RESTRICTED  
  
JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
4 November 2014  
(14-6446)  Page: 1/98  
Working Party on the Accession of Kazakhstan  Original: English  
 
  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 Kazakh stan.  This version of the draft SPS Chapter 
(JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8), replaces the earlier version circulated in document JOB/ACC/30/Rev.7 on 
29 October 2014.   
_______________ JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
-  Sanitary and Phytosani tary Measures ..................................................................... 3  
(a) Legislative Fra mework ............................................................................................ 3  
(b) Competent Authorities for the Regulation of Trade in Agricultural Products ........... 7  
-  (i) EAEU Authorities and Responsibilities  ....................................................................... 7  
-  (ii) National Authorities  ............................................................................................... 8  
(c) Development of Technical Regulation s/Mandatory Requirements on SPS ............... 9  
(d) Trade in Goods Subject to Veterinary Control ........................................................ 18  
-  (i) Veterinary Certificates  .......................................................................................... 19  
-  (ii) Establishment Approval, Register and Inspections ................................................... 25 
-  (iii) Import Permits  ................................................................................................... 43  
-  (iv) Transit Permits  .................................................................................................. 49  
(e) Trade in Goods Subject to Phytosanitary Control .................................................. 50  
(f) Protection of Human Hea lth .................................................................................. 56  
(g) Compliance of the SPS Regime with Specific Provisions of the  
WTO SPS Agre ement ............................................................................................. 60  
-  (i) Harmonization with International Standards and Norms  ............................................ 60  
-  (ii) Risk Assessment  ................................................................................................. 64  
-  (iii) Regionalization  ................................................................................................... 67  
-  (iv) Equivalence  ....................................................................................................... 67  
-  (v) Non-discrimination  .............................................................................................. 69  
(h) Transparency, Notification and Enquiry Point Obligations ..................................... 70  
(i) Proportionality, Necessity , and Reasonab leness ................................................... 74  
(j) Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 75  
 JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 3 - 
 
  - Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
(a) Legislative Framework 1. The representative of Kazakhstan stated that the legislative basis for the regulation of the 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) regime in Kaza khstan was established by the following: the 
Treaty of the Eurasian Economic Union of 29 May 2014 (hereafter – the EAEU Treaty), 
CU Commission Decision No. 625 "On Harmonization of CU Legal Acts in the Field of Sanitary, 
Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures with International Standards" of 7 April 2011 (as amended 
by CU Commission Decision No. 722 of 22 June 2011 and EEC Collegium Decision No. 11 of 
7 March 2012); CU Commission Decision No. 721 "On Application of International Standards, 
Recommendations, and Guidelines" of 22 June 2011; EEC Collegium Decision No. 212 
"On Regulation on the Uniform Procedure of Carryin g out Examination of Legal Acts of the Customs 
Union in the Sphere of Implementation of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures" of 
6 November 2012, which had replaced CU Commission Decision No. 801 of 23 September 2011; 
CU Commission Decision No. 835 "On Equivalence of Sanitary, Veterinary or Phytosanitary Measures and Carrying out Risk Assessment" of  18 October 2011 as amended by EEC Collegium 
Decision No.17 of 11 February 2014, EEC Collegium Decision No. 161 "On Consultative Committee 
on Technical Regulation, Application of Sanita ry, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures" of 
18 September 2012, as last amended by EEC Collegium Decision No. 141 of 19 August  2014, 
and the EEC Collegium Decision No. 31 "On Ensuring  Transparency in the Process of Adoption of 
Acts of the Eurasian Economic Commission in the Sphere of Application of Sanitary, Quarantine 
Phytosanitary and Veterinary-Sanitary Measures" of 5 March 2013, as amended by EEC Collegium 
Decision No. 161 of 13 August 2013. 
2. The legal basis for the sanitary policy within the Eurasian Economic Union was provided in 
Section XI (Articles 56-57) and Annex 12 of the EAEU Treaty.  These provisions replaced 
CU Agreement on Sanitary Measures of 11 De cember 2009 (as amended by Decision of the 
Interstate Council of EurAsEC No. 39 of 21 May 2010, CU Commission Decision No. 887 of 
9 December 2011), which was terminated when the EAEU Treaty came into effect on 
1 January 2015 .  The legal basis for the sanitary policy was also provided in  Decision of the 
Interstate Council of the EurAsEC No. 83 "On Entering into Force of Protocols of 21 May 2010 in 
the Sphere of Implementation Sanitary, Veterina ry-and-Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures" of 
19 May 2011 and CU Commission Decision No. 299 "On the Application of Sanitary Measures in the 
Customs Union" of 28 May 2010 (as last amended by CU Commission Decisions No. 341 of 
17 August 2010, No. 456 of 18 November 2010, No. 571 of 2 March 2011, No. 622 of 
7 April 2011, No. 828 of 18 October 2011, No. 829 of 18 October 2011, No. 888 of 
9 December 2011, No. 889 of 9 December 2011, Decisions of the EEC Council No. 36 of 15 June 2012, No. 37 of 15 June 2012, No. 64 of 20 July 2012, No. 115 of 17 December 2012, 
Decisions of the EEC Collegium No. 32 of 19 April 2012, No. 33 of 19 April 2012, No. 34 of 
19 April 2012, No. 89 of 13 June 2012, No. 111 of  19 July 2012, No. 117 of 19 July 2012, No. 141 
of 23 August 2012, Nos. 206 and 208 of 6 November 2012, No. 114 of 17 December 2012, No. 6 
of 15 January 2013). A consolidated version of CU Commission Decision No. 299, as amended, was JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 4 - 
 
  available at the following EEC webpa ge: http://www.eurasiancommission.org/ en/ 
act/texnreg/depsanmer/regulation/Pages/ Санитарные -меры .aspx (also available at 
http://www.tsouz.ru/db/techregulati on/sanmeri/Pages/default.aspx), which was regularly updated.  
3. The legal basis for the veterinary policy within the Eurasian Economic Union was provided in 
Section XI (Articles 56, 58) and Annex 12 of the EAEU Treaty.  These provisions replaced the 
CU Agreement on Veterinary and Sanitary Measur es of 11 December 2009 (as last amended by 
the Interstate Council of EurAsEC Decision No. 39 of 21 May 2010), which was terminated when 
the EAEU Treaty came into effect on 1 January 2015.  The legal basis for the veterinary policy was 
also provided in CU Commission Decision No. 317 of 18 June 2010 "On the Application of 
Veterinary-Sanitary Measures in the Customs Union" (as last amended by CU Commission 
Decisions Nos. 342 of 17 August 2010, 455 of 18 November 2010, 569 of 2 March 2011, 570 of 2 March 2011, 623 of 7 April 2011, 724 of 22 June 2011, 726 of 15 July 2011, 810 of 
23 September 2011, 830 of 18 October 2011, 831 of 18 October 2011, 834 of 18 October 2011 
and 893 of 9 December 2011, EEC Council Decision No. 85 of 12 October 2012, EEC Collegium 
Decisions No. 254 of 4 December 2012, No. 274 of 14 December 2012, No. 307 of 
25 December 2012, EEC Collegium Decision No. 192 of 10 September 2013, EEC Collegium 
Decision No. 244 of 29 October 2013,  EEC Collegium Decision No. 294 of 10 December 2013, EEC 
Collegium Decision No.18 of 11 February 2014 , EEC Collegium Decision No. 178 of 30 
September 2014 and EEC Council Decision No. 95 of 9 October 2014 ), CU Commission 
Decision No. 607 of 7 April 2011 "On Common Forms of Veterinary Certificates on Goods Subject to Veterinary Control Imported into the Customs Union Territory" (as amended by CU Commission 
Decisions No. 832 of 18 October 2011 and No. 892 of 9 December 2011, EEC Collegium Decisions 
No. 262 of 4 December 2012 and No. 308 of 25 December 2012, EEC Collegium Decision No. 245 
of 29 October 2013, and EEC Collegium Decision No. 19 of 11 February 2014 , EEC Council 
Decision No. 95 of 9 October 2014 ), CU Commission Decision No. 624 of 7 April 2011 
"On Regulation on the Procedure of Development and Maintenance of the Register of Companies 
and Persons which Carry out Production, Reprocessing and (or) Storing Products Subject to 
Veterinary Control (Surveillance) and Imported into the territory of the Custom Union", 
CU Commission Decision No. 726 "On Veterinary Measures" of 15 July 2011, EEC Council 
Decision No. 94 of 9 October 2014 which had replaced CU Commission Decision No. 834 
"On Regulation on Common System of Joint Inspections of Objects and Sampling Goods (Products), Subject to Veterinary Control (Sur veillance)" of 18 October 2011and EEC Council 
Decision No. 33 "On Amendments to the Common List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control 
(Surveillance)" of 16 May 2013, CU Commission Decision No. 833 "On Equivalence of Systems of 
Inspection of Objects of Veterinary Control (Surveillance)" of 18 October 2011.  A consolidated 
version of CU Commission Decision No. 317, as  amended, was available at the following EEC 
webpage:  
http://www.eurasiancommission.org/ en/act/texnreg/depsanmer/regulation/Pages/ Ветеринарно -
санитарные -меры .aspx which was regularly updated. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 5 - 
 
  4. The legal basis for the phytosanitary policy within the Eurasian Economic Union was 
provided in Section XI (Articles 56, 59) and Annex 12 of the EAEU Treaty.  These provisions 
replaced  the CU Agreement on Plant Quarantine of 11 December 2009 (as last amended by the 
Decision of the Interstate Council of EurAsEC No. 83 of 19 May 2011), which was terminated when 
the EAEU Treaty came into effect on 1 January 2015.  The legal basis for the phytosanitary policy 
was also provided in CU Commission Decision No. 318 "On Assurance of Plant Quarantine in the 
Customs Union" of 18 June 2010 (as last amended by CU Commission Decision No. 528 of 
28 January 2011, CU Commission Decision No. 894 of 9 December 2011, EEC Council Decision No. 
50 of 16 August 2013, CU Commission Decision No. 25 of 24 April 2014 , EEC Council Decision 
No. 93 of 9 October 2014 ), the Decision of the Interstate Council of EurAsEC No. 76 "On the 
Process for Transfer of Control from the Russian -Kazakh Border to the External border of the 
Customs Union" of 15 March 2011.  A consolidated version of CU Commission Decision No. 318, as 
amended, was available at the following EEC webpage: 
http://www.eurasiancommission.org/ en/act/texnreg/depsanmer/regulation/Pages/ Фитосанитарны
е-меры .aspx, which was regularly updated. 
5. In addition, the following nine EAEU technica l regulations were adopted, which set food 
quality and safety requirements: CU Commiss ion Decision No. 880 "On Food Safety" of 
9 December 2011 (as amended by EEC Collegium Decisions No. 129 of 11 June 2013, No. 147 of 
25 June 2013 and No. 91 of 10 June 2014), CU Commission Decision No. 881 "On Labelling of 
Food Products" of 9 December 2011, CU Commission Decision No. 882 "On  Products of Fruit and Vegetable Juices" of 9 December 2011, CU Commission Decision No. 883 "On Fat and Oil Products" 
of 9 December 2011, CU Commission Decision No. 874 "On Safety of Grain" of 9 December 2011, 
EEC Council Decision No. 34 "On Safe ty of Certain Types of Specialized Products, Including Dietetic 
Healthy and Dietetic Prophylactic Meals" of 15 June 2012,  EEC Council Decision No. 58 "On Safety 
of Food Additives, Flavourings and Processing Aids" of 20 July 2012, EEC Council Decision No.67 
"On Safety of Milk and Milk Products" of 9 October 2013, and EEC Council Decision No 68 "On 
Safety of Meat and Meat Products" of 9 Octo ber 2013. The list of adopted EAEU technical 
regulations was available at the following EEC webpage: 
http://www.eurasiancommission.org/ en/act/texnreg/deptexreg/tr/Pages/tecnicalreglament.aspx.  
The section of the Technical Regulation " Food Safety " pertaining to fish and fish products 
currently was not applied and would become applicable upon entry into force of the corresponding sectoral technical regulation.  
6. The representative of Kazakhstan further stated that national legislation remained in effect 
to the extent that it did not contradict the EAEU Treaty, CU Commission Decisions and EEC Council 
and Collegium Decisions. She further explained that issues not specified by the above-mentioned 
Treaty and Decisions  were dealt with by the na tional legislation, in particular – Law No. 339-II 
"On Veterinary" of 10 July 2002; Government Resolution No. 407 of 28 April 2003, which approved 
the following: ( i) Regulation on the State Veterinary and Sanitary Control, ( ii) Rules for 
Compulsory Seizure and Destruction of Animals, Products and Raw Materials of Animal Origin, 
which Constitute High Danger to Animal and Human Health, or Mandatory Decontamination JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 6 - 
 
  (Disinfection) and Processing Without Withdrawal Thereof, ( iii) Rules and Conditions of 
Compensation to Juridical and Natural Persons of the Value of Removed and Destroyed Infected 
Animals, Products and Raw Materials of Animal Origin, which Constitute High Danger to Animal and 
Human Health, ( iv) List of Highly Contagious Animal Diseases, when Compulsory Seizure and 
Destruction of Animals, Products and Raw Materials of Animal Origin, which Constitute High 
Danger to Animal and Human Health are to be Held, ( v) List of Highly Contagious Animal Diseases, 
Prevention, Diagnosis and Eradication of which are Implemented at the Cost of the Budget, 
(vi) Rules of State Veterinary and Sanitary Contro l During Movement of Objects Across the State 
Border of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and ( vii) Rules of Organization of Veterinary Control Posts 
at the State Border and Customs Checkpoints; Government Resolution No. 1754 "On Approval of 
Organization of Slaughtering of Agricultural Animals Intended for Subsequent Sale" of 4 November 2009; Government Resolution No. 2331 "On Approval of Identification of Agricultural 
Animals" of 31 December 2009; Order of the Minister of Agriculture No. [xxx] "On Approval 
of Rules of Issuance of Permits for Exportat ion, Importation and Transit of Objects with 
Regard to Evaluation of Epizootic Situation in the Territory" of [xx] November 2014 
which had replaced  Government Resolution No. 132 "On Approval of Rules of Issuance of 
Permits for Exportation, Importation and Transit of Objects with Regard to Evaluation of Epizootic 
Situation in the Territory" of 19 January 2012; Go vernment Resolution No. 149 "On Approval of 
Rules of Transportation (Movement) of Objects on the Territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan" of 
21 January  2012; Government Resolution No. 165 "On the Approval of the Rules for Entry (Importation) of Food Products Subject to State Registration" of 19 February 2008; Law No. 301 
"On Food Safety" of 21 July 2007; Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 193-IV "On Public 
Health and Healthcare System" of 18 September 2009; Government Resolution No. 125 "On 
Approval of the Rules for Assignment of Registrati on Numbers to Entities Producing Food Products" 
of 11 February 2008; Government Resolution No. 2267 "On Approval of the Rules for Refusal for 
Entry, as well as for Production, Use and Sale of Products Intended for Human Consumption, on 
the Territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as well as for Use in Business and (or) Other 
Activities" of 30 December 2009; Law No. 344-I "On Plant Quarantine" of 11 February 1999, Law 
No. 331-II "On Plant Protection" of 3 July 2002; Government Resolution No. 1295 "On Approval of 
the List of Quarantine Facilities, Alien Species and Extremely Dangerous Pests" of 
10 December 2002, as last amended by Government Resolution No. 1351 of 11 September 2009; Government Resolution No. 1287 "On Approval of the Rules on Withdrawal and Destruction of 
Quarantine Products, Infected by Quarantine Objects, Not Subject to Decontamination or 
Processing" of 3 November 2011; Government Resolution No. 1730 "On Approval of the Rules for 
Protection of the Territory of the Republic of Ka zakhstan from Plant Quarantine Objects and Alien 
Species" of 30 October 2009; Government Resolu tion No. 1674 "On Approval of Phytosanitary 
Requirements to Imported Quarantine Products" of 30 December 2011; and Government 
Resolution No. 1396 "On Approval of the Rules on Registration Tests and State Registration of 
Pesticides (Chemical Insecticides) in the Republic of Kazakhstan" of 30 November 2011. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 7 - 
 
  (b) Competent Authorities for the Regulati on of Trade in Agricultural Products 
- (i) EAEU Authorities and Responsibilities 7. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that Eurasian Economic Commission 
(hereinafter -  the EEC or the Commission) became the successor of the CU Commission as of 
January 2012. Within the EAEU institutional framework for regulating in the sphere of SPS measures, the role of the Commission had been to coordinate the development and 
implementation of SPS measures by the EAEU member States, which involved their respective 
sanitary, veterinary, and phytosanitary authorities.  The Commission laid out common general 
principles and adopted common safety requirements for goods marketed within the territory of the 
EAEU. These safety requirements covered sanitary and epidemiological, veterinary, and 
phytosanitary regulations that governed production and trade of the EAEU. 
8. The EEC was established as a single permanent re gulatory body of the EAEU by Article 18 of 
the EAEU Treaty.  The EEC consisted of a Council and a Collegium.  The competences of the 
Council and Collegium were stipulated in Annex 1 to the EAEU Treaty and Regulation of the 
Work of the Eurasian Economic Commission, approved by the Decision of the Supreme 
Eurasian Economic Council No. 1 of 18 November 2011 .  The Council had a right to veto the 
decisions adopted by the Collegium. The Council had the following competences with respect to 
SPS measures: 
- adoption, introduction of amendments and addenda into the Common Lists of Goods 
subject to Sanitary-Epidemiological Surveillance, Veterinary and Quarantine Phytosanitary 
Control; 
- adoption and introduction of amendments and addenda into the Regulation of Sanitary and 
Epidemiological Control, Regulation on Common Procedure for Conduct of Veterinary 
Control, Regulation on Common System of Joint Inspections of Objects and Sampling 
Goods (Products), Subject to Veterinary Control (Surveillance), and the Regulation on Common Procedure for Conduct of Quarantine Phytosanitary Control. 
The Collegium had responsibility for the rest  of the issues, including the adoption and 
introduction of amendments and addenda into the Common Veterinary Requirements and Common 
Forms of Veterinary Certificates, the Common Sanitary Requirements, and the Common 
Quarantine Phytosanitary Requirements. 
9. Developing SPS measures at the EAEU level involved specific technical and administrative 
expertise via working groups, which reported to the Consultative Committee.  Functions and 
interactions of the working groups and the Consultative Committee were defined by specific 
regulations: the Regulation of Working and Ex pert Groups on SPS and TBT approved by the 
Decision of the Minister on Technical Regu lation – Member of the EEC Collegium of 3 
October 2013  and the Regulation on Consultative Committee on Technical Regulation, Application 
of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures, approved by the EEC Collegium Decision 
No. 161 of 18 September 2012.  The current practice  for development of draft EAEU legal acts on 
SPS measures was as follows:  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 8 - 
 
  - an EAEU member State or the EEC initiated th e development of a draft EAEU legal act.  
An EAEU member State responsible for developing the draft was appointed or the EEC acted as a developer; 
- a working group, including representatives of the EAEU member States' competent 
authorities was established to review the draft; 
- a draft document that was discussed and approved at a working group meeting, was then 
submitted to the Consultative Committee for publishing on the EAEU official website for 
public consultations. The EAEU draft SPS texts were published at the following web-page: 
http://www.eurasiancommission.org/ru/act/texn reg/depsanmer/publ/P ages/default.aspx. 
The period for public consultation was two months.  The comments were collected by the Department of the Sanitary, Phytosanitary and Veterinary Measures of the EEC; 
- after the process of public consultation, all comments and questions were discussed within 
the working group. In accordance with EEC Collegium Decision No. 31  "On Ensuring 
Transparency in the Process of Adoption  of Acts of the Eurasian Economic 
Commission in the Sphere of Application of Sanitary, Quarantine Phytosanitary, 
and Veterinary and Sanitary Measures" of 5 March 2013, as amended by Collegium 
Decision No.161 of 13 August 2013, the Department of the Sanitary, Phytosanitary and 
Veterinary Measures, within 30 working days after expiration of the public consultation 
period, compiled a summary tabl e of comments and answers, based on the discussion that 
took place in the EAEU working group to exam ine those comments, and published it on the 
official EAEU website. This table of comments and answers took into account comments 
received in the framework of WTO SPS notifi cations of the EAEU member States. A final 
revision of the draft document was discusse d and approved by the working group and 
submitted to the Consultative Committee; 
- the draft document was reviewed at the meeting of the Consultative Committee. In case 
the draft was approved, it was submitted to the Collegium for approval; and 
- the Collegium either adopted the EAEU documents which were under its competence or in 
other cases approved the drafts before submitting them to the Council for adoption. 
 In reply to a specific question from a WT O Member, the representative of Kazakhstan 
explained that currently the fixed time-frame – not less than  60 days – was established only for 
public consultations on SPS measures.  The length of the other stages of the process of 
development and approval of SPS legal acts depended on the time required for reaching a 
consensus by all EAEU member States. 
- (ii) National Authorities 
10. Kazakhstan's veterinary service consisted of the Department of Veterinary and Food Safety 
at the Ministry of Agriculture, and th e Committee of Veterinary Control and Surveillance under 
the Ministry of Agriculture.  The Department o f  V e t e r i n a r y  a n d  F o o d  S a f e t y  w a s  i n  c h a r g e  o f  
strategic planning in the sphere of veterinary safety  and developing rules and regulations in 
this area .  The Committee of Veterinary Control and Surveillance was in charge of budgeting 
and conducting veterinary control and surveillance of the objects of veterinary and sanitary control 
and surveillance, including on the State border, epizootic welfare, as well as the veterinary 
surveillance of establishments. In addition, the veterinary control framework included (i) 
veterinary control posts; (ii) the oblast, city and ra yon territorial branches of the Committee of 
Veterinary Control and Surveillance ; and (iii) subordinated State veterinary organizations 
(National Reference Center for Veterinary, Republican Anti-Epizootic Entity, and Republican 
Veterinary Laboratory. Executive functions in the sphere of veterinary were transferred to local 
executive bodies of the respective administrative-territorial units (oblast, city, ra yon, etc.), which 
included veterinary branches, as well as State veterinary organizations to conduct veterinary 
measures.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 9 - 
 
  11. In February 2014, the Committee of Consumer Ri ghts Protection of Ministry of National 
Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter the Committee of Consumer Rights Protection) replaced the Committee of State Sani tary and Epidemiological Surveillance of the 
Ministry of Health.  The Committee of Consumer Rights Protection was the authorised body 
responsible for issues related to sanitary and epidemiological welfare. Functions of the Committee 
of Consumer Rights Protection were specified by  the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 193-
IV "On Public Health and Healthcare System" of 18 September 2009. The representative of 
Kazakhstan said that the Department of Phytosanitary Safety of the Ministry of Agriculture was in 
charge of strategic planning in the sphere of phytosanitary safety  and development rules and 
regulations in this area .  The Committee of State Inspection in the Agro-Industrial Complex of 
the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan was in charge of budgeting and 
conducting phytosanitary control including border control, measures on protection of plants from 
pests, monitoring of agricultural lands against plant pests and diseases. 
12. With regard to participation in international organizations in this sphere, she said that as a 
member of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) since 1993, Kazakhstan intended to 
follow the provisions of the Terrestrial and Aquatic Animal Health Codes and Manuals.  For the 
purpose of application of OIE Code, Kazakhstan  had ratified the International Agreement on 
Establishment the OIE (the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 109-IV of 24 December 2008).   
In addition, Kazakhstan had ratified the Convention for the Establishment of the European and 
Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization, in March 2004 and the International Plant Protection 
Convention, in April 2010.  She further explained that Kazakhstan was a member of Codex 
Alimentarius Commission since 2005.  Hence, th e international standards, recommendations and 
guidelines of the OIE, IPPC and Codex Alimentarius would be applied in Kazakhstan. 
(c) Development of Technical Regulati ons/Mandatory Requirements on SPS 
13. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that EAEU member States also elaborated 
mandatory requirements for products within technical regulations.  These could be adopted by the 
EEC, pursuant to:   
- Article 52 and Annex 9 of the EAEU Treaty; 
- Decision of the Council of the Eurasian Economic Commission No. 48 "On the Regulation 
on Development, Approval, Amending and Cancellation of Technical Regulations of the Customs Union" of 20 June 2012  (hereinafter – EEC Council Decision No. 48) . 
14. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that the aim of the ongoing legislative and 
implementation work in the EAEU and Kazakhstan was to ensure harmonization with the 
standards, guidelines, and recommendations of the World Animal Health Organisation (OIE), the 
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), and the Codex Alimentarius (Codex).  This work, 
in her view, would ensure full compliance of th e SPS regime of Kazakhstan, whether measures 
were adopted in the context of the EEC or domestically, with the requirements of the 
WTO SPS Agreement from the date of accession of Kazakhstan to the WTO. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 10 - 
 
  15. She added that the approaches towards harmonization of the EAEU measures and the 
Kazakh domestic regulation of sanitary and phytosanitary issues with the standards, guidelines, and recommendations of these international organi zations were defined in the framework of the 
EAEU Treaty, Commission decisions and participation of Kazakhstan in the activities of the relevant 
international organizations.  She explained th at CU Commission Decision No. 721 of 22 June 2011 
"On Application of International Standards, Guid elines and Recommendations", provided that: in 
cases in which the Commission or the national authorities had not established mandatory 
requirements in the veterinary, or phytosanitary, or sanitary epidemiological and hygienic sphere, 
the EAEU member States would apply standards, recommendations and guidelines of the OIE, 
IPPC, and the Codex Alimentarius (Codex) resp ectively.  Similarly, if EAEU veterinary, 
phytosanitary and sanitary-epidemiological and hygi enic mandatory requirements in effect in the 
territory of the EAEU were more stringent than relevant international standards, guidelines and 
recommendations, in the absence of scientific justification of risk to human, animal, or plant life or 
health, relevant international standards, guidelines, and recommendations, or parts thereof, would 
be applied. 
16. Some Members asked Kazakhstan to provide details on the EurAsEC and EEC processes for 
elaborating SPS Technical Regulations and whether EurAsEC requirements would supersede or 
replace EEC, EAEU and national requirements.  
17. The representative of Kazakhstan stated that draft technical regulations, including those 
related to SPS, were developed in the participating countries using internal procedures before being proposed by the authorised national bodies.  For Kazakhstan, the M inistry of Agriculture 
or the Committee of Consumer Rights Protection, as assigned by the Government of Kazakhstan, 
proposed SPS technical regulations to the desi gnated EEC bodies for harmonization, further 
review, and adoption as provided for in the relevant international agreements or EAEU decisions.  
Development of the technical regulations of the EurAsEC had been suspended at the EurAsEC level 
based on EurAsEC Inter-state Council Decision No . 575 "On Elimination of Technical Barriers in 
Mutual Trade of EurAsEC member States on the Ba sis of the Technical Regulations System of the 
Customs Union" of 19 October 2011.  The procedur es of the development of technical regulations 
o f  t h e  E A E U  w e r e  l a i d  d o w n  i n  t h e  E E C  C o u n c i l  D e c i s i o n  N o .  4 8 .  I n  t h e  E A E U  f r a m e w o r k ,  t h e  
Consultative Committee on Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and 
Phytosanitary Measures (the EAEU Consultative Committee) fulfilled coordination and transparency role in the process of development of EAEU technical regulations.  In particular, it received draft 
technical regulations from the authorised bodies of the EAEU member States, prepared analysis 
and recommendations on draft technical regulati ons, and coordinated the development of draft 
text and resolved disputes concerning it among the authorities of the EAEU member States.   
18. The representative of Kazakhstan also explained that, under the EAEU, any domestic or 
foreign natural or juridical person or governmental or non-governmental body could develop a 
draft technical regulation provided that the development of a technical regulation was included into 
respective schedule outlining the development of pr iority technical regulations of the EAEU and it JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 11 - 
 
  was approved by the authorised body for such work s.  Third-country interested parties, including 
foreign governments, could provide comments on draft technical regulations proposed by any of the EAEU member States, as established in paragraph 8 of the EEC Decision No. 48.   
19. Responding to a question on how draft technical regulations not based on international 
standards, recommendations or guidelines could be revised prior to their application, she stated 
that the applicable laws and EAEU acts specified the priority use of international standards, 
recommendations and guidelines, as the basis for technical regulations and that the technical 
regulation developer (relevant EAEU member State' s authorised body or the EEC) was required to 
provide his assessment on how the draft was consistent with international standards in his 
notification of the draft for public comment.  Th e technical regulation developer was also required 
to identify the standards, recommendations and guidelines, used in developing the draft technical regulation.  When Kazakhstan was responsible for de veloping technical regulations, it designated a 
state body responsible for development of the draft technical regulation (hereinafter – the 
developer of draft technical regulation).  The deve loper of draft technical regulation prepared the 
first draft of the technical regulation and based on  proposals from the competent authorities of the 
EAEU member States, formed an EAEU working group that included experts representing 
government bodies, academia and business/consumers associations and other interested parties.  
The draft technical regulation was discussed at  the EAEU working group meetings.  The EAEU  
working group would take into account the requirement to use international standards, 
recommendations and guidelines, and, if necessary, propose appropriate changes. Upon completion of the first draft of the technica l regulation, the developer of the draft technical 
regulation sent the draft, an explanatory note, an d a notification on development of the technical 
regulation to the EEC.  The EEC ensured 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 starting date and period of public 
consultations on the draft technical regulation was made, which was formalised by a Protocol. 
In cases when Consultative Committee decided that further revisions were 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 documents.   
20. The public consultation began when  the EEC placed the draft technical regulation, the 
notification on its development, and an explanatory note on its official website.  This information was also published at the official websites of the authorised bodies for technical regulation of the 
EAEU member States.  Interested domestic and foreign juridical and natural persons (including 
those from non-members of the EAEU), including foreign governments, could submit their 
comments and proposals on the draft technical regulations to the EEC. The period for comments 
was at least 60 days following the publication of the notification on development of draft of the 
technical regulation by the EEC.  Kazakhstan inte nded to notify the SPS-related draft technical 
regulations to the WTO SPS Committee in parallel to the public consultation.  In case of significant 
changes in the draft technical regulation, there would be a new round of public consultations and 
new WTO notification would be sent to the WTO Secretariat.  The EEC processed comments and proposals received from interested parties during public consultations and WTO notification JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 12 - 
 
  procedure and sent them to the developer of the dr aft technical regulation.  The developer of draft 
technical regulation within 20 working days from  the date of receiving comments and proposals 
from the EEC ensured the discussion of the co mments and proposals by the working group and 
prepared a summary of comments, which included information on their acceptance or justification 
for their rejection, and sent it to the EEC.  In accordance with EEC Council Decision No 48, the EEC 
published on its website the table of comments an d answers.  The developer of draft technical 
regulation within 30 working days from the date of sending summary of comments to the EEC 
revised the draft technical regulation and the related documents taking into account comments 
and proposals received during the public consultations, specifically those comments that were 
based on international standards, guidelines and recommendations.  The EEC sent the draft 
technical regulation and related documents to the member States for their internal approval and published them on the official website. Upon co mpletion of the internal approval of the draft 
technical regulations by the member States, the draft technical regulation was sent to the 
Consultative Committee that submitted it to the EEC Collegium for approval.  The draft technical 
regulation and related documents, and disagreements that could not be solved during the 
negotiations were considered by the EEC Collegiu m.  After the consideration, the EEC Collegium 
submitted the draft technical regulation and re lated documents either to the EEC Council for 
approval, or to the developer for revision.  The EEC Council adopted the final draft technical 
regulation at its meeting.  The representative of Kazakhstan noted that any amendments to a 
technical regulation were adopted by the same procedure.   
21. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that a schedule outlining the development of 
priority technical regulations of the CU had been  adopted by CU Commission Decision No. 492 of 
8 December 2010, which was replaced by EEC Council Decision No. 103 of 23 November 2012 that 
approved the Schedule of Development of Technical Regulations of CU for 2012-2013  and EEC 
Council Decision No.79 of 1 October 2014 that  approved the Schedule of Development of 
Technical Regulations of the Customs Unio n and Introduction of Amendments into 
Technical Regulations of the Customs Union (h ereinafter in this Section - the Schedule 
on Development of CU Technical Regulations) . Under these schedules, as of November 
2014, SPS technical regulations governing food safe ty, labelling of food products, grain, juice 
products, oil and fat products were adopted by CU Commission Decisions in December 2011; SPS 
technical regulations governing specialized products, including dietetic meals and food additives were adopted by the EEC Council Decision in June and July 2012, respectively; SPS technical 
regulations governing milk and milk products, me at and meat products were adopted by the EEC 
Council Decisions in October 2013; SPS technical regulation governing safety of feed stuffs and 
feed additives had completed public consultation procedures, while technical regulations on safety 
of fish and fish products, alcoholic beverages and tobacco products had completed both public 
consultations and internal approval procedures as of May 2014. Public consultation of the draft  
Technical Regulation "On Safety of Bottled Potable Water " has been completed in October 
2014 .  Additionally, the Schedule on Development of CU Technical Regulations provided for the 
development of the following SPS Technical Regulati ons: On Safety of Poultry and its Products; On 
Safety of Products in Contact with Food, which were currently under development.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 13 - 
 
