.  
13. She said that the foreign policy objective of th e EAEU was to facilitate sustainable economic 
development of its member States, diversify their national economies, improve the volumes and structures of trade and investment, as well as accelerate the integration processes.  The common 
customs and tariff regulation remained the major foreign trade policy mechanism within the EAEU. 
It included the: (i) common external tariff, and (ii) the common commodity nomenclature.    
14. Tariff exemptions to third countries would be granted in accordance with the EAEU Treaty, 
the Customs Code of the CU, the acts of the EA EU Commission, and other international treaties 
concluded between the EAEU and third parties.  The CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation had 
been incorporated into Annex 7 of the EAEU Treaty.  Non-tariff measures included quantitative restrictions, bans, exclusive import licenses, automatic licenses and non-automatic licenses.  
Decisions to apply such measures with respect to imports originating from third countries would be 
made by the EAEU Commission.  
15. On the harmonization of monetary policy in th e EAEU, she reported that the Treaty aimed at 
developing co-operation in the monetary and financial spheres, enhancing the role of national 
currencies of the EAEU member States and providing for mutual convertibility of national currencies.  She recalled that the CU Agreement on Coordinated Principles of Monetary Policy 
(ACPMP) had been adopted within the CU/SES fr amework in 2010, and had been enacted in 2012.  
The ACPMP's objective was to provide a framework for progressive harmonization of policies in the monetary field, mutual consultations and exchan ge of information.  The ACPMP had been fully 
incorporated into Annex 15 to the EAEU Treaty.   A new provision in the Treaty was that the 
coordination of the exchange rate policies would be performed by a separate body which would be 
composed of Heads of National (Central) Banks of the EAEU member States.  This body would 
conduct regular consultations with the member States in order to coordinate the exchange rate WT/ACC/KAZ/86 
 
- 5 - 
 
  policies, with the objective of ensuring the sm ooth flow of trade among the EAEU countries.  
The fiscal and monetary policies would remain under the national competence of the EAEU member States.  
16. The EAEU Treaty would regulate financial markets.   One of the main objectives of the Treaty 
was to ensure free movement of capital and financ ial services.  Prior to enactment of the Treaty, 
the CU members had concluded the CU Agreement on Free Movement of Capital in 2010.  Similarly, Annex 5 to the CU Agreement on Trade in Services and Investments specifically 
addressed financial services.  The agreements had been incorporated into the EAEU Treaty without 
modifications. 
17. The EAEU Treaty provided for the harmonization of financial regulations and national 
treatment in financial services.  The harmonization of financial regulations involved the mutual 
recognition of licenses in the EAEU.  Except for the national lists of exemptions, the EAEU member 
S t a t e s  w o u l d  w o r k  o u t  a n  a c t i o n  p l a n  t o  e n s u r e  m u t u a l  r e c o g n i t i o n  o f  l i c e n s e s  i n  b a n k i n g ,  insurance and securities markets.  The Treaty set the year of 2025 as a target date for the 
harmonization of financial regulations, the mutual recognition and the provision of national 
treatment in financial services for companies operating within the territories of the EAEU member States.  By the year of 2025, Members would also decide on the establishment of a competent 
supranational authority to regulate financial markets.  
18. On government procurement, the representative of Kazakhstan stated that CU procurements 
had been based on the CU Agreement on the State or Municipal Procurement, signed on 
9 December 2010 and enacted on 01 January 2012.  The main objective of the Agreement was to: 
i) provide for economic efficiency of governme nt procurement and ii) ensure transparent and 
non-discriminatory access to electronic procurement systems of the EAEU member States.  The Agreement had been incorporated into the rele vant section of the EAEU Treaty.  The Treaty 
provided for national treatment for goods and services supplied by companies originating from the 
EAEU member States, except for the national lists of exemptions. 
19. On services and investment, the main objective of the EAEU treaty was to ensure free 
movement of services and investments, freedom of establishment and mutual recognition of 
licenses and qualifications.  Certain provisions of the CU Agreement on Trade in Services and 
Investments had been incorporated into the Treaty .  Those provisions of the CU Agreement, which 
were incompatible with the EAEU Treaty, would be terminated on 1 January 2015.  In a single 
services market which would be established with in the EAEU, approvals would be the mandate of 
the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council.  However, the EAEU member States would retain individual lists of exemptions where the national treatment regime would not be applied.  In such 
cases, national treatment would be available only to companies originating from the EAEU member 
States.  Policies in trade in services and investment vis-à-vis  third countries on the part of each 
member would remain under the national co mpetence of the EAEU member States.  
20. With respect to the taxation scheme of the EAEU , the objective of the Treaty was to ensure 
timely and full payment of indirect taxes from in tra-EAEU trade to finance the budgets of the EAEU 
member States.  The relevant legal documents adopted for taxation purposes within the framework of the CU had been incorporated into Section 17 and the relevant Annex to the EAEU 
Treaty.  
21. A new element in the harmonization of tax legislation in the EAEU had been incorporated 
into Section 17 of the Treaty.  The CU Members undertook to harmonize their tax laws within the 
EAEU framework.  The new provisions of the Treaty stipulated that the EAEU member States 
should determine the direction, forms and procedures for the harmonization of tax legislation that was affecting mutual trade among them.  The memb er States also intended to approximate their 
excise tax rates on the most sensitive goods.  They would ensure improvement in the system of 
collecting Value Added Tax in mutual trade and the use of information technologies. 
22. The representative of Kazakhstan explained the basic principles and objectives of industrial 
policy established under the EAEU Treaty.  Arti cle 27 of the Treaty provided conditions of 
establishment and functioning of free special economic zones and free warehouses based on 
international agreements and other relevant ag reements within the framework of the EAEU. 
The CU Agreement on Special Economic Zones as well as the Agreement on Free Warehouses and WT/ACC/KAZ/86 
 
