WT/DS475/AB/R/Add.1  
 
23 February 2017  
(17-1108) Page: 1/27 
    
 
  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – MEASURES ON THE IMPORTATION OF LIVE 
PIGS,  PORK AND OTHER PIG PRODUCTS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION  
AB-2016-5 
Report of the Appellate Body  
Addendum  
This Addendum  contains Annexes A to D to the Report of the Appellate Body  circulated as  
docum ent WT/DS4 75/AB/R . 
 
The Notice  of Appeal  and the executive summaries of written submissions contained in this 
Addendum are attached as they were received from the participants and third participants. The 
content has not been revised or edited by the Appell ate Body, except that paragraph and footnote 
numbers that did not start at one in the original may have been re -numbered to do so, and the 
text may have been formatted in order to adhere to WTO style. The executive summaries do not 
serve as substitutes for  the submissions of the participants and thir d participants in the 
Appellate  Body's examination of the appeal.  
 
_______________  
 
 WT/DS475/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
   LIST OF ANNEXES  
ANNEX  A 
NOTICE S OF APPEAL  AND OTHER APPEAL  
Contents  Page  
Annex  A-1 Russian Federation 's Notice of Appeal  A-2 
Annex  A-2 European Union's Notice of Other Appeal  A-4 
ANNEX B  
ARGUMENTS OF THE PAR TICIPANTS  
Contents  Page  
Annex  B-1 Executive summary of the Russian Federation 's appellant's submission  B-2 
Annex  B-2 Executive summary of the European Union 's other appe llant's  submission  B-8 
Annex  B-3 Executive summary of the European Union's appellee's submission  B-9 
Annex  B-4 Executive summary of the Russian Federation's appellee's submission  B-13 
ANNEX  C 
ARGUMENTS OF THE THI RD PA RTICIPANTS  
Contents  Page  
Annex  C-1 Executive summary of Australia's third participant's submission  C-2 
Annex  C-2 Executive summary of Brazil's third participant's submission  C-3 
Annex  C-3 Executive summary of the United States' third participant's submission  C-4 
 
 
 
ANNEX  D 
PROCEDURAL RU LING 
Contents  Page  
Annex  D-1 Procedural Ruling of 14 November 2016 regarding the Russian  Federation's 
request for English -to-Russian interpretation at the oral hearing  D-2 WT/DS475/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- A-1 - 
 
  ANNEX  A 
NOTICE S OF APPEAL  AND OTHER APPEAL  
Contents  Page  
Annex  A-1 Russian Feder ation's Notice of Appeal  A-2 
Annex  A-2 European Union's Notice of Other Appeal  A-4 
 
 WT/DS4 75/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- A-2 - 
 
   ANNEX  A-1 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION 'S NOTICE OF APPEAL*  
1. Pursuant  to Article 16.4 and Article 17.1 of the DSU, the Russian Federation hereby notifies 
to the Dispute Settlement B ody its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel in the dispute  
Russian Federation – Measures on the importation of live pigs, pork and other pig pro ducts from 
the European Union ). Pursuant to Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review , the 
Russian Federation simultaneously files this Notice of Appeal with the Appellate Body Secretariat.  
 
2. The Russian Federation is restricting its appeal to those errors that it believes constitute 
serious  errors of law and legal interpretation that need to be corrected. Non -appeal of an issue 
does not signify agreement therewith.  
 
3. For the reasons to be further elaborated in its submissions to the Appellate  Body, the 
Russian Federation appeals, and requests the Appellate Body to modify or reverse, certain issues 
of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel in this dispute.1 
 
I. THE PANEL'S FINDINGS REGARDING THE ALLEGED EU -WIDE BAN  
 
4. The Russian Fe deration seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findings that the 
so-called EU -wide ban is a measure that can be attributed to the Russian Federation.2 The Russian 
Federation also appeals the underlying findings of the Panel that led to this err oneous finding: the 
Panel's failure to differentiate between national Russian Federation SPS measures and the terms of 
the bilateral EU -Russia veterinary certificates3, the Panel's failure to give full legal effect to the 
Russian Federation's Accession Pro tocol,4 and, alternatively, the Panel's failure to recognize the 
sequencing inherent in the bilateral veterinary certificates. As a result, the Panel erred, under 
Articles 1.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6, 5.7, 6.1, 6.3, 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agre ement, 
and Article 3.3 DSU, in concluding that the Russian Federation's so -called EU -wide ban is conduct 
attributable to the Russian Federation that is inconsistent with  the SPS Agreement .5 These findings 
are in error, and the Russian Federation respectful ly requests that the Appellate Body reverse 
them.  
 