  22. She further explained that a schedule outlining the development of EurAsEC priority 
technical regulations had been adopted by Decisi on of the EurAsEC Interstate Council No. 521 of 
19 November 2010.  Included in this schedule were SPS technical regulations on grain, food 
safety, labelling of food products, tobacco products , juice products, oil and fat products, milk and 
milk products, honey and products of bee-farming, and on the safety of bottled water.  However, 
currently the development of EurAsEC technical regu lations had been suspended by the Decision of 
the EurAsEC Interstate Council No. 575 of 19 October 2011.  Members of the Working Party asked 
for clarification as regards the overlap between the EAEU priority technical regulations and the 
EurAsEC priority technical regulations.  The repres entative of Kazakhstan explained that a choice 
had been made to focus on the adoption of EAEU  technical regulations, since the EAEU procedure 
for adoption of technical regulations was faster.  The representative of Kazakhstan further 
stated that pursuant to Decision of the In terstate Council of the Eurasian Economic 
Community No. 652 "On Termination of th e Activity of the Eurasian Economic 
Community" of 10 October 2014, the activity  of the Eurasian Economic Community, 
including the development of te chnical regulations, had been terminated as of 1 January 
2015.  
23. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that the Commission had adopted [34] out of 60 
planned EAEU technical regulations, including those related to SPS matters, by November  2014, 
and that all of these technical regulations would enter into force, after a transitional period to allow 
producers, importers, and exporters to become aware of and comply with the new technical regulations.  [A minimum period of six months between the date of publication of a technical 
regulation and the date of its entry into force was established in the Decisions adopting the 
technical regulations in order to allow entities to be able to comply with the provisions of a new 
technical regulation or amendments to a technical regulation. Currently, amendments into Decision 
No. 48 were being considered in order to envisage this rule in the EAEU legislation.] Notification of 
when EAEU Technical Regulations entered into force and superseded national technical regulations 
would be posted on the EEC website.  In response to a question from a Member of the Working 
Party, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that no new national technical regulations were 
being developed.   
24. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that the EAEU Treaty, once it entered into force, 
was the international treaty of Kazakhstan, and, with the exception of the Constitution and Constitutional Laws of Kazakhstan, would prevail, in  the event of a conflict, over the provisions of 
laws and other normative legal acts in Kazakhstan (whether adopted before or after the 
EAEU Treaty).  With regard to Commission Decisi ons, she explained that such decisions had the 
legal status in the Kazakh domestic legal system corresponding to that which the decision would 
have had if adopted by the Government or Executive body which had been competent to regulate 
the subject matter at the moment when the Commi ssion was delegated the relevant authority.   
She explained that Kazakhstan did not repeal a na tional law when EAEU acts applied, but these 
were amended to refer to the EAEU act.  Pe nding this alignment, domestic SPS measures 
continued to apply in so far as they did not conflict with the EAEU act.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 14 - 
 
  25. Some Members expressed concern about the ov erlap between EAEU Technical Regulations 
and other EAEU Decisions in the veterinary and sanitary fields.  For example, Members noted 
overlaps and contradictions between CU Decision  No. 299 and CU Technical Regulations, such as 
the Food Safety Technical Regulation.  Members also noted overlaps and contradictions between 
CU Decision No. 317, in particular, the CU common veterinary requirements, and Annex 5 to the 
Food Safety Technical Regulation, which appeared  to contain veterinary requirements.  Members 
sought clarity on what requirements were applicable for imported goods.  In addition, those 
Members identified overlaps between different Tec hnical Regulations, i.e. between the Food Safety 
Technical Regulation and the vertical Technical Regulations such as the Technical Regulation for 
grain, meat, dairy, etc.  A Member noted discrepancies in tetracyclines levels in the technical 
regulation for meat on the one hand, and in CU Decision No. 299 and Food safety Technical 
Regulation on the other hand, and asked to confirm that the levels indicated in Annex 5 
paragraph 43(1) of the meat technical regulation were given priority.  They asked if exporters 
could find all applicable requirements in the vertical Technical Regulations. 
26. The representative of Kazakhstan with respect to sanitary measures noted that in 
accordance with paragraph 2 Article 57 of the EAEU Treaty, the Common Sanitary Requirements, 
adopted by the CU Commission Decision No. 29 9 and applied to products to which technical 
regulations were to be developed, had to be included into the relevant technical regulations. 
In other words, Decision No. 299 remained as "reference document", codifying all sanitary 
requirements to products . However, only the technical regu lations, once in force, were 
directly applicable to the controlled goods.  Sanitary requirements contained in EAEU technical 
regulations had to be identical to the requiremen ts of the Decision No. 299.  When a sanitary 
requirement was changed, public consultati on of amendments into Common Sanitary 
Requirements and the relevant EAEU technical regulation would be held simultaneously.  With 
regard to veterinary requirements, she further clarified that in accordance with paragraph 3 of 
Annex 9 of the EAEU Treaty, EAEU technical regulations could contain veterinary-sanitary and 
quarantine phytosanitary requirements only of general nature, for example the requirement to 
accompany a product with veterinary  certificate.  In addition, Kazakhstan had raised the issue of 
duplication and inconsistencies in the technical regulations and EAEU decisions at the EAEU level.  
At present, there were two draft amendments to the EAEU Technical Regulation "On Food Safety ".  
The first draft went through public consultations in July 2013 and was under review for 
approval by the Consultative Committee . The second draft went through public consultations 
in July 2014  and was under discussion by the working group on sanitary measures before 
review by the Consultative Committee. Pursua nt to the Schedule on Development of CU 
Technical Regulations, the two drafts were planned for adoption by/on [xxxx].  These 
amendments, among other things, were aimed at elimination of discrepancies in the EAEU 
documents. 
27. Regarding the discrepancy between horizontal and vertical technical regulations it should be 
mentioned that with regard to veterinary measures there were no discrepancies.  Moreover, 
according to paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the EAEU Technical Regulation "On Food Safety ", the JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 15 - 
 
  technical regulation shall be applied taking into  account the requirements of the EAEU technical 
regulations that establish mandatory requirements for certain types of food products and related 
requirements to the processes of production (ma nufacturing), storage, transportation, marketing 
and utilization, complementing and (or) specifying  the requirements thereof.  In addition, the 
requirements for certain types of food products and related requirements to the processes of 
production (manufacturing), storage, transportation, marketing and utilization established in other 
technical regulations of the EAEU could not change the requirements of the horizontal technical 
regulation On Food Safety.  Horizontal technica l regulation of the EAEU "On Safety of Food 
Products" established requirements that were common to all types of food products, in particular: 
(i) general safety requirements (including sanitary and epidemiological, sanitary and 
veterinary) to food products, and to production processes (manufacturing), storage, transportation, marketing and utilization; (ii) general rules of identification of objects of technical regulation; 
(iii) forms and procedures for assessment (confi rmation) of conformity of objects of 
technical regulation with the requirements of the technical regulation. 
Vertical technical regulations of the EAEU "On Safety of Meat and Meat Products" and "On Safety 
of Milk and Dairy Products" established specific requirement to the relevant products, in particular: 
(i) terminology;  
(ii) specific  safety requirements for meat and meat products, milk and dairy products, as 
well as the processes of production (manufactu ring), storage, transportation, marketing and 
utilization, which complement requirements of the technical regulations "On Food Safety"; (iii) specific  rules for identification of meat and meat products, milk and dairy products; 
(iv) specific  requirements for labelling of meat and dairy products; 
(v) conformity assessment schemes. 
28. Some Members expressed concern about the overlap of EAEU and national SPS measures 
and the continued adoption of SPS measures at th e national level in the EAEU member States.  
These Members noted that these amendments were not necessarily with a view to harmonize 
national requirements with EAEU  requirements.  In their view, this resulted in uncertainty 
regarding application and compliance with SPS measures and placed a significant burden on trade, 
possibly in violation of the WTO SPS Agreement.  Moreover, continued development and 
application of domestic measures in each of the EAEU member States could result in a lack of harmonization of requirements and increased burden  on trade within the territory of the EAEU.  
These Members requested information from Kazakh stan regarding precisely which SPS measures 
would apply in Kazakhstan and throughout the territory of the EAEU.  These Members also 
requested information on when domestic authorities would cease developing and applying 
domestic SPS measures.  The representative of Ka zakhstan confirmed that national SPS measures, 
when in conflict with EAEU SPS acts, would not apply to the extent of the conflict. She specified 
that as regards matters covered by EAEU acts, Kazakhstan had ceased adopting amendments of 
national SPS measures, for purposes other than alignment of national measures with EAEU acts, 
since 1 January 2012.  Until that date, a transitional period allowed the adoption of national 
measures when preparatory technical work had started before 1 July 2010.  These national 
measures were applicable only in so far as they did not contradict EAEU ac ts.  Some Members asked if alignment of national measures with EAEU acts had to occur within a specified time JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 16 - 
 
  period, and if so, what period applied.  In respon se, she explained that there was no specified time 
period for such alignment. 
29. Some Members asked Kazakhstan to describe the exact delineation of competences between 
the EAEU/EEC and the national au thorities. The representative of Kazakhstan responded that the 
EEC had responsibility for establishing specific product requirements, except in the area of 
phytosanitary requirements.  This meant that for veterinary and sanitary control, the Commission 
and EEC, as of January 2012, had established a list of goods that could be subject to veterinary 
control (surveillance) , and a common list of goods subject to sanitary surveillance (control) .  
There was one unified process for control of movement of these products between the EAEU 
member States, i.e., within the territory of the EAEU, and control at the external EAEU border.  
The EEC Commission had also ( EEC Council Decision No. 94 of 9 October 2014 which 
replaced  CU Decision No. 834) established inter alia unified procedures for inspection of facilities 
for inclusion in the register of authorised facilities.  Furthermore, guidelines for conducting 
inspections of establishments, which clarif ied the requirements applicable to these facilities 
supersede d relevant domestic normative legal acts.  With regard to phytosanitary measures, the 
Commission established the list of products subject to phytosanitary control and developed a draft 
unified list of quarantine organisms which was und er discussion between the EAEU member States 
after public consultation procedure.  The EAEU member States also were in the process of 
develop ing of EAEU common phytosanitary requirements for regulated products.  Thus, the 
competence for phytosanitary requirements would be transferred from national authorities to the EEC Collegium.  However, until the common list of quarantine organisms and phytosanitary 
requirements were adopted, competence remained  with the national authorities of each EAEU 
member State at the national level.  
30. With regard to other issues, where the national bodies retained authority to regulate, the 
representative explained that national bodies established requirements in respect of processes for 
manufacturing products domestically and penalties in the respective administrative code for 
violation of SPS requirements.  National authoritie s also developed strategies for managing animal 
diseases; adopted temporary SPS measures, i.e., emergency measures, in the cases of receipt of 
justified information about danger of imported goods; established sanitary requirements for 
organization of work activity of companies in the sphere of food catering services; aligned national 
sanitary-epidemiological and hygiene requiremen ts with EAEU requirements; and agreed on 
sanitary-safety zones (i.e., norms related to water safety and applicable only domestically).  
With regard to phytosanitary issues, national authorities were responsible for surveillance and 
eradication of quarantine organisms, domestic qu arantine zones and internal phytosanitary posts. 
31. She further explained that this division of competence between the EEC and national 
authorities could evolve with the harmonization of requirements at the EAEU level and how the 
EAEU member States addressed these issues.  Co mpetence would be delegated to the EAEU as 
part of this process.  The representative of Kazakhstan referred, as an example, to EAEU member 
States' intention to harmonize quarantine and phytosanitary measures of the EAEU member JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 17 - 
 
  States.  Thus, competence would be transferred from national authorities to the EAEU bodies as 
harmonization of requirements at the EAEU level occurred. 
32. The representative of Kazakhstan explained th at the process of harmonization of national 
laws with EAEU acts on SPS matters was taking place at the same time and in a parallel process to 
adoption of Commission/EEC decisions on SPS matters. She clarified that only sanitary safety 
limits set at the EAEU level could be applied on the territory of the EAEU member States.  That is, 
the EAEU member States could not adopt specific MRLs or other sanitary requirements at the 
national level in the absence of those at the EAEU level.  She further clarified that at the national 
level, Kazakhstan had introduced amendments into the national legislation in order to align them 
with the EAEU legal framework.  In particular, the Law "On Veterinary" was amended on 
30 June 2010 (entered into force on 1 July 2011) and 12 January 2012 in order to remove veterinary control on the border with EAEU member States and retain such control only on the 
state border concurring within the EAEU customs terri tory and to abolish registration of feed stuff, 
except for feed additives, respectively.  The Order of the Minister of Agriculture No. [xxx] of 
[xx] November 2014, which replaced Government Resolution No. 132 , governing issuance of 
import permits was also developed in compliance with the provisions of the EAEU Common 
Veterinary Requirements.  The Law "On Plant Qu arantine" was amended in July 2012 in order to 
remove the requirement of import permits. 
33. Some Members noted that several documents called GOST or MUK appeared to contain 
SPS requirements; however, these documents did not appear to be legal requirements.  These Members asked Kazakhstan to confirm that those documents could only be considered as 
guidelines and could not be used to impose restrictive measures on trade if the requirements 
set-out in these documents were not met.  In particular, these Members asked Kazakhstan to 
confirm that there were no legal requirements that set a compulsory frequency of self-checks or  
official checks at the level of the producing establishments for residues or microbiological levels in 
food. 
34. In response, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that GOST were non-binding 
recommendations.  She stated that compliance with MUKs were internal guidelines and compliance 
with these guidelines was mandatory only for State control bodies and those bodies within 
Kazakhstan conducting State sanitary-epidemiologic al control and other types of State control.  
She noted that GOST and MUK documents were being updated on a regular basis taking into account current amendments in legislation and the technical base (capabilities for testing).  
She confirmed that there were no binding requir ements on how often the producing establishment 
had to test for residues or microbiological levels in its product or how often official checks for 
residues and microbiological checks should be carried out.  She noted that an inspector could ask 
for documents regarding such testing for informational purposes to establish that there was a plan 
of control of these issues. Some Members expre ssed concerns that an establishment could be 
considered as non-compliant on the basis of a non-binding guideline and asked whether 
Kazakhstan would implement the Codex Guidelin es "For the Design and Implementation of JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 18 - 
 
  National Regulatory Food Safety Assurance Programme Associated with the use of Veterinary 
Drugs in Food Producing Animals" CAC/GL/71-2009 , which recognised the monitoring done at a 
national level, and by a food producing establ ishment.  The representative of Kazakhstan 
confirmed that it would implement these Codex Guidelines as of the date of its accession to the 
WTO.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
35. Some Members also noted that the technical regulations and secondary normative acts 
containing limitative standards did not take into account the corresponding standards, 
recommendations and guidelines of internationa l organizations or the methodology recommended 
by such organizations to set such standards.  In response, the representative of Kazakhstan stated 
that these technical regulations and secondary normative acts related to sanitary and veterinary 
issues would be based on the corresponding st andards, recommendations and guidelines of 
international organizations. 
(d) Trade in Goods Subject to Veterinary Control 
36. The representative of Kazakhstan stated that, as noted above, the Commission had issued 
several decisions which provided the legal framework for protection of animal and human health.  
CU Commission Decision No. 317 of 18 June 20 10 "On the Application of Veterinary-Sanitary 
Measures in the Customs Union", as last amended by EEC Council Decision No. 95 of 9 October  
2014, established the legal basis for veterinary measures in the EAEU and entered into force on 1 July 2010.  CU Commission Decision No. 317 estab lished a list of goods that could be subject to 
veterinary control, and adopted provisions on : (i) the common procedure for carrying out of 
veterinary inspection at the customs border of th e EAEU and in the custom s territory of the EAEU; 
(ii) the common procedure for carrying out of joint inspections of facilities and sampling of goods 
(products) subject to veterinary control (surveillance)  which had been replaced by the CU 
Commission Decision No. 834 of 18 October 2011; (iii) the common veterinary (veterinary and 
sanitary) requirements for goods subject to veterinary control (surveillance); (iv) the common 
forms of veterinary certificates (for movement wi thin the EAEU); and (v) the common List of goods 
subject to veterinary control (surveillance).  The representative of Kazakhstan noted that EEC 
Council Decision No. 94 "On Regulation on Common System of Joint Inspections of 
Objects and Sampling Goods (Products), Subjec t to Veterinary Control (Surveillance)" of 
9 October 2014 (hereinafter – EEC Council Decision No. 94)  had approved a new procedure 
for conduct of inspections , including specific inspection guidelines,  and repealed the previous 
regulation on inspections adopted by the CU Commission Decision No. 834 of 
18 October 2011 .  The Common Sanitary-Epidemiological  and Hygiene Requirements to Goods 
Subject to Sanitary-Epidemiological Control ( Surveillance ) as contained in CU Commission 
Decision No. 299 of 28 May 2010 "On the Application of Sanitary Measures in the Customs Union" 
(as last amended by EEC Collegium Decision No. 6 of 15 January 2013 ) established maximum 
residue levels for controlled goods. 
37. The representative of Kazakhstan further clarified that as stated in the Article "General 
Provisions" of the EAEU Common Veterinary Requirements , the goods subject to veterinary control JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 19 - 
 
  imported to the customs territory of the Custom s Union were subject to regulatory measures 
indicated in the Annex to these Requirements. As  for goods moving from the territory of one 
EAEU member State to the territory of another EAEU  member State, in accordance with the Article 
"General Provisions" they: (i) had to be accompanied by a veterinary certificate of a EAEU 
common form issued by the competent authority of the exporting EAEU member State; (ii) had to 
be sourced from the establishments included into the Register of Establishments and Persons that 
Produce, Process and/or Store Goods Moving from the Territory of one EAEU member State to the 
Territory of another EAEU member State; and (iii) did not require permits issued by the 
competent authorities of the EAEU member States.  
38. The following basic national regulatory legal acts constituted the legal framework to protect 
human and animal life and health are:  the Law "On Veterinary" of 20 July 2002 (as last amended 
on 29 September  2014), Law "On Food Safety" of 27 July 2007 (as last amended on 29 
September  2014), as well as subordinate legal acts in the sphere of veterinary, had been 
approved for the purpose of implementation of th ese Laws:  Government Resolution No. 407 of 28 
April 2003, which approved the following: ( i) Regulation on the State Veterinary and Sanitary 
Control and Surveillance; ( ii) Rules for Compulsory Seizure and Destruction of Animals, Products 
and Raw Materials of Animal Origin, which Constitute High Danger to Animal and Human Health, or 
Mandatory Decontamination (Disinfection) and Processing Without Withdrawal Thereof; ( iii) Rules 
and Conditions of Compensation to Legal and Natural Persons of the Value of Removed and 
Destroyed Infected Animals, Products and Raw Mate rials of Animal Origin, which Constitute High 
Danger to Animal and Human Health; ( iv) List of Highly Contagious Animal Diseases, when 
Compulsory Seizure and Destruction of Animals, Products and Raw Materials of Animal Origin, 
which Constitute High Danger to Animal and Human Health are to be Held; ( v) List of Highly 
Contagious Animal Diseases, prevention, diagnosis and eradication of which are implemented 
through the budget; ( vi) Rules of State Veterinary and Sanitary Control During Movement of 
Objects Across the State Border of the Republic of Kazakhstan; ( vii) Rules of Organization of 
Veterinary Control Posts at the State Border and Customs Checkpoints; Government Resolution 
No. 1754 "On Approval of Organization of Slaugh tering of Agricultural Animals Intended for 
Subsequent Sale" of 4 November 2009; Government Resolution No. 2331 "On Approval of 
Identification of Agricultural Animals" of 31 December 2009; Government Resolution No. 132 
"On Approval of Rules of Issuance of Permits fo r Exportation, Importation and Transit of Objects 
with Regard to Evaluation of Epizootic Situation in the Territory" of 19 January 2012; Government 
Resolution No. 149 "On Approval of Rules of Tr ansportation (Movement) of Objects on the 
Territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan" of 21 January 2012; Government Resolution No. 1230 "On 
Approval of Rules for Issuing Veterinary Docume nts for Objects Subject to Veterinary-Sanitary 
Control and Surveillance" of 22 September 2012. 
- (i) Veterinary Certificates 
39. Members requested information on EAEU requirements related to the development and 
implementation of veterinary certificates.  Members sought to ensure that such certificates would 
be consistent with international standards, recommendations, and guidelines. Members also JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 20 - 
 
  requested information on the continued validity of current bilateral certificates agreed with 
Kazakhstan. In their view, these bilateral certificates should remain valid until a replacement was agreed with the EAEU member States. 
40. With respect to veterinary certificates, the representative of Kazakhstan stated that 
42 EAEU common forms of veterinary certificates for import into the EAEU territory from any third 
country had been adopted by CU Commission Decision No. 607 of 7 April 2011, for each of the 
categories of goods subject to veterinary control as established in CU Commission Decision 
No. 317. These certificates were subsequently updated pursuant to CU Commission Decision 
No. 832 of 18 October 2011, CU Commission Decision No. 892 of 9 December 2011, EEC 
Collegium Decisions No. 262 of 4 December 2012, No. 308 of 25 December 2012, EEC Collegium 
Decision No. 193 of 10 September 2013, EEC Collegium Decision No. 245 of 29 October 2013 and EEC Collegium Decision No. 19 of 11 February 2 014.  She confirmed that in accordance with 
CU Commission Decision No. 726 of 15 July 2011 "On Veterinary Measures", veterinary certificates 
between exporting countries and Kazakhstan finalized prior to 1 July 2010 would be valid for 
import into the territory of the EAEU at least until 1 January 2013.  Furthermore, the Decision 
provided that the competent authorities of the EAEU member States could negotiate and agree to 
veterinary certificates with requirements that differed from the EAEU common form and specific 
EAEU Common Veterinary Requirements, if an exporting country made a substantiated request 
prior to 1 January 2013 to negotiate such veterinary export certificate. The decision also provided 
that bilateral veterinary export certificates, in case an authorised body of an EAEU member State received request to negotiate a veterinary certificate before 1 January 2013, initialled by one of 
the EAEU member States before 1 July 2010, as well as any subsequent amendments to such 
certificates agreed with the authorised body of such EAEU member State, would remain valid for 
exports from the relevant country into the customs territory of the EAEU until an export certificate 
was agreed with an EAEU member State based on the agreed positions of the other EAEU member 
States. Bilateral veterinary export certificates initialled by one of the EAEU member States 
between 1 July 2010 and 1 December 2010 would remain valid for import and circulation of 
relevant goods, only in the territory of the EAEU member State that initialled the certificate, in 
case an authorised body of exporting country subm itted its request to an authorised body of an 
EAEU member State before 1 January 2013 until a bilateral veterinary export certificate was 
agreed with an EAEU member State based on the agreed positions of the other EAEU member States. While a bilateral veterinary export certificate could contain requirements that differed from 
the EAEU Common Form and Common Requirements, such certificates had to ensure the 
appropriate level of protection as determined by the EAEU member States. These new certificates 
were also required to include terms, including provisions on the relevant product, that were no less 
favourable than those in an international treaty  that was concluded prior to 1 July 2010 between 
an EAEU member State and the third country. The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
41. Asked to provide more information on the use of veterinary certificates, she said that the 
EAEU legal framework allowed for negotiating veterinary certificates differing from 42 EAEU 
common forms of veterinary certificates and specific EAEU Common Requirements with a JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 21 - 
 
  competent body of exporting country. If a third country sought to export to an EAEU member 
State a commodity for which veterinary certification was required according to the EAEU Common List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control and the EAEU common veterinary requirements, but 
for which no EAEU common form of certificate and no EAEU common requirements existed, a 
bilateral certificate with the interested country could be developed based on a coordinated position 
of the EAEU member States, and such a bilateral certificate would be based on relevant 
international standards, guidelines and recommendations as provided for in CU Commission 
Decision No. 721 of 22 June 2011 "On Application of International Standards, Guidelines and 
Recommendations". If, according to the EAEU Common  List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control 
and EAEU Common Veterinary Requirements, no veterinary certification was required for a 
commodity, or if the commodity was not included in the said EAEU Common List, Kazakhstan would not require a veterinary certificate. The Representative of Kazakhstan also added that the 
EAEU member State that received a request from a third country to initiate the negotiation on 
veterinary certificates, or the EEC, if the third country had sent its request to it, was responsible 
for coordinating the certificate negotiations and EAEU member States' nego tiating positions, as 
well as preparation and provision of feedback on third countries' proposals and requests regarding 
veterinary certificates. 
42. A Member requested information on the latest amendments to the common veterinary 
requirements, noting that certain provisions of  these requirements did not appear to be in 
accordance with OIE recommendations. This Member asked whether the intent of these 
amendments was to align these requirements with the OIE. 
43. Some Members expressed concern that the Commission had adopted 40 common forms of 
veterinary certificates and 38 chapters of common veterinary requirements that did not conform to 
international standards, recommendations and guidelines, in particular OIE standards, 
recommendations and requirements. These Members also raised concerns that contrary to the 
requirements of the WTO SPS Agreement, intere sted parties, including Members had not been 
accorded an opportunity to provide comments on these measures before they were adopted.  
The representative of Kazakhstan responded that paragraph 16 of the Regulation on Consultative 
Committee on Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary 
Measures, approved by the EEC Collegium Decisi on No. 161 of 18 September 2012, which replaced 
the Regulation on Coordination Committee on Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures appr oved by CU Commission Decision No. 319 , as last 
amended by EEC Collegium Decision No. 77 of 9 April 2013, now provided an EAEU process for 
receiving comments from the public on propos ed SPS measures. She further clarified that 
paragraphs 2-4 of CU Commission Decision No. 625  "On Ensuring of Harmonization of Legal 
Acts of the Customs Union in the Sphere of  Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and 
Phytosanitary  Measures with Internationa l Standards" of 7 April 2011 (hereinafter - 
CU Commission Decision No. 625)  that provided a process for reviewing measures for their 
conformity with international standards and amendi ng those measures that were found not to be 
in conformity with international standards remained applicable. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 22 - 
 