- 6 - 
 
  Customs Procedures of Free Warehouses had not been incorporated into the EAEU Treaty.  
Those agreements would remain in force afte r 1 January 2015.  The provisions of those 
agreements which exempted import duties and VAT for imported products and were not consistent with WTO norms, and where Kazakhstan had negotiated transition periods, would remain in force 
until 1 January 2017.  As of 1 January 2017, the EA EU legal framework on special economic zones 
and free warehouse regime would not contain WTO-inconsistent provisions.   
23. Regarding common principles and rules on Technical Regulations, the main objective of the 
EAEU Treaty was to ensure free movement of goods within the EAEU through elimination of 
technical barriers to trade (TBT).  As of 1 January 2015, the CU legal instruments on technical regulations would be incorporated into the Treaty and would become the technical regulations of the EAEU.  The relevant section on technical re gulation and the Annexes to the Treaty fully 
incorporated three CU agreements which had b een adopted in 2009 and 2010. These agreements 
included: (i) the Agreement on Uniform Principles and Rules of Technical Regulations in the CU, (ii) the Agreement on Goods Subject to Mandatory Conformity Assessment in the Territory of the 
CU, and (iii) the Agreement on Mutual Recognition of Accreditation and Certification Bodies.  
These agreements would be terminated on 1 January 2015.  
24. The EAEU Treaty provided general principles of technical regulation such as application and 
enforcement of technical regulations within the territories of the EAEU member States without 
exception, inadmissibility of restriction of competition in conducting conformity assessment procedures, voluntary application of standards and harmonization of intergovernmental standards with international and regional standards.  In addition to the above-mentioned three 
CU agreements, the Treaty contained new provisions related to the functions of the national 
accreditation bodies and accreditation principles.  She added that the new responsibilities of the EAEU member States' accreditation bodies were detailed in the Information Note in document 
JOB/ACC/41 as well as the relevant Chapter on TBT of the draft Working Party Report. 
25. With regard to Sanitary and Phytosanitary meas ures (SPS), the main objective of the EAEU 
Treaty was to eliminate barriers to trade in regula ted products and to protect the territories of the 
EAEU members from SPS risks.  The CU Agreem ent on Sanitary Veterinary and Phytosanitary 
Measures had been incorporated into the Treaty.  In  addition to the existing regulatory framework, 
the Treaty provided for adoption of common rules at the EAEU level on: (i) methodologies for laboratory testing when carrying out veterinary control; (ii) circulation of veterinary drugs; 
(iii) approaches for identification, registration and traceability of animals and products of animal 
origin; and (iv) laboratory support of quarantine phytosanitary measures.  All the new provisions were reflected in the Draft SPS Chapter of the Working Party Report.
1  
26. With regard to Industrial Policy, the main ob jective of the EAEU Treaty was to facilitate 
economic diversification and to ensure fair comp etition between the member States.  The existing 
CU Agreement on Subsidies, which had established common rules for granting industrial subsides 
within the CU/SES, had been fully incorporated into the relevant section of the Treaty.  In addition 
to the existing framework, the Treaty established ba sic principles and objectives of industrial policy 
within the EAEU.  Voluntary approvals for specific subsidies by the EAEU Commission would start on 1 January 2015.  The EAEU Court would address any disputes that would arise from the revised 
or modified procedures on notifications of indust rial subsidies provided by the member States to 
the EAEU Commission. 
27. The representative of Kazakhstan stated that the main objective of the Treaty’s Section on 
Intellectual property was to regulate relations in  the sphere of protection and enforcement of 
intellectual property rights within the EAEU .  The CU Agreement on Common Principles of 
Regulation' in the Sphere of Intellectual Property  Rights, signed in December 2010, had been fully 
incorporated into the relevant sections of the EAEU Treaty.  Those sections of the Treaty addressed 
copyrights and related rights, trademarks, geograph ical indications and patents.  The Treaty also 
provided additional elements for protection, namely, trademarks and appellations of origin of the EAEU, selective achievements, layouts, designs of  integrated circuits and know-how.  The CU 
Agreement would be terminated on 1 January 2015.   
28. The main objective of the agricultural policy es tablished by the EAEU Treaty was to ensure a 
level playing field for competition in a common agricultural market.  The existing CU Agreement on 
                                               