II.  THE PANEL'S FINDINGS  ON ARTICLE 6 OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  
 
5. The Russian Federation seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's failure to interpret 
Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement to require panel s to take into account science -based and 
technical evidence relied upon by the importing Member, in accordance with the importing 
Member's appropriate level of protection.6 The Russian Federation also appeals the Panel's 
conclusions – based on this interpr etative error – that the European Union has provided the 
necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate to the Russian Federation that areas within the 
European Union are and are likely to remain ASF -free under Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement.7 
Similarly, the Panel incorrectly found that the European Union had provided the necessary 
evidence to objectively demonstrate to the Russian Federation that there are areas in Lithuania, 
                                               
 * This document, dated 2 3 September 2016, was circulated  to Members as document WT/DS 475/8 . 
 
1 Pursuant to Rule 20( 2)(d)(iii) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review this Notice of Appeal 
includes an indicative list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing the alleged errors, without prejudice 
to the ability of the Russian Federation to refer to other pa ragraphs of the Panel Report in the context of its 
appeal.  
2 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.74, 7.76, 7.77, 7.78, 7.79, 7.80, 7.81, 7.82, 7.83, and 7.84.  
3 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.76, 7.77, 7.78, 7.80, 7.81, 7.82, 7.83 and 7.84.  
4 See, e.g.,  Panel Report, paras. 7.108, 7.109, 7.110, 7.111, 7.112, 7.114, 7.115, 7.116.  
5 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.216 - 7.220, 7.235, 7.237, 7.484, 7.494, 7.571, 7.591, 7.707, 7.714, 
7.719, 7.720, 7.783, 7.834, and 7.846.  
6 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras.  7.384, 7.389, 7.391 -6, 7.399, 7.404, 7.406, 7.412, 7.413, 7.414, 
7.416, 7.454, 7.930, 7.932, 7.933, 7.938, 7.939, 7.940, 7.969, 7.976, 7.978, 7.985, 7.987, 7.996, 7.1003, 
and 7.1004.  
7 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.449, 7.455 and 7.456.  WT/DS475/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- A-3 - 
 
  Poland, Latvia and Estonia that are ASF -free pursuant to Article 6.38, and that the European Union 
had provided the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate to the Russian Federation that 
there are areas in Lithuania, Poland and Estonia that are likely to remain ASF -free pursuant to 
Article 6.3.9 These findings are in error and a re based on the Panel's erroneous findings of law and 
legal interpretations of Article 6.3. The Russian Federation respectfully requests that the 
Appellate  Body reverse the Panel's findings.  
 
6. The Russian  Federation also seeks review of the Panel's legal in terpretation of Article 6.3 of 
the SPS Agreement as not requiring a reasonable period of time for exporting Members to collect 
the necessary evidence, on the one hand, and for importing Members to review the necessary 
evidence, on the other hand.10 As a con sequence of the Panel's erroneous interpretation of 
Article  6.3 as not requiring the production, translation and review of the necessary evidence over a 
"reasonable period of time ", the Panel erroneously found in paragraphs 7.963 and 7.1003 that the 
Europe an Union had provided the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate to the Russian 
Federation that parts of Estonia are and are likely to remain disease -free based on a three -day 
window from the first African Swine Fever outbreak in Estonia. Thus, the Russian Federation 
requests that the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's erroneous legal interpretation and its 
conclusion with respect to Estonia.  
 
7. The Russian Federation further seeks review of the Panel's interpretation of Article 6.1 and 
its relatio nship to Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement.11 The Panel found that in situations involving a 
request by an exporting Member for zone recognition pursuant to Article 6.3, a finding of a 
violation of Article 6.1 regarding conditions in the exporting Member  can still be found even absent 
a finding that the exporting country provided the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate 
that areas in its territory are and are likely to remain disease -free under Article 6.3. Based on this 
erroneous legal interpretatio n, the Panel found that while the European Union had failed to provide 
the necessary evidence objectively demonstrating that parts of Latvia are likely to remain 
ASF-free, the Russian Federation nevertheless violated Article 6.1, in part, because it failed  to 
adapt its measures to the SPS characteristics in Latvia.12 The Russian Federation requests the 
Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's erroneous legal interpretation and its erroneous conclusion 
with respect to Latvia under Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreemen t.13 
 