  44. The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that amendments of the common veterinary 
requirements and to the common forms of certificates were being prepared in parallel so as to ensure compatibility with international standards, recommendations and guidelines in particular 
OIE standards.  She confirmed that the amendmen ts to the common veterinary requirements and 
to the common forms of certificates would enter into force simultaneously no later than the date of 
the accession of Kazakhstan to the WTO. The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
45. Some Members noted that Kazakhstan had drafted proposed amendments to a few of the 
EAEU Common Veterinary Requirements. These Me mbers expressed concerns that these proposed 
amendments were extremely limited, failed to take into account Members' comments, were not 
based on scientific principles, could result in arbi trary or unjustifiable discrimination, and, most 
importantly, failed to bring the EAEU common ve terinary requirements into conformity with 
international standards, recommendations and guidelines, e.g., by requiring conditions for animal 
diseases which were not listed in the OIE Code or by requiring freedom of the territory of origin 
when less trade restrictive conditions for trade were provided in the OIE Code for the concerned 
commodity. Members noted Kazakhstan's commitments in paragraph [44] regarding the EAEU 
common veterinary requirements and common forms and expressed concerns that Kazakhstan had 
not adopted all of the necessary amendments to achieve compatibility with international 
standards, guidelines and recommendations, in particular OIE standards, by the date of the 
accession of the first EAEU member State to th e WTO or that these amendments would not enter 
into force as provided in paragraph [44].  These Members urged Kazakhstan to engage in serious efforts, including through consultations with WT O Members, with a view to ensure the timely 
implementation of the commitments in paragraph [44]. 
46. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that harmonization of the EAEU Common 
Veterinary Requirements was carried out in 2012 as part of Russia's accession to the WTO. 
In particular, the timeframes of the absence of animal diseases by type of controlled goods were 
reduced taking into account the regionalization principle. As part of the harmonization process, 
amendments were introduced to more than 20 chapters of the EAEU Common Veterinary 
Requirements as a result of consultations with some of the WTO Members. In addition, with the 
aim of further harmonization with OIE recommendat ions, amendments were introduced to some of 
the chapters of the Common Veterinary Requiremen ts.  The representative further explained that 
harmonization of the EAEU veterinary requiremen ts was ongoing process. She asserted that the 
requirements for animal diseases established in the EAEU Common Veterinary Requirements were 
consistent with the OIE recommendations.  She noted that in accordance with Article 5.1.1 of the 
OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (hereinafter - the OIE Code), there were different options 
(recommendations) for imports of goods depending on the status of animal health in the country.  
Moreover, the OIE Code offered various options be cause of differences between countries in their 
animal health situations.  As provided in the OIE Code: "The animal health situation in the 
exporting country, in the transit country/countries and in the importing country should be 
considered before determining the requirements for trade.  To maximise harmonisation of the 
sanitary aspects of international trade, Veterinary Authorities of Member Countries should base JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 23 - 
 
  their import requirements on the standards of the OIE."  She stated that EAEU member States had 
chosen one of the options provided by the OIE Code with regard to certain diseases taking into account level of protection that EAEU countries deemed to be appropriate.  The representative of 
Kazakhstan further clarified that the CU Decision No. 726 "On Veterinary Measures" of 15 July 
2011 (hereinafter - CU Commission Decision No. 726) allowed for negotiating bilateral 
veterinary certificates between the EAEU and the exporting countries that could contain 
requirements different from the Common Veterinary  Requirements in order to reflect the different 
animal health status in the exporting countries with the aim to promote trade. 
47. The representative of Kazakhstan adde d that pursuant to Article 4 of CU 
Agreement on Veterinary and Sanitary Measures, based on EAEU Common Veterinary 
Requirements authorized bodies of the EAEU  member States could bilaterally negotiate 
with the competent authority of a third coun try samples of veterinary certificates for 
importation of controlled goods included into  the Common List Subject to Veterinary 
Control, into the EAEU common customs terri tory. In addition, in accordance with 
paragraph 15 of Annex No. 12 to the EAEU  Treaty, based on Common Veterinary 
Requirements and international recommen dations, standards and guidelines, the 
member States could negotiate with the competent authority of a third country the 
samples of veterinary certificates for imported goods subject to veterinary control into 
the customs territory of the EAEU, included into the Common List Subject to Veterinary 
Control different from EAEU common forms of certificates, in accordance with the acts of 
the Commission. Thus, Kazakhstan could negoti ate bilateral veterinary certificates with 
a third country for the goods su bject to veterinary control exported to the territory of 
Kazakhstan. Such goods would circulate only on the territory of Kazakhstan. 
48. Some Members noted that they had begun to negotiate specific certificates with the 
EAEU member States consistent with CU Commission Decision No. 726.  Members stated that the 
EAEU member States continued to request attestations that went beyond the OIE 
recommendations without providing scientific justification and that the EAEU member States 
seemed reluctant to negotiate attestations that differed from the EAEU common requirements.  
Members also noted that the process for negotiating the certificates was time intensive and that it 
was difficult to ensure that the representatives from Kazakhstan participated in negotiations and 
there was consistency in the positions taken by the EAEU member States participating in each negotiating session. Furthermore, these Members requested information on the basis for an EAEU 
member State, which did not participate in negotiations of specific certificates, to oppose the 
conclusion and adoption of the certificates when the certificate contained provisions aligned with 
the international standards. Members noted ongoin g concerns with the lack of efficiency in 
negotiating specific certificates. The representative  of Kazakhstan replied that during negotiations 
the EAEU member States would propose attestations that followed OIE recommendations except 
when justified by risk assessment as provided fo r by the WTO SPS Agreement. The representative 
noted that Kazakhstan participated in negotiations as time and resources permitted, and had 
recently participated in negotiations and initialled a number of bilateral veterinary certificates.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 24 - 
 
  49. The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that , if an exporting Member believed that the 
SPS requirements of the EAEU or Kazakhstan resulted  in a higher level of protection than would be 
achieved by measures based on the relevant international standards, guidelines or 
recommendations, Kazakhstan was prepared to consult with the exporting Member on such 
SPS requirements and, if necessary, would, as a re sult of such consultations, modify requirements 
included in the relevant certificate to bring them into compliance with international standards, 
guidelines, or recommendations consistent with the WTO SPS Agreement. The Working Party took 
note of this commitment. 
50. A Member of the Working Party expressed conc ern that bovine spongiform encephalopathy 
(BSE) requirements set-out in existing bilateral certificates as well as in the EAEU common 
veterinary certificate for live cattle, did not conform to OIE standards, since they respectively foresaw testing of animals for BSE and required th e absence of a genetic link with animals affected 
by BSE. The representative of Kazakhstan clarifie d that in respect to BSE, as of the date of 
accession of Kazakhstan to the WTO, bilateral certificates as well as the EAEU common certificates 
would, as provided for in the WTO Agreement, be  in conformity with OIE standards. The Working 
Party took note of this commitment. 
51. [Some Members stated that a veterinary certificate should not require certification of 
provisions that were not mandatory requirements under EAEU acts or in the absence of 
EAEU mandatory requirements, under international standards, recommendations, and guidelines, 
e.g., to certify for a disease which was not the object of an EAEU act or was not subject to the same level of surveillance within the EAEU or Kazakhstan's territory as required in the certificate.  
If Kazakhstan or the EAEU sought to have stricter animal health requirements than those set-out 
in the OIE, Kazakhstan or the EAEU must demons trate that, based on risk assessment, as well as 
active and passive surveillance in Kazakhstan or the EAEU territory for animal diseases that could 
be present on the territory of Kazakhstan or the EAEU, the animal health status of Kazakhstan or 
the EAEU for the disease concerned was such that it justified such stricter requirements. 
The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that veterinary certificates would not include 
provisions for diseases that were not transmitted by/relevant to the concerned product, and would 
not require certification of provisions that were not justified based on mandatory requirements 
applicable and surveillance carried out within the territory of Kazakhstan [or the [whole] EAEU].  
[In accordance with the OIE code, in cases where at least one, but not all, EAEU member States had in place in the relevant territory either a control or eradication programme for a disease, or 
surveillance programme demonstrating that the disease was not present, veterinary attestations 
for that disease would only be required for goods destined to the EAEU member State(s) having 
the relevant programme in place.] [Veterinary certificates for goods destined to Kazakhstan could 
contain veterinary attestations for the diseases, for which Kazakhstan, but not other EAEU member 
States, had in place in the relevant territory either a control or eradication programme, or 
surveillance programme demonstrating that the di sease was not present]. The Working Party took 
note of this commitment.]  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 25 - 
 
  52. Some Members expressed concern as regards the overlap of measures required by 
Kazakhstan to confirm the conformity of goods wi th EAEU and national food safety measures:  
through veterinary export certificates, declarations of conformity, certificates of conformity, listing 
of establishments authorized to export to the EAEU, import permits, and State Registration.  
These Members questioned the utility of such repe ated, multiple and overlapping requirements to 
verify conformity with requirements.  In their view, it was burdensome, unnecessary and trade 
restrictive to maintain together a declaration of conformity or other forms of conformity 
assessment and export certificate or additional requirements. Members requested that Kazakhstan 
eliminate this redundancy.   
53. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that Committee of Veterinary Control and 
Supervision exercised authority in relation to veterinary and sanitary issues when goods were imported into Kazakhstan so as to avoid duplication of efforts. She noted that veterinary 
certificates included both veterinary and sanitary requirements and that only one 
veterinary-sanitary document was required to cross the border. She further explained that State 
Registration of controlled goods applied both to domestically produced and imported goods and 
applied only to a limited number of products.  With regard to goods for which the EAEU currently 
required both a veterinary certificate and a declaration of conformity, she confirmed that the 
EAEU member States, pursuant to EAEU technical regulations, currently under development, would 
require only one document, as specified in each technical regulation, to confirm the conformity of 
products with EAEU requirements. For example, Te chnical Regulation on Milk and Dairy Products 
adopted by EEC Council Decision No.67 and Technical Regulation on Meat and Meat Products 
adopted by EEC Council Decision No.68 of 9 October 2013 provided that only veterinary 
certificates would be required for non-processed and processed milk and meat products. 
The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
54. Several Members requested that Kazakhstan confirm that the EAEU member States 
accepted replacement veterinary certificates in accordance with the OIE Code, Article 5.2.3, point 
9), and asked which legal basis provided for this.  
55. The representative of Kazakhstan replied that Ka zakhstan had initiated amendments into CU 
Decision No. 317 in order to include provision on ac ceptance of replacement veterinary certificates 
in accordance with the OIE Code, Article 5.2.3, point 9). These amendments were adopted by 
the EEC Council Decision No. 95 "On Introducti on of Amendments into Regulation on 
Common Procedure for Carrying Out Veterinary Control at the Customs Border of the 
Customs Union and Customs Territory of the Customs Union" of 9 October 2014 . 
- (ii) Establishment Approval, Register and Inspections 
56. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that according to CU Commission Decision 
No. 317, many of the goods included in the list of  goods subject to veterinary control were subject 
to three requirements: (i) the exporting establis hment had to be included in the Register of 
Entities and Persons Producing, Processing and/or Storing of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 26 - 
 
  Imported into the Customs Territory of the C ustoms Union (hereinafter – the Register); (ii) the 
good had to be accompanied by a veterinary certificate; and (iii) an import permit had to be issued for importation of goods from an establishment in the Register. However, the representative noted 
that pursuant to CU Commission Decision No. 830 of 18 October 2011  as amended by EEC 
Collegium Decision No. 294 "On Introduction of Amendments into Certain Decisions of the 
Customs Union Commission" of 10 December 2013 ( hereinafter - EEC Collegium Decision 
No. 294) , the EAEU had agreed to remove certain vete rinary control measures for specific goods 
in order to minimize the overlapping of control mechanisms.  In addition, CU Commission Decision 
No. 831 of 18 October 2011 removed some good s from veterinary control completely. 
57. The representative of Kazakhstan emphasised that according to EEC Collegium Decision 
No. 294, producers of certain imported goods were  exempted from the registry requirements, for 
instance, such as producers of live animals, except for live fish for direct consumption as food, 
feed grain, natural honey, oil-seed flour for f eed, animal fat and oil, unprocessed grain straw, 
extracts and juices from meat, pasta stuffed with fish and invertebrates and processed meat.  The 
Register was published on the web-page indicated in paragraph [ 68].  
58. A Member requested the scientific basis for mainta ining some specific products in the list of 
goods subject to veterinary control. Specific ally, the Member requested information on the 
inclusion of products of plant origin. In addition, the Member requested information on the 
requirement for including the names of establishments exporting processed dairy products in the 
Register when destined to Kazakhstan. This Member requested that Kazakhstan eliminate any requirements that did not have a scientific justification and a risk assessment. 
59. The representative of Kazakhstan replied that Kazakhstan excluded products of plant origin 
from the list of goods subject to veterinary control in accordance with EEC Council Decision No. 33  
"On Introduction of Amendments into Deci sion of the Customs Union Commission No. 
810 of 23 September 2011"  of 16 May 2013 (hereinafter - EEC Council Decision No. 33) , 
which would become effective on the date of Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO.  In addition, as 
of the date of accession of Kazakhstan to  the WTO, pursuant to the EEC Collegium 
Decision No. 294, inclusion into the Register of establishments exporting low risk 
products, including processed dairy products , intestine and gelatin to Kazakhstan was 
not required.  She further noted that in accordance with the Common Veterinary Requirements, 
for several products of animal origin with low risk, an import permit and veterinary certificate was required to indicate the name and (or) number of the establishment assigned by the official 
veterinary authority of the exporting country.  This requirement was consistent the OIE Code. 
60. In response to a request from a Member for further information on the requirements and 
procedures for an establishment to be included in the list of establishments authorised to export a 
product to Kazakhstan and the EAEU, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that, prior to 
1 July 2010, Kazakhstan did not maintain a regist ry requirement for establishments of exporting 
countries.  The representative of Kazakhstan explai ned that, as of 1 July 2010, imports of some of 
the products subject to veterinary control, as established in CU Commission Decision No. 317, JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 27 - 
 
  were required to come from establishments approv ed by the EAEU member States and included in 
the Register.  
61. In response to some concerns of  Members related to the maintained requirement to 
provide lists for live animals and certain produc ts' establishments whereas the EAEU framework 
had eliminated this form of veterinary controls, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that 
the EEC Collegium Decision No. 294 amended the CU  Commission Decision No. 317 to specify, for 
each type of good included in the list of goods subject to veterinary control, which veterinary 
measures (import permits, veterinary certificates and/or listing of establishments) applied to that 
particular goods. In some cases, the form of veterinary control had been modified or eliminated. 
For example, for some products the requirement fo r veterinary certificates and/or import permits 
had been eliminated. Similarly, the requirement for an establishment to be included in a Register 
had been eliminated or amended to require only the provision of the name and/or number of the 
final establishment dealing with the goods prior to export to the territory of the EAEU, which was 
included in the import permit and/or veterinary certificate. [Trade would then be possible for these 
commodities without listing upon favourable audit results]. 
62. Some Members expressed concerns at the si gnificant trade barriers imposed by this 
interpretation of CU Commission Decisions No. 830 and No. 834, whereby the EAEU member 
States attempted to maintain the requirement for establishment lists arbitrarily for some products 
in contradiction with the provisions in CU Commission Decision No. 830. Specifically, some 
Members were concerned that in the implementation of these decisions the EAEU member States were requesting a successful audit as a precondition for removing the listing requirement for 
certain products as established in Decision No. 830 and Decision No. 294. Further those Members 
were highly concerned by the refusal of EAEU member States to add any new establishments to 
the list of establishments approved to export to the EAEU. 
63. The representative of Kazakhstan replied that according to paragraph 6 of EEC Council 
Decision No. 94,  an audit of foreign official control systems was the basic principle used by the 
EAEU member States to ensure safety of products subject to veterinary control.  In her view, audit 
of foreign official systems of control was based on international standards and was in line with 
international practice.  She noted that many developed countries applied audit (approval of 
exporting countries) as the main condition for importing products of animal origin to their 
territories.  She further explained that products of animal origin from countries that had not been audited could also be imported to the EAEU based on  inclusion into the Register.  If the results of 
audit were unfavourable or audit was not conducted,  listing of establishments from third countries, 
when required, would still be possible with the use of the other two options: (i) joint inspection of 
establishments by the EAEU member States; and (ii) guarantees from competent authorities of 
third countries. [She further added that to date Kazakhstan had not refused to add any new 
establishments to the list of establishments approved to export to the EAEU.] 
64. Some Members expressed concerns that an  EAEU member State had informed its 
trading partners, including WTO Members, that   products, for which listing of JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 28 - 
 
  establishments was not required in accordance  with Decision No. 294, could be imported 
to the EAEU only after favour able audit results.  Taking into account that audit was a 
complex and lengthy process, in order no t to stop trade in these products, the 
EAEU member States had agreed to apply prov isional scheme that would be applied until 
all EAEU trade partners undergo audit. Under these scheme products, for which listing 
was not required under Decision No. 294, before audit was carried out, could be 
imported to the EAEU based on the listing of establishments. Listing of establishments 
could be done based on the guarantee of th ird countries' competent authorities or joint 
inspections. The listing of establishments for such products would be carried out until 
audit was completed and the official syst em of a respective third country was 
recognised as equivalent. These Members sou ght assurances from Kazakhstan that no 
such scheme was in effect in Kazakhstan. 
65. The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed th at pursuant to EEC Council Decision No. 33, 
products of plant origin were excluded from the Li st of Goods subject to Veterinary Control, and, 
pursuant to EEC Collegium Decision No. 317, as amended by the EEC Collegium Decision No. 294 
of 10 December 2013, the requirement of inclus ion of third country producers exporting dairy 
products to Kazakhstan into the Register was re placed by the requirement to indicate the number 
and name of the producer in the import permit and veterinary certificate. 
66. [The representative of Kazakhstan confir med that Kazakhstan would eliminate the 
requirement for an establishment to be included  in the register in accordance to the EEC 
Decision No. 294 and as set out in Table [xx]. The representative of Kazakhstan 
confirmed that Kazakhstan would not require a successful audit as a pre-condition to the 
implementation of the EEC Decision No. 294 an d as set-out in Table [xx].  The Working 
Party took note of these commitments.] 
67. With regard to the list of goods as set-out in  Table [xx], the representative of Kazakhstan 
confirmed that categories of goods would be ad ded to the list of goods subject to veterinary 
control or the form of veterinary control applie d to categories of goods on the list would be 
modified only if such action was in compliance with the provisions of the WTO SPS Agreement.  
The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
68. The representative of Kazakhstan further explained that since 1 July 2010 and before 
completing work on creating a common web-interface of the Commission's website, the three national parts of the Register  of establishments from which imports were authorised were valid 
for imports into the entire EAEU territory (unless specified otherwise for specific establishments on 
the lists). Currently the references to these lists were available within the following website:  
http://www.eurasiancommission.org/ en/act/texnreg/depsanmer/vetsanmeri/Pages/Reestrorg.aspx
. Kazakhstan's national part of the List could be found at the following web-link:  
http://mgov.kz/napravleniya-razvitiya/veterinarnay a-bezopasnost/ under section Veterinary and 
Sanitary Measures of the Customs Union . The addition of an establishment from any country to the 
national part of the Register could only occur after all three EAEU member States agreed on the JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 29 - 
 
  inclusion of the establishment. As a result of this decision, products from such an establishment 
could freely circulate within the territory of the EAEU, unless specifically provided otherwise in this decision. The representative explained that the EAEU member States intended to develop a 
common web-interface of the EAEU Register of establishments and a common information system 
so as to have a unique list of establishments that would consolidate their national lists, but exact 
timing for the development of this database could not be specified. 
69. Members noted that Kazakhstan had never maintained a listing requirement prior to the 
establishment of the EAEU and that many of th ese requirements were not based on scientific 
evidence or proportionate to the risk and would represent an unjustified burden on trade, and 
were in their view, inconsistent with the WTO SPS Agreement.  In response, the representative of 
Kazakhstan explained that, in her view, the listing  requirement itself could not be a burden on 
trade.  The burden on trade could result from the application of the wrong mechanism for including 
an establishment on the Register, for example, if the required actions that had to be done by the 
competent authority of an exporting country an d/or establishment were not based on a risk 
analysis or were more trade restrictive than necessary. EEC Council Decision No. 94 , allowed 
the use of different mechanisms for listing esta blishments that provided the possibility of 
minimizing the application of a more burdensome process than necessary for including an 
enterprise on the list by basing actions on the results of a risk analysis. The representative of 
Kazakhstan also explained that the requirement to be  in the Register approved to export particular 
controlled products was a means to ensure compliance with EAEU veterinary requirements. 
70. In response to a question from a Member, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that 
in accordance with a transitional period provided under CU Commission Decision No. 317, trade 
could continue from establishments not on a "list" in the Register - when there was no requirement 
for such a "list" prior to 1 July 2010.  Such trade co uld take place on the basis of an import permit.  
She further explained that according to point 11.3 of the Regulation on Common Procedure for 
Carrying Out Veterinary Control at the Customs Border of the Customs Union and 
Customs Territory of the Customs Union (her einafter – the Regulation on Veterinary 
Control),  approved by the CU Commission Decision No. 317 (as amended by CU Commission 
Decision No. 342 , CU Commission Decision No. 724 and ECC Council Decision No. 95 ), a 
transitional period for listing establishments had been established, for the following products:  
animals; genetic material; apicultural products; raw material of animal origin (skins, fur, feather, etc.); feed additives of animal origin; feed of plant origin, gelatin and composite products etc., to 
permit trade to continue until common or unified lists were established. In reply to the request for 
clarification on the transitional period and the qu estion on the deadline for the transitional period 
for new establishments, the representative of Kazakhstan said the transitional period was provided 
for continuation of trade with third countries on these goods until inclusion of the establishments 
producing such goods into the Register. The CU Commission Decision No. 830, as amended by EEC 
Collegium Decision No. 294, removed the registry re quirements for certain products, including live 
animals, except for live fish for direct consumption as food; genetic material; apicultural products; 
raw material of animal origin (skins, fur, feather, etc.); feed additives of animal origin; feed of JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 30 - 
 
  plant origin, composite products which were referenced in paragraph 11.3 of the Regulation on 
Veterinary Control . Therefore, the transitional period for these products had lapsed as of 
22 August 2012, i.e. the date of entry into force of CU Commission Decision No. 830. For gelatin, 
the transitional period provided in paragraph 11.3 of the Regulation on Veterinary Control  was 
still applicable, pending the entry into force of  the Table No. 2 of the EEC Collegium Decision 
No. 294 of 10 December 2013. 
71. The representative of Kazakhstan further explai ned that since 1 July 2010, in case listing of 
establishment was part of the applicable veterina ry requirements, establishments could be added 
to the list of establishments authorised to export  to the EAEU (the Register) following the system 
audit, or following an on-site joint inspection conducted by the three EAEU member States or the 
delivery of guarantees as regards conformity with the EAEU requirements by the exporting 
country, if the three EAEU member States commonly agreed to rely on such guarantees. 
She explained that if a third country had never exported products of animal origin to any of the 
EAEU member States before, and wanted to export to the EAEU for the first time, exporting 
establishments proposed by this third country wo uld have to be inspected by the EAEU member 
States before being added to the Register, in order to confirm the reliability of the veterinary 
control system of this country. 
72.  The representative of Kazakhstan informed Members that EEC Council Decision No. 94 had 
replaced CU Commission Decision No. 834 and notably clarified procedures for accepting 
guarantees from competent authorities of third countries , described in paragraphs 46-59 of 
EEC Council Decision No. 94 . In particular, EEC Council Decision No. 94  clarified that the 
competent authority of a third country could send its request to accept its guarantee on 
compliance of the goods subject to veterinary control produced by specific establishment 
(establishments), including the information in accordance with paragraph 46  that the competent 
authority of the third country considered to be necessary to assess the request and its list of 
establishments, to the authorised body of any EA EU member State. The authorised body of the 
EAEU member State that received the request was responsible for coordinating the process of 
consideration of the request for providing the guarantee and for agreeing its decision with the 
authorised bodies of the other EAEU member St ates. The authorised body of the member State 
that received the request evaluated the request ba sed on the criteria provided in the paragraph 48 
of the EEC Council Decision No. 94 within reasonable time period, but no longer than two 
months unless additional information was reques ted, which could extend the term of 
review by 15 working days from the date of receipt of the additional information . Upon 
favourable evaluation , the authorized body  of the EAEU member State prepared the decision 
within 10 working days  and sent it to the authorised bodies of other EAEU member States for 
approval. Timeframe for the approval by the EAEU member States was 10 working days after 
receipt . In the absence of the written reply during the established time-frame, the decision was 
deemed to be approved. In case of disagreement with the decision, the EAEU member States had 
to send their reply indicating the reasons for not approving the decision to the EAEU member State 
that received the request within the established time-frame. In case the decision was approved by JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 31 - 
 
  the EAEU member States, the authorised body of  the member State that received the request 
prepared the final decision within 10 working days. The authorised body of the member State that received the request  sent written notification to the competent authority of the third 
country on accepting the guarantee. In addition, the authorized body  include d the 
establishments into the Register within 10 working days from the date of the final decision  on 
accepting the guarantee.  In case of the ne gative decision on accepting the guarantee , the 
authorised body of the member State that received  the request sent notification to the competent 
authority of the third country indicating the reasons for refusal. The reasons for refusal had to be 
based on the criteria included in paragraph 48 and had to explicitly specify which element was not 
met in those criteria. Such decision could be revised af ter submission by the competent 
authority of the third country of additional information.  The competent authority of the third 
country whose guarantee had been accepted in a prescribed manner could further send to the 
authorised body of an EAEU member State a re quest on amending the Register, including the 
inclusion of new establishment (-s). The authorised body of th e member State evaluated the 
provided list of establishments within 10 working days. Upon favourable decision, the authorised 
body of the member State included the establishm ents into the Register within 10 working days 
and published them on the website. In case of refusal to include the establishments into the 
Register the authorised body of the member Stat e notified the competent authority of the third 
country indicating the reasons for refusal. 
73. Some Members asked on which basis EAEU member States could decide to rely on the 
guarantees of the exporting country for the inclusion into the Register.  Another Member sought 
clarification as to the processes available to expo rting countries to have facilities added to the 
Register. In this Member's view, it was unclear whether all options were available to all Members.  
A Member expressed concern that, in practice, th e listing of new establishments was no longer 
accepted on the basis of written guarantees of th e exporting country since the entry into force of 
the EAEU. In this Member's view, Kazakhstan and the other EAEU member States did not have the 
resources to carry out inspections for any new establishment requesting to be listed by an 
exporting party and some establishments, even alre ady exporting, could not be listed due to this 
lack of resources. In this Member's view, this represented an unjustified barrier to trade.   
74. In response, the representative of Kazakhstan  stated that the authorised bodies of the 
EAEU member States had to have confidence that the competent authorities of the exporting country would effectively ensure that exporting establishments in that country met 
EAEU requirements. She added that more detailed criteria on foreign guarantees were included in 
EEC Council Decision No. 94 . EEC Council Decision No. 94  authorised and provided criteria 
for accepting guarantees from the competent authorities of third countries on the compliance of 
goods produced by an establishment located on its territory. These criteria were the following: 
- Level of development of the competent authority of the third country; 
- Compliance to the guarantees earlier provided by the competent authority of the third 
country; 
- Risk of entry into and spread of pathogens of infectious animal diseases in the third country, 
including those common to humans and animals; 
- Epizootic situation in the third country; JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 32 - 
 
  - Results of monitoring tests of goods subject to veterinary control imported into the 
EAEU territory from the third country , conducted by EAEU member States (if 
available) ; 
- Data from monitoring of relevant goods done by the competent authority of the third 
country (if available). Absence of such data could not be a reason for refusal of 
accepting of the guarantee ; 
- Confirmation of the fact that the competent authority of the third country checked 
(inspected) the establishment requested for inclusion into the Register and 
acknowledged them as compliant to the re quirements of the EAEU as provided for 
in Annex 3 of the EEC Council Decision No. 94;  
- Results of inspections by the competent authority of an EAEU member State or member 
States of establishments located on the territory of the third country ; (if available);  
- Experience of trade with the third country (if available); 
- List of establishments requested for inclusion into the Register with indication of 
the types of products. 
75. Regarding the availability of the three options (audit, guarantees, inspection) for all third 
countries for adding establishments into the Register, when required, the representative of 
Kazakhstan confirmed that pursuant to paragraph 162 of the EEC Council Decision No. 94 
establishments of third countries could be in cluded to the Register based on the results 
of: 
- successful completion of audit procedures  of official system of surveillance, 
conducted by the request of the compet ent authorities of third countries; 
- a positive decision on granting the right to provide the guarantee by the 
competent authority of the third country; 
 - a positive decision of the authorized body of the EAEU member State based on 
results of joint inspection. 
In addition, the representative of Kazakhst an noted that all three options for adding 
establishments of the third countries into th e Register were equally available for third 
countries. 
76. [The representative of Kazakhstan confir med that Kazakhstan would provide three 
possibilities for exporting countries' establishments to become eligible to export to the 
Customs Union and added to the registry where required pursuant to Table [XXX] 
including through a system audit, or a join t inspection or alternatively, based on 
guarantees of competent authorities of thir d countries. The Working Party took note of 
this commitment.] 
77. Some Members expressed continuing concerns  that EAEU member States could require 
inspection of each facility as a precondition for accepting guarantees for inclusion in the Register, 
even in the case where Kazakhstan or another EAEU member State had previously accepted guarantees from a Member's competent authority. In these Members' view, requiring inspections 
was contrary to the concept of accepting guarantees, which were based on confidence in the third 
country's competent authority. Members requeste d Kazakhstan to eliminate the requirement for 
inspection of a facility as a precondition for acceptance of a Member's guarantee for that facility.  
Besides, when requested, the inspection was of ten declined or would not be carried out in a 
reasonable time-frame. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 33 - 
 