1 The Draft SPS Chapter is containe d in document JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5. WT/ACC/KAZ/86 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Common Rules of States' Support for Agriculture had been incorporated into the relevant section 
of the EAEU Treaty.  The Treaty provided for a c oordinated agro-industry policy to be implemented 
through information sharing in the member States' programmes on agricultural sector development.  In addition to the existing lega l framework, the Treaty created new competences 
for the EAEU Commission, namely:  (i) coordination of information sharing on the member States' 
agricultural sector development programmes; (ii) coordination of joint scientific and innovative activities in the sphere of agriculture; (iii) moni toring of the member States' agricultural sector 
development; (iv) assisting in conducting consultations and negotiations between the member 
States; and, (v) preparation of state policy  reviews in the sphere of agriculture.  
29. In conclusion, the representative of Kazakhstan emphasized that her presentation 
concentrated on the key aspects of the EAEU Treaty which were relevant to the issues being 
addressed within the framework of Kazakhstan's ac cession to the WTO.  These issues had already 
been incorporated in the draft Working Party Repo rt.  She noted that the existing CU/SES legal 
Acts and Agreements incorporated into the EAEU Treaty and the new elements added to the Treaty 
were aimed at ensuring deeper integration among the EAEU member States.  The deepening of 
integration had started with the signing of the Treaty on the Functioning of the Customs Union in the Multilateral Trading System in 2011.  This Tr eaty would remain in force and would be applied 
in accordance with Annex 31 of the EAEU Treaty.  On the issue of updating the draft Working Party 
Report, she added that all the relevant changes, both substantive and editorial, had already been 
incorporated into the draft Report. 
C. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS AND REPLIES BY KAZAKHSTAN 
30. Following the presentation by the Representative of Kazakhstan, five Members
2 intervened.  
They welcomed the documentation provided and th e presentation by Kazakhstan.  They expressed 
appreciation to the Chairperson of the Working Party and the WTO Secretariat, in particular, the 
Accessions Division, for convening the Transparency Session on the EAEU Treaty.  Members 
commented on the presentation and sought clarifications across a range of specific issues.   
31. The representative of the United States, commended the comprehensive presentation on the 
EAEU treaty.  She acknowledged the efforts by Kazakhstan with its CU partner states for the 
reorganisation and expansion of cooperation amongst.   
32. She noted that the developments introduced by the EAEU Treaty seemed to be a mixture of 
several issues, although there did not appear to be many changes from the prevailing CU 
framework.  The developments were organized alon g the Articles and the details were provided in 
the Annexes to the Treaty.  At the same time, the EAEU Treaty had introduced new elements, some of which were had implications on which the United States would appreciate more 
information.  In those areas where her government  had additional questions, particularly of a 
technical nature, these would be provided in writing.   
33. She noted that in the presentation, Kazakhstan had indicated that the CU members were 
working on the harmonization of the regulatory fr amework for deepening their policies in certain 
areas.  The United States assumed that there was a reference to those areas where each of the CU member States had currently regulatory bodies that dealt with issues such as financial services and other areas.  Obviously, the list was not exhaustive.  She requested for more information on 
the specific areas where regulatory framework wa s being consolidated and how long Kazakhstan 
believed the entire exercise of harmonization would take.   
34. She referred to the terms of the organization  of the leadership of the EAEU.  Whereas 
before, the Supreme Council had two distinct personalities, the EAEU had created two distinct 
bodies i.e. the Supreme Council made up of the Heads of State and the Intergovernmental Council 
made up of the Heads of Government.  She requested Kazakhstan to describe briefly the 
substantive difference in the work of the two bodies, with attention to what actions of the 
Intergovernmental Council were appealable to the Supreme Council.    
35. She noted that in the presentation, regarding the monetary policy framework of the EAEU, 
Kazakhstan had indicated that the EAEU would de velop a body to coordinate the Exchange Rate 
                                               
