WT/REG358/M/1  
WT/REG363/M/1  
WT/REG366/M/1  
5 February 2019  
(19-0653) Page: 1/12 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  
Ninety -first Session    
 
TREATY ON THE EURASI AN ECONOMIC UNION , GOODS AND SERVICES  
TREATY ON ACCESSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF A RMENIA TO THE EURASI AN ECONOMIC 
UNION , GOODS AND SERVICES  
TREATY ON ACCESSION OF THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC TO THE EURA SIAN ECONOMIC 
UNION , GOODS AND SERVICES  
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 19 NOVEMBER 2018 
Chairman: Ambassador Julian  BRAITHWAITE  (United Kingdom ) 
1.1.  The 91st Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or the 
'Committee') was convened in Airgram WTO/AIR/RTA/ 16 dated 8  October 2018.  
1.2.  The Chairman recalled that during the CRTA meeting of 4 March 2009, Members had agreed 
to consider RTAs involving non -Members under the Transparency Mechanism 's (TM) procedures and 
had agreed that those RTAs notified since 14 December 2006, including future notifications, should 
be taken up before the others. Members had made it clear that consideration of such agreements 
by the Committee did not have any implication for the views or  positions of any Member with respect 
to the consistency of that RTA with WTO rules and would be without prejudice to the rights and 
obligations of Members under the WTO Agreements, as clearly stated in paragraphs 1 and 5 of the 
TM Decision. Members had also agreed that the consideration of such agreements in the CRTA would 
be organized under a separate agenda item.   
1.3.  Noting that since the EAEU and the two accessions were related to each other, t he Chairman  
suggest ed that the Committee  consider the three agr eements together.  
1.4.  Under Agenda Item s G.I-G.III of the Session, the CRTA considered the  Treaty on the Eurasian 
Economic Union  (goods and services) , (hereinafter  "the EAEU Treaty "), the Treaty on Accession of 
the Republic of Armenia to the Eurasian Economic  Union (goods and services) , (hereinafter  
"Armenia's  Accession Treaty"), and the Treaty on Accession of the Kyrgyz Republic to the Eurasian 
Economic Union (goods and services) , (hereinafter  "the Accession Treaty of the Kyrgyz Republic").  
1.5.  The Chairman  noted that t he EAEU had entered into force on 1 January 2015. It had been  
notified to the WTO by the Russian Federation on 12 December 2014 under Article XXIV:7(a) of the 
GATT 1994 and the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXIV of GATT 1994 a s an 
Agreement establishing a customs union  (document WT/REG358/N/1) and under 
GATS  Article  V:7(a) as an Agreement providing for the liberalization of trade in services within the 
meaning of Article V of the GATS (document S/C/N/785).  
1.6.  Armenia's Accession  Treaty had  entered into force on 2 January 2015. It had been notified to 
the WTO by Armenia and the Russian Federation on 29 December 2014 under Article XXIV:7(a) of 
the GATT 1994 and the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXIV of GATT 1994 as a n 
Agreement establishing a customs union  (document WT/REG363/N/1) and under 
GATS  Article  V:7(a) as an Agreement providing for the liberalization of trade in services within the 
meaning of Article V of the GATS (document S/C/N/790).  
 WT/REG358/M/1 • WT/REG363/M/1 • WT/REG366/M/1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.7.  The Accession Treaty o f the Kyrgyz Republic had  entered into force on 12 August 2015. It had 
been notified to the WTO by the Kyrgyz Republic  on 1 September 2015 under Article XXIV:7(a) of 
the GATT 1994 and the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXIV of GATT 1994 as an 
Agreement establishing a customs union  (document WT/REG366/N/1) and under GATS 
Article  V:7(a) as an Agreement providing for the liberalization of trade in services within the meaning 
of Article V of the GATS (document S/C/N/823).  
1.8.  The texts of the Treat ies were available, together with their Annexes, on the Parties' official 
websites.  The Chairman also indicated that the following documents had been distributed: the 
Factual Presentation on the goods and services aspects of the EAEU , document WT/REG358/1 dated 
13 July 2018 , and questions and replies  document WT/REG358/3 and Room document - RD/RTA/52 
dated 7 November and 19 November 2018 respectively; the Factual Presentation on the goods and 
services aspects of Armenia's accession to the EAEU , document WT/ REG363/1 dated 29 August 
2018)  and questions and replies document WT/REG363/3 dated 7 November 2018; the Factual 
Presentation on the goods and services aspects of the Kyrgyz Republic's accession to the EAEU , 
document WT/REG366/1 dated 29 August 2018 and qu estions and replies document WT/REG366/3 
dated 7 November 2018; and the general incidence calculation for the formation of the EAEU , 
including the accessions of Armenia and the Kyrgyz Republic in document WT/REG358/2, 
WT/REG363/2, WT/REG366/2.  
1.9.  While understanding the Chairman's suggestion for joint consideration, the representative of 
the United States  reiterated that under the TM each agreement should get its own space, and that 
was accordingly reflected in the agenda. He understood , for reason s of efficiency , that  the Chair had 
sought to move them around. While he could go along with that suggestion, he noted that was an 
ad hoc very specific circumstance and without prejudice to any decisions that might  be taken later. 
The structure of the agen da was important and following the TM was important. Acknowledging that 
the Committee was facing  a unique situation his delegation could go along with the suggestion but 
there was a need to put a marker that going forward the Committee should no t read into  this decision 
any consoli dation down the line.  
1.10.   The Chairman  thanked the representative of the US for his understanding. His "without 
prejudice" point for the future structure of the agenda had been well noted.  
1.11.   The representative of the Russian Federation1 thanked the Secretariat , on behalf of the EAEU , 
for its hard and responsible work. The preparation of the three Factual Presentations  had taken  many 
months. He hoped WTO Members would appreciate the quality of the final documents. He also 
thank ed those Me mbers that had submitted written questions, namely Canada, Chile, Ecuador, the 
EU, Mexico, Thailand, Ukraine and the US, for their interest in the Union. The Union had done  its 
best to provide full and detailed answers in due time.  He recall ed that this  was not the first time that 
Members had got to know the Eurasian Economic Union. The first consideration of the Union had 
taken place as far as in 201 1, during Russia 's accession to the W TO, the second during the accession 
of Kazakhstan in 2015, and at present all were working on the accession of Belarus. One  could also 
remember the Trade Policy Review of the Russian Federation in 2016 , when this topic had been 
discussed as well.  
1.12.   The purposes of the  formation of the  EAEU  had been comprehensive modernizatio n, 
cooperation and increase d competitiveness of the national economies, as well as the creation of 
conditions for sustainable development, with the aim of increas ing the  welfare of the population of 
its members.  The Treaty Establishing the EAEU  was a histo rical document. Its objectives  were a 
removal of barriers on the  free movement of goods, services, capital and labo ur, as well as the 
realization of coordinated, unified and single policies in key areas.  The EAEU Treaty contain ed the 
basic principles of the Union in areas such as tariff and customs regulation, foreign trade policy, 
technical regulation, sanitary phytosanitary and (SPS) and veterinary measures, macroeconomic 
and foreign exchange policies  and some others . The package als o comprise d regulation of financial 
markets, services and investment, competition policy and natural monopolies, energy, 
transport ation, government procurement, intellectual property rights, industrial policy, agric ulture, 
as well as the movement of labour . The new Customs Code had entered into force on 1 January 
2018 and it was fully consistent with the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement.  
                                                