  78. The representative of Kazakhstan replied that according to EEC Council Decision No. 94 , 
there was no requirement to inspect each facility as a precondition for accepting guarantees for inclusion in the Register. At the same time, pursuant to paragraphs 58 and sub-paragraph 2 of 
paragraph 60  of EEC Council Decision No. 94 , for the purposes of verification of the accepted 
guarantees, EAEU member States could subsequently inspect establishments, included into the 
Register under guarantees, by the method of random selection.   
79. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that EEC Council Decision No. 94 had allowed 
for joint inspections by the three EAEU member St ates of establishments in third countries that 
sought to be permitted to export goods to the EA EU that are subject to veterinary control in the 
EAEU. Inspections must be carried out on the basi s of a request by the competent authority of the 
exporting country. She further explained that it wa s possible that the representatives of the other 
EAEU member States could delegate their authority to another EAEU member State to carry out an 
inspection. 
80. Some Members expressed concern about the proc ess of approving an establishment by each 
of the EAEU member States as set-out in CU Commission Decision No. 834.  For example, one 
Member of the EAEU could approve the addition of an establishment to the Registry, but the 
establishment would not be added to the Registry due to a lack of response from the other EAEU 
member States, hence resulting in excessive delays for obtaining a final inclusion in the Register.  
Further these Members expressed concern that a pproval, to be added to the Register, was by 
consensus and rejection was subjective and did not appear to be based on any criteria.  These Members requested information on what woul d constitute a valid reason for refusal to be 
added to the Register, by EAEU member States and for other (non-auditing) EAEU member States 
to refuse to list an establishment or any time-frames for such a decision.  In some Members' view, 
these decisions could be arbitrary and discriminate against Members where the same conditions 
prevailed. The requirement for consensus between the three member States on the different steps 
of the process was creating significant delays an d in many cases making it impossible to add any 
new establishments to the Register, therefore de nying market access to those establishments in 
compliance with the EAEU requirements as defined in CU Decision No. 834 that met the conditions 
to export. Meanwhile, an EAEU member State indi vidually could decide to suspend exports from 
establishments present on the Register. The representative of Kazakhstan replied that the 
Members' concern regarding lack of response  from EAEU member States was addressed 
by implementation of EEC Council Decision No. 94, which contained detailed steps of 
review by EAEU member States of the request for acceptance of guarantees as stated in 
paragraph [72]. In particular, the absence of reply from the authorized body of the EAEU 
member State within the specified time-fra me meant consent to the proposed decision. 
In addition, in accordance with paragraphs 51  and 55 of EEC Council Decision No. 94, if  
a negative decision on the acceptance of gu arantees of the competent authorities of the 
third countries had been made, the reasons fo r refusal had to be ba sed on the criteria 
listed in paragraph 48 of the EEC Council Decision No. 94, and had to reflect the specific JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 34 - 
 
  element that had not matched these criteri a, taking into account the principle of 
proportionality of risk.   
81. Members of the Working Party also expressed concerns that the implementation of CU 
Commission Decision No. 834 was not in line with Codex Guidelines for the design, operation, 
assessment and accreditation of food import and export inspection and certification systems 
(CAC/GL 26-1997), which recommended that:  assessm ent activities by the importing country in 
the exporting country "should concentrate primarily on evaluating the effectiveness of the official 
inspection and certification systems rather than on specific commodities or establishments in order 
to determine the ability of the exporting country's competent authority(-ies) to have and maintain 
control and deliver the required assurances to the importing country".  Members requested that 
Kazakhstan conform to international standards, guidelines and recommendations.   
82. [In response, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that, at the request of the 
competent authorities of the third country, th e EAEU member States would conduct a systems 
audit to determine if the official system of supervision of that third country was capable of 
providing a level of protection at least equivalent to that provided by EAEU requirements. If this 
audit of the official system of supervision was successful, the EAEU member States would include 
establishments of the audited country on the Regist er in accordance with a list of establishments 
that the competent authority of the third country pr ovided to the EAEU member States. If an audit 
of a third country's official system of supervision was not carried out or was not completed or if, as 
a result of such audit, the third country's official system of supervision was not recognised as being capable to provide a level of protection at least equivalent to that provided by the EAEU 
requirements, the EAEU member States could agree to include establishments of that country to 
the Register on the basis of joint inspections or guarantees provided by the competent authority of 
the third country if listing was required for such pr oducts. [If listing of establishments for a type of 
product was not required, the absence of the establishment on a list would not be a ground for 
rejection of the import.] The Working Party took note of these commitments.]  
83. She further explained that EEC Council Decision No. 94 , in order to facilitate the inclusion 
of the establishments proposed by the competen t authority into the Register, also established 
procedures, including time-frames for organising and taking decisions on systems audits, on-site 
visits, and including establishments in the Re gister in each of the cases described in 
paragraph [ 71] above. The EAEU member State that received the request for audits or for joint 
inspections of establishments notified the compet ent authorities of other EAEU member States of 
the request and invited them to participate.  If an EAEU member State declined to participate or 
did not respond within the prescribed time, that EAEU member State authorised the participating 
EAEU member State or member States to act on its behalf and accepted the decision of the 
participating EAEU member State or member States on the relevant matter. In connection with a 
systems audit, the purpose of the visit was to ensure that, within the framework of the third 
country's regulatory system, related to producti on, processing, transporting and storage of the 
relevant goods, all of the country's laws, regulations and other requirements on inspection and JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 35 - 
 
  certification, which the EAEU member State(-s) recognised as capable to provide a level of 
protection, at least equivalent to that provided by  EAEU requirements at the stage of analysis of 
documentation, were properly implemented. If th e EAEU provided a third country the authority to 
list establishments located on its territory in the Registry, based on guarantees, the EAEU member 
States could conduct joint inspections of a representative percentage of establishments to check 
and confirm the operation of the third country's o fficial system of supervision that was the basis 
for the guarantees. Establishments could also be included on the Register based on a joint 
inspection of the establishment. 
84. The representative of Kazakhstan also note d that audit was conducted pursuant to 
paragraphs 13-45 of EEC Council Decision No. 94 upon request of the competent 
authority of a third country to the authorized body of the EAEU member State with indication of the scope of the audit, includ ing a group of controlled goods (products) and 
types of activities of contro lled objects. Thus, documentary analysis was conducted at 
the first place. Based on the results of docu mentary analysis, the authorized bodies of 
the EAEU member States made a decision on whether a foreign official system of 
surveillance with regard to relevant goods (products) were equivalent to the EAEU 
requirements. If the decision was positive, the authorized bodies of the EAEU member 
States could plan inspections to verify th e proper implementation of the relevant 
legislation of the third country. For this purpose, the authorized body of the EAEU 
member State that planned the  audit, no later than two months prior to the planned visit to a third country, which had requested the audit, informed the authorized bodies 
of other EAEU member States. The authorized  bodies of other EAEU member States, no 
later than two weeks after receiving the in formation on the upcoming visit, sent a 
response that contained rejection or a consent to participate in the visit. The absence of 
response meant the refusal to participate in th e visit. The authorized bodies of the EAEU 
member States that had not participated in the audit, considered the decision, based on 
the results received by the visiting au thorized body. After completion of the 
documentary analysis and on-site inspections,  the authorized body of the EAEU member 
State prepared a preliminary report on the au dit taking into account the provisions of 
Annex C of the WTO SPS Agreement and sent it  to other authorized bodies of the EAEU 
member States. The authorized bodies of th e EAEU member States (including those not 
participating in the audit) could submit addi tional information and clarifications on the 
information and conclusions contained in the preliminary report within two months after 
receipt of the preliminary report. The auth orized body of the EAEU member State 
evaluated additional information and clarific ations and, if necessary, made changes to 
the preliminary report. Then, the authorized body of the EAEU member State prepared 
the  additional preliminary report and sent it to the competent authority of the third 
country. The competent authority of the thir d country alongside with other interested 
parties of this third country could submit a dditional information and clarification on the 
information and conclusions contained in the preliminary report within two months after 
receipt of the preliminary report. The auth orized body of the EAEU member State JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 36 - 
 
  evaluated the received information, prepared , published and sent to the Commission the 
final report within two months after receipt of comments to the preliminary report from 
competent authority of the third country. Th e Commission published the final report on 
its official website. The final report prepared  by the authorized body (authorized bodies) 
of the EAEU member State(-s ), which participated in the audit, had to contain the 
conclusion whether the foreign official syst em of surveillance provided the level of 
protection at least equivalent to that in accordance with the EAEU requirements. The 
authorized body of the EAEU member State pu blished information on this on its official 
website. After the publication of informat ion, the competent authority of the third 
country sent to the authorized body of th e EAEU member State, which organized the 
audit, a letter with the list of establishments planning to export the controlled goods to the EAEU inter alia  for inclusion into the Register. The authorized body of the EAEU 
member State updated the Register and pu blished the updated Register within ten 
working days. 
85. The representative of Kazakhstan furthe r explained that joint inspections of 
establishments of third countries were cond ucted pursuant to paragraphs 60-90 of EEC 
Council Decision No. 94 upon request of a comp etent authority of a third country or upon 
request of the authorized body of an EAEU member State. Time-frame of joint inspection 
of an establishment could not exceed th e time-frame agreed with the competent 
authority of third country but could not exce ed five working days. The authorized body 
of EAEU member State planning the joint in spection (hereinafter – the Initiator) not 
later than three months in advance had to send to the competent authority of the third 
country the list of regulatory legal acts cont aining relevant norms and requirements as 
well as the list of documents to be submitte d by competent authority of third country 
and/or by inspected establishment during in spection, in Russian or any other language 
agreed. The Initiator informed the authoriz ed bodies of other EAEU member States 
about the planned joint inspection not later th an two months in advance. The authorized 
bodies of the EAEU member States not la ter than two weeks after receipt of the 
information on the planned inspection, could se nd their reply, which contained refusal or 
consent to participate in the joint inspecti on. Absence of the reply meant refusal to 
participate in the inspection. The Initiator, not later than two months in advance of the 
inspection, sent to the competent authority of third country the following information: 
purpose of the joint inspection; the list of esta blishments to be inspected, as well as list 
of other establishments involved in produc tion and/or control of relevant controlled 
(products) goods produced by establishments  subject to inspection; list of documents, 
which competent authority of third country or  establishments subject to inspection had 
to submit during inspection, in Russian or in  any other agreed language. Upon arrival to 
the establishment, the inspectors analysed do cuments, then visited facilities and other 
infrastructural objects, analysed complianc e to the EAEU requirements taking into 
account equivalency principle; checked the methods and equipment used in State and 
production control. Not later than two mont hs after completion of the inspection, the JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 37 - 
 
  Initiator prepared a preliminary report and sent it to the authorized bodies of EAEU 
member States, which participated in the inspection. The preliminary report had to 
contain concise legal basis of the inconsistencie s revealed in the course of inspection as 
well as include recommendations on correctiv e actions for the competent authority and 
the concerned establishment. Authorized bodi e s  o f  E A E U  m e m b e r  S t a t e s  s e n t  t o  t h e  
Initiator their replies not later than two w eeks upon receipt of the preliminary report. 
Absence of the reply meant consent to the pre liminary report. The Initiator, taking into 
account replies of other member-States, which had participated in the inspection, within 
three months after completion of the inspec tion sent the preliminary report on joint 
inspection to the competent authority of third country. Competent authority of third 
country, within two months, could send it s reply containing comments, additional 
information, including information on measur es undertaken to correct incompliances, as 
well as clarifications for the Initiator. Absence of the reply meant consent to the 
preliminary report. After receipt of the reply from the competent authority or upon 
expiration of the established time-frame if the reply was not received, the Initiator, not 
later one month, prepared and sent the draft final report to the authorized bodies of 
EAEU member States, which participated in the inspection. The authorized bodies of 
EAEU member States not later than two weeks after receipt of the draft final report sent 
their replies to the Initiator. Absence of the reply meant consent to the draft final 
report. The initiator, taking into account th e replies of the EAEU member States, which 
participated in the inspection, within two weeks after receipt of the replies from the 
authorized bodies, sent the final report on joint inspection to the competent authority of 
third country. Final report had to contain co nclusions on each inspected establishment, 
included or not included into the Regi ster, and recommendations on corrective 
measures, which had to be taken by the estab lishments in order to be included into the 
Register. The Initiator published the final report  on its official website and sent it to the 
competent authority of third country within five working days after completion of the 
final report. The Initiator updated the Register  within ten working days after completion 
of the final report and notified the comp etent authority of third country about the 
update. 
86. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that  with respect to request for authorization to 
provide guarantees, the EAEU member State that received such request from third country had to 
agree its decision with the other EAEU member States. Criteria for accepting guarantees were 
established in paragraph 4 8 of EEC Council Decision No. 94 . Non-conformity with these criteria 
could serve as a basis for refusal to accept the guarantee from third country's competent 
authority. In general, the requirement to reach consensus between all EAEU member States with 
respect to approval of exporting establishments  was necessary due to the absence of customs 
borders between territories of the EAEU member States and given the fact that the competence of 
establishment approval remained under the na tional competence. The representative of 
Kazakhstan further clarified that decision on suspension of exports from establishments was made based on obvious facts of inconsistencies with EAEU requirements that posed substantial risk to life JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 38 - 
 
  and health of humans and/or animals.  Thus, such  decision could be made individually by an 
EAEU member State. Moreover, suspension of exports was a provisional measure and exports could be resumed as soon as the corrective measures were undertaken by the establishment. 
At the same time, the decision on inclusion of establishments under the guarantee required a more 
complex evaluation process and, thus, had to be agreed by all EAEU member States.   
87. Some Members expressed concerns that the pr ocedure for listing establishments based on 
guarantees was more cumbersome than that for suspending an establishment, since the former 
required the consent of all EAEU member States while the latter required a decision by only one 
EAEU member State. Members viewed such disparit y of treatment as unjustified and contrary to 
the spirit of the WTO Agreements.  Furthermore,  Members expressed concerns regarding the lack 
of effectiveness and predictability of the mechanis m of listing based on guarantees, the lack of a 
clear time-frame for being granted the authority to provide guarantees, the lack of justification of 
refusals to accept guarantees, and the absence of definition of the scope of these guarantees.  
Those Members also had concerns over statements by the Kazakh representatives as well as over 
draft EAEU amendments to CU Commission Decision No. 834. These  amendments indicated that a 
suspension of trade from an establishment or fo r a type of product, while decided by one EAEU 
member State, was applied to the whole EAEU territory. These Members had experienced that 
suspensions and temporary restrictions taken for an establishment were not connected to an 
identified risk or not proportionate to the risk  identified. They asked for confirmation that a 
suspension could not be decided before a risk assessment justifying the measure was carried out and that this risk assessment will be provided to a trade partner concerned upon request. 
88. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that according to EEC Council Decision No. 
94, which had replaced the CU Commission Decision No. 834, the mechanism for inclusion of 
third country's establishments into the Register on  the basis of guarantees included deadlines and 
reasons for refusal to accept guarantees, as well as the timing and scope of such guarantees.  She 
further noted that prior to the creation of th e EAEU there was no register of third country 
establishments in Kazakhstan.  In order not to restrict trade with other countries the vast majority 
of third country establishments was included into the Register on the basis of guarantees provided 
by competent authorities of third countries.  In clusion of establishments into the Register was 
carried out by EAEU member States in coordinated manner because goods exported from these 
establishments could freely move within the EAEU  and had access to the territory of all EAEU 
member States. She further stated that temporary suspensions of imports from an establishment 
were not imposed automatically. They could be impo sed only at the request of the third country or 
in case of repeated identification of non-compliances, which was notified to the competent 
authority of the exporting country and which posed significant risk to human and animal life and 
health.  Kazakhstan would provide a risk assessment justifying the measure, upon request from a 
concerned trade partner. In other instances, cons istent measures, such as increased laboratory 
monitoring, warning, special requirements, such as application of additional or replacement 
measures, were applied in order not to stop ex ports from such establishments. Such decisions 
were made by an EAEU member State based on the repeated violations of the EAEU requirements JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 39 - 
 
  and they could not contradict principles and spir it of the SPS Agreement. She further noted that 
taking into account comments from interested parties, the provision in accordance with which restriction of imports from an establishment imposed by one EAEU member State applied to the 
entire EAEU territory were not present in the newly adopted EEC Council Decision No. 94 .   
89. Some Members requested more information on how Kazakhstan and the EAEU intended to 
implement the three mechanisms for including esta blishments in the Register. The representative 
of Kazakhstan replied that currently, all guarantees, received from third countries by an authorized 
body of any EAEU member State, were subject to  approval by the authorized bodies of other 
EAEU member States. In response to Members'  further questions, the representative of 
Kazakhstan explained that EEC Council Decision No. 94 provided that one basic principle for 
ensuring veterinary safety of controlled goods when inclusion in the Register was required, was conducting an audit of foreign official system of veterinary control (systems audit) as 
recommended by Codex Alimentarius. As such, EEC Council Decision No. 94 provided three 
ways for a country to have establishments located on its territory included on the Register of 
establishments authorised to export as described in paragraph [ 71] above.  
90. The representative of Kazakhstan ex plained that, in Chapter II, point 5 of EEC Council 
Decision No. 94 ,  E A E U  r e q u i r e m e n t s  w e r e  d e f i n e d  a s  f o l l o w s :   " i n t e r n a t i o n a l  s t a n d a r d s ,  
guidelines and recommendations within the meaning of CU Commission Decision No. 721 
"On Application of International Standards, Recommendations and Guidelines" of 22 June 2011 , 
related to veterinary and sanitary requirements for controlled g oods, EAEU Technical 
Regulations, EAEU Common Veterinary Requirements, and/or the different requirements that 
EAEU member States have agreed with the third country in veterinary export certificates, as 
provided in CU Commission Decision No. 726 "On Veterinary Measures" of 15 July 2011,  and 
mandatory national requirements for goods". 
91. The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that EEC Council Decision No. 94 provided 
for removal of an establishment from the Registry (delisting) in only two cases:  at the request of 
the relevant establishment, and at the request of the competent authority of the third country. 
Instead of delisting an establishment, the EAEU could, in line with international standards or based 
on risk assessment, temporarily suspend imports from the establishment and/or subject imports 
from that establishment to intensified monitoring.  Except in emergency situations, understood in 
the sense provided for in the OIE, a temporary suspension of imports from an establishment could be applied only: 
- upon the request of the establishment or the competent authority of the third country; or  
- based on repeated non-compliances with EAEU requirements either detected during on-site 
inspection and/or re-inspection of the esta blishment by the competent authority of an 
EAEU member State, or as a result of monitoring and enhanced laboratory testing of the 
establishment's goods, which have been notifi ed to the competent authority of the third 
country, if such non-compliances represented a significant threat to human or animal life 
and health.   
The Working Party took note of these commitments. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 40 - 
 
  92. In response to a question from a Member, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, 
currently, the Committee of Veterinary Control and Surveillance was not entitled to delist an 
establishment on the basis of minor non-complianc es with EAEU requirements or requirements 
included in the certificate not affecting the sa fety of the products, observed during on-site 
inspection or laboratory analysis at the border or based on issues which fall outside of the 
Committee's field of competence (e.g. controls on potable water).  
93. The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, except in case of serious risks of animal or 
human health, its competent authority would not suspend imports from establishments based on 
the results of on-site inspection before it ha d given the exporting country the opportunity to 
propose corrective measures. As required under EEC Council Decision No. 94 , the preliminary 
report would be sent to the competent authority of the exporting country for comments before the 
report was finalised. She noted again that the EAEU member States had developed criteria and 
reasons for a decision to suspend imports from an establishment. Minor errors would not be valid 
grounds for suspending imports from an establishment and she reminded Members that there 
would be an administrative procedure for appealing such decisions as well as recourse to the 
courts.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
94. Regarding emergency situations, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that the 
decisions and procedures for the suspension of es tablishments would be in accordance with the 
WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
95. The representative of Kazakhstan further explained that in extraordinary cases, the 
Commission could take a decision to suspend a group of establishments or all establishments of a 
third country as the result of the detection of a serious systemic failure of the official system of 
control, as specified in EEC Council Decision No. 94 . The representative of Kazakhstan 
confirmed that, upon taking such a decision, the Commission would have to provide the 
Competent Authority of the third country with the technical information and scientific justification 
on the risk detected.  The third country would be requested to take corrective measures within a 
specified timeframe for their adoption.  Any suspension would not be implemented before the 
expiration of the specified timeframe. Once the corrective measures were taken, the Competent 
Authority of the third country would send a report on the corrective measures to the Commission. 
The Commission would evaluate the report and it would decide if the corrective measures were 
effective and sufficient. The suspension, if implemented, would be lifted within five working days after the decision. In case corrective measures were not taken or were considered ineffective by 
the Commission, the decision on a temporary suspension of imports from a group of 
establishments or all establishments of a third country could be implemented. The representative 
of Kazakhstan confirmed that such temporary susp ensions would be proportionate to the risk to 
human health or life and not more restrictive to trade than necessary, as provided in the WTO SPS 
Agreement. The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
96. Members expressed concerns about a draft am endment to EAEU veterinary requirements 
that introduced a new listing obligation for establishments supplying raw materials to JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 41 - 
 
  establishments that exported animal products to the EAEU. Members were concerned that this 
draft amendment mandated that raw materials used in the production of animal products for the EAEU must only come from establishments approv ed for export to the EAEU.  Members noted that 
this could have far reaching ramifications and would be administratively difficult to implement and 
seemed to be lacking proportionality to any associated risk. 
97. In reply the representative of Kazakhstan  noted that the draft amendment to EAEU 
veterinary requirements that introduced the re quirement for third country establishments, which 
produced products containing components of animal origin for export to the EAEU, to use raw 
materials of animal origin produced by establishments approved to supply products to the EAEU 
territory, was suspended and sent for further elaboration and risk assessment. This requirement 
would not be considered further without risk assessment presented by one of the EAEU member States that would justify the measure. 
98. Members of the Working Party expressed concer n that the draft inspection guidelines for 
meat, poultry, fish, and dairy were stricter than international standards, guidelines and 
recommendations, in particular they were overly prescriptive and in many cases would be difficult 
to respect in other cases than the EAEU context.  Requiring establishments to meet these overly 
prescriptive structural and functional requirements would, in practice, preclude most non-EAEU 
establishments from passing inspection. Furthe rmore, Members highlighted that these draft 
guidelines did not take into account the possibility for exporting countries to conclude specific 
certificates with EAEU member States, as provided for in CU Commission Decision No. 726, and thus to be subjected to specific requirements.  Members asked how equivalence could be 
recognised when the specific standards set in these inspection guidelines could not be met. 
99. In reply, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that Kazakhstan and EAEU member 
States had developed Guidelines for Inspectors on Determining the Equivalency of Veterinary 
Measures Applied by Third Countries when Conduc ting Inspections of Establishments Subject to 
Veterinary Control and Audit of Official System s of Control of Third Countries; Guidelines for 
Inspection of Facilities and Vessels for Harvesting and Processing Aquatic Animals, Including Fish; 
Guidelines for Inspecting Dairy Industry Establishments; and Guidelines for Inspecting Animal 
Slaughter Facilities and Meat Industry Establishments, adopted by EEC Council Decision No. 94 , 
as Annex 2 and Annex 3 (hereinafter referred to as guidelines), that included inspection guidelines 
for meat, poultry, fish, and dairy.  She further explained that, prior to the adoption of the guidelines, the national legislation of an EAEU member State that received the request for 
inspection had been applied.  The representati ve of Kazakhstan confirmed that the adopted 
guidelines had been developed in accordance  with the Codex Alimentarius standards. 
100.  She further explained that EEC Council Decision No. 94  recognised the principle of 
equivalence.  Specifically, inspectors were instructed to evaluate whether establishments were 
complying with relevant EAEU requirements or the relevant international standards, guidelines, 
and recommendations, and in such cases, the establishment would be considered in compliance 
with EAEU requirements based on the principle of equivalence. She further explained that if there JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 42 - 
 
  were cases where an EAEU act or mandatory nati onal requirement was more stringent than the 
international standard, the inspector would evaluate compliance with international standards, guidelines, and recommendations, unless a scientific justification for the more stringent measure, 
as provided for in the WTO SPS Agreement, had be en presented to the competent authority of the 
third country. The competent authority could th en propose an equivalent measure. If an 
establishment was included on the Register based on guarantees from the competent authority of 
the exporting country, inspectors were bound to ch eck and evaluate whether the guarantees in the 
export certification applicable were met. 
101.  The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that  as of the date of accession of Kazakhstan 
to the WTO, specific guidelines on inspection that would reflect the principles of equivalence and 
reliance on international standards, guidelines and recommendations, as such principles were described in paragraph [ 100] above , would be adopted and applied to ensure the implementation 
of EEC Council Decision No. 94  by EAEU inspectors, in accordance with the 
WTO SPS Agreement.  Under these guidelines, referred to in paragraph [ 99] above , inspectors 
were instructed in particular to verify the compliance of establishments with relevant Codex 
Alimentarius recommended codes of practices such as CAC/RCP 1-1969, recommended 
International Code of Practice General Principles  of Food Hygiene, the CAC/RCP 58-2005 Code of 
Hygienic Practice for Meat, the CAC/RCP 57-2004 Code of Hygienic Practice for Milk and Milk 
Products, the CAC/RCP 52-2003 Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products and other Relevant 
International Standards, Recommendations and Related Texts. The guidelines replaced previously existing national legislation of an EAEU member State concerning inspection of establishments, 
and would constitute the reference used by EAEU  inspectors to assess compliance of exporting 
establishments with EAEU requirements. Moreover , inspectors would be provided information and 
training on the application of the principle of eq uivalence as provided in the WTO SPS Agreement, 
in the context of EEC Council Decision No. 94  and the guidelines. The Working Party took note 
of these commitments. 
102.  Some Members expressed concern that CU Decision No. 834 set-up a detailed and 
prescriptive system for auditing third-country systems for supervision of products subject to 
veterinary control, while it appeared that the requirements for EAEU member States and their 
respective establishments appeared to be less detailed and stringent in some respects. 
These Members asked whether and how it would be ensured, for example, that the frequency and requirements related to on-site visits as applied to third countries and their establishments and to 
EAEU member States and their establishments for purposes of determination and maintenance of 
equivalence, would be no less favourable to third countries and their establishments, and not 
discriminate against such countries or establishments. 
103.  In response, the representative of Kazakhstan stated that, in her view, EEC Council 
Decision No. 94, which had replaced  CU Decision No. 834, and the procedures and 
requirements for the conduct of audits and insp ections applied in respect of Members, their 
products or establishments were in compliance with the WTO rules and requirements .  In JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 43 - 
 
  addition, the representative of Kazakhstan noted that Chapter VII of the EEC Council 
Decision No. 94 provided the procedure of join t inspection of establishments of the EAEU 
for inclusion into the Register of Establishm ents of the EAEU, which is similar to the 
procedure of joint inspection of establishmen ts of third countries for inclusion into the 
Register (of establishments of third countries ). In accordance with  paragraph 107 of the 
EEC Council Decision No. 94 in case when syst em of establishment inspections of one of 
the EAEU member States were recognized as equivalent, establishments located in the 
territory of that EAEU member State had to be included into the Register of 
establishments of the EAEU without conducting  a joint inspection, which is similar to the 
procedure of audit of official system of surv eillance of a third country. In other words, 
measures applied to establishments of the EAEU were similar to measures applied to 
establishments of third countries.  
104.  Some Members requested more information on the timing of the audits once the audit 
request was sent to an EAEU member State. These Members expressed concerns that the 
implementation of the audit system  seemed lengthy and burdensome. 
105.  The representative of Kazakhstan replied that to date, Kazakhstan had not received any 
requests from third countries to carry out an audit.  On the basis of the requests sent to other 
EAEU member States a Schedule of Audits and In spections for first half of 2014 had been prepared 
by the EAEU member States. Publication of the Schedule currently was not provided in the EAEU 
legislation, however the EAEU member States were planning to amend the relevant legislation in order to publish the Schedule. She further added th at timing of audits depended on the number of 
requests received from third countries and the availability of financial and human recourses for 
conducting such audits.  In addition, the EEC Council Decisi on No. 94 contained procedures 
of audit, with specific timeframes , as specified in paragraph [84].  
106.  The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, by the date that Kazakhstan became a 
Member of the WTO, EEC Council Decision No. 94 , as described in the Working Party Report, 
would be applied in compliance with the WTO SPS Agreement, including Article 2.3 thereof, and 
the GATT 1994. In particular, she confirmed that EEC Council Decision No. 94  would not 
arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between Members, where identical or similar conditions 
prevail, including between EAEU member States  which were Members and other Members, with 
regards to requirements for on-site inspections, including for purposes of determination and maintenance of equivalence of the systems of control of products; and that EEC Council Decision 
No. 94 would not be applied in a manner which would constitute a disguised restriction on 
international trade.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
- (iii) Import Permits 
107.  As for import permits, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that since July 2010, the 
legal framework for the import permit regime of the EAEU was set-out in Section VI of the JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 44 - 
 