2 Chinese Taipei, the European Union, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United States. WT/ACC/KAZ/86 
 
- 8 - 
 
  Policy and that such a body would be comprised of the Heads of National (Central) Banks.  She 
requested Kazakhstan to advise on the timeline when the Foreign Exchange Cooperation Group was likely to be established and what work had so far been done in this regard.  
36. Concerning financial markets, she understood from Kazakhstan's presentation that there 
was a goal of national treatment for financial services, but it was not clear whether and what 
would change on 1 January 2015 or whether it woul d be developed in parallel with the regulatory 
body to be established in 2025.  She requeste d information on the progress and calendar of 
developments between 2014 and 2025, more specif ically, whether the issue of establishment of 
the body would simply be a matter for discussion until the Body was established or there would be some interim steps of which WTO Members could be informed.   
37. She  further said that with regard to the services sector, particularly, the establishment of a 
single services market as well as the list of exemptions, Members would be interested in knowing if 
that list of exemptions was available for public review or if it had been developed. 
38. Regarding taxation under the EAEU Treaty, the representative of the United States 
appreciated the principal purpose of the Treaty which was to ensure the harmonization of 
legislation and to prevent problems in trade, with a view to eventual harmonization of the levels of 
taxes.  She enquired as whether there was an issue of re-distribution, which had not been clear in 
the presentation.  For example, she enquired wh ether and if customs duties were collected and 
then distributed according to a formula.  A further question was asked as to whether there was any on-going work in harmonization of taxation, and in particular, whether such harmonization of taxation involved transfer of money, and if it were so, why and how.   
39. Concerning TBT, the representative of the Unit ed States observed in the text of the EAEU 
Treaty a reference to non-competition clause for national accreditation bodies.  She requested for additional information.  She understood that whil e the objective of the TBT Section of the EAEU 
Treaty was to codify the unification of the operations of technical regulations and standardization 
within the CU and eventually within the EAEU, the non-competition clause seemed to indicate that 
it was not quite fully harmonized.  For instance, a company in Kazakhstan could not seek 
accreditation in another EAEU member State and it would have to do so in the country in which it 
had been registered.  She noted that her reading of the text was subject to clarification and her 
delegation would welcome further clarity.   
40. She further commented on the EAEU's Industrial Policy and Subsidies, asking whether the 
notification of subsidies was still mandatory or whether it had become totally voluntary.  She also 
asked whether notifications were available to th e public and the envisaged state-of-play with 
regard to the notification requirements of the WTO.   
41. Finally, she also noted that the issue of Transi tional Provisions had not been addressed by 
Kazakhstan during its presentation.  She requested for information on the transitional provisions of the EAEU Treaty that would be of interest to  WTO Members in terms of how trade would be 
affected.   
42. The representative of the European Union noted that the United States had posed important 
questions, which would be of interest to th e EU.  The European Union would welcome more 
information on the consolidation of certain institutional and legal aspects.  She requested for 
further information regarding the transitional clauses and the effects that those transitional periods 
could have within the framework of the WTO.   
43. The representative of Kazakhstan provided responses to several of the questions raised and 
clarifications sought and, undertook to provide wr itten answers at a later stage.  With regard to 
the question on the EAEU Institutional Framework posed by the United States, she stated that the 
EAEU established two distinct bodies, namely: (i ) the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council, as the 
highest decision making body of the EAEU, consis ting of the Heads of State of the EAEU member 
States, and (ii) the Eurasian Intergovernmental Co uncil, consisting of the Heads of Government. WT/ACC/KAZ/86 
 