 
 
 
                                               
8 See, e.g.,  Panel Report, para. 7.963.  
9 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.976, 7.985, 7.1001, 7.1003, and 7.1004 (second and third 
sentences).  
10 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.384, 7.393, 7.394, 7.395, 7.396, 7.399, 7.404, 7.406, 7.412, 
7.413, 7.414, 7.416, 7.4 54, 7.930, 7.932, 7.933, 7.938, 7.939, 7.940, 7.969, 7.978, 7.987, and 7.996.  
11 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.365, 7.1011 (second sentence), 7.1020, 7.1027, 7.1028.  
12 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.995, and 7.1028.  
13 To the extent that the Appella te Body reverses the Panel's findings under Article 6.3 with respect to 
Lithuania, Poland, Estonia and the EU -wide ban in accordance with the argumentation set out in paras. 93 -194 
above, the Russian Federation also request the Appellate Body to reverse th e Panel's findings that the import 
restrictions on Lithuania, Poland and Estonia and the alleged EU -wide ban are inconsistent with Article 6.1 of 
the SPS Agreement. See, e.g., paras. 7.484, 7.1020, 7.1028.  WT/DS4 75/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- A-4 - 
 
   ANNEX A -2 
EUROPEAN UNION'S  NOTICE OF OTHER APPE AL* 
Pursuant to Article  16.4 of the DSU the European Union hereby notifies to the Dispute Settlement 
Body its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report  
and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel in the dispute Russian Federation – 
Measures on the Importation of Live Pigs, Pork and Other Pig Products from the European Union 
(WT/DS475). Pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for App ellate Review , the 
European Union simultaneously files this Notice of Other Appeal and the Other Appellant 
Submission with the Appellate Body Secretariat.  
 
For the reasons  to be further  elaborated in its submissions to the Appellate Body, the 
European  Union appeals, and requests the Appellate Body to reverse the findings, conclusions and 
recommendations of the Panel, with respect to the following errors contained in the Panel Report:1 
 
(a) the Panel erred  in the interpretation and application of the first s entence of Article 6.2 of the 
SPS Agreement  when finding that Russia recognizes t he concepts of pest - or disease -free 
areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence in respec t of ASF, and therefore, the 
EU-wide ban is not inconsistent with Russia's obli gations under Article 6.2 of the 
SPS Agreement . As a result, the European Union requests the Appellate Body to reverse  the 
Panel's findings in paragraphs  7.373, 7.379, 7.485 and 8.1(d )(iii) of its report , which are 
based on its legally erroneous reasoning in paragraphs 7.366 -7.379, and to complete the 
analysis;  
(b) the Panel erred in the interpretation and application of the first sentence of Article 6.2 of the 
SPS Agreement when finding that Russia recognizes the concepts of pest - or disease -free 
areas and  areas of low pest or disease prevalence in respect of ASF, and therefore, the bans 
on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are not 
inconsistent with Russia's obligations under Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement . As a result, 
the European Union requests the Appellate Body to  reverse  the Panel's findings in 
paragraphs 7.925, 7.1029 and  8.1(e)(vi) of its report, which are based on its legally 
erroneous reasoning in paragraphs  7.924 - 7.925, and to complete the analysis . 
 
 
_______________  
 
                                               
* This document, dated 28 September 2016, was  circulated to Members as document WT/DS 475/9 . 
 
1 Pursuant to Rule 23(2 )(c)(ii)(C)  of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review  this Notice of Other 
Appeal includes an indicative list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing the alleged errors, witho ut 
prejudice to the ability of the European Union to refer to other paragraphs of the Panel Report in the context of 
its other appeal.  WT/DS475/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- B-1 - 
 
  ANNEX  B 
ARGUMENTS OF THE PAR TICIPANTS  
Contents  Page  
Annex  B-1 Executive summary of the Russian Federation's appellant's submission  B-2 
Annex  B-2 Executive summary of the European Union's other appellant's submission  B-8 
Annex  B-3 Executive summary of the European Union's appellee's submission  B-9 
Annex  B-4 Executive summary of the Russian Federation's appellee's submission  B-13 
 WT/DS4 75/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- B-2 - 
 