  Regulation on Veterinary Control, adopted by CU  Commission Decision No. 317. This Regulation 
sets-out the following principles:  
- Imports into the EAEU of certain goods subject to veterinary controls must have an import 
permit issued by the competent authority of the EAEU member State which was the point of 
destination for the imports; and 
- The permit was valid for a calendar year, for quantities which are specified in the permit.  
 The permit was issued taking into account the epizootic situation of the place of production 
and, where the legislation required a registry of  enterprises authorised to export the relevant 
goods to the territory of the EAEU, whether the enterprise was on that list of enterprises. 
Furthermore, "Rules of Issuing of Permits for Impo rtation, Exportation and Transit of Goods Taking 
into Account Epizootic Situation of the Corresponding Territory" had been set at national level by 
the Government Resolution No. 132 of 19 January 2012 , which was replaced by the Order of 
the Minister of Agriculture No. [xxx] of [ xx] November 2014 (hereinafter – Order No. 
[xxx]) . 
108.  She further explained that an import permit could be requested for any amount of goods 
and that the amount requested could not be the basis for refusing to issue the permit. 
Import permits had three functions: first, to ensure  that the importer was in a position to handle 
the imported goods in a safe manner that complied with domestic, e.g., quarantine requirements; 
second, to take into account the epizootic situation of the exporting country; and third, to ensure 
that specific conditions, adapted to the epizootic situation of the exporting country, were met at 
the time of importation. The first function, in her view, was not discriminatory since the conditions required to be met by the operator were also checked in case of internal trade within the 
EAEU territory. The second function was that of a legal instrument to block or restrict imports in 
case of dangerous animal disease outbreaks in th e exporting country. The third function could be 
used, for example, to require that certain imported animal products from countries with a specific 
epizootic situation be processed in designated facilities. In this case, import permits would be 
granted only to those importers who were able to channel the consignments to such facilities.  
Import permits also optimised logistics for importer s and provided a means to coordinate activities 
of regulatory agencies. 
109.  As established in Order No. [xxx] , import permits were issued by the authorised body in 
the sphere of veterinary (the Committee of Veterinary Control and Surveillance  under the 
Ministry of Agriculture) upon request of its territorial branches.  The Chief State Veterinary Inspector of a particular region was in charge of  the epizootic and veterinary-sanitary safety of 
that region. Therefore, to obtain an import permit, traders applied in writing to the relevant region 
(raion/city) branch of the authorised body where the imported goods were being shipped. This was 
done for the convenience of importers.  Applications had to contain a description of the goods' 
characteristics, country and place (establishment) of origin, purpose, transport type, route, the 
border entry point(-s) of Kazakhstan, place of destination in Kazakhstan with indication of the 
name and registration number of production or storage facility.  In addition, Order No. [xxx]  
added requirements including the location of the establishment, quarantine, processing and JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 45 - 
 
  storage conditions, and the establishment's registration number, where required, and (or) name of 
the establishment in the country of exportation.  Region branches verified the compliance of 
transportation and storage facilities with veterinary rules, while the central authorised body 
verified (i) whether the exporting country was subject to a temporary ban due to an outbreak of 
an infectious disease, (ii) whether non-compliance with the EAEU veterinary and sanitary 
requirements had occurred, and (iii) presence of  exporting establishment in the Register, where 
such a requirement applied. In cases where the re quirements for obtaining import permit were not 
met, the exporter could re-apply after fulfilling the requirements. The authorised body issued the 
import permit within ten working days, but could also refuse a permit by written justification.   
110.  Some Members expressed concern at the genera l nature of the reasons for refusing the 
import permit and the lack of elements such as necessity or proportionality to the seriousness of 
the risk for health involved by such non-compliances. They sought clarification on whether the 
planned amendment to this Resolution would introduce these elements, which would be necessary 
in their view to ensure compliance with the corre sponding WTO principles. The representative of 
Kazakhstan informed Members that Kazakhstan adopted Order No. [xxx]  t h a t  i n c l u d e d  s u c h  
elements as necessity and/or proportionality to the seriousness of the risk for health involved by 
non-compliances in the part of reasons for refusing the import permits. 
111.  A Member of the Working Party asked Kazakhstan to clarify what constituted a 
non-compliance and whether the permit would be denied if the information provided by the trader 
would not comply with import permit requirements, e.g., storage. The representative of Kazakhstan replied that pursuant to Order No. [xxx] , import permits could be refused only for 
the following reasons: (i) [in accordance with OIE guidelines, recommendations and standards and 
the SPS Agreement, introduction of] restrictions with respect to certain countries (regions) with 
unfavourable epizootic situation in the exporting country [,which was verified, including through 
contacts with the competent authorities of third countries]; (ii) [unacceptable level of sanitary and 
veterinary risk arising from] non-compliance with EAEU veterinary-sanitary requirements [of the 
EAEU as defined in the EEC Council Decision No. 94 , national legislation of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan or sanitary and veterinary attestations agreed in bilateral certificates, as applicable]; 
or (iii), absence of an exporting establishment in the Register of Exporting Third Countries, [where 
such a requirement applied ; (iv) introduction of temporary restriction with respect to the 
exporting establishment indicated in the app lication; (v) introduction of restrictive 
measures on the part of the territory of Ka zakhstan, to which the goods are destined or 
through which the goods would be transited.  In this case, import permit was rejected 
only if the imported good was capable of  transmitting the disease in question.]  
Kazakhstan being an EAEU member State followed Common Veterinary (Veterinary and Sanitary) 
Requirements, to Goods Subject to Veterinary Co ntrol (Surveillance), approved by CU Commission 
Decision No. 317 of 18 June 2010, as amended. 
112.  Some Members requested that when Kazakhstan's authorities denied an application for an 
import permit, they informed each applicant of the detailed reasons for the rejection and the JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 46 - 
 
  exporting country if new conditions existed in that country would be the reason for refusing the 
import permit. The representative of Kazakhstan  explained that the authorised body reviewed 
applications within ten working days. Within this period, the authorised body either issued an 
import permit or provided the applicant a written explanation of denial. 
113.  The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that it had made available to importers, as well 
as to third-country exporters through the website of the Ministry of Agriculture 
www.minagri.gov.kz full detailed conditions for import of specific products. Furthermore, 
information on EAEU veterinary requirements was available on the EAEU website at the following 
address: http://www.eu rasiancommission.org/ en/act/texnreg/depsanmer/regulation/Pages/ 
Ветеринарно -санитарные -меры .aspx. The representative of Kazakhstan further confirmed that to 
this end, it would publish a list on the website of the National Enquiry Point in English of the products which were permitted to be imported into its territory; the countries and establishments 
authorised to export to Kazakhstan; and the conditions for import. Where an application for an 
import permit was denied, the relevant authority would inform the applicant of the reasons for this 
rejection within ten working days of the deci sion. The Working Party took note of these 
commitments. 
114.  Some Members asked Kazakhstan to confirm that its import permit system would comply 
with OIE rules, i.e., permits would not be refuse d on grounds not recognised by the OIE for the 
animal diseases concerned. Further, with regard  to the discovery of unauthorised substances in 
cargos, Kazakhstan would comply with the principle of applying an SPS measure only to the extent 
necessary to protect human or animal life and health .  In the view of these Members, a refusal to 
issue import permit after single findings of non-compliances with no immediate risk for the 
consumer would not comply with this principle.  The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that 
its procedures for considering applications for import permits would comply with these two 
principles.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
115.  A Member of the Working Party expressed concerns regarding the import permit process for 
products under veterinary control. In light of ot her veterinary and sanitary import requirements 
(e.g., an agreed veterinary certificate), the Member considered the import permit process as an 
unnecessary requirement that could result in a barrier to trade in violation of the SPS Agreement.  
This Member of the Working Party noted that when developing SPS measures to protect human, 
animal or plant life or health within a country, the SPS Agreement required that Members take into account the objective of minimising negative trade effects and that such measures were not more 
trade-restrictive than required to achieve an appr opriate level of SPS protection.  The Member of 
the Working Party questioned compliance of Kazakhstan's measures with the SPS Agreement 
obligations. 
116.  The representative of Kazakhstan replied that use of import permit system in veterinary 
import control was not prohibited by the SPS Agreement. Further, the representative of 
Kazakhstan emphasised that import permit was important element of ensuring safety of the 
imported goods en-route since veterinary authoritie s of exporting countries could ensure safety of JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 47 - 
 
  exported goods only within the territory under its control.  She noted that import permits 
contained information outside of the competence of veterinary authority of exporting country, such as:  purpose, transport type, route, the border en try point(-s) of Kazakhstan, place of destination 
in Kazakhstan with indication of the name and registration number of production or storage 
facility, where required, and in the case of im porting goods falling under CITES - the relevant 
import permitting number.  This information was not present in veterinary certificates. 
117.  In response to a question from a Member, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that 
minor documentation errors , which did not alter the basic data contained in the document , were 
not a basis for refusing an import permit.  The legal circumstance that served as grounds for 
starting this administrative procedure for revocation of an import permit was the discovery of 
systematic (e.g., liable to administrative or criminal prosecution) violations, by the importer of the regulated cargo, of EAEU Decisions and other EAEU Acts and the laws of Kazakhstan in the field of 
veterinary medicine (including the presentation of forged veterinary documents or the discovery of 
inconsistency between the presented documents and the regulated cargo).  Furthermore, she 
confirmed that the reasons for suspension, cancellation, or refusal of an import permit would be 
consistent with international standards, recommendations, and guidelines and the 
WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
118.  Further, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that from the date of accession of 
Kazakhstan to the WTO, the import permit regime  applicable to goods subject to veterinary and 
quarantine control would be operated under EAEU Decisions, other EAEU Acts, and provisions of 
the Law of Kazakhstan that were published and av ailable to the public and that these measures 
would be developed and applied in compliance with the WTO Agreement.  The representative of 
Kazakhstan also confirmed that information requirements for the purposes of applying for an 
import permit would be limited to what was necessary for appropriate approval and control 
procedures and that any requirements for control, inspection and approval of individual specimens 
of a product were limited to what is reasonable and necessary as provided for in Annex C of the 
WTO SPS Agreement. Moreover, she confirmed that her Government would maintain and notify 
the public of a clearly defined procedure under which an applicant for an import permit could 
appeal the suspension, cancellation, or refusal of an  application, have that appeal adjudicated, and 
receive a written response explaining the reasons for the final decision and any further action 
required to obtain a permit.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
119.  Pursuant to CU Commission Decision No. 317, at the border, a veterinary inspector 
conducted (i) a documentary check and (ii) a physical inspection of the goods being imported.  
Samples at the border were taken only in case a veterinary inspector detected visible organoleptic 
changes.  The veterinary inspector informed the re levant oblast branch of the authorised body (at 
the border) about the results of the inspection of  the product subject to veterinary control and 
about the final destination of the product.  Impo rted goods were then transported to their final 
destination where they were subjected to a visual inspection of the consignment.  After passing 
the inspection, the veterinary certificate issued by the competent body of the foreign country was JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 48 - 
 
  replaced with the veterinary certificate of th e EAEU. The accompanying documents were stamped 
with the sign "Release permitted" or "Release forbidden". Thus, the imported goods that passed 
the veterinary control where considered as EAEU goods and subsequently were subject to the 
same treatment as domestically produced goods. She added that, pursuant to paragraph 2 of 
Article 17 of the Law No. 339-II "On Veterinary", if a cargo owner was not satisfied with the results 
of veterinary control, he or she could appeal the ac tions (or failure to act) of veterinary inspectors 
to higher State veterinary officials  or local executive bodies, and/or in court.   
120.  In response to Members' questions, the repr esentative of Kazakhstan clarified that the 
legislation of Kazakhstan and of the EAEU did not contain rules obliging exporting countries to 
carry out veterinary and sanitary checks at th e external borders of exporting parties.   
121.  A Working Party Member requested that Kazakhstan guarantee that there would not be such 
procedures in place, which caused undue delays and ensure treatment in no less favourable 
manner for imported products than for like domestic  products.  The Member stated that the control 
system seemed to be a duplication of checking - first at the border and then under customs 
control.  In this respect, this Member asked th e representative of Kazakhstan to confirm further 
that there would be no undue delays with this system in place.  This Member of the Working Party 
expressed the view that additional testing appear ed excessive given that a shipment had to be 
accompanied by a veterinary certificate and import permit and come from an approved facility and 
had been inspected prior to exportation. This Member further noted that Kazakhstan's 
requirements for inspection at the border and then a full re-inspection for all shipments when clearing customs appeared to be unjustified for SP S reasons, a burden on trade, and inconsistent 
with national treatment.  Another Member of th e Working Party enquired if and how Kazakhstan 
was planning to introduce the mechanism of random inspections instead of samples of each 
specific shipment (the current system).  
122.  In reply, the representative of Kazakhstan st ated that pursuant to paragraph 6.5 of the 
Regulation on Veterinary Control , adopted by CU Commission Decision No. 317, after documentary 
checks, physical inspections were carried out on a random basis as follows:  not more often than 
one consignment per ten consignments of meat  or fish and one consignment per twenty 
consignments of other controlled goods originating from a specific country, except for live animals, 
where each consignment was subject to physical inspection.  Physical inspection on the border 
could be conducted by checking of accessible part  of the consignment.  Laboratory tests were 
conducted only in cases of revealing visible organoleptic changes during physical checks 
(paragraph 3.14.3). Kazakhstan had removed the requirement of laboratory checks of each 
imported consignment and replaced it with the syst em of keeping a register of exporting facilities 
of third countries. In her view, such a practice was widely used in the most advanced 
WTO Members and was not contradictory to the WTO SPS Agreement. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 49 - 
 
  - (iv) Transit Permits 
123.  With respect to transit, the representative of  Kazakhstan stated that since 1 July 2010, the 
legal framework for the issuance of transit permit was set in Decision No. 317 of the 
CU Commission, in Chapter VII of the "Regulation on the Single System of Veterinary Control at 
the Customs Border of the Customs Union" as amended by CU Commission Decision No. 724 of 
22 June 2011.  The principles set at the EAEU level were the following: 
- A transit permit was required only for transit of live animals and raw materials of animal 
origin.  The transit permit was issued by the EAEU member State whose territory was the 
first entry point; 
- Veterinary control of controlled goods at entry points was carried out after the submission 
of a waybill and (or) veterinary certificate; 
- After completion of documentary control, veterinary inspection of animals was carried out, 
including:  identification numbers of animals were compared (tattoos, chips, ear tags, stamps, etc.) with numbers indicated in veterinary certificates, conditions of carriage were verified, and the condition of animals and possi bility of their further transportation were 
examined; 
- Examination during transit of controlled goods (except for animals) was performed only by 
State regulatory authorities at a check-point or in the presence of information about 
non-conformity of controlled goods to the declared goods; 
- According to the results of monitoring, the Border Control Inspection Post Officer made a 
decision and put a stamp on the shipping docu ments and on the veterinary certificate, in 
accordance with the form of Annex No. 3: "Transit enabled" or "Transit prohibited", and at 
the point of exit from the customs territory of the EAEU, a stamp "Transit Completed", then assured it by the seal and signature, indicating such Officer's name and initials; 
- All necessary data was entered in the register of transit in the form in accordance with 
Annex No. 9 of that Regulation and entered into the system of electronic records; and 
- The owner of the controlled goods, who received  the permit of transit of controlled goods 
through the territory of the EAEU, had to comply with the veterinary legislation of the 
EAEU. 
124.  According to Order No. [xxx] , transit permits were issued within 30 working days upon 
written application with indication of the following information: 
- for juridical persons carrying transited goods:  name, address and registration number of 
the production facility, for physical persons carrying transited goods: family name, given name, patronymic (if any), address and regist ration number of the production facility; 
- name of the transited good; 
- quantity of transited good and its measurement unit; - exporting or importing country and country of origin; 
- type of transport; 
- list of border check-points of Kazakhstan th rough which the goods will be transited; and, 
- transit route, places of stopping, loading-unloa ding, places of animal feeding, conditions of 
animal or goods transfer coordinated with a chief veterinary inspector of territorial 
administrative unit, or his Deputy, thro ugh which the goods will be transited. 
 In accordance with Order No. [xxx] , a transit permit could be refused only for the following 
reasons: (i) absence of any of the above information; (ii) unfavourable epizootic situation in the 
country or region of origin and transited places [in accordance with the [WTO SPS Agreement and ] 
OIE guidelines, recommendations and standards]; and (iii) importing country did not permit such 
imports. 
125.  Some Members expressed concerns regarding the requirement that controlled goods in 
transit, which had been inspected and were conveyed under seal, had to comply with JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 50 - 
 
  EAEU veterinary requirements.  From these Member s' perspective, this requirement could not be 
justified as a safety measure and restricted trade with third countries. 
126.  The representative of Kazakhstan noted concerns from Members regarding the requirement 
for controlled goods in transit to comply with EAEU veterinary requirements and confirmed that 
CU Commission Decision No. 317 had been am ended by CU Commission Decision No. 724 of 
22 June 2011 to eliminate this requirement, so  that, controlled goods transiting through the 
territory of the EAEU under customs seal would no t be subject to EAEU veterinary requirements.  
In addition, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that the relevant provisions of 
CU Commission Decision No. 317, and any administ rative regulations and other measures relating 
to the transit of goods subject to veterinary cont rol through the territory of Kazakhstan would be 
applied in compliance with the OIE Code and th e WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working Party took 
note of these commitments. 
(e) Trade in Goods Subject to Phytosanitary Control 
127.  The representative of Kazakhstan stated that the Section XI (Articles 56, 59) and Annex 12 
of the EAEU Treaty provided the legal framewor k for plant quarantine in Kazakhstan.  These 
provisions stipulated that regulations must take into account the international and regional 
standards, guidelines and (or) recommendations, except for the cases when, based on appropriate 
scientific justification, phytosanitary quarantine measures that ensure a higher level of phytosanitary quarantine protection than measures based on relevant international and regional 
standards, guidelines and (or) recommendations are applied. EAEU plant quarantine measures 
were further established in CU Commission Deci sion No. 318 of 18 June 2010 "On Providing Plant 
Quarantine in the Customs Union" (as last amended by EEC Decision No. 93 of 9 October  2014). 
Decision No. 318 included the following documents: 
- The list of products under quarantine (regul ated goods, regulated articles of regulated 
products), i.e., which are subject to quarantine phytosanitary control ( surveillance ) at 
the customs border of the Customs Union an d in the customs territory of the Customs 
Union; 
- Regulations on the implementation of quarantine phytosanitary control ( surveillance ) at 
the customs border of the Customs Union; and 
- Regulation on the implementation of quarantine phytosanitary control ( surveillance ) at 
the customs territory of the Customs Union. 
128.  The representative of Kazakhstan further clarified that the EAEU did not have common 
phytosanitary requirements and that these were de veloped and implemented at the national level.  
The representative explained that further harmonization among the EAEU member States was ongoing. For example, the EAEU member States we re in the process of reviewing and conducting 
pest risk assessments in order to harmonize the quarantine pest and disease list, with subsequent 
introduction of common phytosanitary requirements to regulated products by December 2015 .  
The draft common list of quarantine pests and di seases had been developed and undergone public 
consultations in July 2012. At the moment, the draft was under discussion by the EAEU member 
States. Until the EAEU member States had harmonized their quarantine pest and disease list and JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 51 - 
 
  introduced common phytosanitary requirements, the national quarantine pest and disease lists and 
phytosanitary requirements for regulated products would remain valid.   
129.  A Member of the Working Party asked Kazakhstan to clarify whether Kazakhstan's 
legislation was based on international stan dards developed by the IPPC. In reply the 
representative of Kazakhstan stated that legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on plant 
quarantine to a large extent was based on the provisions and principles stipulated by the 
WTO Agreement on Application of SPS Measures, the International Plant Protection Convention and 
the Convention for the Establishment of the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection 
Organization. For instance, Article 13 of the Law "On Plant Quarantine" and the Government 
Resolution No. 1730 "On Approval of the Rules for Pr otection of the Territory of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan from Plant Quarantine Objects and Alien Species", of 30 October 2009, which provided for the procedures of issuing documents, inspec tions and control complied with IPPC standards 
such as No. 12 "Guideline on phytosanitary certificates", No. 23 "Guideline on inspections" and 
No. 7 "Certification system for exports". Kazakhstan accepted phytosanitary certificates that 
complied with the requirements of IPPC Standard No. 12 and relied on guarantees of the NPPO of 
the exporting country.  She also added that the time-frames of laboratory expertise on pests and 
weeds were reduced to up to three working days, and plant diseases – ten working days.  
In addition, within the framework of the EAEU, quar antine import permits on import of quarantine 
products were abolished. 
130.  Trade in regulated products on the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan in addition to 
EAEU regulations was regulated by the following national legislation:  Government Resolution 
No. 1295 "On Approval of the List of Quarantine Facilities, Alien Species and Extremely Dangerous 
Pests" of 10 December 2002, Government Resolution No. 1287 "On Approval of the Rules on 
Withdrawal and Destruction of Quarantine Products , Infected by Quarantine Objects, Not Subject 
to Decontamination or Processing" of 3 November 2011, Government Resolution No. 1730 
"On Approval of the Rules for Protection of the Te rritory of the Republic of Kazakhstan from Plant 
Quarantine Objects and Alien Species" of 30 October 2009, Government Resolution No. 1674 
"On Approval of Phytosanitary Requirements to Imported Quarantine Products" of 
30 December 2011, Government Resolution No. 1396 "On Approval of the Rules on Registration 
Tests and State Registration of Pesticides (Chemical Insecticides) in the Republic of Kazakhstan" of 
30 November 2011. 
131.  The representative of Kazakhstan said that the Department of Phytosanitary Safety was 
in charge of strategic planning in the sphere of phytosanitary safety  and developing rules and 
regulations in this area .  The Committee of State Inspection in the Agro-Industrial Complex of 
the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan was in charge of budgeting and 
conducting phytosanitary quarantine control (surveillance) on the territory of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan, including phytosanitary quarantine border control (surveillance), measures on 
protection of plants from pests, monitoring of agricultural lands against plant pests and diseases.  
In addition, the phytosanitary control framework included (i) State quarantine institutions; (ii) the JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 52 - 
 
  State enterprise "Phytosanitary"; (iii) State inspection branches of oblasts, Astana and Almaty; 
(iv) phytosanitary inspectors of territorial inspections of oblasts, rayons (or cities), Astana 
and Almaty ; and (v) border check-points and internal posts of phytosanitary control. The State 
enterprise "Republican Center of Phytosanitary Diagnostics and Prognosis" conducted surveys of 
Kazakhstan's territory to determine the location  of an outbreak. State enterprise "Republican 
Quarantine Laboratory" identified species compos ition of quarantine pests and diseases. State 
enterprise "Republican Plant Introduction Nursery of Fruit and Berry Crops" and "Republican Plant 
Introduction Nursery of Field Crops" were in charge of detection of latent infestation of plant 
products (seed and planting stock). State enterprise "Phytosanitary" conducted localisation and 
extermination of outbreaks of quarantine pests an d diseases. In reply to additional question, the 
representative of Kazakhstan clarified that state inspection branches of inspections of rayons (or 
cities), oblasts, Astana and Almaty were in charge of (i) control over phytosanitary conditions of 
the territory and measures on plant quarantine; (ii)  surveillance of land plots, agricultural lands, 
grain storage and other facilities; (iii) control over organization of fumigation measures; (iv) 
quarantine inspection, sampling for laboratory testing, issuing phytosanitary certificates; (v) 
control over compliance of entities to phytosanitary rules; and (vi) taking administrative action 
against natural and juridical persons liable for violation of phytosanitary rules. Inspectors at the 
border check-points and internal posts of phytosanitary control were in charge of (i) phytosanitary 
control, inspection, including documentary checks , of imported and exported good subject to 
phytosanitary control as well as goods moving within the territory of Kazakhstan, respectively; (ii) issuing orders to cargo owners on conducting necessary plant quarantine measures in accordance 
with legislation in the sphere of plant quarantine; and (iii) taking administrative action against 
natural and juridical persons liable for violation of phytosanitary rules.  
132.  In response to a question from a Member, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that 
the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection was defined as the required level of 
protection established by a technical regulation for products and phytosanitary requirements to 
regulated products, produced on the territory of Kazakhstan aimed at prevention of factual 
scientifically grounded risks.  The representative  of Kazakhstan confirmed that the EAEU Treaty, 
EAEU acts, and Kazakhstan's legislation did not and would not in future establish additional 
SPS requirements for imported products that exceeded the requirements established for the EAEU 
or domestic products.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
133.  The existing list of products under quarantine (regulated goods) that were subject to 
quarantine phytosanitary control at the customs bo rder of the EAEU and the territory of the EAEU  
was divided into two groups: (i) quarantine products of high pest risk; and (ii) quarantine products 
of low pest risk. Classification of quarantine pr oducts to high and low pest risks in the list of 
quarantine products approved by CU Decision No. 318 was based on risk assessment of possible 
contamination and infestation by quarantine pests, biology and hazard posed by quarantine pests, 
which can spread in certain quarantine products, conducted by at least one of the EAEU member 
States taking into account ISPM 32. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that imports of 
quarantine products of high pest risk would need to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 53 - 
 
  No phytosanitary certificate was required for imports of regulated products of low pest risk.  
The list of quarantine products with their HS codes was included in CU Commission Decision No. 318. She further explained that a number of products were now excluded from the high pest 
risk list, such as raw cane sugar, sugar from sugar beets, natural sands of all kinds, gravel, sand, 
fish meal, meat meal or meat by-products, protein concentrates, protein-vitamin concentrates and 
protein pre-mixes. The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that pest risk analysis was 
conducted to determine appropriate level of cont rol for these products. The up-to-date list of 
goods subject to quarantine phytosanitary control was available to the public on the EEC website 
at http://www.eurasiancommission.org/e n/act/texnreg/depsanmer/regulation/ 
Pages/Фитосанитарные -меры .aspx. The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that products not 
included in the list of goods subject to phytosanitary controls were allowed to enter the EAEU territory without phytosanitary restrictions.   
134.  In line with international practice, when products subject to phytosanitary control were 
imported from countries with registered cases of quarantine spread of quarantine organism in 
certain areas, imports of products under plant quarantine control were allowed if the products 
came from pest-free areas, or pest-free places of production or pest-free production sites, 
determined in accordance with ISPMs Nos. 4 and 10 [if norms and principles of ISPM 20 have been 
applied] or if the country of export guaranteed that  appropriate measures provided for in the 
Kazakhstan/EAEU legislation to ensure the absence of the quarantine organisms in the exported 
commodity, were carried out.  In cases during phytosanitary control it was detected that regulated 
products subject to phytosanitary control were infected by quarantine organisms, these products 
could undergo disinfection (decontamination) at the destination points or at the border. In case, if 
regulated products did not undergo decontamination, they would be destroyed or returned to the 
exporting country. [In cases when the imported regulated products were in some way inconsistent 
with existing phytosanitary rules and regulations or such products were prohibited for importation 
into the Republic of Kazakhstan they would be destroyed or returned to the exporting country]. 
At the same time, in case quarantine organisms were detected in imported products and the 
exporting country did not take the appropriate measures, Kazakhstan, in accordance with 
paragraph 6 Article 7 of the IPPC, reserved the right to apply emergency (extraordinary) 
phytosanitary measures in order to restrict or ban importation of such products. Kazakhstan would 
n o t i f y  t h e  r e l e v a n t  M e m b e r  o f  a p p l i c a t i o n  o f  s u c h  m e a s u r e s  [ i n  a c c o r d a n c e  w i t h  I S P M  N o .  1 3 ] .   Any natural or juridical person could appeal the actions (or inaction) of Government officials 
regarding this issue.  
135.  A Member asked Kazakhstan to confirm that Kazakhstan would accept replacement 
certificates as foreseen by international guidelin es ISPM 12:2011. In reply, the representative of 
Kazakhstan stated that Kazakhstan would recognise phytosanitary certificates issued as 
replacement for legitimate phytosanitary certificates provided the national body on quarantine and 
plant protection (hereinafter the NBQPP) of the ex porting country in accordance with international 
standard of phytosanitary measures No. 12 ensured and confirmed the following: 1) phytosanitary 
safety of quarantine products; 2) that prior to  exporting quarantine products, the NBQPP of the JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 54 - 
 
  exporting country had carried out sampling, insp ection and treatment of quarantine products 
necessary to comply with the phytosanitary requirements of the Republic of Kazakhstan; 3) integrity of quarantine products from the mo ment of shipment until importation of quarantine 
products. She further noted that EEC Council Decision No. 50 of 16 August 2013 approved 
amendments to paragraph 4.1.6 of the Regulation  on the Procedure for Quarantine Phytosanitary 
Control (Supervision) on the Customs Border of the EAEU  approved by CU Commission Decision 
No. 318 of 18 June 2010 that provided recognition of phytosanitary certificates issued as 
replacement.   
136.  In reply to a question, the representative of  Kazakhstan clarified that the "appropriate 
information" meant information, presented in the section "Additional declaration" of the 
phytosanitary certificate, confirming that controlled goods were cultivated in the zones and/or produced in places free from harmful quarantine organisms as well as information on compliance 
with other phytosanitary requirements of Kazakhstan. 
137.  A Member of the Working Party asked whether, Kazakhstan accepted imports of regulated 
goods from areas affected by certain quarantine pe sts, provided that certain mitigation measures 
were applied, as provided in relevant IPPC recommendations, and, if this was the case, whether 
Kazakhstan had defined which mitigation measures it accepted for each combination of pest and 
commodity. The representative of Kazakhstan replied that mitigation measures were acceptable.  
However currently, normative legal acts of Kazakhstan did not define which mitigation measures 
could be applied in each case. Kazakhstan confirmed that it was ready to assess mitigation measures proposed by exporting countries within a reasonable period of time, as set-out in 
international standards, guidelines and recommendations.  
138.  In urgent situations (outbreak) the author ised body, depending on the phytosanitary 
conditions of the exporting country, could introduce provisional restrictions or bans importation of 
products subject to phytosanitary control. In such circumstances, the authorised body would 
provide all pertinent information about its actions to the relevant service of the exporting country.  
Where repeated supply of infected products subjec t to phytosanitary control had been registered, 
a ban on the importation of the relevant product could be imposed.  She added that contentious 
issues were normally open for negotiation.   
139.  The representative of Kazakhstan noted that, in certain circumstances, the import 
requirements could include, in cooperation with the national plant protection body ( NPPB) of 
the exporting country, an audit in the exporting country by the NPP B of the importing country of 
elements, such as: (i) production systems; (ii) treatments; (iii) inspection procedures; (iv) 
phytosanitary management; (v) accreditation procedures; (iv) testing procedures; (vii) 
surveillance. She further stated that such measures were provided for in ISPM 20 paragraph 
5.1.5.1 and thus, they were in line with the IPPC principles and norms. A Member asked 
Kazakhstan to confirm that audits as described in this paragraph would be carried out only in 
exceptional cases, and would aim to check the phytosanitary system of the exporting country, but 
would not result in a system of individual approval for export.   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 55 - 
 