- 9 - 
 
  44. She stressed that the major distinction between the two bodies was in their functions. 
The Supreme Eurasian Economic Council was the highest decision making body whose functions included, inter alia :  
i. determining the admission of new Members of the EAEU;   
ii. considering fundamental issues of activity  of the EAEU, defining general policies and 
strategies for further integration within the EAEU; 
iii. taking decisions on granting observer or candidate status on accession of new 
Members to the EAEU;  
iv. making decisions on negotiations or starting negotiations on behalf of the EAEU with 
third countries; 
v. approval of the structure of the EEC, upon  any proposal by any of the Member States 
of the EAEU; 
vi. reconsidering decisions, where necessary , adopted by the Intergovernmental Council, 
consisting of the Heads of Governments;  
vii. approving the budget of the EAEU an d the budget of the Commission; and,  
viii. appointing the Head of the Commission and nine members of the Collegium of the 
EAEU Commission.  
45. The Representative of Kazakhstan emphasized that those functions and responsibilities were 
distinct and could be made only at the level of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council.  She informed Members that more detailed information was contained in the draft Working Party Report as well as in the unofficial En glish translation of the EAEU Treaty.   
46. She stated that the second body created under the EAEU Treaty was the Eurasian 
Intergovernmental Council, consisting of the Heads of the Government of the EAEU member States.  Its meetings would be held whenever necessary but not less than twice a year.  
The functions of the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council included, inter alia : 
i. considering issues on which consensus by  the Council of the EAEU Commission had 
not been achieved;  
ii. proposing to the Supreme Council candidates for the membership of the Council and 
Collegium of the EAEU Commission; and 
iii. approving decisions on suspension of impl ementation of decisions of the Council or 
Collegium of the EAEU Commission.   
47. The Intergovernmental Council would take its de cisions and give its orders by consensus.  
As described in document JOB/ACC/41, the two Bodi es had distinct functions.  The issues which 
were not addressed at the level of Heads of Government would go to the level of Heads of State, 
to the Supreme Council of the EAEU.  
48. In response to the question on the harmonization of EAEU's Monetary Policy, the 
representative of Kazakhstan stated that the ne w element of the EAEU Treaty was intended to 
establish a body to address issues related to the coordination of the exchange rate policy.  
The body would be comprised of the Heads of Na tional Central Banks and would be established 
under the framework of implementation of the EAEU  Treaty.  She noted that at the time of the 
Transparency session, the body had not yet been created.  Once the body was set up, the 
meetings of the Heads of National Central Banks would be more about coordination and 
consultations on the sovereign national exchange rate policies administered by the member States of the EAEU.  Before the EAEU Treaty had been si gned, the CU had meetings of Heads of National 
(Central) Banks of the CU members.  The meetings  were largely consultative and not regular.  
The need for regular meetings had been stipulated by adding this new element into the relevant Section of the EAEU Treaty.   
49. With regard to the question on national treatment in financial services, she stated that 
before the enactment of the EAEU Treaty, there had been no national treatment in financial services within the CU.  Therefore, it would take ti me to achieve national treatment, as it had been 
the case in the European Union.  As a first stage, it needed basic conditions for the harmonization 
of national policies.  There were still differences  among the CU members and these were evident in 
areas such as regulation of financial service providers, banking supervision, supervision of insurance companies and other financial market participants.  She stated that all these activities WT/ACC/KAZ/86 
 