   ANNEX  B-1 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF  THE RUSSIAN FEDERATI ON'S APPELLANT'S SUBMISSI ON 
I. INTRODUCTION  
1. The Ru ssian Federation appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel 
Report Russia Federation – Measures on the Importation of Live Pigs, Pork and other Pig Products 
from the European Union . In accordance with Rule 21 of the Working Proced ures for Appellate 
Review, the Russian Federation hereby submits its Appellant's Submission.  
2. The first set of appeals seek clarification regarding the legal nature of the so -called EU -wide 
ban. In this context, the Russian Federation also seeks clarificat ion concerning the rights and 
obligations arising from the Protocol of Accession of the Russian Federation, with respect to all 
Members, and in particular, the European Union.  
3. In the second set of appeals, the Russian Federation seeks to clarify Members' rights and 
obligations under Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, in addition to the relationship between 
Article  6.1 and Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement. As the Panel recognized, this is the first time a 
panel has interpreted the phrase "in order to objecti vely demonstrate" whether a disease -free area 
is "likely to remain" so under Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, especially in the context of a 
highly contagious disease that is rapidly evolving.1  
4. As set out in this submission, the Russian Federation reques ts that the Appellate Body 
reverse various legal findings and conclusions of the Panel, as a result of the legal errors identified 
herein. The Russian Federation is concerned that, if left to stand, these legal findings and 
conclusions would upset the care fully negotiated balance between importing and exporting 
Members' rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement.  
A. The Panel erred in finding an EU -wide ban attributable to the Russian Federation  
5. The Russian Federation appeals the Panel's findings that a so-called EU -wide ban is a 
measure that can be attributed to the Russian Federation.2 The Russian Federation also appeals 
the underlying findings of the Panel that led to this erroneous finding: the Panel's failure to 
differentiate between national Russi an Federation SPS measures and the terms of the bilateral 
EU-Russia veterinary certificates3, the Panel's failure to give full legal effect to the Russian 
Federation's Accession Protocol4, and, alternatively, the Panel's failure to recognize the sequencing  
inherent in the bilateral veterinary certificates. As a result, the Panel erred in concluding that the 
Russian Federation's so -called EU -wide ban is conduct attributable to the Russian Federation that 
is inconsistent with Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 5.1, 5.2,  5.3, 5.6, 5.7, 6.1, 6.3, 8 and Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement.5 Accordingly, the Russian Federation requests that the Appellate Body reverse the 
Panel's findings.  
6. The Panel's findings are erroneous because (i) they fail to differentiate between the 
require ment to import products accompanied by a valid veterinary certificates – a national SPS 
requirement attributable to the Russian Federation – with the content of the bilateral veterinary 
certificates which is not a national Russian SPS measure;  (ii) they do  not give full legal effect to 
the valid and WTO -consistent bilateral veterinary certificates negotiated and agreed to by all 
WTO Members; and (iii), and alternatively, because they fail to recognize the sequencing inherent 
in the bilateral veterinary cert ificates.  
                                               
1 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.390, 7.965.  
2 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.74, 7.76, 7.77, 7.78, 7.79, 7.80, 7.8 1, 7.82, 7.83, and 7.84.  
3 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.76, 7.77, 7.78, 7.80, 7.81, 7.82, 7.83 and 7.84.  
4 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.108, 7.109, 7.110, 7.111, 7.112, 7.114, 7.115, 7.116.  
5 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.484, 7.494, 7.571,  7.591, 7.707,  7.714, 7.719. 7.720, 7.783, 7.834, 
and 7.846.  WT/DS475/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- B-3 - 
 