  140.  In reply, the representative of Kazakhstan st ated that audit described in this paragraph 
was intended to reduce the risk of introduction  of quarantine objects to the territory of the 
Republic of Kazakhstan.  The audit would be conducted to the extent necessary to ensure that the 
risk of introduction of quarantine objects to the territory of Kazakhstan and the risk of non-
compliance of regulated products with quarantine rules and regulations was acceptable for the 
Republic of Kazakhstan. In addition, goods subject to phytosanitary control could only be imported 
through border check-points equipped in accordan ce with Kazakhstan's plant quarantine rules and 
norms.  Kazakhstan confirmed that audits as described in this paragraph would be carried out only 
in special cases, for example, when new trade relations were established or there was a problem, 
and in case of repeated inconsistencies or non-compliance with quarantine phytosanitary 
requirements. 
141.  The representative of Kazakhstan stated that when taking phytosanitary measures, 
Kazakhstan's authorities followed the relevant international practice and provisions established in 
the IPPC and the WTO SPS Agreement, including conducting a risk assessment.  She confirmed 
that, from the date of accession of Kazakhstan to the WTO, if the phytosanitary requirements of 
Kazakhstan resulted in a higher level of protecti on than would be achieved by measures based on 
relevant international standards, recommendations or guidelines, Kazakhstan would apply its 
phytosanitary requirements in accordance with the WTO SPS Agreement. She also confirmed that 
the authorities of Kazakhstan would consult with exporting Members on the measures in question, 
if requested.  Furthermore, from the date of accession of Kazakhstan to the WTO, if phytosanitary requirements applied in Kazakhstan resulted in a higher level of protection than would be achieved 
by measures based on relevant international standards, recommendations or guidelines, 
Kazakhstan would provide explanations of the reasons for such phytosanitary measure, including 
the relevant risk assessment, on a bilateral basis following receipt of a request from an exporting 
Member pursuant to Article 5.8 of the WTO SPS Ag reement. The Working Party took note of these 
commitments. 
142.  Pursuant to Law No. 331-II "On Plant Protection" of 3 July 2002, pesticides had to undergo 
registration and production trials, carried out by research and other organizations of Kazakhstan; 
subsequent registration followed in case of favourable trial results. The tests had to be carried out 
under the control of the territorial branches of the Committee of State Inspection in the 
Agro-Industrial Complex, in accordance with the Rules on Registration Tests and State Registration of Pesticides (Chemical Insecticides) in the Republic of Kazakhstan , approved by the Government 
Resolution No. 1396 of 30 November 2011. Registration trials were carried out to (i) determine the 
biological effectiveness of pesticides; and (ii) detect recommended doses and methods of use for 
production purposes, which were intended for Kazakhstan's soil-climatic conditions and cultivated 
crops. Production trials represented field trials of the recommendations that had been elaborated 
during the registration trials. Registration and production tests took two to three years. 
The Ministry of Energy and the Committee of Co nsumer Rights Protection examined pesticides 
subject to registration for the purposes of pr otection of human health and the environment. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 56 - 
 
  Pesticides included into the Register of Potentially Hazardous Chemical Substances Prohibited for 
Use in Kazakhstan could not be registered. 
(f) Protection of Human Health 
143.  The representative of Kazakhstan explained that CU Commission Decision No. 299 
established the "Common List of Goods Subjec t to Sanitary-and-Epidemiologic Supervision 
(Control) at the Customs Border and on the Custom s Territory of the Customs Union" (hereinafter 
– the Common List) (Part I) as last amended by CU Commission Decision No. 36 of 15 June 
2012  and established food safety requirements for corresponding goods. Products produced in, or 
imported into the customs territory of the EAEU fo r distribution to the population, use in industry, 
agriculture, civil construction development, transp ortation with direct human involvement, or for 
private and household use, had to conform to the Decision No. 299 and relevant technical 
regulations. She further explained that the conformi ty to the safety requirements groups of goods 
was to be confirmed by a State Registration certificate, as provided for in Commission decisions 
and domestic law. The Commission had approved a list of goods for which State Registration 
Certificates must be supplied during customs clearance. 
144.  The Committee of Consumer Rights Protection was the authorised body responsible for 
issues related to sanitary and epidemiological welfare  of the population . The sanitary and 
epidemiological service was a single system consisting of (i) the authorised body and its border and territorial branches; and (ii) organizations of sanitary and epidemiological services (the 
Republican State Enterprise "Scientific and Practical Center of Sanitary and Epidemiological 
Expertise and Monitoring", State organizations for sanitary and epidemiological expertise). When 
developing and approving regulatory acts related to the production, importation, turnover, use, 
and destruction of substances/processes that could potentially affect human health, Government 
agencies sought the consent of the authorised body on sanitary and epidemiological welfare  of 
population .   
145.  In addition to EAEU regulations, the national legislation in the sphere of sanitary -
epidemiological safety of population was comprised of the following acts: Code of the Republic 
of Kazakhstan No. 193-IV "On Public health and Healthcare System" of 18 September 2009, Law 
No. 301 "On Food Safety" of 21 July 2007, Government Resolution No. 125 "On Approval of the 
Rules for Assignment of Registration Numbers to Entities Producing Food Products" of 
11 February 2008, Government Resolution No. 2267 "On Approval of the Rules for Refusal for 
Entry, as well as for Production, Use and Sale of Products Intended for Human Consumption, on 
the Territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as well as for Use in Business and (or) Other 
Activities" of 30 December 2009. 
146.  Members expressed concern that during joint inspections EAEU inspectors requested 
systematic testing results for each lot from all types of exported products, including raw or 
processed, from each visited establishment, prior to export to the EAEU. The representative of the 
Republic of Kazakhstan explained that the issue of recognition of monitoring, conducted at the JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 57 - 
 
  national level and at the level of food producing establishment, as an equivalent measure of 
exporting country would be considered during audit of the national control system of exporting countries. According to paragraph 4 8 of EEC Council Decision No. 94 , national monitoring 
programs were taken into account in the assessment of third countries' guarantees. Furthermore, 
according to paragraph 66 of EEC Council Decision No. 94 , national monitoring programs were 
taken into account in on-site inspections of exporting establishments. In reply to specific request 
of a Member, she explained that the EAEU  and national regulations did not contain systematic 
testing requirements for each lot from al l types of exported products. Paragraph 74 of EEC 
Council Decision No. 94  stipulated that upon arrival to establishment of third country, inspector, 
among others, had to make analysis on existence of official control and application of production 
control, such as HACCP, for the purposes of ensuring safety of products. In this case analysis on existence of official control meant that inspectors would check whether the establishment was 
subject to control by competent authorities of th e exporting country, such as on-site inspections 
by the competent authority of the exporting count ry (risk based frequency of such inspections, 
inspection criteria, results and records of the inspections) or state registration of facilities. The 
representative of Kazakhstan has confirmed that testing of products by food business operators' 
self-check were accepted. She further confirmed th at EAEU inspectors did not request testing in 
official laboratories for the conformity with EAEU requirements.  
147.  Some Members noted that under CU Commission Decisions, the State Registration 
procedure applied only to certain groups of goods included in Part II of the Common List was approved by the CU Commission Decision No. 299. Members requested information on whether 
domestic provisions still applied, and, if so, what  criteria were used for determining that a product 
was marketed for the first time in the territory of the EAEU or the territory of Kazakhstan. 
148.  In response, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that national legal acts were 
applied to the extent that they did not co ntradict CU Commission Decision No. 299 of 
28 May 2010. Such provisions in national law related to the determination of the competent 
authority, the order of involvement of organiza tions and experts into the procedure of State 
Registration, the order of appellation of refusal of  State Registration, and keeping of the national 
part of the Register of State Registration Certif icates. CU Commission Decision No. 299 specified 
the list of products subject to State Registration. Thus, only products listed in CU Commission 
Decision No. 299 were subject to State Registrati on. The representative of Kazakhstan explained 
that the State Registration procedure applied: 
- only to certain groups of goods, which were lis ted in points 1 to 11 of Part II of the Common 
List of Goods Subject to Sanitary and Epidemiological Control, set-out in CU Commission Decision No. 299 (these include:  mineral water, bottled drinking water packaged in 
containers, tonic beverages, specialised foodstu ffs, including food produc ts for children, food 
products for pregnant and nursing women, dietary products; biologically active dietary supplements, raw materials for production of bi ologically active dietary supplements, organic 
products; foodstuffs derived from GMO, GMO; f ood additives, flavourings, technological aids 
including enzymes; and food contact material); 
- only if the goods were covered by HS codes listed in the table of Part II to the Common List 
of Goods Subject to Sanitary Controls (CU Commission Decision No. 299); and JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 58 - 
 
  - if the goods were manufactured for the first time  on the territory of the EAEU or imported 
for the first time into the EAEU territory, and no prior State Registration had occurred, or in cases where the introduction of EAEU requirem ents necessitated the issuance of a new State 
Registration Certificate. 
149.  The representative of Kazakhstan specified that these three cumulative criteria, to 
determine whether a State Registration Certificate was required, were specified in the last 
paragraph of point 11 in Part II to the Common List of Goods Subject to Sanitary and 
Epidemiological Control . The following g oods were subject to state registration: goods 
specified in points 1 to 11 of the Part II indicated in HS codes, manufactured for the first 
time on the EAEU customs territory, as well as imported for the first time to the EAEU customs 
territory. 
150.  The State Registration Certificate was issued for a given type of product and was valid for 
exports from the relevant country without time limi tation, provided there had been no violations of 
the regulations during the preceding period.  If th ere were violations found during surveillance at 
the border, the State Registration Certificate could be temporarily revoked. Applications for 
evaluations were to be submitted to the Committee of Consumer Rights Protection or its territorial 
bodies.  State Registration Certificates were valid throughout the entire territory of the EAEU. 
For domestically produced products, sanitary and epidemiological surveillance was conducted by 
the territorial authorities of the Committee of Consumer Rights Protection at the stage of distribution of products on the Kazakhstan's domestic market. In response to questions from a 
Member of the Working Party, the representative of  Kazakhstan stated that the State Registration 
Certificates for domestic products were also issued for a given type of product and were valid for 
an unlimited time period. In her view, the respective procedures and requirements did not 
discriminate between domestic and imported products. The process for issuing a State Registration 
Certificate could not exceed 30 days after application was received.  If the application was 
rejected, the Committee of Consumer Rights Protection sent a letter to the applicant explaining 
what needed to be changed.  After corrections were made, the applicant could re-submit the 
application. 
151.  The representative of Kazakhstan explained th at, since 1 July 2010, a State Registration 
Certificate was issued in accordance with the common EAEU form  required for products 
specified in [144] [or rele vant technical regulations]  and was valid throughout the customs 
territory of the EAEU. The certificate confirmed that the controlled goods conformed to 
EAEU Common sanitary and epidemiologic and hygien ic requirements. The period of validity of the 
State Registration Certificate covered the whole pe riod of manufacture or delivery of controlled 
goods to the territory of the EAEU. The representative of Kazakhstan further explained that the 
State Registration Certificate was harmonized among the EAEU member States and that each 
member State recognised the right of other member State s to issue this certificate and that a 
State Registration Certificate would be valid throughout the territory of the EAEU. 
152.  In response to a specific question, the representative of Kazakhstan stated that the term 
"new products" meant products developed and industrially manufactured for the first time on the JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 59 - 
 
  territory of Kazakhstan and also products imported into the territory of Kazakhstan for the first 
time, i.e., which were not on sale in Kazakhstan before. The absence of a prior State Registration 
indicated that the product was new to the market of Kazakhstan and State Registration was 
required.  She also explained that the producer, su pplier, or importer could submit an application 
for State Registration of products. 
153.  Some Members noted that points 1 to 11 of Part II of the Common List of Goods Subject to 
Sanitary and Epidemiological Control included Non-Food Products, such as disinfectants, cosmetics 
or hazardous chemical substances. The representative of Kazakhstan clarified that CU Commission 
Decision No. 299 covered the protection of human he alth in general from risks derived from both 
food and non-food products. 
154.  The representative of Kazakhstan explained that some commodities were also subject to 
mandatory confirmation of conformity to EAEU requirements. The list of such commodities, which 
also contained references to quality standards and quality requirements for these products, was 
approved by the Decision of the Customs Union Commission No. 620 of 7 April 2011 which 
replaced the list in the CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 18 June 2010, and included the 
following food and feedstuffs: (i) canned food products (fish, caviar, seafood); (ii)  fat-free dry 
milk; and (iii) feeds for animals, including formula feeds, pre-mixes, protein feed additives, such 
as oilseeds meal and cake, fish meal, protein-vitamin additives, dry milk for feeding and dry milk 
replacements. Until 1 January 2011, confirmation of conformity for these food products was 
carried out in accordance with national legislation of each EAEU member State. From 1 January 2011, the declaration of confor mity was provided upon assessment by the 
certification bodies and testing laboratories (centres) included into the Single Register of 
Certification Bodies and Testing Laboratories (centres) of the EAEU. With regard to feedstuffs, from 
1 July 2010, self-declaration of conformity could be made on the basis of an assessment provided 
by the producer.  Foreign manufacturers and (or) suppliers, located outside the territory of the 
EAEU, could apply for a certificate/declaration of conformity that was issued in accordance with 
national legislation of an EAEU member State or for an EAEU certificate of conformity or 
declaration of conformity of a common EAEU form, as approved by CU Commission Decision 
No. 319 of 18 June 2010, as amended by the EEC Collegium Decision No. 226 of 
13 November 2012. The representative of Kazakhstan further explained that references to quality 
standards and quality requirements with regard to products on the List of Commodities Subject to Mandatory Confirmation of Conformity would be  revised as the EAEU member States adopted 
EAEU technical regulations on specific products.   
155.  She further noted that pursuant to the Regulation of Conduct of State 
Sanitary-Epidemiological Control adopted by the CU Commission Decision No. 299, food products 
included into Part II the Common List and produced or imported in the EAEU territory had to be 
accompanied with a document confirming safety of the products, i.e. State Registration Certificate, 
issued upon results of testing conducted by the laboratories included into the Common List of 
Certification Bodies and Laboratories of the EAEU . Such testing had to be conducted by exporters JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 60 - 
 
  for the purposes of compliance with the Commo n Sanitary Epidemiological Requirements.  
Food products included into Part I of the Common List but not included into Part II the Common List, and produced or imported into the EAEU, had to be accompanied with a document of producer 
(or its authorised supplier) certifying the safety  of products. The representative of Kazakhstan, 
however, noted that these requirements were app lied as an interim system of safety control of 
food products which would gradually be replaced wi th the requirements of technical regulations for 
respective food products.  
(g) Compliance of the SPS Regime with Spec ific Provisions of the WTO SPS Agreement 
- (i) Harmonization with International Standards and Norms  156.  [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, [in cases in which no mandatory 
requirements on veterinary or phytosanitary, or sanitary epidemiological and hygienic 
requirements had been established at EAEU or national level, the EAEU member States would 
apply the relevant standards, guidelines and recommendations, or parts thereof, of the OIE, IPPC 
and Codex respectively]. Similarl y, if veterinary, phytosanitary or sanitary-epidemiological and 
hygienic requirements in effect in the territory of  the EAEU [were more stringent than] [resulted in 
a higher level of sanitary and phytosanitary protec tion than would be achieved by measures based 
on] relevant international standards, guidelines and recommendations, or parts thereof, in the 
absence of scientific justification of risk to human, animal or plant life or health, the EAEU member 
States would apply the relevant international standards, guidelines and recommendations or parts 
thereof,[as provided for in the SPS Agreement].  [T he representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that 
this obligation currently was included in the EAEU legal framework through CU Commission 
Decision No. 721, and would continue to be a mandatory part of the EAEU legal framework in the 
future.]  The Working Party took note of these commitments.] 
157.  Some Members sought assurances that, pursuant to CU Decision No. 721, in cases where 
a WTO Member officially notified an EAEU member State that an SPS requirement in force on the EAEU territory was more stringent than the relevant international standard, this international 
standard was immediately applied unless and until such time that a risk assessment, done in 
accordance with international standards, was provided. 
158.  In reply, the representative of Kazakhstan said that in cases where a WTO Member 
officially notified an EAEU member State that an SPS requirement in force on the EAEU territory 
was more stringent than an international standard, the relevant international standards or parts 
thereof were applied by the EAEU member State unl ess and until scientific justification of risk was 
provided, [as stipulated in the SPS Agreement]. She further stated that the EAEU member State 
would reply within a reasonable period of time to the Member that either the international standard applied or provide relevant scientific justification.  
159.  The representative of Kazakhstan informed Members of the Working Party that the 
CU Commission had adopted Decision No. 625 "On Harmonization of CU Legal Acts in the Field of 
Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures with International Standards" of 7 April 2011 , JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 61 - 
 
  as amended by CU Commission Decisions Nos. 722 of 22 June 2011 and 11 of 7 March 2012.  
According to the Decision, EAEU SPS measures that, after examination, were recognised as more stringent than international standards, without scientific justification for such restriction or risk to 
human, animal or plant life or health would be brought into conformity with international 
standards. She noted that foreign governments could bring measures to the attention of the EAEU 
member States and participate in the examination.  
160.  The representative further informed Members of  the Working Party that in connection with 
implementation of CU Commission Decision No. 625, EEC Collegium Decision No. 212 of 
6 November 2012 approved the Regulation on the Uniform Procedure of Carrying Out Examination 
of Legal Acts of the Customs Union in the Sphere  of Implementation of Sanitary, Veterinary and 
Phytosanitary Measures, which had replaced CU Commission Decision No. 801 of 23 September 2011. Some Members of the Working Party expressed concern that the 
implementation procedure was unnecessarily burdensome and lengthy.   
161.  The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that the EAEU would apply MRLs on 
chlorothalonil, clofentezine, cyprodinil, kresoxim -methyl, iprodione, propamocarb, pirimicarb, 
thiabendazole, carbendazim, famoxadone, copper compounds, and lambda cyhalothrin that 
corresponded to international standards in confor mity with the WTO SPS Agreement no later than 
the date of the accession of Kazakhstan, and that these MRLs would be set out in EAEU acts.  The 
Working Party took note of this commitment. 
162.  A Member of the Working Party noted that the harmonization process for MRLs of veterinary 
drugs should also include elimination of zero-tolerance or very low tolerance in food of veterinary 
substances when these substances are authorised for use in Kazakhstan/EAEU under similar 
conditions to those in place in exporting countries, notably similar length of withdrawal periods.  
The Member further asked to clarify how withdrawal periods had been set in Kazakhstan, how it 
was ensured that those withdrawal periods enabled achieving the very strict MRLs applicable for 
some antimicrobial substances and asked if these withdrawal periods allowing to reach the 
required EAEU MRL for preparations containing tetracyclines could be communicated to requesting 
Members. The Member sought confirmation that OIE recommendations for marketing authorisation 
had been followed and that the MRL used in studies submitted at the time of granting the 
marketing authorisation by Kazakh veterinary authorities was the same as the MRL recently set by 
EAEU norms.   
163.  The representative of Kazakhstan replied that zero-tolerance or very low tolerance of 
veterinary drug residues in food has been estab lished based on a risk assessment. Authorization of 
use of such veterinary drugs in Kazakhstan does not mean that MRLs established for these 
veterinary substances could not be respected. Au thorization of use of veterinary drugs in the 
territory of Kazakhstan was established taking into account the period of withdrawal of the 
substances from the animal.  Moreover, accumulation  of these drugs in specific organs and tissues, 
wherein the minimum residue levels were allowed, was also taken into account.  The package of 
documents submitted by the applicant for registra tion of veterinary drugs and feed additives JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 62 - 
 
  contained information about the period during which the drug was eliminated from the body 
completely, or reduced to a level corresponding to the MRLs established for these drugs by the EAEU legislation. This information was confirmed by  scientific research. The period of withdrawal of 
the drug from the body was checked during the approbation research conducted by the competent 
authority. The representative of Kazakhstan furt her noted that withdrawal periods allowing to 
reach the required EAEU MRL for preparations cont aining tetracycline ranged from 7 to 15 days. 
Kazakhstan had allowed the use of antibiotics in feed, but only in accordance with the instruction 
accompanying the particular veterinary drug. Sh e further confirmed that Kazakhstan had been 
following OIE recommendations for marketing authorisation.   
164.  [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that certain standards for some veterinary 
drugs had been harmonized with international st andards by the CU Commission Decision No. 889 
of 9 December 2011. Currently, the results of the previous risk assessments were being revisited 
within the framework of the works on harmonization of MRLs for remaining veterinary drugs.  
The results of the risk assessment carried out by  an EAEU member State were published on the 
official websites of the national competent bo dies. The harmonization of remaining MRLs for 
veterinary drugs [XXX] was currently in proc ess and would be completed by the date of 
Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO, unless the risk assessment justifying a [more stringent 
standard] [higher level of protection] has been co nducted.  The Working Party took note of this 
commitment.] 
165.  As regards maximum levels for contaminants, the representative of Kazakhstan informed 
Members that maximum levels for nitrates in lettuce and cadmium in poppy seeds had been 
reviewed and revised in accordance with international recommendations and set-out in 
amendments to the Unified Sanitary and Epidemiological Requirements set in CU Commission 
Decision No. 299.   
166.  Furthermore, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that as of the date of the 
accession of Kazakhstan to the WTO, the maximum levels of nitrates would be revised in 
accordance with international standards, recommendations, and guidelines.  The Working Party 
took note of this commitment. 
167.  The representative of Kazakhstan stated that radio nuclide levels and microbiological 
standards were being revised in accordance wi th international recommendations. The proposals 
would be transmitted to the EEC Commission  in due course to avoid inconsistency with 
international standards by the date of accession of Kazakhstan to the WTO.   
168.  Some Members expressed concerns about EAEU MRLs for tetracyclines that were much 
more stringent than international standards and no justification for these stringent requirements in 
the form of a risk assessment and scientific justification consistent with international standards 
and recommendations had been provided. These Members requested that Kazakhstan and other 
EAEU member States apply the Codex standards for MRLs for tetracyclines. These Members noted 
that some form of risk assessment had been pu blished at http://fcrisk.ru/node/652. They had JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 63 - 
 
  expressed concern regarding the timing and proc edures followed and had commented that this 
assessment was not conducted in accordance with international standards.  Members of the Working Party noted that the harmonization process for MRLs of veterinary drugs should also 
include elimination of non-tolerance or very low tolerance in food of veterinary substances when 
these substances are authorised in use in the EAEU  under similar conditions to those in place in 
exporting countries. Finally, these Members recalled CU Commission Decision No. 625 of 
7 April 2011 on Harmonization with International Standards and CU Commission Decision No. 721 
of 22 June 2011 and requested that Kazakhstan fully and implement these Decisions. 
169.  The representative of the Kazakhstan confirmed that Kazakhstan, before the date of its 
accession to the WTO, would provide to any in terested Member scientific evidence and an 
assessment of the risk associated with tetracyclines antibiotics residues, developed in accordance with methods of scientific evaluation set by the Codex Alimentarius, sufficient to justify the 
application of MRLs more stringent than those provided for in the relevant Codex standards.  
If such a scientific justification and risk assessment for a more stringent MRL was not provided, the 
MRLs for tetracyclines would be revised to correspond to Codex standards in national and EAEU 
acts as of the date of the accession of Kazakhstan  to the WTO consistent with the provisions of the 
WTO SPS Agreement. The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
170.  The representative of Kazakhstan replied that Kazakhstan had conducted a risk 
assessment for MRLs on tetracycline in accordance with international standards. The conclusion 
was published at http://www.np c-ses.kz/index.php?option= 
com_content&view=article&id=89%3A2010-11-29-09-50-15&catid=45%3A2010-11-29-05-41-50 
&Itemid=111&lang=ru and http://www.nutrite st.org/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1% 8C-2/. 
171.  One Member requested Kazakhstan to confirm that, in application of Article 3.1 of the 
WTO SPS Agreement, Kazakhstan would review al l of its existing sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures to ensure that, by the date of accession, they were based on international standards, 
guidelines and recommendations or, in the event that Kazakhstan or the EAEU considered that 
international standards did not meet its appropriate level of protection, they were scientifically 
justified in accordance with Article 3.3 of the WTO SPS Agreement. In cases where relevant 
scientific evidence was insufficient, he requested that Kazakhstan confirm that it would comply 
with Article 5.7 of the WTO SPS Agreement. 
172.  The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, as of the date of accession, in 
application of Article 3.1 of the WTO SPS Agreem ent, all sanitary and phytosanitary measures, 
whether adopted by Kazakhstan or the competent bodies of the EAEU, would be based on 
international standards, guidelines or recommendations as provided for in the WTO Agreement.  
Further, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that measures which were not based on 
international standards, guidelines and recommendations, where they exist, would not be applied 
in Kazakhstan without providing Members a scientifically based justification of the measures, in 
accordance with the WTO SPS Agreement, including Article 3.3.  In cases where relevant scientific 
evidence was insufficient, he confirmed that any measure adopted, whether by Kazakhstan or the JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 64 - 
 
  competent bodies of the EAEU would comply with the WTO SPS Agreement, in particular with 
Article 5.7 thereof.  In the event that internat ional standards were not considered to meet the 
appropriate level of protection, Kazakhstan would provide scientific justification for measures 
applied in Kazakhstan, in accordance with Arti cle 5.8 of the WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working 
Party took note of these commitments. 
- (ii) Risk Assessment 
173.  With regard to risk assessments, some Memb ers emphasized the need, in conformity with 
the WTO SPS Agreement, to comply with international standards, recommendations and guidelines 
for conducting and reviewing risk assessments. They noted the relevance and applicability of 
Codex standards: CAC/GL-62-2007-Working Principl es for Risk Analysis for Food Safety for 
Application by Governments and CAC/GL/30-1999-Principles and Guidelines for the Conduct of 
Microbiological Risk Assessments, and the FA O document; and WHO-EHC-240.5-Principles and 
Methods for the Risk Assessment of Chemicals In Food, Chapter 2 - Risk Assessment and its Role 
in Risk Analysis. In the view of these Members, a risk assessment should be limited to an 
examination of the measure already in place or favoured by the importing country. It should not 
be distorted by preconceived views on the nature and the content of the measure to be taken, nor 
should it develop into an exercise tailored to and carried out for the purpose of justifying decisions 
ex post facto . 
174.  In the view of these Members, the conduct of  a risk assessment, whether for a biological, 
chemical, or physical food safety hazard, was one part of a broader effort to describe the relevance 
and understanding of scientific-based decisions. The analysis of risk allowed regulatory officials to 
focus finite resources on those hazards that posed the greatest risk to human health protection.  
Risk assessment provided a framework for evaluating food safety hazards relevant to the national 
context, predicting the likelihood of exposure to those hazards, and estimating the resulting public 
health impact associated with a wide variety of variables. Experts involved in risk assessment, 
including government officials and subject matter experts from outside government must be 
objective in their scientific work and not be subject to any conflict of interest that may compromise the integrity of the assessment.  These experts should be selected in a transparent manner on the 
basis of their expertise and their independence with regard to the interests involved, including 
disclosure of conflicts of interest in connection wi th risk assessment.  Elements of an effective 
assessment and analysis of that assessment needed to include a public process for seeking input 
on the design of the risk assessment, documentat ion of those decisions, and then ensuring that 
the public has access to the documentation. A peer review process whereby subject matter experts 
provide critical analysis of the design features and the assumption made was recommended. 
Such contributions through the peer review and public process could improve transparency, 
increase the quality of the analysis, and facilitate  risk communication by increasing the credibility 
and acceptance of the results. There needed to be a formal record of all decisions associated with 
the risk assessment and which would be made availa ble to interested independent parties so that 
other risk assessors could repeat and critique the work. The formal record and summary should 
indicate any constraints, uncertainties, assumptions, and their impact on the risk assessment.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 65 - 
 