- 10 - 
 
  had to be harmonized by the target date of  2025.  This was also the year at which the 
establishment of the supranational body would be fi nalized.  Since this work was still ahead of the 
governments or national banks of the EAEU member States, they would continue with working group meetings within the framework of the CU  agreements. The harmonization of national 
policies would only be conducted by the supranatio nal body when all the necessary work required 
was completed by 2025.  
50. In response to the question on the list of exemptions in services, she stated that the 
relevant section of the EAEU Treaty established horizontal exemptions, which had combined the 
lists of exemptions of the CU members.  These li sts were relevant to all services sectors of the 
EAEU members.  For example, there were horizontal exemptions on subsidies for the rent of land or property in the territory of a member State.  The list of exemptions would be worked out and 
approved by the Supreme Economic Council.  This work would be based on the existing list of 
exemptions attached to the CU Agreement on Se rvices and Investment that had been signed 
within the SES framework in 2010.   
51. With regard to the question of re-distributing taxes under the tax harmonization programme 
of the EAEU, the representative of Kazakhstan said that the EAEU did not have any plans or 
procedures for common collection and re-distribution of taxes between the member States.  
The main objective of the EAEU Treaty was the harmonization and approximation of tax rates 
applied by the EAEU member States.  However, the EAEU did not create any obligations for re-distribution as it was the case with customs import duties.  The setting of tax rates as well as tax administration would remain under the compet ence of the national governments.  However, 
with regard to excise taxes, the EAEU had the ob jective of approximation, which was still subject 
to further consultations and discussions among the member States regarding the deadline and the rate.  The target was based on the prevailing trad e flows of products which were subject to excise 
tax, particularly cigarettes and alcohol, among the member States.  The taxation policies, the 
rates of taxes and the application of taxes woul d remain under the competence of the national 
governments. 
52. Regarding the questions on how industrial subsidies would affect WTO policies and whether 
notifications would be mandatory, she said that the major objective the EAEU Treaty was to provide the definitions and principles on subsid ies adopted within the framework of WTO norms 
(Prohibited subsidies, Actionable Subsidies and Non-Actionable Subsidies, etc.).  The CU members 
were required to submit notifications on subsidies that were mandatory.  The only voluntary 
aspect, related to the approval of specific subs idies by the EEC.  As of 1 January 2017, this 
procedure would be voluntary.  However, the notification requirements were the same as those 
under the WTO.  Thus, the same mechanism and format that had been in force in the CU would 
still be used for notification of industrial subsidies provided by the EAEU member States. 
53. She provided further clarification on TBT issues under the EAEU treaty, emphasizing the 
aspect of mutual recognition of accreditation of  conformity assessment bodies within the EAEU.  
Paragraph 3 of Annex 11 (i.e. the "Protocol on Acce ptance of the Results of Work on Accreditation 
of the Conformity Assessment Bodies") provided that "the member States mutually recognised the accreditation of conformity assessment bodies, including the certification bodies and testing 
laboratories in the national accreditation systems of the member States, provided that the 
accreditation bodies met the provisions of Articl e 54 of the Treaty."  She promised to provide 
additional detailed information on this matter to the Working Party in writing.  
54. The representative of the United States as ked a follow-up question on the issue of 
competition between accreditation bodies of the EAEU members.  She referred to paragraph 3 of 
Article 54 of the EAEU Treaty, which provided that: 
"…accreditation bodies of one member stat e shall not compete with the accreditation 
bodies of other member States.  To avoid competition between accreditation bodies of Member States, the conformity assessment body of a member State shall for accreditation purposes apply to the accreditation body of the member state in which 
territory it was registered as a legal entity..." 
55. She stated that there seemed to be contrast between these provisions.  What was quoted 
from the Annex seemed to suggest that the EAEU would have a common accreditation system.  WT/ACC/KAZ/86 
 