  7. First, the Panel erroneously considered that the content of the bilateral veterinary 
certificates constitute national SPS measures attributable to the Russian Federation. 
Customs  Union (CU) Decision 317 and Table 41 of the Working Party Report o f the 
Russian  Federation's Accession ("Working Party Report") establish, unambiguously, the 
Russian  Federation's legitimate right to require valid veterinary certificates with respect to the 
import of a certain number of live pigs and pork products from an y WTO Member. However, the 
exact content of the EU -Russia bilateral veterinary certificates is not established in the Russian 
Federation's national SPS framework. Indeed, nowhere does the Russian Federation's national SPS 
legislation establish the requirem ent that to export relevant pork products to the Russian 
Federation from the European  Union, the entire European Union, with the exception of Sardinia, 
must be ASF -free for three years. Thus, the Panel erroneously considered the content of the 
EU-Russia bi lateral veterinary certificates to be a national SPS measure of the Russian Federation.  
8. Second, the Panel failed to give full legal effect to the validity and WTO -consistency of the 
valid EU -Russia bilateral veterinary certificates. In relevant part, parag raph 893 of the Russian 
Federation's Working Party Report provides that:  
[b]ilateral veterinary export certificates initialed by one of the CU Parties [e.g. the 
Russian Federation] before 1 July 2010 [e.g., in 2006] as well as any subsequent 
amendments to such certificates agreed with the authorised body of such CU Party, 
would remain valid  for exports from the relevant country into the customs territory of 
the CU [e.g. the Russian Federation] until an export certificate was agreed with a 
CU Party based on the agreed positions of the other CU Parties.  
9. The ordinary meaning, context, and object and purpose of the phrase "would remain valid" 
indicates that pursuant to the Russian Federation's accession to the WTO, all WTO Members 
agreed that the EU -Russia bila teral veterinary certificates are legally binding documents, which 
must be recognized as a legitimate veterinary certificate for export into the territory of a 
CU Member. This necessarily means that these bilateral veterinary certificates must be 
WTO-consistent.  
10. Third, and alternatively, the Panel erred by failing to recognize an inherent "sequence of 
steps" that must be followed when ensuring the validity of the bilateral veterinary certificates. It is 
undisputed that the European Union veterinary service s, not the Russian Federation, is responsible 
for issuing the bilateral veterinary certificates. Accordingly, as a pre -condition to exporting 
relevant meat products to the Russian Federation, veterinary officials in the European Union must 
certify the dise ase status with respect to relevant products originating in an EU Member State. 
While the Panel correctly found that after the first ASF outbreak in the European Union, 
European  Union officials were no longer able to issue valid veterinary certificates for  export of a 
number of products to the Russian Federation, it erroneously attributed the European Union's 
veterinary services' inability to comply with the terms of the certificates to the Russian Federation. 
Yet, there can be no legitimate finding of the Russian Federation's compliance or lack thereof, with 
the valid bilateral certificates because that would represent a contingent second step in the 
certification process. That step could occur only after the European Union veterinary officials have 
issued valid bilateral veterinary certificates.  
11. Based on the above, the Russian Federation requests the Appellate Body to reverse the 
Panel's findings that the European Union's failure to issue bilateral veterinary certificates is an 
action attributable to the R ussian Federation.  
B. The Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement by failing 
to find a requirement to take into account the importing Member's objective 
assessment of the necessary evidence  
12. The Russian Federation appeals the Panel's failure to interpret Article 6.3 of the 
SPS Agreement, which requires panels to take into account science -based and technical evidence 
relied upon by the importing Member, in accordance with the importing Member's appropriate level 
of protection (A LOP), when assessing whether the exporting Member's regionalization request is WT/DS4 75/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- B-4 - 
 