  Members expressed concerns that certain norms and certain SPS measures applied to imports into 
the EAEU territory and into the Republic of Kazakhstan were not in line with international standards, guidelines and recommendations, and were not based on a risk assessment carried out 
based on the internationally recognised principles and recommendations described above. 
These Members sought assurances from Kazakhstan that these internationally recognised 
principles and recommendations would be used in conducting risk assessments for SPS measures 
applicable to imports into the Republic of Kazakhstan. 
175.  Kazakhstan confirmed that principles and recommendation developed by the relevant 
international organizations described in paragraphs [ 173] and [ 174] were used in conducting risk 
assessment for SPS measures applicable to imports in the Republic of Kazakhstan.  
The representative of Kazakhstan further explained that the Commission had adopted a Decision "On Equivalence of Sanitary, Veterinary, or Phytosanitary Measures and Conduct of Risk 
Assessment, CU Commission Decision No. 835 of  18 October 2011 (hereinafter - "Decision on 
Equivalence and Risk Assessment"). Under this Decision, EAEU member States were required, 
consistent with Article 5 of the WTO SPS Agreem ent, to ensure that sanitary, veterinary, or 
phytosanitary measures were based on an assessmen t, as appropriate to the circumstances, of the 
risks to human, animal or plant life or health, taking into account risk assessment techniques 
developed by the relevant international organizations, including Codex, OIE, and the IPPC. 
She further explained that the EAEU requirements  for conducting risk assessments corresponded 
to the provisions of Article 5 of the WTO SPS Agr eement, including a requirement that, as provided 
in Article 5.3 of the WTO SPS Agreement, in assessing  the risk to animal or plant life or health and 
determining the measure to be applied for achieving the appropriate level of sanitary, veterinary 
or phytosanitary protection from such risk, the EAEU member States would take into account as 
relevant economic factors:  the potential damage in terms of loss of production or sales in the 
event of the entry, establishment or spread of a pe st or disease, the costs of control or eradication 
in the territory of the member States, and the rela tive cost-effectiveness of alternative approaches 
to limiting risks.  
176.  Some Members of the Working Party noted the requirement applied to certain goods on 
the Common List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control that imports come from establishments 
on the Registry, as described in paragraph [ 61].  These Members expressed concern that applying 
this requirement to certain of the products on the Common List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control was not based on science or a risk assessment. In addition, there could also be a 
requirement for an establishment to be included in  the Register prior to being permitted to export 
products to the territory of the EAEU where a veterinary certificate, import permit and State 
Registration which appeared to be more trade rest rictive than required to achieve the appropriate 
level of protection of the EAEU. Moreover, th ese Members recalled their concerns about the 
absence of risk assessments and science to ju stify measures maintained by the EAEU and 
Kazakhstan that were more stringent than international standards, guidelines, and 
recommendations. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 66 - 
 
  177.  In response to the request of a Member to provide information on the risk assessment 
bodies involved in evaluation of risk, the repr esentative of Kazakhstan listed the following 
institutions: 
1) in the sphere of veterinary: 
- Kazakh Scientific Research veterinary Institute; 
- Republican veterinary laboratory; 
- National reference Center in veterinary; 
- KazAgroInnovation; and 
- Scientific Research Institute for Biological Safety Problems. 
2) in the sphere of phytosanitary: 
- Kazakh Scientific Institute of Plant Protection and Quarantine; 
- Republican Plant Quarantine Laboratory; 
- Republican Methodological Center of Phytosanitary Diagnostics and Prognosis; and 
- state enterprise "Phytosanitary". 
3) in the sphere of food safety: 
- National Scientific and Practical Centre of Sanitary and Epidemiological Expertise and 
Monitoring; 
- Kazakh Food Academy; and 
- Kazakh Scientific Center for Hygiene and Epidemiology . 
178.  A Member asked for confirmation that risk assessment is carried out prior to the 
introduction of a restriction on imports into the EAEU/Kazakhstan and that Kazakhstan/the EAEU 
will provide this risk assessment to the exporting country affected by the restrictions upon request.  
In reply, the representative of Kazakhstan said that pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the EAEU Treaty, SPS measures were developed and app lied on the basis of scientific justification and 
only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal and plant life and health. Pursuant to 
paragraph 2, Article 26-1 of the Law "On Veterina ry", veterinary measures had to be based on 
scientific justification, objective risk assessment or international standards. The representative 
confirmed that risk assessment was conducted prior to implementation of introduction of 
restriction to imports and would provide the result s of risk assessment upon request of exporting 
country, as provided for in the WTO Agreement. 
179.  [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, as of the date of accession of [the first 
EAEU member State to the WTO] [Kazakhstan], g oods would be included on the Common List of 
Goods Subject to Veterinary Control in Kazakhstan only if application of veterinary measures was 
in compliance with international standards, guidelines and recommendations, or if science and a 
risk assessment justified, consistent with the WT O SPS Agreement, subjecting a category of goods 
to veterinary measures. Similarly, the veterinary  m e a s u r e s  a p p l i e d  t o  e a c h  c a t e g o r y  o f  g o o d s  
would also be in compliance with international standards, recommendations and guidelines or 
based on science and a risk assessment. Furthermore, the representative confirmed that 
Kazakhstan would remove products from the List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control by the 
date of [its accession to the WTO] [the accession of the first EAEU member State to the WTO], if a 
risk assessment or scientific justification had not been provided. Moreover, the representative of JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 67 - 
 
  Kazakhstan confirmed that risk assessments would be conducted [in accordance with] [taking into 
account] the [methods] [techniques] of scientific evaluation set by the Codex Alimentarius.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.] 
180.  The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, as of the date of its accession to the 
WTO, EAEU and Kazakh SPS measures would be based on an assessment, as appropriate to the 
circumstances, of the risk to human, animal or plant life or health, taking into account risk 
assessment techniques developed by the relevant international organizations. She further 
confirmed that these assessments would take into account the standards guidelines and 
recommendations of Codex, OIE and IPPC, in particular:  Codex Guidelines on Working Principles 
for Risk Analysis for Food Safety for Applicat ion by Governments (CAC/GL 62-2007); chapter 2.1 
on Import Risk Analysis of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code; chapter 2.2 on Import Risk Analysis of the OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code; ISPM No. 2 "Framework for Pest Risk Analysis", 
ISPM No. 11, 21.  Furthermore, Kazakhstan would take into account the categories of commodities 
according to their pest risk established by IS PM 32. The Working Party took note of these 
commitments.  
- (iii) Regionalization 
181.  The representative of Kazakhstan explained that  Kazakh officials widely used the principle 
of regionalization, as defined in the WTO SPS Ag reement, when deciding to take a measure.  
The Common Veterinary Requirements (each chapter) adopted by the CU Commission Decision 
No. 317 of 18 June 2010 stipulated that the regionalization principle was recognised.  
The procedures for carrying out regionalization in the sphere of applying veterinary measures were 
in accordance with the OIE Code (Chapter 4.3. OIE, 2011). Kazakh legislation in the plant 
quarantine sphere was based on IPPC provisions and international standards on phytosanitary 
measures.  Accordingly, regionalization applied to  all imported regulated products.  Phytosanitary 
certificates were issued in the exporting country  by agencies of the official National Plant 
Protection Organization. Regional characteristics were a factor for the purposes of devising 
phytosanitary measures for use in a particular region. 
182.  The representative of Kazakhstan added that procedures for carrying out regionalization in 
the sphere of applying veterinary measures were in accordance with the OIE Code.  
The compliance of veterinary measures with OIE standards was accomplished through Common 
Veterinary Requirements and the Law No . 339-II "On Veterinary" of 10 July 2002. 
183.  She further stated that the principle of regionalization was applied in full accordance with 
provisions of IPPC and ISPM Nos. 1, 4, 10, 14, an d 29.  This had to be respected, including in the 
formulation of veterinary and phytosanitary certificates. 
- (iv) Equivalence 
184.  The representative of Kazakhstan explained th at the appropriate level of protection was 
determined by the EAEU bodies with regard to sanitary and veterinary measures and by each JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 68 - 
 
  EAEU member State on the national level with regard to phytosanitary measures, and were 
reflected in technical regulations for products prod uced on the territory of the EAEU and individual 
EAEU member States, respectively. Furthermore, the representative recalled that the 
CU Commission had adopted CU Commission Decision No. 835 "On Equivalence and Risk 
Assessment" of 18 October 2011 , which provided:  
- for EAEU member States to recognise equivalence if an exporting country objectively 
demonstrated that its measures achieved the appropriate level of sanitary or veterinary 
protection of the EAEU or the appropriate level of phytosanitary protection of an individual 
EAEU member State;  
- the procedure to follow as regards consultations with the exporting country(-ies) and 
relevant information to be provided by the exporting country(-ies);  
- procedural and substantive requirements as regards the judgement on recognition of 
equivalence; and 
- the possibility of inspection, testing or audit in the exporting country(-ies) upon a request 
by the EAEU member States.   
185.  In addition, under the CU Commission Decision "On Equivalence and Risk Assessment", 
EAEU member States committed to apply the same approach to requests for national recognition 
of equivalence in the phytosanitary field addressed to individual EAEU member States. She also 
noted that the CU Commission Decision "On Equivalence and Risk Assessment" provided for the 
possibility for exporting countries to request equivalence recognition by the EAEU or its member 
States (depending on respective competences) of their control or inspection systems. She explained that CU Commission Decision No. 835 of 18 October 2011 "On Equivalence and Risk 
Assessment", and procedures necessary to appl y this Decision have been adopted by EEC 
Collegium Decision No. 17 of 11 February 2014. The representative of Kazakhstan stated that, the 
CU Decision "On Equivalence and Risk Assessment" foresaw the following procedure: 
- submission of a request for equivalence recognition to a competent authority of an EAEU 
member State, including, inter alia , information on the type and scope of equivalence 
agreement requested, description of product(s), measure(s) or system(s) of control and inspections concerned, an evaluation of how the measure(s) or system(s) of the exporting 
country achieved the appropriate level of protection of the EAEU or an EAEU member State, 
and information on the feasibility and performance of the measure(s); 
- interactions between the EAEU member State and the exporting country in the context of 
the determination of equivalence; 
- prior to taking a decision on equivalence, the EAEU member State would, upon request, 
provide to the requesting exporting country an  explanation of the EAEU's or its level of 
protection; and 
- notification by the Commission or an EAEU member State to the exporting country of its 
judgement as regards recognition of equivalence in a timely manner and with appropriate explanation where it was found that the measure was not equivalent. 
186.  Furthermore, the representative of Kazakhstan specified that, in applying this Commission 
Decision, the EAEU member States would follow international standards, guidelines and 
recommendations developed by the relevant international organizations, including the Codex 
Alimentarius Commission, the International Office of Epizootics and the relevant international and 
regional organizations operating within the framework of the International Plant Protection 
Convention. Members noted that, as set-out in the Decision of the WTO SPS Committee, the 
importing Member had certain responsibilities: to  provide an explanation of the objective and 
rationale of the sanitary or phytosanitary measure and identify clearly the risks that the relevant JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 69 - 
 
  measure intended to address. Moreover, the importing Member should indicate the appropriate 
level of protection which its sanitary or phytosanitary measure was designed to achieve and should provide a copy of the risk assessment on which th e sanitary or phytosanitary measure was based.  
As stated in the WTO Committee Decision, an importing Member was to consider the relevant 
information and experience that the sanitary and phytosanitary services had on the measure(s) for 
which recognition of equivalence was requested. A key element for consideration was the historic 
knowledge and confidence that the competent au thority of the importing Member had of the 
competent authority of the exporting Member.   
187.  The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that Kazakhstan, from the date of its 
accession to the WTO, would ensure compliance with Article 4 of the WTO SPS Agreement.  
He further confirmed that, as provided for in Article 4 of the WTO SPS Agreement, sanitary, veterinary, and phytosanitary measures of other Members, even when they were different from 
measures of the Kazakhstan or the EAEU, would be accepted as equivalent, if the exporting 
country objectively demonstrated that its measures achieved the appropriate level of SPS 
protection applied in Kazakhstan. The representa tive also confirmed that, as of the date of 
accession of Kazakhstan to the WTO, procedures for recognition and determination of equivalence, 
consistent with the WTO SPS Agreement, including Article 4 thereof, whether applied by 
Kazakhstan or competent bodies of the EAEU, would be based on relevant international standards, 
guidelines and recommendations, namely the Decision of the WTO SPS Committee 
(G/SPS/19/Rev.2), Codex Guidelines on the Ju dgment of Equivalence of Sanitary Measures 
Associated with Food Inspection and Certificat ion Systems (CAC/GL 53-2003), Codex Guidelines 
for the Development of Equivalence Agreements Re garding Food Import and Export Inspection and 
Certification Systems (CAC/GL 34-1999); Chapter 5.3 of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code 
"OIE Procedures Relevant to the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures of the World Trade Organization" and ISPM No. 24 "Guidelines for the Determination and 
Recognition of Equivalence of Phytosanitary Meas ures". The Working Party took note of these 
commitments. 
- (v) Non-discrimination 
188.  Some Members also requested clarification of whether SPS measures applied in 
Kazakhstan established similar treatment for domestic and foreign like products.  
The representative of Kazakhstan stated that, in her view, non-discriminatory treatment was 
provided by the current legislation of Kazakhst an and EAEU Agreements, Commission Decisions, 
and other EAEU Acts. EAEU Agreements, Commissi on Decisions and other EAEU Acts did not set-
out separate SPS measures for imported goods.  Sanitary-epidemiological, veterinary and 
phytosanitary rules, criteria, measures and requirements were applied uniformly and without 
discrimination to all foreign, EAEU, and domestic products and suppliers.  She stated that SPS 
requirements were implemented with respect to goods originating from foreign countries in the 
same way, they were applied in respect of similar products of Kazakh origin. EAEU Agreements, Commission Decisions, and other EAEU Acts, as well as the current legislation of Kazakhstan in the 
veterinary/sanitary sphere (Article 23 of the Law of  Republic of Kazakhstan "On Veterinary") were JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 70 - 
 
  uniform and established identical requirements for both foreign, EAEU, and domestic goods and 
manufacturers, including requirements for putting products on the domestic market.  Finally, phytosanitary requirements applied to regulated products originating from a foreign 
country in the same manner as they applied to the same regulated products of Kazakh origin. 
189.  Non-discrimination principle was ensured in paragraphs 1 27, 142 and 153 of the EEC 
Council Decision No. 94 stipulating the same requirements to the laboratory testing of imported 
and domestic products. 
190.  The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that all SPS measures developed and applied 
in Kazakhstan, whether by Kazakhstan or competent bodies of the EAEU, would comply with the 
non-discrimination provisions of the WTO SPS Agreement, including those relating to the principles 
of national and most-favoured-nation treatment. The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
(h) Transparency, Notification and Enquiry Point Obligations 
191.  With regard to the transparency requirements of the SPS Agreement, the representative of 
Kazakhstan said that a single TBT/SPS enquiry point had been in operation since July 2005.  
The enquiry point notified WTO Members of SPS measures in effect, as well as on measures that 
were still in preparation. The enquiry point, upon receipt of notifications from the WTO Secretariat, 
EurAsEC member State, EAEU member States an d other international organizations, published 
them quarterly in the official publication of the au thorised body (Bulletin of the Enquiry Point) and 
monthly in the common information system (www. memst.kz or www.wto.memst.kz). Notifications 
would be prepared in accordance with the "Rules and Procedures for Preparation of Notifications on 
Pending (Being Adopted) Technical Regulations and Standards". These rules had been developed in 
line with the notification provisions of the SPS and TBT Agreements and ensured that notifications 
took place at an early stage when comments could be taken into account and prior to the adoption 
and enforcement of these proposed regulations.   The enquiry point could be contacted at: 
Address: Orynbor, 11 
  Left Bank 
  010000 Astana 
  Republic of Kazakhstan 
Telephone: +(771) 7222 6482 
Tel/fax: +(771) 7220 5640 
E-mail: enquirypoint@mail.ru Website: www.wto.memst.kz 
192.  A Working Party Member asked the representative of Kazakhstan to clarify as to whether 
the phrase "get familiar with intention" in paragraph 2.3 of the Rules of Completion and 
Submission of WTO Notifications included the opportunity to comment. The representative of 
Kazakhstan replied that in general, the scope of th e Rules is only the methodology of filing of SPS 
notifications.  The possibility to comment was pr ovided in the Government Resolution No. 718 of 
11 July 2005 as last amended in September 2010. In particular, paragraph 11 provided that the 
Enquiry Point, upon request of the WTO Secretariat, EurAsEC members and other international JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 71 - 
 
  organizations had to present information (clarifications), standards, conformity assessment 
procedures, and other SPS measures.  
193.  This Member, with regard to provision 2.8 and the Order included in the Annexes, noted 
that the Order was very similar to the notification format used for notifications under the SPS and 
TBT Agreements; however, there were some differences. For instance, the Order did not include a 
section for the comment deadline. In this regard, this Member enquired why Kazakhstan 
developed its own format instead of using the formats developed by the SPS and TBT Committees.  
In reply, the representative of Kazakhstan said that the mentioned notification format was related 
to notifications on emergency measures in technical regulations, SPS measures, or amendments to 
them. The purpose of such notifications was to inform interested WTO Members about urgent 
measures, implemented in order to protect human and animal life and health, ensure plant and/or 
environment protection. She emphasised that emergency notification forms developed by the WTO 
SPS and TBT Committees do not have a section for comment deadline. The regular notification 
format – also included in Annex 1 of the Rules of Completion and Submission – contained the 
section for the comment deadline.  
194.  As regards emergency measures, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that 
Kazakhstan would comply with point 6 of Annex B to the WTO SPS Agreement.  
195.  This Member commented that with regards to the operation of the enquiry point, one of 
the issues discussed by WTO Members in the Committee was the importance of inter-agency 
coordination.  The enquiry point for both SPS and TBT was established in the Committee on 
Technical Regulation and Metrology of the Ministry  of Investments and Development  (MEMST).  
In this regard, this Working Party Member asked how MEMST would coordinate with other agencies 
involved in developing SPS measures.  
196.  The representative of Kazakhstan stated th at the SPS/TBT enquiry point was established 
by the Government Resolution No. 718 of 11 Ju ly 2005, which authorised the Enquiry Point to 
coordinate with the Ministry of Agriculture and the Committee of Consumer Rights Protection on 
the issues of SPS notifications, including respon ding comments from WTO Members.  Pursuant to 
this Resolution, Government agencies (including the Ministry of Agriculture and the Committee of 
Consumer Rights Protection) provided appropriate information to the enquiry point within two days 
after the adoption and application of TBT and SPS measures in order to send such information to 
the WTO Secretariat, EurAsEC member State, EAEU member States and other international 
organizations.   
197.  A Member asked Kazakhstan to describe in details the steps that would take place for SPS 
notification of draft EEC texts, both for the notification and for the consideration of the comments 
received. In reply, the representative of Kaza khstan explained that Kazakhstan would notify 
WTO Members on EEC SPS measures once the first draft of the SPS document was approved by 
the working group and then by the Consultative Committee for public consultation. 
Thus, Kazakhstan's SPS/TBT Enquiry Point would send notification to the WTO approximately at JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 72 - 
 
  the same time when the draft SPS document woul d be published for public consultation by the 
EEC.  This would allow EAEU member States to synchronize the process of receiving comments through both mechanisms. Moreover, after Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO, its enquiry point 
would coordinate the notification process with the Russian Federation's notification authority in 
order to ensure that similar dates for comments were established for the notifications of the same 
draft document.  She clarified that the 60 day s comment period through WTO notification would be 
provided even if the EEC public comment period wa s closed.  Contact point for sending feedback to 
the notified EEC document would be indicated in th e notification and it could be either the SPS/TBT 
enquiry point, or the EEC, or both. The SPS/TBT Enquiry Point would forward comments and 
proposals received from WTO Members to the relevant authorized body of Kazakhstan, which, in 
turn, would forward them to the EEC. She further explained that the received comments and proposals would be considered at the EEC workin g group meeting. In accordance with Decision 
No. 31 the Department of the Sanitary, Phytosanitary and Veterinary Measures of the 
Commission  within 30 days after expiration of the public consultation period had to compile a 
summary table of comments received under the public consultation and under the WTO SPS 
notification channels, and answers to these comments, and publish it on the official EEC website. 
In addition, the enquiry point would provide answ ers to WTO Member's comments provided in the 
context of the SPS notifications. 
198.  She added that, pursuant to Government Resolution No. 1627 of 30 October 2000, the 
Ministry of Agriculture had established an Inform ation Marketing System to enhance transparency 
through regular exchange of analytical marketing information between agricultural producers, 
public bodies, and other participants on the agricultural market; and through enhanced interaction 
with international organizations. All re levant drafts, amended and final SPS and 
(agriculture-related) TBT regulations and rules were available from the Ministry's website, 
www.minagri.gov.kz as well as from www.memst.kz . All interested parties could send questions 
and comments to the Ministry at strategy@minagri.k z. The enquiry point also published a quarterly 
bulletin of all draft amended and final SPS measures. The Ministry of Agriculture issued an 
analytical bulletin "Agroinform", which contained all legal acts, approved by the Ministry of 
Agriculture, including legislation on veterinary, quarantine and plant protection. In addition, the 
State sanitary and epidemiological control system maintained a regularly updated database on the 
incidence of infectious diseases and on the results of random laboratory tests of drinking water and food products. This information was available to all interested parties.   
199.  In response to a question from a Member regarding the existence of a process for public 
participation in the development of rules and regulations, she said that Law No. 124-III 
"On Private Entrepreneurship" of 31 January 2006 provided for the participation of the private 
sector in the development of regulatory acts that would affect the interests of private 
entrepreneurs.  In her view, the provisions of th is law ensured that the public could put forward 
proposals for the consideration of the relevant authorised body. Besides, in accordance with the 
above-mentioned law, a draft law had to be ex amined by accredited Business Associations.  
In response to specific questions, the representative of Kazakhstan replied that Kazakhstan's JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 73 - 
 
  legislation contained no restrictions on foreign participation in the development of sanitary and 
phytosanitary standards (e.g. participation in technical committees meetings, providing comments). Proposals and comments should be submitted through the enquiry point.  
Furthermore, the EEC Collegium Decision No. 161 of 18 September 2012, which replaced the 
Customs Union Commission Decision No. 319 as amended by CU Commission No. 625 of 
7 April 2011, provided for publication of EAEU draft SPS measures with a public comment period of 
at least 60 days. Within this period, any interested party could submit its comments on the drafts. 
The representative of Kazakhstan further explaine d that according to Article 8 of the Annex to 
EEC Council Decision No. 48 of 20 June 2012, which set a procedure for the development, 
adoption, amendment and repealing of technica l regulations of the EAEU, draft technical 
regulations must be published on the EEC website and should be available for public consultation 
for at least two months. Comments received from interested parties would then be taken into 
account to amend the draft technical regulations. 
200.  Members noted that many comments on draft technical regulations had been provided to 
the EAEU member States and institutions through the public consultation mechanism.  Members 
were concerned that few of the submitted comments had resulted in modifications to the final 
adopted technical regulations, even in cases where the comments noted discrepancies with 
international standards or suggested alternative approaches more aligned with the international 
standards and facilitating trade. These Members therefore sought assurances that meaningful 
consideration would be given to comments and that the mechanisms provided by CU Commission Decision No. 625 for aligning with international standards would be fully implemented. 
201.  The representative of Kazakhstan said that EEC Council Decision No. 48 had approved a 
new Regulation on Development, Adoption, Amending  and Cancellation of Technical Regulations of 
the Customs Union.  Pursuant to the Decision, a table of comments and proposals resulting from 
public consultation with corresponding answers wa s published on the EAEU official website. EEC 
Collegium Decision No. 31 of 5 March 2013 provided for similar procedures for SPS measures, 
namely, the publication of summary table of comments and answers on the EAEU official website. 
She further clarified that the mechanism of al igning EAEU SPS measures with international 
standards provided by CU Commission Decision No. 625, had been established in EEC Collegium 
Decision No. 212 of 6 November 2012 "On Regula tion on the Uniform Procedure of Carrying Out 
Examination of Legal Acts of the Customs Union in the Sphere of Implementation of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures", which ha d replaced CU Commission Decision No. 801 of 
23 September 2011. 
202.  In reply to a Members' question Kazakhstan confirmed that it would follow SPS Committee 
Recommended procedures for implementing the tr ansparency obligations of the SPS Agreement 
G/SPS/7/Rev.3. 
203.  The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that Kazakhstan would notify draft 
SPS measures applicable to imports into Kazakhstan to the WTO SPS Committee, including EAEU 
SPS measures, following the principles of the SPS Committee Recommended procedures for JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 74 - 
 
  implementation of the transparency provis ions of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/7/Rev.3. 
SPS measures, including those relating to inspection, were published in publications, such as those mentioned in paragraph [ 198]. Information on all proposed SPS measures and those in effect, as 
foreseen in Annex B of the WTO SPS Agreement, co uld also be obtained from the SPS notification 
authority or from Kazakhstan's SPS enquiry point.  The Working Party took note of these 
commitments. 
(i) Proportionality, Nece ssity, and Reasonableness 
204.  Some Members of the Working Party expressed concern that SPS measures applied by 
Kazakhstan and other EAEU member States to exports to Kazakhstan were not always 
proportionate to the risk identified.  These Member s gave the following examples of measures that 
were disproportionate or otherwise inconsistent with international rules:   
- the list of goods subject to veterinary control included goods that did not represent a 
veterinary or sanitary risk which would justify submitting these goods to requirements for 
listing establishments on the Common Register, State Registration, import permits, and veterinary certificate requirements;  
- imposition of trade restrictive measures, such as suspension of establishments or 
mandatory pre-export testing, were not re viewed and eliminated after food safety 
standards had been harmonized with international standards or when steps had been taken to address food safety issues;  
- inspectors requesting exporting establishments to show the results of monitoring of 
residues of veterinary medicinal products in processed products in addition to the monitoring carried out on the raw materials;  
- EAEU member States not using residue monitoring plans as a tool to manage the risk of 
exposure, as foreseen in Codex guidelines, but requesting pre-export tests;  
- EAEU member States requesting systematic inspections of plant nurseries before allowing 
export to Kazakhstan of plants for planting, in absence of basis foreseen by the IPPC to 
have such preliminary inspection; and  
- overly detailed and unnecessary requirements of inspectors during inspections.   
These Members recalled that the principles of pr oportionality, necessity and reasonableness were 
enshrined in a number of Articles of the WTO SPS Ag reement, such as Articles 2.1, 2.2, 5.3, 5.4, 
5.6 and Annex C thereof, and that, in their view, Kazakhstan should also modify its practices to 
make them more proportionate to the risks and reasonable.   
205.  In response to these concerns, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that all 
SPS measures, whether adopted by Kazakhstan or the competent bodies of the EAEU, would be 
applied in conformity with the WTO SPS Agreemen t. In particular these SPS measures would be 
applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health and would be 
not more trade restrictive than required to achieve the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection of the EAEU and Kazakh stan. Finally, when determining the appropriate 
level of sanitary, veterinary, or phytosanitary protection, Kazakhstan or the competent bodies of 
the EAEU, would take into account the objective to minimize negative trade effects in accordance 
with the WTO SPS Agreement. The Working Party took note of these commitments. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8 
 
- 75 - 
 
  (j) Conclusion 
206.  The representative of Kazakhstan confirme d that, from the date of accession of 
Kazakhstan to the WTO, all SPS measures would be developed, whether by Kazakhstan or the 
competent bodies of the EAEU, and applied in Ka zakhstan in accordance with the WTO Agreement 
and in particular, the WTO SPS Agreement.  In particular, SPS measures would be applied only to 
the extent necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health; would be based on scientific 
principles and, where they exist, on international standards, guidelines, and recommendations; and, would not be more trade restrictive than required to achieve the appropriate level of 
protection applied in Kazakhstan. SPS measures would not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate 
between Members where identical or similar conditio ns prevail, including between the territory of 
Kazakhstan and that of other Members. SPS meas ures would not be applied in a manner, which 
would constitute a disguised restriction on international trade, and would not be maintained 
without sufficient scientific evidence, except as provided for in Article 5.7 of the 
WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
- 76 - Table [...] - List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control 
 