1 Statement made by Mr. Maxim Medvedkov Director, Department of Trade Negotiations, Ministry of 
Economic Development , Head of delegation  for this CRTA meeting . WT/REG358/M/1 • WT/REG363/M/1 • WT/REG366/M/1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.13.   The market of the EAEU represent ed 183 million consumers. It  was a common market for 
goods, services, capital and labour, with a combined GDP of USD1.8 trillion. The Union rank ed first 
in the world for oil output, second for production of natural gas and fertilizers, third for wheat 
production and fifth for output of steel.  In 2017 the Union 's trade turnover had increased by  24% 
compared to 2016, and had reached USD634 billion, of which exports had amounted to USD386 
billion and imports to  USD287 billion. The Union had forecast ed growth in 2018 at comparable levels.  
According to the WTO Secretariat 's data, the common customs tariff had been  decreasing. Its 
weighted average before the c reation of the Union  in 2014 was 7.65%, and already in 2015 it had 
been reduced to 7.09 %. The Union's main trading partner  was the EU, with 49.8% of total exports . 
APEC economies account ed for 25 % of exports, of which the share for China  was 11.7%, South 
Korea 3.5 %, and Japan and the US 2.9% each. The main origins of imports  were the APEC countries , 
with 42.9% of total imports of goods and the EU , with 40.6%. A common market for pharmaceuticals 
and medical equipment had been  established in the Union in 2017 . A single market for electrical 
energy  was being created. A common market for oil and gas, as well as a single financial market 
should start operating by 20 25. 
1.14.   The Union  had a multi -level system of governance . The main principle of decision -making  was 
consensus between  its member  States. The main body of the Union  was the Supreme Eurasian 
Economic Council which met at the level of  the Heads of States. The permanent regulatory body for 
the operation of the Union  was the Eurasian Economic Commission. The Court of the Eurasian 
Economic Union had been  created to resolve  disputes between the member States which arose from 
the implementation of the EAEU Treaty.  
1.15.   The Union accordingly implemented the WTO principles in its activities. They  were 
incorporated  in almost all the Chapters of the EAEU Treaty. The Treaty on the Functioning of the 
Customs Union within the Multilateral Trading System  was also in force , and i t stipulate d that 
member States ' obligations under the WTO related to issues of supranational regulation bec ame a 
part of the Customs Union 's legal system. The continuation of this Treaty  had been confirmed in 
Annex 31 of the EAEU Treaty.  The Russian Feder ation consider ed the systemic building of trade and 
economic relations with its WTO partners as one of the key components of the successful functioning 
of the Union  and welcome d an ever -increasing interest in the development of trade and economic 
relations  with the Union. Every year the Union , as a center of economic gravity in the region, bec ame 
more attractive.  It had already concluded a free -trade agreement with Viet Nam  and negotiations  
were ongoing with Singapore and Israel. The Russian Federation expect ed negotiations with Egypt 
and India on a preferential agreement to start soon. Many c ountries from Latin America, Africa, 
Central and Eastern Asia  had also expresse d their interest in working on trade agreements with the 
Union. In summing up, he noted that the Russian Federation saw  bright prospects for the Union  and 
its member States within the multilateral trading system.  
1.16.   The representative of Kazakhstan2 thank ed the WTO Secretariat for the preparation of the 
EAEU Factual Presentation . The contribu tion of all the EAEU member States as well as the Eurasian 
Economic Commission to this process was also very much appreciate d. She also thank ed the WTO 
Members that had submitted questions on the EAEU Treaty .  
1.17.   She started her presentation by providing a very brief historical background on how this 
economic integration had been established.  In 1994, while giving a l ecture to students and factulty 
members at Moscow State University, the President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev had made  
a proposal about the establishment of the EAEU. Since  Kazakhstan gained independence in 1991 , it 
had conducted very boldly open policies which had been  aimed at economic integration and 
cooperation with third countries  and mainly with countries located close to Kazakhstan.  A first step 
in this process was the establishment of the CIS wide free -trade area , which had also been supported 
by bilateral free -trade agreements between the former Soviet republics of the CIS. On 1 January 
2010, the three founding countries of the EAE U – Belarus, Russian Federation and Kazakhstan – 
established the Customs Union. Its main feature was the free movement of  goods between the three  
member States of the customs union plus a common trade policy, a common external tariff and 
common customs administration procedures vis-à-vis third countries. On 1 January 2012 a Single 
Economic Space  (SES)  had been established , which added to the free movement of goods the free  
movement of labour, services and capital , agreements in the transport infrastructure field ensur ing 
national treatment for access to infrastructure of the member States, as well as the coordination of 
                                                