- 11 - 
 
  The United States did not think of accreditation bodies being in competition with each other.  
She wondered whether this was a translation issue in the Treaty text.   
56. In response, the representative of Kazakhstan stated that paragraph 3 of Annex 11 to the 
EAEU Treaty provided for mutual recognition.  However, in order to avoid competition among 
accreditation bodies of one EAEU member and other bodies of other EAEU members, the Treaty 
ensured that accreditation takes place in the country where this accreditation body was registered as a juridical person.  It was the principle that there should not be competition among 
accreditation bodies.  Accreditation should take place where the accreditation bodies have been 
registered as legal entities.  In  the EAEU Treaty, common accreditation policies referred to mutual 
recognition procedures and mutual recognition of certificates issued by the various accreditation bodies within the EAEU members.   
57. The representative of the United States requeste d for additional clarification in writing from 
Kazakhstan on the issue of competition among accreditation bodies.  The distinction which had 
been described in the presentation needed further clarification.  This was because, in practice, her 
government had never been faced with a situation where accreditation bodies competed against 
each other.    
58. The representative of Pakistan stated that paragraph 25 of the Information Note contained 
in document JOB/ACC/41 provided that non-tariff measures (NTMs) on third party imports could 
include "quantitative restrictions, bans, exclusive import licenses, automatic licenses (permits) or non-automatic licences".  References had been ma de to Annex 7 to the EAEU Treaty.  He asked 
whether the list of NTMs was exhaustive and whet her it would be possible for Members to know all 
the NTMs that could be included or have already been included. 
59. In response the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that the list of NTMs indicated in 
paragraph 25 of the document JOB/ACC/41 was exhaustive.  The list included all the NTMs, 
including quantitative restrictions, bans, exclusive import licenses, automatic licenses (permits) or 
non-automatic licenses that one would encounter in the EAEU.   
60. The representative of Saudi Arabia requested Kazakhstan to avail Members of its 
presentation on the EAEU Treaty in order to en able them to improve their understanding of the 
Treaty and its effects on Kazakhstan's WTO accession process.   
61. The representative of the Ch inese Taipei referred to the acronym "EEC" in document 
JOB/ACC/41, whose meaning had not been provided.  He also requested the circulation of the 
presentation materials from Kazakhstan.  The English translation of the EAEU Treaty and the 
presentation would be very useful.   
62. In response, the representative of Kazakhstan  stated that the acronym "EEC" stood for the 
"Eurasian Economic Commission".  She informed Members that there was a working version of the 
English translation of the EAEU Treaty which had been circulated to WP Members through the Secretariat.  The Treaty with all the relevant Annexes had been translated into English.  If there 
were any technical questions regarding the translation, Kazakhstan would be happy to address 
them.  She also said that the draft Working Party Report had been updated following the incorporation of some CU/SES agreements into the EAEU Treaty.  In total, 65 legal instruments had been fully incorporated into the EAEU Tr eaty.  The decisions of the EEC and the CU 
Commission remained in force.  The references, therefore, had not been changed in the draft 
Working Party Report.   
63. The representative of the United States further asked Kazakhstan for an indication of the 
transitional arrangements of the EAEU Treaty  which would be of interest to the WTO.  
64. In response, the representative of Kazakhstan noted that the transitional provisions under 
different sections of the EAEU Treaty which were relevant to the issues within the framework of 
the Draft Working Party Report were contained in particular in Section IX.  These included 
safeguards, anti-dumping and countervailing measures in respect of goods imported into any territory of the EAEU.  These measures and the do cuments in force would apply until the expiry of 
the measures established by the relevant EEC decisions.  The measures could be subject to review 
in accordance with the relevant sections of the EAEU Treaty and the Protocol on the common WT/ACC/KAZ/86 
 