   supported by the "necessary evidence".6 The Russian Federation also appeals the Panel's 
conclusions – based on this interpretative error – that (a) the European Union has provid ed the 
necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate to the Russian Federation under Article 6.3 that 
areas in Lithuania, Poland, Latvia and Estonia, and the European Union as a whole, are African 
Swine Fever (ASF) free7, and (b) that the European Union ha d provided sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that zones in Lithuania, Poland, Estonia and the European Union as a whole, are likely 
to remain ASF-free.8  
13. In interpreting whether exporting Members have provided the necessary evidence under 
Article 6.3 of t he SPS Agreement, the Panel considered it sufficient to limit its examination to the 
evidence provided by the exporting Member. The Panel did not consider it relevant for an 
Article  6.3 interpretation to take into account, to the extent available, the scie nce-based and 
technical evidence the importing Member relied on, in accordance with its ALOP. This legal 
interpretation of Article 6.3 is incorrect and unsupported by the ordinary meaning, context, object 
and purpose of Article 6.3.  
14. The phrase "necessary evidence" in Article 6.3 is directly connected through "in order to" to 
the phrase "objectively demonstrate to the importing Member". This indicates that the purpose of 
the exporting Member collecting the necessary evidence is to convince the importing Mem ber that 
parts of its territory are, and are likely to remain, disease -free. The reference to "evidence" and 
"objectively  demonstrate" further indicates the centrality of scientific and technical evidence under 
Article 6.3 – as opposed to mere information or conjecture. Moreover, the phrase "necessary 
evidence" indicates that an importing Member's assessment of the necessary evidence be 
conducted in accordance with its ALOP.  
15. An importing Member's right under the second sentence of Article 6.3 to undertake 
inspection visits to exporting Members claiming that parts of its territory are disease -free supports 
a reading of Article 6.3 that requires panels to take into account the importing Member's objective 
assessment of the necessary evidence. This is further confirmed by the exchange of information as 
part of the regionalization process envisioned by both the OIE Terrestrial Code and the 
SPS Committee Guidelines to Article 6, which underscore the role of the importing Member as 
reviewer and assessor of the nec essary evidence provided. Finally, the relevant risk assessment 
jurisprudence under Articles 5.1 and 5.2 underscores that, at a minimum, in assessing the 
necessary evidence, a panel must take into account, where available, the science and technical 
evidenc e relied upon by the importing Member – be it minority or majority science. Indeed, 
importing Members with a high ALOP may require evidence that establishes that a territory is 
disease -freed with a higher degree of certainty than importing Members with a l ow ALOP.  
16. This legal interpretation is further supported by the object and purpose of Article 6 of the 
SPS Agreement. The key objectives of the regionalization provisions of Article 6 of the 
SPS Agreement are to facilitate international trade from at least  some regions or zones of an 
exporting Member's territory while protecting the life and health of animals, plants, and human 
beings in the importing Member. On the one hand, it does not provide unfettered discretion to 
importing Members in conducting an as sessment of the necessary evidence under Article 6.3; on 
the other hand, the proper interpretation of Article 6.3 allows the importing Member to base its 
evaluation on science -based and technical evidence in accordance with its ALOP when assessing 
whether sufficient evidence has been provided. By contrast, the Panel's interpretation, which 
focuses only on the science and evidence provided by the exporting Member, would lead to 
incongruity with the distinctly science -based disciplines of the SPS Agreement, i ncluding 
Articles  2.2, 3.3, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1 and 6.2 therein.  
17. Given the dearth of factual findings made by the Panel with respect to the scientific and 
technical evidence presented and relied upon by the Russian Federation, the Appellate Body would 
not be in a position to complete the analysis should it reverse the Panel's interpretation of 
Article  6.3. Key scientific evidence relied upon by the Russian Federation, about which the Panel 
failed to make factual findings, includes evidence concerning wild boar mo vement and the critical 
                                               
6 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.384, 7.389, 7.3916, 7.399, 7.404, 7.406, 7.412, 7.413, 7.414, 
7.416, 7.454, 7.930, 7.932, 7.933, 7.938, 7.939, 7.940, 7.969,7.976, 7.978, 7.985, 7.987, 7.996 , 7.1003, 
and 7.1004.  
7 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7449, 7.455 7.456. and 7.963.  
8 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.976,7.985,7.1001, and 7.1004.  WT/DS475/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- B-5 - 
 