2 Statement made by Mrs. Zhanar Aitzhanova , Ambassador, Permanent Representative to the WTO , 
Head of delegation  for this CRTA meeting . WT/REG358/M/1 • WT/REG363/M/1 • WT/REG366/M/1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  macro -economic  policies between the  then SES member States.  The culmination of the economic 
integration had been  the establishment between the three countries of the EAEU . The EAEU Treaty 
consisted of all the documents that had been signed, approved and implemented by the three 
countries within the framework of the Customs Union as well a s the SES. The EAEU Treaty also 
includ ed the common SPS and  technical barriers to trade ( TBT) regulations vis-à-vis third countries. 
Immediately when the t hree founding members had signed the Treaty on the establishment of the 
EAEU, two other members, namely Armenia and Kyrgyzstan, had joined this Treaty . In the course 
of this process , the Russian Federation had been  the first in 2012 to join the WTO , followed  later in 
2015 by Kazakhstan. That meant that all the documents that had been worked out within the 
framework of the EAEU had taken fully into account the commitments made by  these  two members 
States while acceding to the WTO and had been  fully based on their relevant WTO Agreements.  
1.18.   When  the Russian Federation and Kaz akhstan were acceding to the WTO  they had mad e, on 
the issues that were under the competence of the EAEU  Commission, similar commitments. In the 
field of trade policies vis-à-vis third countries, customs regulations  and SPS and TBT regulations , 
the two countries had identical text s of commitments and description s of their policies bas ed on the 
relevant EAEU documents , with only a few exceptions. Since Kazakhstan  had completed all its 
WTO-accession's bilateral goods market access negotiations by 2010, it had made an exemption 
from the EAEU CET of around 3 ,000 tariff lines for which  Kazakhstan 's WTO commitments had been  
lower than those of the Russian Federation. These were the so -called "CET exemptions" , and WTO 
Members had posed written questions about the ir duration. She clarified t hat w hen Kazakhstan 
entered the WTO in 2015 , a gradual implementation of its tariff commitments had been foreseen 
with the implementation period ending by 2020. According to the text of Kazakhstan's commitments 
in its Working Party Report, following  three and a half years after the implementation period had 
been completed, which meant in 2020 plus three and a half years , Kazakhstan would start the so 
called "adjustment negotiations process" with WTO Members in order to bring its commitments into 
alignment  with those of the Russian Federation and with the CET , which was based on the Russian 
Federation's tariff commitments undertaken upon accession to the WTO.  
1.19.   Highlighting the economic benefits for Kazakhstan from its active participation and 
Membership in the EAEU, she  indicated that  in 2017 trade with EAEU members had increased by 
30% in comparison with 2016, with exports increasing by 34% and imports by 27%. One of the 
major challenges faced by Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation was economic diversificati on and 
reduction of the share of exports of hydrocarbon resources or raw materials in their economic 
growth. If one key indicator was taken, namely FDI, Kazakhstan had attracted around USD250 billion  
while the structure of investment  showed  that while orig inally around 70% -80% had been  channeled 
into extracti on industries like oil , gas and mining, currently  50% of investment went either to 
services or to value -added sectors. That was a clear indicator of the benefit s Kazakhstan was 
enjoying from its Members hip of the EAEU . Due to the increase of its market by 10 times from 
18 million to 180 million  inhabitants, investors were coming to other more value -added sectors of 
the economy. Kazakhstan  stood ready to answer any questions delegations might have.  
1.20.   The re presentative of Belarus3 thanked the WTO Secretariat for the preparation of the Factual 
Presentations of the Treaty on the EAEU , as well as the Treaties on Accession of Armenia and Kyrgyz 
Republic to the EAEU. He thank ed the United States  (US), the E uropean Union  (EU), Canada, Chile, 
Ecuador, Mexico, Thailand and Ukraine for the interest shown and for their written questions.  
1.21.   For Belarus, as an acceding country to the WTO, it  was a pleasure and honour to participate 
in the Committee together with its partners o f the EAEU, which  were already Members of the 
Organization. Belarus had taken an active part in  the preparation of the EAEU 's joint answers to 
questions from WTO Members on the Factual Presentations. It consider ed it as its contribution to 
the WT O's RTA  Transparency Mechanism . As a Member of the EAEU, Belarus  had actively participate d 
in developing economic cooperation between  the Union and third countries through the conclusion 
of regional trade agreements. He hoped that the  meeting would help to bring more clarity on what  
the EAEU  was and which trade issues were the competence of the EAEU, and which  were still covered 
by EAEU member States.  
 