- 12 - 
 
  system of tariff preferences of  the CU of 2008.  She stressed th at these documents (instruments) 
would be applied until the EAEU Commission decisi ons, stipulating conditions and procedures for 
the application of a common system of tariff preferences of the EAEU in respect of goods 
originating from developing or least developed countries, came into force.  The Agreement on 
Common Rules for Determining the Country of Origin of Goods of 2008 would also be applied until 
the decision of the EAEU Commission under Article 37 of the EAEU Treaty established rules for determining rules of origin of goods.   
65. The representative of the United States noted that her Delegation would address written 
questions to Kazakhstan after the meeting.  These questions would seek clarity on the 
establishment of common oil and gas markets as well as on the measures intended to support agriculture production in the EAEU.  She noted the enormous volume of materials on these issues 
that were being reviewed.  Her government had been examining the Treaty document thoroughly 
for three to four months prior to the meeting.  She noted that for the most part, the Government of the United States had been impressed by the precision and the amount of work on the 
codification of the WTO provisions in most of th e annexes and Articles.  She emphasized the use of 
the word 'most' only because it was a voluminous document.  Other matters and questions could emerge.  Overall, however, the United States was satisfied with the work that had been done and 
the level of transparency that had been undertaken by Kazakhstan despite time constraints.   
66. The representative of Kazakhstan stated that during her replies to queries raised by 
Members, she mentioned only those Articles of th e transitional provisions of the EAEU Treaty 
which were relevant to the Draft Working Party Report, such as rules of origin for preferential 
treatment providers to developing and least-developed countries as well as trade remedy 
measures.  With regard to the common market in oil and gas and other issues, this was about intra-EAEU cooperation in such strategic sect ors of the economies of the CU members.  
The important sectors were oil, gas, and electric ity, and the EAEU targeted the date of 2025 for 
the establishment of common markets.  She stated that before 2015, there would be a lot of work, 
including technical work on harmonization and review, including review and analysis of the existing 
policies applied by the member States.  The work on harmonization would be a continuous 
process.  These were also matters that were not relevant to the Draft Working Party Report because they would be mostly about the general po licy framework for review and harmonization of 
policies, which would not have any negative impact on trade of the EAEU in oil, gas and electricity 
with third countries.  The same applied to the proposals for a common transport market and other 
common issues for cooperation where the EAEU member States were putting in place general objectives to be fulfilled within the framewor k of the implementation of the EAEU Treaty. 
Therefore, the first obligation of the EAEU Commission would be to develop a work-plan and 
schedule to be followed by the member States to  undertake this technical work on review and 
harmonization of policies applied in these complex and strategic sectors of their economies.   
D. CONCLUSION 
67. The Chairperson, in conclusion:  
a. Expressed appreciation to Mrs. Zhanar Aitzhanova, Economic Integration Minister and 
WTO Accession Chief Negotiator of the Repub lic of Kazakhstan for her presentation and 
response to questions from Members of the Working Party;  
b. Underlined, on behalf of WP Members, the substantive usefulness of the Transparency 
Session and its necessity as part of the on-going process of updating the Foreign Trade 
Regime of the Draft Working Party Report on th e Accession of Kazakhstan.  The presentation 
had covered a wide range of issues and had been  followed by a healthy exchange of views, 
questions and answers;  
c. Observed that although the Transparency  Session had served its purpose, the 
information exchange on the EAEU Treaty should be maintained, as part of the review of the 
Draft Working Party Report;  
d. Requested the WTO Secretariat to prepare a factual report of the Transparency 
Session, which would be made available to the Working Party, given the usefulness of the 
presentation and subsequent exchange.   WT/ACC/KAZ/86 
 
- 13 - 
 
  e. Requested Kazakhstan to update the Inform ation Note and that the updated Note be 
made an integral part of the formal documentation of the Working Party.    
f. Accorded Members of the Working Party a further opportunity to submit written 
questions to the Secretariat by Friday, 15 Au gust 2014.  Any such additional questions 
would allow Kazakhstan to update its responses and Information Note, as may be necessary, 
as part of the documentation for the next Cycle of Meetings.   
68. The representative Kazakhstan in her concluding remarks, expressed appreciation to the 
WTO Secretariat for its leading role in organizing the Transparency Session.  The professional and 
rapid processing of documentation by the Secretariat submitted by her Government had contributed to the successful Transparency Sessi on.  She expressed appreciation to the Russian 
Federation for its assistance in preparing the documents for the Transparency Session.  Particular 
thanks were extended to the United States for it s technical assistance and guidance to Kazakhstan 
in incorporating the EAEU Treaty Agreements into the relevant sections of the draft Working Party 
Report. The contributions and support of all Members of the Working Party were similarly 
appreciated.   
69. The Working Party took note of the statements made.  
 WT/ACC/KAZ/86 
 
- 14 - 
 
   
ANNEX: PRESENTATION ON THE TREATY OF THE EURASIAN ECONOMIC UNION 
 
The annex3 contains the presentation on the Treaty of the Eurasian Economic Union. 
 
 
 
 
_______________ 
  
                                               
3 In PDF format only.