  importance of intensified hunting as a wild boar control strategy, in addition to evidence 
concerning the risk of ASF -spread through the large number of backyard farms with low levels of 
biosecurity.  
C. The Panel erred in its inter pretation of Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement by failing 
to find a requirement for a reasonable period of time to collect and assess the 
evidence by exporting and importing Members, respectively  
18. The Russian Federation appeals the Panel's legal interpretat ion of Article 6.3 of the 
SPS Agreement as not requiring a reasonable period of time for the sequential process of an 
exporting Members to collect the necessary evidence followed by the review and assessment by an 
importing Member of the necessary evidence .9 As a consequence of the Panel's erroneous legal 
interpretation of Article 6.3, the Panel incorrectly found that the European Union had provided the 
necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate to the Russian Federation that parts of Estonia are, 
and ar e likely to remain, disease -free based on a three -day window from the first ASF outbreak in 
Estonia.10 Thus, the Russian Federation requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's 
erroneous legal interpretation11, and the conclusion stated in paragraphs 7 .963 and 7.1003.  
19. In assessing whether the European Union had provided the necessary evidence under 
Article  6.3 of the SPS Agreement, the Panel did not identify a reasonable period of time for the 
overall process to collect and review that evidence. Rather , the Panel engaged in its assessment 
under Article 6.3 by applying the same, general cut -off date of 11 September 2014 with respect to 
all four infected EU Member States, even though the four infected EU Member States had 
experienced ASF infections – and established ASF zones – at quite different time intervals. In 
particular, the Panel's failure to assess the necessary evidence with respect to Estonia by 
employing a reasonable period of time led to the erroneous finding that the European Union had 
provide d the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that parts of its territory are and are 
likely to remain disease -free within three days of the first ASF outbreak in Estonia. In essence, the 
Panel found that three days sufficed for the European Union to  demonstrate that parts of Estonia 
would likely remain disease -free, and for the Russian Federation to translate, review, and assess 
the "necessary evidence" through conducting inspection visits.  
20. In contrast to the Panel's interpretation, in assessing par ties' rights and obligations under 
Article 6.3, a panel must recognize that it takes time for an importing Member to evaluate, 
inspect, and verify the measures and evidence both presented by the exporting Member and 
obtained through site -visits and for an exporting Member to gather the necessary evidence of its 
disease situation. Accordingly, a panel must identify a reasonable period of time that begins the 
moment an exporting Member requests a Member to recognize a disease -free area in response to 
a diseas e outbreak. This interpretation of Article 6.3 is supported by the ordinary meaning, 
context, and object and purpose of Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement. The ordinary meaning of 
Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement underscores that it cannot be given proper ef fect without a panel 
assessing the parties obligations over a reasonable period of time. On the one hand, exporting 
Members require time to gather the necessary evidence and observe the evolution of the disease 
to objectively demonstrate to the importing M ember that their ASF -free territories are, and 
especially, are likely to remain  ASF-free in the future. On the other hand, importing Members 
require time to review the necessary evidence, including through Article 6.3 sanctioned inspection 
visits to the ex porting Member. The appropriate length of the reasonable period of time will 
necessarily be impacted by the establishment of new disease -free zones, both in countries already 
infected with the disease and in countries that were previously free of the disea se and are 
experiencing their first outbreak.  
21. This is further supported by the relevant context of Article 6.3. Both the SPS Committee 
Guidelines to Article 6 and relevant chapters in the OIE Terrestrial Code envision a dynamic 
exchange between importing and exporting Members in the context of a regionalization request. It 
takes time for both parties to carry out these relevant steps, which include collecting evidence, 
                                               
9 See, e.g., Panel Report paras. 7.384, 7.389, 7.3916, 7.399, 7.404, 7.406, 7.412, 7.413, 7.414, 7.416,  
7.454, 7.930, 7.932, 7.933, 7.938, 7.939, 7.940, 7.969,7.976, 7.978, 7.985, 7.987, 7.996, 7.1003, and 
7.1004.  
10 Panel Report, paras. 7.963 and 7.1003.  
11 See, e.g., Panel Report paras. 7.384, 7.393, 7.394, 7.395, 7.396, 7.399, 7.404, 7.406, 7.412, 7.413, 
7.414, 7.416, 7.454, 7.930, 7.932, 7.933, 7.938, 7.939, 7.940, 7.969, 7.978, 7.987, and 7.996.  WT/DS4 75/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- B-6 - 
 