                                                
3 Statement  made by Mr. Vladimir Serpikov Ambassador -at-Large, Ministry of Foreign Affairs , Head of 
delegation  for this CRTA meeting . WT/REG358/M/1 • WT/REG363/M/1 • WT/REG366/M/1  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.22.   Being a founding Member of the EAEU, which  was based on WTO rules and principles, Belarus 
de facto  applie d most provisions of the WTO Agreements and therefore  was ready  to apply them 
de jure as a full -fledged Member. At the  same time this situation limited  the level of  its flexibility in 
the negotiation s, since it was  bound by its commitments to the Union.  In this regard, he believe d 
that any possible issues of concern to WTO Members in relation with the EAEU trade regime should 
be considered in the relevant WTO Committees rather than  bringing them to the accession process. 
WTO Members ha d all the ins truments in place to address any of their concerns.  Looking forward to 
its accession to the WTO , Belarus had  assess ed all the proposed legislative developments inside the 
Union from the point of view of their consistency with the WTO rules. However, Belaru s should not 
be the only one held responsible for all unclear issues, if there  were any. He reassure d the 
Membership of Belarus'  strong intention to become a WTO Member in the nearest future  and looked 
to Members ' support in finalizing Belarus' accession n egotiations before the 12th WTO Ministerial 
Conference in Astana in June 2020.  He invite d everyone to use this opportunity to clarify all specific 
issues about  the EAEU legislation and trade regime, as well as to talk directly to the representatives 
of the  Eurasian Economic Commission who  were participating in th e meeting.  His delegation  looked 
forward to a fruitful discussion.  
1.23.   The representative of Armenia4 thanked the Committee for holding the review of the Treaty 
of the Accession of Armenia to the EAEU . He thanked  the WTO Secretariat and  its Regional Trade 
Agreements Sectio n, for drawing up the Factual Presentation , extending a  special gratitude to Mrs. 
Maria Donner Abreu and Mrs. Rowena Cabos for their great role, efforts and assistance in the 
process. Armenia was also grateful to all other WTO Members that had shown interest in the Factual 
Presentation . He also thank ed his  colleagues from the EAEU member countries and the Eurasian 
Economic Commission for the extensive and effective cooperation during thi s process.  
1.24.   Free trade agreements and regional trade agreements play ed a fundamental role in creating 
opportunities for cross -border trade and, as a consequence, economic development. Those two ha d 
always gone hand in hand. In this regard, Armenia strongly believed that the  Factual Presentations  
were an important instrument not only to ensure transparency of RTAs and their adherence to the 
multilateral trading system, but also to assess the effectiveness of RTAs, engage in discussions and 
learn from each oth er. In this regard, he hoped that the Factual Presentations  and the answers 
provided by Armenia and the EAEU members ha d contributed to a better understanding of the EAEU 
Treaty, and look ed forward to any additional requests for information or comments during the 
meeting . His delegation would do its best to address  them at the meeting or in due course . 
1.25.   On January 2, 2015 the Treaty on the Accession of Armenia to the EAEU had  entered into 
force. Armenia c onsider ed the EAEU to be an important milestone for the development of the most 
beneficial relations for EAEU  countries based on the principles of free movement of goods, services, 
capital and labour , which  was at the heart of the Eurasian int egration process. The c reation of a 
common market of around 180 m illion consumers held a great potential for Armenia to expand trade 
and multiply opportunities for cooperation. The absence of customs tariff s and non -tariff barriers, 
the mutual recognition certificates ha d led to a reduction in the cost of production of goods  and 
services  which, in turn, ha d increased the ir competitiveness . As a result,  the trade turnover between 
Armenia and EAEU countries ha d increased by 26.2% in 2017 compared to 2016.  Furthermore, 
Armenia's g lobal exports had reached 37.3% of GDP which was unprecedented in Armenia's 
economic history.  
1.26.   The EAEU member States had equal representation within the Union's governing body, and 
Armenia ha d the same number of ministers as Kyrgy zstan, Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus. The 
decision -making process in the EAEU operate d by consensus between the member States. The 
Customs Code of the EAEU propose d implementation of several reforms, one of which  was the 
introduction of an e-declaration s ystem scheduled to be rolled out by 2020. This would  lead to a 
reduction in the time and costs for foreign traders and would  allow for better management of public 
resources available through improved risk management.  Since there  was no border between 
Armen ia and other EAEU members, goods  were moved according to the "Customs Transit" customs 
procedure, except  for transport by air  and pipelines. However, this did not prevent the integration 
into the unified regulatory systems, of transport, energy and telecom munications, which  had been  
formed in the common economic space.  The progress in Eurasian integration depend ed on the 
success of "bottom -up integration" , growth of mutual trade, mutual investments, and free 
                                                
4 Statement made by Mr. Avag Avanesyan , Deputy Minister of Economic Development and Investment , 
Head of delegation  for this CRTA meet ing. WT/REG358/M/1 • WT/REG363/M/1 • WT/REG366/M/1  
 
- 6 - 
 
  movement of  labour . This require d the "rules of play" to be uniform within the EAEU economy. The 
final goal in the long term was a continuous  increase in the size of the common market and trade 
opportunities for all . 
1.27.   He conclude d by once again  thank ing all the participants for their inter est in the Factual 
Presentation  of the Treaty on Accession of the Republic of Armenia to the EAEU , as well as the RTA 
Committee and the WTO Secretariat for the accomplished work and support during the process.  
1.28.   The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic5 welcome d the C ommittee 's consideration of the  
Treaty on Accession of the  Kyrgyz Republic to the EAEU. The Kyrgyz Republic  was grateful to the 
Secretariat for the preparation of the Factual Presentation and to the  members of the U nion for the ir 
fruitful cooperation in this exercise. He also thank ed the EU, Canada, Mexico and Ecuador for their 
questions and the interest expressed  in the consideration of th e Treaty . 
1.29.   Recalling the broader economic context for the Treaty  under consideration , he note d that t he 
close economic ties originated in  the previous century when the members of the Union were the 
members of the same country . Nevertheless, after the breakdown of  the Soviet Union , trade and 
economic relations had been  preserve d and transform ed to the new form of cooperation.  He hoped 
the statements made by  the previous delegates  fully described the grounds for and process of 
formation  of the U nion. He would focus on the accession of the Kyrgyz  Republic  to the Union and  
the impact  on the economy.  
1.30.   The Kyrgyz  Republic  had expressed its willingness to join the Union  in 2011, following  broad 
discussions within the country , deep and serious analysis , and close cooperation  between its  
authorities and all interested parties . The decision had been  based on  the intent ion and desire of the 
Government  to stimulate the competitiveness of the national economy and improve the well-being 
of the people.  From an economic point of view, the level of the Kyrgyz  Republic's trade integration 
with the members of the Union was pretty  high. As of 2010, the Union  members were its main 
trading partners, accounting for over 25 .4% of its total exports and 47 .3% of its imports. With a 
population of 6 million people , the perspective of the Kyrgyz Republic's access ion to a market of 
more than 180 million people would certainly stimulate further development in investment as well 
as the manufactur ing, industrial and agricultural s ectors. Other advantages from  integration with 
the Union  was a  hope for further  development.  From a geopolitical standpoint, the Kyrgyz  Republic  
was a land -locked country and access to international routes without impediments  was quite crucial 
and vital  for it.  
1.31.   From a trade perspective , one of the necessit ies of accession to the Union  had been  caused 
by the application of SPS, TBT and quality requirements on goods established  by the founders of the 
Union  in 2010. The n ew norms of the Union  on technical regulation s, sanitary -epidemiological, 
quarantine -phytosanitary and veterinary -sanitary requirements we re stricter, since they were based 
on modern and international best practices.  
1.32.   Taking into consideration all but not only these  aspects as a result of good coordinat ion with 
interested members, the Kyrgyz  Republic  signed the Treaty on  accession to the EAEU  on 
23 December 2014  and became a full -fledged member of the Union  beginning  12 August 2015.  
1.33.   Present ing some  main elements of the Treaty , he noted that the Kyrgyz  Republic  had acceded 
to the Union's Treaty, which  was consistent with the WTO rules, and  that the WTO rules prevail ed 
over the legislation of the Union . Four  members of the Union  were Members of the WTO,  and 
compliance of national legislation with the WTO rules  was a priority. The last member  was in the 
active process of accession and  was working hard to harmonize national legislation with WTO rules.  
After accession to the U nion, the Kyrgyz  Republic  had continued to make all efforts to keep complying 
with the WTO rules. The acceptance of the Trade Facilitation Agreement ( TFA) and amendments on 
TRIPS clearly demonstrate d its dedication to and implementation  of WTO commitments. The latest 
version of the Customs Code could integrate the main provisions of TFA.  
1.34.   He n oted that t he accession by the Kyrgyz  Republic  to the Union  entail ed not only 
commitments to the Union's  members, but also  to WTO Members . In order to manage this process, 
the country  had joined the U nion Treaty on favourable conditions  for adaptation, namely  by requiring 
                                                