No. Group, HS code Description of goods Supporting documents Import licence 
(yes/no) List of third 
countries 
enterprises 
(yes/no) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
Measures applied upon accession of the Republic of Kazakhstan to the World Trade Organization 
1 0101 Live horses, asses, mules and hinnies veterinary certificate or 
veterinary passport (for sport horses) yes no 
2 0102 Live cattle veterinary  certificate yes no 
3 0103 Live pigs veterinary  certificate yes no 
4 0104 Live sheep and goats veterinary certificate yes no 
5 0105 Live poultry, i.e fowls (G allus domesticus), ducks, 
geese, turkeys and guinea fowls veterinary certificate yes no 
6 0106 Live animals, except those specified in positions 1 - 5 
of the present list veterinary certificate or veterinary passport (for dogs and cats imported for personal use in the quantity no more than 2 heads) Yes, except for dogs and 
cats imported for personal use in the quantity no more than 2 heads  no 
7 0201 Meat of cattle, fresh or cooled  veterinary cert ificate yes yes 
8 0202 Meat of cattle, frozen vete rinary certificate yes yes 
9 0203 Pork fresh, cooled or frozen ve terinary certificate yes yes 
10 0204 Lamb or chevon fresh, cooled or fro zen veterinary ce rtificate yes yes 
11 0205 00 Meat of horses, asses, mule s or hinnies, fresh, cooled 
or frozen veterinary cert ificate yes yes 
12 0206 Edible offal of cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, horses, 
asses, mules or hinnies, fresh, cooled or frozen veterinary cert ificate yes yes 
13 0207 Meat and edible offal of poultry specified in position 5 
of present list, fresh, cooled or frozen veterinary cert ificate yes yes 
14 0208 Others meat and edible offa l, fresh, chilled or frozen, 
except specified in positions 7 – 13 of the present list  veterinary cert ificate yes yes 
15 0209 Pig fat, free of lean meat, and poultry fat, not 
rendered or otherwise extracted, fresh, chilled, frozen, salted
1, in brine1, dried1 or smoked1 veterinary cert ificate yes yes 
16 0210 Meat and edible meat offal, salted1, in brine1, dried1 or 
smoked1; edible flours of meat or meat offal veterinary cert ificate yes yes 
17 from 0301 Live fish intended for human consum ption veterinary ce rtificate yes yes   
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
- 77 - No. Group, HS code Description of goods Supporting documents Import licence 
(yes/no) List of third 
countries 
enterprises 
(yes/no) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
18 from 0301 Live fish intended for breeding in decorative purposes, 
including aquarium fish, and not intended for human consumption veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation  
19 0302 Fish, fresh or chilled, excluding fish fillets and other 
fish meat specified in position 21 of present list veterinary cert ificate yes yes 
20 0303 Fish, frozen, excluding fish fillets and other fish meat 
specified in position 21 of present list veterinary cert ificate yes yes 
21 0304 Fish fillets and other fish meat (including minced), 
fresh, cooled or frozen veterinary cert ificate yes yes 
22 0305 Fish, dried, salted or in brine; smoked fish, whether 
or not cooked before or during the smoking process1; 
flours, meals and pellets of fish, fit for human 
consumption1 veterinary cert ificate yes yes 
23 0306 Crustaceans, whether in shell or not, live, fresh, 
chilled, frozen, dried 1, salted1 or in brine1; smoked 
crustaceans, whether in shell or not, whether or not cooked before or during the smoking process
 1; 
crustaceans, in shell, cooked by steaming1 or by 
boiling1 in water, whether or not chilled, frozen, 
dried1, salted1 or in brine1; flours, meals and pellets of 
crustaceans, fit fo r human consumption1 veterinary cert ificate yes yes 
24 0307 Mollusks, whether in shell or not, live, fresh, chilled, 
frozen, dried1, salted1 or in brine1; smoked mollusks, 
whether in shell or not, whether or not cooked before or during the smoking process
1; flours, meals and 
pellets of mollusks, fit for human consumption1 veterinary cert ificate yes yes 
25 0308 Aquatic invertebrates other than crustaceans and 
mollusks, live, fresh, chilled, frozen, dried1, salted1 or 
in brine1; aquatic invertebrates other than 
crustaceans and mollusks, smoked, whether or not cooked before or during smoking process
1; flours, 
meals and pellets of aquatic invertebrates other than crustaceans and mollusks, fit for human consumption
1  veterinary cert ificate yes yes  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
- 78 - No. Group, HS code Description of goods Supporting documents Import licence 
(yes/no) List of third 
countries 
enterprises 
(yes/no) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
26 from 0401 Milk and cream, not conc entrated nor containing 
added sugar or other sweete ning matter (except raw 
milk and raw cream) veterinary certificate 
 yes The measure applies to 
goods imported from third countries into the territory of the Republic of Belarus. In respect of goods imported from third countries to the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, inclusion in the registry is not required, but the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued 
controlled goods into 
circulation 
27 from 0401 Raw milk and raw cream vete rinary certificate yes yes 
28 0402 Milk and cream, concentrated or containing added 
sugar or other sweetening matter 1 veterinary certificate 
 yes The measure applies to 
goods imported from third countries into the territory of the Republic of Belarus. In 
respect of goods 
imported from third countries to the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, inclusion in the registry is not required, but the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation   
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
- 79 - No. Group, HS code Description of goods Supporting documents Import licence 
(yes/no) List of third 
countries 
enterprises 
(yes/no) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
29 0403 Buttermilk, curdled milk an d cream, yogurt, kefir and 
other fermented or acidified milk and cream, whether or not concentrated or containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or flavored or containing added fruit, nuts or cocoa
1 veterinary certificate ye s The measure applies to 
goods imported from third countries into the territory of the Republic of Belarus. In respect of goods imported from third countries to the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, inclusion in the registry is not required, but the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued 
controlled goods into 
circulation 
30 0404 Whey, whether or not concentrated or containing 
added sugar or other swee tening matter; products 
consisting of natural milk constituents, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter
1 veterinary certificate ye s The measure applies to 
goods imported from third countries into the territory of the Republic of Belarus. In respect of goods imported from third countries to the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, inclusion in the registry is not 
required, but the 
import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
- 80 - No. Group, HS code Description of goods Supporting documents Import licence 
(yes/no) List of third 
countries 
enterprises 
(yes/no) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
31 0405 Butter and others fats and oils derived from milk1; 
dairy spreads1 veterinary certificate ye s The measure applies to 
goods imported from third countries into the territory of the Republic of Belarus. In respect of goods imported from third countries to the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, inclusion in the registry is not required, but the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued 
controlled goods into 
circulation 
32 from 0406 Cheese and curd1 other than processed cheese 
containing sausage, meat, meat offal, blood, fish, crustaceans, mollusks or other aquatic invertebrates, or the products of group 04 EAEU HS or any combination of these products
2 veterinary certificate ye s The measure applies to 
goods imported from third countries into the territory of the Republic of Belarus. In respect of goods imported from third countries to the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, inclusion in the registry is not 
required, but the 
import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation   
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
- 81 - No. Group, HS code Description of goods Supporting documents Import licence 
(yes/no) List of third 
countries 
enterprises 
(yes/no) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
33 from 0406 Processed cheese containing sausage, meat, meat 
offal, blood, fish, crustace ans, mollusks or other 
aquatic invertebrates, or the products of group 04 EAEU HS or any combination of these products
2 veterinary certificate – for 
goods, imported to the territory of the Republic of Belarus, for goods imported to the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, – veterinary certificate (except for products containing less than 50% components of animal origin) The measure applies to 
goods imported into the territory of the Republic of Belarus The measure applies to 
goods imported from third countries into the territory of the Republic of Belarus. In respect of goods imported from third countries to the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, inclusion into the register is required, if company – manufacturer of sausage, meat, meat by-products, blood, fish, crustaceans, mollusks or other 
aquatic invertebrates, 
or products of group 04 of EAEU HS Code or any combination of these products is not included in the registry 
34 0407 Birds' eggs, in shell, fresh, preserved1 or cooked1 veterinary certificate ye s The measure applies to 
goods imported from third countries into the territory of the Republic of Belarus. In respect of goods imported from third countries to the territory of the 
Republic of Kazakhstan 
and the Russian Federation, inclusion into the register is required only for processed egg products 
35 0408 Birds' eggs, not in shell, an d egg yolks, fresh, dried, 
cooked by steaming1 or by boiling1 in water, molded1, 
frozen or otherwise preserved1, whether or not 
containing added sugar or other sweetening matter veterinary cert ificate yes yes  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
- 82 - No. Group, HS code Description of goods Supporting documents Import licence 
(yes/no) List of third 
countries 
enterprises 
(yes/no) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
36 0409 00 000 0 Natural honey  veterinary certificate The measure applies to 
goods imported into the territory of the Republic of Belarus no 
37 0410 00 000 0 Food products of animal origin, not elsewhere 
specified or included veterinary certificate yes no 
38 0502 Pork or boar bristle, badger  or other bristle used for 
brush making; their wastes veterinary certificate yes no 
39 0504 00 000 0 intestines, bladders and stomachs of animals (other 
than fish), whole and lumped, fresh, chilled, frozen, salted, in brine, dried or smoked veterinary certificate ye s The measure applies to 
goods imported from third countries into the territory of the Republic of Belarus. In respect of goods imported from third countries to the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian 
Federation, inclusion in 
the registry is not required, but the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
40 0505 Hides and other parts of birds with feathers or down, 
feathers, parts of feathers 
(with trimmed or not trimmed edges) and down, cleaned, disinfected or tr eated for preservation, but 
not exposed to further proc essing; powder and wastes 
of feathers or parts thereof veterinary certificate yes no 
41 0506 Bones and horn pith, unproc essed, defatted, exposed 
to primary processing (without shaping), treated with acid or de-gelled; powder and wastes thereof veterinary certificate yes no   
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
- 83 - No. Group, HS code Description of goods Supporting documents Import licence 
(yes/no) List of third 
countries 
enterprises 
(yes/no) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
42 from 0507 Ivory, tortoise shell, bone of a whale or other marine 
mammals, horns, antlers, hooves, nails, claws and beaks, unprocessed or expo sed to primary processing 
(without shaping); powder and wastes thereof veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
43 0510 00 000 0 Ambergris, castor, civet and musk; Spanish fly; bile, 
including dried; glands and other products of original 
origin used in the manufacture of pharmaceutical 
products, fresh, chilled,  frozen or otherwise 
provisionally preserved for short-term storage veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the 
import permit and 
veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
44 0511 Products of animal origin, not included in other EAEU 
HS positions; dead animals of group 01 EAEU HS or 03 EAEU HS, unfit for human consumption veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into 
circulation 
45 0511 99 859 2 Horsehair and wastes thereof, including in the form of 
wadding with or without substrate  veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
- 84 - No. Group, HS code Description of goods Supporting documents Import licence 
(yes/no) List of third 
countries 
enterprises 
(yes/no) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
46 from 0511, from 
9601, from 9705 00 
000 0 Hunter's trophies, stuffed animals, including exposed 
to taxidermy treatment or preserved veterinary certificate (only for 
untreated (canned) hunting trophies) No - for those past 
complete taxidermy treatment Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the import permit and veterinary certificate (if necessary) should include the name of taxidermist workshop where primary processing of trophies was performed, or hunting entity 
47 from 1001 19 000 0 Hard wheat (only forage grain) 3 veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
48 from 1001 99 000 0 Soft wheat (only forage grain) 3 veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into 
circulation 
49 from 1002 90 000 0 Rye (only forage grain) 3 veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
50 from 1003 90 000 0 Barley (only forage grain) 3 veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation   
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
- 85 - No. Group, HS code Description of goods Supporting documents Import licence 
(yes/no) List of third 
countries 
enterprises 
(yes/no) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
51 from 1004 90 000 0 Oat (only forage grain) 3 veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
52 from 1005 90 000 0 Corn (only forage grain) 3 veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the veterinary certificate 
should include number 
and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
53 from 1201 90 000 0 Soybeans (only forage grain) 3 veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
54 from 1208 flours, meals and pellets of oil seeds (except mustard 
seeds) intended for feeding animals3  veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
55 from 1211 Plants and parts thereof (including seeds and fruits), 
used in veterinary, fresh or dried, whole or milled, 
crushed3 veterinary certificate – upon 
declaration the use of 
veterinary products, including 
animal feed yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the 
veterinary certificate 
should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
- 86 - No. Group, HS code Description of goods Supporting documents Import licence 
(yes/no) List of third 
countries 
enterprises 
(yes/no) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
56 from  1212 99 950 0 Bee bread, pollen veterinary certificate The measure is applied to 
goods imported into the territory of the Republic of Belarus Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
57 1213 00 000 0 Cereal straw and husks, unprepared, whether or not 
chopped, ground, pressed or  in the form of pellets3 veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the veterinary certificate 
should include number 
and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
58 1214 Rutabagas, leaf beat (man gold), fodder roots, hay, 
alfalfa (lucerne), clover, sain foin, forage kale, lupines, 
vetches and similar forage pr oducts, whether or not in 
the form of pellets3 veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
59 from 1301 90 000 0 Propolis  veterinary certificate The measure is applied to 
goods imported into the territory of the Republic of Belarus Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
60 1501 Pig fat (including lard) and poultry fat, other than that 
of position 15 and 62  veterinary certificate – only 
for controlled products of 
animal origin intended for food 
and feed purposes and not subjected to disinfection treatment yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the 
import permit and 
veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation   
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
- 87 - No. Group, HS code Description of goods Supporting documents Import licence 
(yes/no) List of third 
countries 
enterprises 
(yes/no) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
61 1502 Fats of bovine animals, sh eep or goats, other than 
those of position 62  veterinary certificate – only 
for controlled products of animal origin intended for food and feed purposes and not subjected to disinfection treatment The measure is applied to 
goods imported into the territory of the Republic of Belarus Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
62 1503 00 Lard stearin, lard oil, oleostearin, oleo-oil and tallow 
oil, not emulsified or mixed or otherwise prepared veterinary certificate – only 
for controlled products of 
animal origin intended for food 
and feed purposes and not subjected to disinfection treatment The measure is applied to 
goods imported into the 
territory of the Republic of 
Belarus Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the 
import permit and 
veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
63 1504 Fats and oils and their fractions, of fish or marine 
mammals, whether or not refined, but not chemically modified veterinary certificate – only 
for controlled products of animal origin intended for food and feed purposes and not subjected to disinfection treatment The measure is applied to 
goods imported into the territory of the Republic of Belarus Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into 
circulation 
64 1505 00 Grease and fatty substances derived therefrom 
(including lanolin) veterinary certificate – only 
for controlled products of animal origin intended for food and feed purposes and not subjected to disinfection treatment The measure is applied to 
goods imported into the territory of the Republic of Belarus Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
65 1506 00 000 0 Other animal fats and oils and their fractions, whether 
or not refined, but no t chemically modified veterinary certificate – only 
for controlled products of animal origin intended for food and feed purposes and not subjected to disinfection treatment The measure is applied to 
goods imported into the territory of the Republic of Belarus Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
- 88 - No. Group, HS code Description of goods Supporting documents Import licence 
(yes/no) List of third 
countries 
enterprises 
(yes/no) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
66 1516 10 Animal fats and oils and their fractions, partly or 
wholly hydrogenated, inter-esterified, re-esterified or elaidinized, whether or not refined, but not exposed to 
further processing veterinary certificate – only 
for controlled products of animal origin intended for food and feed purposes and not subjected to disinfection treatment The measure is applied to 
goods imported into the territory of the Republic of Belarus Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
67 1516 20 Vegetable fats and oils and their fractions, partly or 
wholly hydrogenated, inter-esterified, re-esterified or 
elaidinized, whether or not refined, but not exposed to 
further processing3 veterinary certificate – only 
upon declaration the use of 
products in animal feed  yes no 
68 1518 00 Animal or vegetable fats an d oils and their fractions, 
boiled, oxidized, dehydrated, sulfurized, blown, polymerized by heat in vacuum or in inert gas or otherwise chemically modified, excluding those of heading 1516; inedible mixtures or preparations of animal or vegetable fats or oils or of fractions of different fats or oils  veterinary certificate (when 
declaring the use of products in veterinary, including in animal feed) – for goods imported into the territory of the Republic of Belarus, for goods imported to the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, - veterinary certificate (except for products containing less than 50% components of animal origin) The measure is applied to 
goods imported into the territory of the Republic of B e l a r u s ,  a s  w e l l  a s  u p o n  import to the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation of goods, specified in this position, except for the vegetable fats Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
69 1521 90 Bee wax, other insect waxes and spermaceti, whether 
or not refined or colored veterinary certificate yes no 
70 1601 00 Sausages and similar products , of meat, meat offal or 
blood1; food preparations based on these products1 veterinary cert ificate yes yes 
71 1602 Other prepared or preserved products of meat, meat 
offal or blood1 veterinary cert ificate yes yes 
72 1603 00 Extracts and juices of meat, fish or crustaceans, 
mollusks or other aquatic invertebrates veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
73 1604 Prepared or preserved fish1; sturgeon roe and its 
substitutes prepar ed from fish eggs1 veterinary cert ificate yes yes 
74 1605 Crustaceans, mollusks and other aquatic 
invertebrates, prepared or preserved1 veterinary cert ificate yes yes   
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
- 89 - No. Group, HS code Description of goods Supporting documents Import licence 
(yes/no) List of third 
countries 
enterprises 
(yes/no) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
75 from 1902 20 Stuffed pasta, whether or not cooked or otherwise 
prepared, containing fish, crustaceans, mollusks or other aquatic invertebrates, sausages, meat, meat offal, blood, or the products of heading 04, or any combination of these products
2 veterinary certificate  
(except for products 
containing less than 50% components of animal origin) The measure is applied to 
goods imported into the territory of the Republic of Belarus (except for products containing less than 50% components of animal origin) Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
76 from 1904 20 Cereals (except corn) in the form of grain or flakes or 
otherwise treated (except flour, fine and meal), pre-cooked or otherwise 
prepared, containing fish, crustaceans, mollusks or 
other aquatic invertebrates, sausages, meat, meat offal, blood, or the products of heading 04, or any combination of these produkts
2 veterinary certificate  
(except for products 
containing less than 50% 
components of animal origin) The measure is applied to 
goods imported into the territory of the Republic of 
Belarus (except for 
products containing less than 50% components of animal origin) Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the veterinary certificate 
should include number 
and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
77 from group 20 Derivatives of vegetables, fru it, nuts or other parts of 
plants and mixtures thereof, containing sausage, meat, meat offal, blood, fish or crustaceans, mollusks or other aquatic invertebrates, or products of heading 04, or any combination of these products
2 veterinary certificate  
(except for products 
containing less than 50% components of animal origin) The measure is applied to 
goods imported into the territory of the Republic of Belarus (except for products containing less than 50% components of animal origin) Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
78 from 2102 20 Inactive yeasts3; other dead single-cell 
microorganisms used  as animal feed3 veterinary certificate yes no 
79 from 2104 Soups and broths and preparations therefor; 
homogenized composite food  preparations (except 
vegetable) homogenized co mposite food products 
containing sausage, meat, meat offal, blood, fish, crustaceans, mollusks or other aquatic invertebrates, or the products of heading 04 HS or any combination these produkts
2 veterinary certificate  
(except for products 
containing less than 50% components of animal origin) The measure is applied to 
goods imported into the territory of the Republic of Belarus (except for products containing less than 50% components of animal origin) Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
- 90 - No. Group, HS code Description of goods Supporting documents Import licence 
(yes/no) List of third 
countries 
enterprises 
(yes/no) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
80 from 2105 00 Ice cream, except ice cream on fruits and berries 
basis, fruit and edible ice2 veterinary certificate – for 
goods imported into the territory of the Republic of Belarus, for goods imported to the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, – veterinary certificate  (except for products containing less than 50% components of animal origin) The measure is applied to 
goods imported into the territory of the Republic of Belarus The measure is applied 
to goods imported into the territory of the Republic of Belarus. In respect of goods imported from third countries to the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, inclusion in the registry is not required, but the veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
81 from 2106 Food products not elsewhere specified or included2 veterinary certificate – for 
goods imported into the territory of the Republic of Belarus, for goods imported to the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, – veterinary certificate  (except for products containing less than 50% components of animal origin) The measure is applied to 
goods imported into the territory of the Republic of Belarus The measure is applied 
to goods imported into the territory of the Republic of Belarus. In respect of goods imported from third countries to the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, inclusion in the registry is required, if company – manufacturer of sausage, meat, meat 
by-products, blood, 
fish, crustaceans, mollusks or other aquatic invertebrates, or products of group 04 of EAEU HS Code or any combination of these products is not included in the registry   
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
- 91 - No. Group, HS code Description of goods Supporting documents Import licence 
(yes/no) List of third 
countries 
enterprises 
(yes/no) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
82 2301 Flours, meals and pellets, of meat or meat offal, of 
fish or of crustaceans, mollusks or other aquatic invertebrates, unfit for human consumption; greaves (cracklings) veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
83 from 2302 Bran, sharps and other resi dues from sifting, milling 
or other working of cereals or legumes, granulated or 
non-granulated, used as animal feed3 veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the 
veterinary certificate 
should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
84 from 2303 Residues of starch manufac ture and simi lar residues, 
beet-pulp, bagasse and other waste of sugar manufacture, brewing or di stilling dregs and waste, 
whether or not in the form of pellets, used as animal feed
3 veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
85 from 2304 00 000 Oilcake and other solid re sidues, whether or not 
ground or in the form of pellets, resulting from the extraction of soybean oil, used as animal feed
3 veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
86 from 2306 cake and other solid residues, whether or not ground 
or in the form of pellets, resulting from the extraction 
of vegetable fats or oils, used as animal feed3 veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the 
veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
- 92 - No. Group, HS code Description of goods Supporting documents Import licence 
(yes/no) List of third 
countries 
enterprises 
(yes/no) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
87 2308 00 Vegetable materials and ve getable waste, vegetable 
residues and byproducts, whether or not in the form of pellets, of a kind used in animal feeding3 veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
88 2309 Products used in animal feedin g veterinary certificate – for 
goods imported into the territory of the Republic of 
Belarus, veterinary certificate 
– for goods that contain ingredients of animal origin imported into the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation yes (except for feed for 
cats, dogs, ferrets, ferret mustela furo, mustela, 
rodents, water aquarium 
and terrarium animals in the original packaging, thermally processed) Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the import permit and 
veterinary certificate 
should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation  
89 from group 29 Organic chemical compounds (for veterinary 
medicine)3 no yes no 
90 from group 30 pharmaceutical products for veterinary  medicine) No Measure is applied to 
goods imported from third countries into the territory of the Republic of Belarus, as well as unregistered goods imported from third countries to the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but the number of unregistered pharmaceutical products and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation should be specified in the import permit and (or) quality certificate for additives of chemical or microbiological synthesis   
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
- 93 - No. Group, HS code Description of goods Supporting documents Import licence 
(yes/no) List of third 
countries 
enterprises 
(yes/no) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
91 3101 00 000 0 Fertilizers of animal or vegetable origin, mixed or 
unmixed, chemically treated or untreated; fertilizers produced by mixing or chem ical treatment of products 
of animal or vegetable origin veterinary certificate – for 
goods imported into the territory of the Republic of Belarus, veterinary certificate – for goods that contain ingredients of animal origin imported into the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation Yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but import permit and veterinary certificate for controlled products containing ingredients of animal origin should specify umber and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation  
92 from 3501 Casein, caseinates and other casein derivatives;  veterinary certificate yes The measure is applied 
to goods imported into the territory of the Republic of Belarus. In respect of goods imported from third countries to  the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, inclusion in the registry is not required, but the veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
93 3502 Albumins (proteins) (including concentrates of two or 
more whey proteins, containi ng by weight more than 
80 percent whey proteins, calculated on the dry matter), albuminates and other albumin derivatives veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but on the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation   
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
- 94 - No. Group, HS code Description of goods Supporting documents Import licence 
(yes/no) List of third 
countries 
enterprises 
(yes/no) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
94 3503 00 Gelatin (including gelatin in rectangular (including 
square) sheets, whether or  not surface-worked or 
colored) and gelatin derivati ves; isinglass; other glues 
of animal origin veterinary certificate yes The measure is applied 
to goods imported into the territory of the Republic of Belarus. In respect of goods imported from third countries to  the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, inclusion in the registry is not required, but the veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
95 3504 00 Peptones and their deri vatives; other protein 
substances and their deri vatives, not elsewhere 
specified or included; hide powder, whether or not chromed veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but on the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
96 from 3507 Ferments (enzymes)3; ferment preparations (for use 
in veterinary)3  no yes no 
97 from 3808 Insecticides, rodenticides, disinfectants and similar 
products, put up in forms or packaging for retail sale or as preparations or articles (for the use in veterinary medicine) no measure applies to goods 
imported from third countries into the territory of the Republic of Belarus, as well as unregistered goods imported from third countries to the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation no 
98 3821 00 000 0 Prepared culture media for development or 
maintenance of microorganisms (including viruses and the like) or of plant, human or animal cells
3 no yes no   
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
- 95 - No. Group, HS code Description of goods Supporting documents Import licence 
(yes/no) List of third 
countries 
enterprises 
(yes/no) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
99 from 3822 00 000 0 Diagnostic or laboratory reagents on a backing and 
prepared diagnostic or laboratory reagents, whether or not on a backing; certified reference materials (for the use in veterinary medicine) no The measure is applied to 
goods imported into the territory of the Republic of Belarus, in respect of goods imported from third countries to the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, measure is applied to the appropriate technical regulations no 
100 4101 Unprocessed raw hides of catt le (including buffalo) or 
equine animals (fresh or salted, dried, limed, pickled or otherwise preserved, but not tanned, parchment-dressed or not exposed to fu rther processing), with or 
without hair, whether or not split veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but on the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
101 4102 Unprocessed sheep and lamb hides (fresh or salted, 
dried, limed, pickled or ot herwise preserved, but not 
tanned, parchment-dressed or not exposed to further processing), with or withou t hair, whether or not split veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but on the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number 
and (or) name of the 
company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
102 4103 Other processed hide s (fresh or salted, dried, limed, 
pickled or otherwise preserved, but not tanned, parchment-dressed or not exposed to further processing), with or withou t hair, whether or not split veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but on the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
- 96 - No. Group, HS code Description of goods Supporting documents Import licence 
(yes/no) List of third 
countries 
enterprises 
(yes/no) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
103 4206 00 000 0 Products from gut (other than silkworm gut), of 
goldbeater's skin, of bladders or of tendons  veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but on the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
104 4301 Down and fur raw materials (including heads, tails, 
paws and other parts or cu ttings, suitable for the 
production of fur) veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but on 
the import permit and 
veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
105 5101 Wool not exposed to carding and combing veterina ry certificate yes Incl usion in the registry 
is not required, but on the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into 
circulation 
106 5102 Fine or coarse animal hair, not carded or combed  veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but on the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
107 5103 Wastes of wool and fine or coarse animal hair, 
including textile wastes, but excluding pickled raw materials veterinary certificate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but on the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation   
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
- 97 - No. Group, HS code Description of goods Supporting documents Import licence 
(yes/no) List of third 
countries 
enterprises 
(yes/no) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
108 from 9508 10 000 0 Animals as part of traveling circus es and menageries veterinary certif icate yes Inclusion in the registry 
is not required, but on the import permit and veterinary certificate should include number and (or) name of the company that issued controlled goods into circulation 
109 from 9705 00 000 0 Collections and collectors' pi eces of zoology, anatomy 
and paleontology (except for the museum exhibits) veterinary certificate yes no 
110 from 3923, 
from 3926, 
from 4415, 
from 4416 00 000 0,  
from 4421, 
from 7020 00, 
from 7309 00, 
from 7310, 
from 7326, 
from 7616, 
8436 10 000 0, 
from 8436 21 000 0,  
from 8436 29 000 0,  
from 8436 80 900 0, from 8606 91 800 0,
 
from 8609 00, 
from 8716 39 800 Equipment and supplies for transportation, breeding, 
temporary overexposure of animals of all kinds, as well as equipment for the transportation of pre-used raw materials (products) of animal origin No (document of the 
authorized body of the exporting country - in the case of complex epizootic situation) yes (in the case of 
complex epizootic situation additional requirements are also specified) no 
  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.8  
 
- 98 - Note: In order to use this list, please us e both name of goods and EAEU HS code. 
_________________________ 
1 For epizootic well-being. 
2 Veterinary control in relation to finished food products contai ning no raw meat components or containing in its composition le ss than half of other processed product 
of animal origin, intended for the Russian Federation, shall not be  carried out, provided that su ch products are securely packa ged or sealed in clean containers and can be 
stored at room temperature or were fully prepared in the manufac turing process or were entirely heat-treated till complete chan ge of the natural properties of the raw 
product. 
3 Veterinary control in respect of goods in tended for the Russian Federati on shall not be carried out and none of the measures s pecified in columns 4 - 6 of this list 
shall apply. 
4 Veterinary control in relation to finished food products contai ning no raw meat components or containing in its composition le ss than half of other processed product 
of animal origin, intended for the Republic  of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, sh all not be carried out, provided that s uch products are securely packaged or sealed in 
clean containers and can be stored at room temperature or was fu lly prepared in the manufacturing process or was entirely heat- treated till complete change of natural 
properties of the raw product. 
5 Veterinary control in relation to goods intended for the Republ ic of Kazakhstan and the Russia n Federation shall not be carrie d out and none of the measures specified 
in columns 4 - 6 of this list shall be applied." 
 
 
__________