5 Statement made by Mr. Daniiar Mukashev , Ambassador, Permanent Representative of the Kyrgyz 
Republic to the UN and other International Organizations in Geneva , Head of delegation  for this CRTA meeting . WT/REG358/M/1 • WT/REG363/M/1 • WT/REG366/M/1  
 
- 7 - 
 
  some transitional and grace periods for  the implementation of  certain provisions of the Treaty  in 
some sensitive areas . Thus, it had been  able to  get a postponement on  the implementation of 
commitments in such areas as  competiti on policy, natural monopolies, railroad transport,  import of 
used vehicles,  intellectual property and others. For sensitive goods, it had managed  to reserve the 
right to schedule exceptions. Goods originat ing in its territory had been granted  market access in 
the Union's members.  
1.35.   Overall, the Treaty of Accession to the Union provide d substantial sectoral coverage. It was  
worth mentioning  that the free movement of persons within the Union  was imperative . For those  
sectors in which  modifications and improvements were required, the necessary collective work  had 
been ongoing. Furthermore,  the Treaty cover ed all modes of supply , namely cross-border  trade , 
establishment and temporary movement of people , with no a priori  exclusions. The Treaty  eliminat ed 
discriminatory measures based on nationality and require d that the Parties grant national  treatment 
for the establishment and operation of  their companies and nationals from the entry into force of 
the Treaty .  
1.36.   Although  due to time constraint s he could not mention all the positive consequences of 
accession to the Union , positive growth trends had been registered in industrial, manufactur ing, 
agricultural  and service s ectors . This  had been  caused by new horizons of cooperation for Kyrgyz 
business es to operate without impediments in the territory of the  Union.  Growth in t rade had been  
observed both with third countries, as well as with the members of the Union . Starting from 2016 
growth in trade with countries outside the Union had reached 10% on average . The export growth 
indices with the members of Union had been  9% in 2016 and 27% in 2017.  Investment growth as 
of beginning of 2017 had been  10.2%. The Kyrgyz  Republic  had been able to  significantly improve 
its positions in different ratings such as "Global Competitiveness Index " by the World B ank, "Global 
innovation  index " and others.  This point  reflect ed the openness of the Kyrgyz economy and serve d 
as a testimony to its efforts to liberaliz e its market.  It had managed  to significantly improve the 
quality of production, which now adhered  to the latest international SPS and TBT  requirements. 
Accession to the EAEU had paved the way for free movement of  labour  for Kyrgyz  citizens within the 
Union . Considering its geographical situation  and its historical ties with Union  members, the Kyrgyz  
Republic  believe d that the accession to the Union  had be en a prudent step with  the perspective of 
integration with its partners. The Kyrgyz Republic  looked forward to a fruitful discussion and was 
ready  to answer  any questions.  
1.37.   The representative of India thanked the Secretariat for the detailed and inform ative Factual 
Presentations . India took note of the fact that t he EAEU had now five fully fledged members with a 
total GDP of about USD1.6 trillion in 2016. India also noted with interest the different size of 
economies of members of the Union and in that conte xt found  similarities with the South Asian Free 
Trade Agreement.  India had had warm and friendly multilateral trade relations with the member 
countries of the Union. India also  appreciated efforts made  by members of the Union in providing 
detailed replies to the questions raised by other Members on issues related to the Union.  
1.38.   The representative of Brazil  thanked the EAEU member States for their presentations as well 
as the Secretariat for the comprehensive Factual Presentation s. Although they had not submi tted 
questions, the Brazil ian authorities had examined the Factual Presentation s carefully. Brazil would 
continue to follow with attention any development regarding the trade policy of the EAEU. At the 
same time, as a member of MERCOSUR and having also gone through the  stages of the formation 
of a customs union, Brazil wished the Parties of the EAEU all the best in their efforts and hoped they 
would achieve their goals of trade liberalization.  
1.39.   The representative of Ukraine  welcome d the review of the Treaty on the EAEU. Ukraine truly 
appreciate d the work that the Secretariat and other WTO Members ha d done.  Ukraine support ed Members'  
participation in integration processes, which  were based on WTO rules and requirements. Any economic 
integration, includi ng the establishment of customs unions, must not worsen trade conditions for other 
trading partners, as provided by the relevant provisions of  the GATT and the GATS.  Having analys ed the 
Factual Presentation, Ukraine had submitted a number of questions concerning general provisions 
of the Treaty, trade rules, TBT and SPS regulations, application of antidumping measures, customs 
valuation, activities of STEs, and dispute settlement. Based on the information available , she made 
some general observations.  
1.40.   Firstly, the division of competence between the EAEU and the member States in respect of 
SPS and TBT measures appear ed to be unclear. On the one hand, the EAEU pursue d coordinated WT/REG358/M/1 • WT/REG363/M/1 • WT/REG366/M/1  
 
- 8 - 
 
  SPS and TBT policies for all members  while o n the other, members retain ed their rights to introduce 
measures at the  national level. Secondly, further clarification  was needed as to whether all EAEU 
member s recognize d each other's  conformity assessment procedures without exemptions in respect 
of good s imported from third countries into the territory of the EAEU.  Thirdly, recent practice ha d 
demonstrated that EAEU members did not exemplify the WTO principle of transparency, in particular 
as regards technical regulations concerning certification require ments for goods. It  was quite 
disappointing that the EAEU members had systematically disregard ed critical transparency 
provisions established by the TBT Agreement.  Fourthly, transit rules and procedures seem ed to be 
contradictory in the light of the EAEU policies and WTO provisions. Ukraine's understanding  had been 
that some EAEU member s might restrict the transit of goods through their territor ies if such goods  
had been  imported into the territory of another E AEU member and  had been  allowed to legitimately 
enter this territory. Fifthly, there were  some discrepancies in the EAEU 's trade defense legislation, 
which seem ed to be not in line with the WTO agreements and ha d led to the application of 
questionable meas ures. For example, the absence of a particular time -limit for the decision -making 
process had often resulted in a significant time gap between the end of the investigation and 
implementation of the decision. Another example  had been  the application of anti dumping duties, 
which had significantly exceed ed the dumping margin determined during the investigation.  Ukraine 
was also concerned with the practice of some EAEU members to avoid taking  responsibility for 
fulfilling their commitments under the WTO trade r emedies agreements. Membership in the EAEU 
and delegation of relevant competence to the Eurasian Economic Commission  had usually been used 
as an excuse. Ukraine believe d that as long as measures  were applied in the territory of a WTO 
Member, this Member must ensure compliance of these measures with its obligations under the WTO 
Agreements.  In view of the above, these measures appear ed to raise barriers to trade of other WTO 
Members and worsen trade conditions.  
1.41.   The representative of Mexico  thanked the EAEU Parties for having replied to Mexico's  
questions. He also thanked the WTO Secretariat for having prepared the Factual Presentations . 
1.42.   The representative of Canada  appreciated the written answers to Canada's  questions on 
standards in regard to Armenia's accession to the EAEU . For reference, the question and its answer 
could be found under paragraph 1.1 of document WT/REG363/3. The answer confirmed  that a 
certificate of conformity obtained in one of the countries of the Union was accepted in all the others. 
For third countries, recognition was carried out in accordance with national legislation and on the 
basis of agreements on mutual recognition be tween a member State of the Union and third countries. 
Canada had one follow -up question , namely whether a fter the full harmonization of EAEU me mber 
States' TBT provisions , the recognition of third -country inspection systems would be on the basis of 
mutual  recognition agreements between the entire Union and third countries , or whether it would  
continue to be on individual member State to third -country basis.  
1.43.   The representative of the United States  expressed appreciation to the Secretariat and to the 
Parties  for their efforts and cooperation in preparing for and conducting th ese review s. He thanked 
the Members of the EAEU  and the acceding parties  for responding to the many advance d written 
questions  they had received . This had indicate d an extremely high level of interest in the Committee 
in the Agreement which had been reflected in the large number of questions . The US  really 
appreciate d the efforts  that had gone  into answering them.  The US had carefully reviewed the 
responses  to its questions  and had some additional follow up questions for consi deration as part of 
the review . A full set of these question had been provided to the Secretariat for transmission to the 
Parties and he wanted to highlight a few of those today. He would hope to  receive written responses 
in follow -up, as per the tradition of the Committee.  
1.44.   On the EAEU Treaty , with respect to provisions o n trade in goods and question 1.89 and 1.90  
of document WT/REG358/3 , he thanked the Parties for the explanation that exceptions to the CET 
applied "in accordance with the list of good s and rates approved by the Commission based on the 
accession agreement." The US was interested in clarification on whether  the Parties would be able 
to indicate  where th e list could be found and if th at list could be provided, since that had not been 
clear from the answer. With respect to question 1.90, he thanked the Parties for the information 
concerning the percentage of duty -free goods entering the individual member States of the Customs 
Union.  If the Customs Union, now the EAEU, had a CET in 2015, he asked why the percentage of 
duty-free goods entering Belarus, namely 46.82%, was significantly higher than the percentage of 
duty-free goods (one-third) entering Russia and Kazakhstan.  WT/REG358/M/1 • WT/REG363/M/1 • WT/REG366/M/1  
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.45.   The US did have  a number of questions with respect to SPS and TBT, and other speakers had 
noted that as well. With respect to question 1.102, he thanked the Parties for the detailed description 
of the process for developing TBT and SPS measures. Noting that Council Decis ion No 48 on "Rules 
of Procedure of Drafting, Adopting, Amendment and Abolishment of the EAEU Technical Regulations" 
referred throughout to "technical regulations" , he inquired whether Decision No 48 applied to the 
development of SPS measures for agricultural and food products as well as industrial products.  If 
not, he asked whether it would it be possible to identify the corresponding Decision governing the 
development of SPS measures. The US took  note of the answer provided to question 1.105(a) which 
stated that "the provisions of the  EAEU Treaty are in full conformity with the WTO SPS Agreement", 
but also that the EAEU Treaty permitted reliance on "international and regional standards" whereas 
the WTO SPS Agreement directed Members to base their SPS measures on "international standards, 
guidelines or recommendations", without reference to regional standards. He invited the Parties to 
provide additional details on how they saw the Treaty being in c onformity with the SPS Agreement. 
With respect to the answer to question 1.107, the US noted that  the Factual Presentation  had 
indicated that "the use of international standards in the development of the EAEU's technical 
regulations is encouraged", as per paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Protocol on Technical Regulation, 
respectively. However, the TBT Agreement stated that "Members shall use" international standards 
unless ineffective or inappropriate.  He requested clarification on  how the EAEU member States that 
were WTO Members ensure d that technical regulations drafted for the EAEU were based on 
international standards, unless they were ineffective or inappropriate, even though the EAEU only 
"encouraged" their use. Furthermore, the EAEU response indicated that it defined an international 
standard as one "adopted by an international organization on standardization." In contrast, the WTO 
TBT Committee "Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and 
Recommendations with Relation to  Article 2, 5 and Annex 3 of the Agreement" identified the 
principles, namely transparency, openness, impartiality and consensus, effectiveness and relevance, 
coherence, and development, by which international standards were elaborated, and not on the 
body. He inquired h ow the EAEU member States that were WTO Members  had implemented the TBT 
Committee Decision and ensured that all standards that met the principles were considered 
international, including in the technical regulations developed by the EEC. Thanking the Parties for 
their clarification on conformity assessment procedures in reply to question 1.114(f), he noted the 
US concern  with the statement that "Only certificates of conformity issued by a conformity 
assessment b ody of the EAEU are acceptable"  and asked whether the EEC did have the authority to 
accept certificates or declarations of conformity issued by conformity assessment bodies outside the 
EAEU if the procedures of those bodies led to results that provided assurance of conformity 
equivalent  to the results from the EAEU's procedures. He requested the Parties to provide 
information on whether foreign conformity assessment bodies could apply to be recognized within 
the EAEU so that their declarations and certifications could be accepted. Given WTO TBT Agreement 
Article 6.1, he enquired how EAEU member States that were WTO Members were able to accept the 
results of conformity assessment procedures that provide d an equivalent level of assurance for 
products covered by EEC regulations.   
1.46.   Finally, th e US appreciated the responses provided to question 1.119 on the EAEU Customs 
Code. He thanked the Parties for the ir explanation regarding the development of the national single 
windows. If each member State developed its own Single Window, he asked how th e EEC would 
ensure that the EAEU Customs Code was applied uniformly across the EAEU.  
1.47.   Turning to the Accession of Armenia to the EAEU , the US  acknowledge d Armenia's  notification 
of its accession . That was a very importance practice and  process to follow. The US appreciated the 
opportunity to review the terms of its accession  to this important Agreement  and hoped  that other 
Members had taken note of Armenia's  accession notification and its adherence to its WTO obligations.  
Section 5.8 of the Factual Presentation noted that upon its accession to the Agreement, the EAEU 
disciplines regarding government procurement applied to Armenia.  He asked  what steps had been 
taken by Armenia to ensure that its accession to the EAEU, including any changes  to its government 
procurement legislation that might have been required did not conflict with Armenia’s obligations 
under the WTO GPA Agreement.  
1.48.   Turning to the Accession of the Kyrgyz Republic to the EAEU , the US  thanked the Parties for 
their participati on and the presentations they had provided. He acknowledge d proper notification by 
the Kyrgyz Republic of its accession the EAEU agreement, and for the opportunity provided to all 
Members to review the terms of its accession. He hoped that other Members had taken note of the 
notification and  adherence to WTO obligations. Section 5.8 of tha t Factual Presentation indicated  
that the Krygyz Republic would provide national treatment to other EAEU members with respect to WT/REG358/M/1 • WT/REG363/M/1 • WT/REG366/M/1  
 
- 10 - 
 
  government procurement after a two -year tr ansition period. It appeared that that transition period 
might have expired in 2017. He requested the Krygyz Republic to provide an update on  whether it 
did at that present time extend national treatment to other EAEU members for government 
procurement, an d if so, provide  a description  of any domestic legislative changes it had under taken  
to conform to EAEU disciplines.  
1.49.   The representative of Afghanistan  appre ciated the Factual Presentation on the EAEU and 
welcomed the members statements. All five member States of the Union counted as Afghanistan's 
trading partners and they enjoyed very fruitful trade and investment relationships.  Afghanistan  
wished them all the best to achieve the ir economic  goals and objectives.  
1.50.   The representative of the European Union  thanked the Parties for the very detailed 
presentations on the Treaty on the EAEU  as well as the Secretariat for preparing th e Factual 
Presentation.  The EU had submitted a number of advance questions that  were pertinent both from 
a systemic as well as pract ical implementation point of view for the EU and its operators. She 
recogniz ed that the questions had been submitted after the deadline, and appreciate d the Parties' 
efforts in providing the replies the evening before the meeting. The EU was examin ing the responses 
in more detail  and might come back with follow -up questions .  
1.51.   On the occasion of the meeting the EU  highlight ed three areas of importance  for it. The first 
issue concern ed transit within the EAEU territory . In its submission, the EU had asked how certain 
practices of the Russian customs authorities  were compatible with the EAEU Treaty on free 
movement of goods within an internal market , whereby once a good  was within the territory of the 
Union - in this case, cleared by the Belarusian customs  – it was trade d without the need for customs 
declarations and controls such as transport, sanitary, veterinary, etc.  The EU had  also asked for 
clarifications on how the smooth movement of goods subject to more liberal import conditions in 
one EAEU member State was ensured in importation for transit via another EAEU member State 
which m ight have imposed temporary  restrictions on imports of those goods.  At the moment, it 
would appear that the Russian Federation  was banning transit via its territory of goods destined for 
other members of the Union regardless of these EAEU norms.  
1.52.   The second area of interest  was the harmonisation and application of standards and 
certificates. EU operators ha d doubts as to which document s would be accepted or requested for 
entering and marketing their industrial and agricultural products in the Union  or its individual 
member States. On a number of occasions, there appear ed to have been a de facto  ban from enter ing 
the markets , as previous ly agreed and recognised certificates were no longer accepted and no 
alternatives were available. The EU  hoped that this situation would be  resolved and asked  about the 
plans of the EAEU  partners to ensure effective harmonisation and uniform application.   
1.53.   Finally, the EU  highlight ed the issue of the protection of intellectual property rights , specifically 
related to  the exhaustion principle for trademarks.  To the EU's knowledge, the EAEU  intend ed to 
introduce exemptions from the currently applicable principle of regional exhaustion for trademarks. 
Once new rules  enter into force, the international exhaustion principle would be applied to certain 
goods circulating within the EAEU  market. Allowing t he international exhaustion principle only for 
certain goods, i.e. only those not produced in the Union, would result in a violation of GATT 
Article  III.  
1.54.   These issues illustrate d some of the EU's advance questions. They stem med from 
inconsistencies observed by economic operators between the provisions of the EAEU  Treaty and their 
implementation on the ground. The EU was concerned that c ertain EAEU  provisions, as they were 
implemented at that time , might lead to a more restrictiv e trade regime with all its constituent 
members as compared to before the formation of th e regional liberalisation arrangement.  The way 
in which new norms were applied was often unclear and fragmented across the different member 
countries, which was cumber some for businesses . The EU would therefore call for full compliance 
with the WTO rules and accession commitments, enhanced transparency of the applicable rules and 
uniform application of the trade regime across the Union's  territory.  
1.55.   Turning to the Access ion of Armenia to the EAEU , and echoing the point made by the 
representative of the US, the EU expressed its appreciation for and commend ed the Republic of 
Armenia and the Russian Federation for notif ying this  Accession  Treaty . The EU  thank ed the Parties 
for the replies provided to its advance questions. She revert ed to one of the points raised in the WT/REG358/M/1 • WT/REG363/M/1 • WT/REG366/M/1  
 
- 11 - 
 
  questions  concern ing the issue of compensatory adjustments resulting from the renegotiation of 
Armenia's bound rates. She reiterate d that this c ompensation  was to be provided by all EAEU 
members  and would have to be bound in the Members' respective bound schedules.  
1.56.   Turning to the Accession of the Kyrgyz Republic to the EAEU , she express ed appreciation for 
and commend ed the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation for th e notification of this 
Accession. With regard  to the issue of compensatory adjustments resulting from the renegotiation 
of the Kyrgyz Republic's bound rates , she reiterated  that this compensation  was to be provided by 
all EAEU Memb ers and bound in the Members' respective bound schedules.  
1.57.   The representative of the Russian Federation  thanked all the participants in the  discussion.  
Very interesting comments ha d been received, s ome of the m were positive and others required 
additional work. Since most of the questions had been  of a very technical nature h e suggested they 
be submitted in written form  so the Parties could provide replies in due course . Regarding some of 
the questions connected with transit issue s, he reserved his delegation's positio n since  those issues 
were subject to an ongoing  dispute in the DSB. Prior to a decision  by that Body, which  was expected 
for early 2019, he would not like to make any comments with respect to transit -related issues .  
1.58.   Referring to the US questions on the list of exceptions to the CET as a result of Kazakhstan's 
accession to the WTO, t he representative of Kazakhstan  noted that the list was available on the 
website of the EAEU , which made an automatic reference to the web site of the Ministry of National 
Economy of Kazakhstan . This was transparent and updated every year on 30 November , and 
followed the implementation stage s of the reduction/liberalization of Kazakhstan's tariff 
commitments vis-à-vis the goods that were exempted from the CET.  Regarding the single -entry 
point, Kazakhstan had implemented the electronic format of import and export declarations. This 
model had been adjusted to the EAEU  Customs Code , which meant that the single -entry  point and 
digitalisation o f the electronic format for transactions were fully based on the CET as well as the 
customs procedures of the EAEU. It was an A sycuda project implemented by UNCTAD  and adjusted 
to the EAEU reg ulatory framework, in particular its Customs Code. Regarding the  EU questions on 
transit  and goods that were banned by one of the EAEU members , she noted that Kazakhstan  was 
the end -beneficiary for most of the goods in transit via Belarus and Russia, with trade statistics 
showing that between 40% to 50% of its trade was with the EU member States . These goods were 
transiting through the territor ies of Belarus and Russia into the territory of Kazakhstan  in a smooth 
manner and entering Kazakhstan's  market. Kazakhstan had d irect feedback from the business 
community , and t ransit issues were of interest not only for European and other third countr y 
exporters but also for Kazakhstan's importers. Whenever there was an issue on transit procedures, 
the Government received  immediate feedback  from economic operators involved in the import of 
goods from third countries  via existing  communication channels  with the end result being that transit 
was occurring  smoothly through the territory of the EAEU member States . Kazakhstan had a lmost 
USD30 billion of trade with the EU member States  taking place  annually.  
1.59.   The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic  thanked Canada and the US for the ir specific 
questions. In order to provide accurate  answers  in due course, he requested that these be provided  
in writ ing. He thanked the EU for  its comment s on compensatory issues and indicated that his 
delegation had taken note of  it. 
1.60.   The representative of Armenia  thanked the US and the EU for the ir comments. He had taken 
note of the questions and statements. Regarding the US question, he believed he had alr eady had 
the opportunity to address its concerns ; his delegation stood ready to provide once again additional 
clarifications in writ ing. 
1.61.   Referring to the US question on differences in duty free imports between the EAEU members , 
the representative of Belaru s replied that this reflected  some differen ces in the  structure of  the 
economies of the Union's member States.  While Belarus produced a lot of machinery , it was highly 
dependent on raw materials , of which practically all were duty -free in the Union.  
1.62.   The Chairman  stated that consideration of the Goods and Services Aspects of the Treaty on 
the Eurasian Economic Union and the accessions of Armenia and the Kyrgyz Republic to the EAEU 
Treaty ha d allowed the Committee  to clarify a number of questions and it cou ld now conclude oral 
discussion of th ese RTAs in accordance with paragraph 11 of the TM. If any delegations wish ed to 
ask follow -up questions they were invited to forward submissions in writing to the Secretariat by WT/REG358/M/1 • WT/REG363/M/1 • WT/REG366/M/1  
 
- 12 - 
 
  26 November 2018 and Parties were asked to submit replies in writing by no later than 10 December 
2018. In accordance with paragraph 13 of the TM all written submissions, as well as minutes of this 
meeting w ould be circulated promptly, in all WTO official languages, and w ould be made available 
on the WTO website.  
1.63.   The Committee took note  of the comments made.  
__________