   reviewing evidence, requesting and providing additional evidence, and making inspection visits. 
Specifically, the Guidelines to Article 6 anticipate an average reasonable period of time of around 
90 days to complete the information exchange. The disease -specific provisions of the 
OIE Terrestrial Code underscore that the extent of the reasonab le period of time is informed by, 
and may be altered as a result of, continuing outbreaks taking place in formerly disease -free 
areas. Moreover, pursuant to Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement, not every lapse of time 
amounts to a delay. This furthe r indicates the relevance of finding a requirement for a reasonable 
period of time when it comes to assessing the necessary evidence under Article 6.3. The risk 
assessment jurisprudence which demands sufficient time to collect and assess available scientif ic 
evidence further corroborates this interpretation.  
22. The requirement of a reasonable period of time under Article 6.3 is also supported by the 
provision's object and purpose. A reasonable period of time safeguards the importing Member's 
right to protect its territory from animal diseases by giving meaning to their right to review the 
necessary evidence provided. Similarly, establishing limits on the amount of time an importing 
Member uses to assess necessary evidence of whether a region will remain diseas e free recognizes 
the exporting Member's right to continue to trade from parts of its territory after objectively 
demonstrating effective regionalization.  
23. The Panel has assessed the necessary evidence provided with respect to Estonia over only a 
three -day period following Estonia's its first ASF outbreak. Accordingly, there are insufficient 
findings on the record that would allow for the completion of an assessment whether the 
European  Union has provided the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate to  the 
Russian  Federation the absence of ASF within a reasonable period of time from the first ASF 
outbreaks in Estonia.  
D. The Panel erred in its interpretation of the relationship between Articles 6.1 
and 6.3 of the SPS Agreement  
24. The Russian Federation a ppeals the Panel's interpretation of the relationship between 
Articles 6.1 and 6.3 of the SPS Agreement.12 The Panel found that, even in situations where, under 
Article 6.3, an exporting Member has failed to provide the necessary evidence to establish that a 
region will likely remain disease free, an importing Member can be found to violate Article  6.1 for 
failing to adapt its SPS measures to regional conditions in the exporting Member. The Russian 
Federation requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel' s erroneous legal interpretation13, and 
its erroneous finding that the Russian Federation's import restrictions on Latvia violate Article 6.1 
because they are not adapted to SPS characteristics in Latvia.14  
25. The Panel's finding reflects an incorrect interpre tation of the ordinary meaning, context, 
object and purpose of Article 6.1. By using the word "shall", Article 6.3 establishes that exporting 
Members claiming that parts of their territory are disease -free do not have the automatic right of 
recognition for  zones they claim to be disease -free; rather, they must first provide the necessary 
evidence that objectively demonstrates that the alleged disease -free areas are and are likely to 
remain disease -free. The fact that Article 6 contains a special provision ( Article 6.3) addressing 
situations involving specific requests for recognition of disease free zones by exporting Members 
indicates that these situations warrant treatment that may differ from other types of Article 6 
claims.  
26. This is supported by the cont ext of the SPS Committee Guidelines to Article 6, which set out 
a "sequence" of steps that must be followed by exporting and importing Members when engaging 
with a regionalization request by an exporting Member. Based on the sequencing set out in the 
Guide lines, it follows that absent the exporting Member having provided the necessary evidence 
that parts of its territory are and are likely to remain disease -free, the importing Member is not 
obligated to "adapt" its measures to the disease situation in the e xporting Member under 
Article  6.1.  
27. Further context is found in Article 5.3.7 of the OIE Terrestrial Code, entitled "sequence of 
steps to be taken in establishing a zone/compartment and having it recognized for international 
                                               
12 See, e.g., Panel Report paras. 7.365, 7.1011 (second sentence), 7.1020, 7.1027 and 7.1028.  
13 See, e.g., Panel Report paras. 7.365, 7.1011 (second sentence), 7 .1020, 7.1027 and 7.1028.  
14 Panel Report, para. 7.995 and 7.1028.  WT/DS475/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- B-7 - 
 
  trade purposes." This corrobora tes that an importing Member must adapt its measures to the 
SPS characteristics in its territory only if the exporting Member requesting for zone recognition has 
provided the importing Member with the necessary evidence. This is a logical sequencing, given  
that the exporting Member's cooperation in providing the "necessary" evidence is an essential 
element in allowing the importing Member to assess the risk and ultimately to adjust its own 
measures to that risk.  
28. By interpreting Article 6.1 findings vis -à-vis disease prevalence in exporting Members as 
being dependent and contingent on an exporting Member's compliance with its obligation under 
Article 6.3 – in situations involving an exporting Member's request for zone recognition under 
Article 6.3 – proper e ffect is given to the provisions of Article 6.3 and the corresponding obligation 
on the exporting Member contained therein. By contrast, the Panel's interpretation attaches no 
legal or practical evidentiary significance to the exporting Member's obligation  to provide the 
necessary evidence that a particular zone will likely remain disease -free under Article 6.3. This 
would render Article 6.3 superfluous, and indeed, irrelevant for claims involving Article 6.1.  
29. Relevant jurisprudence from the Appellate Body  Report in India – Agricultural Products  and 
the Panel Report in US – Animals  further confirms that (i) in situations involving a request by an 
exporting Member for zone recognition under Article 6.3, consistency with Article 6.3 is required 
before finding  a violation of Article 6.1 vis -à-vis the situation in the exporting Member, and (ii) for 
all other situations, a violation of Article 6.1 can be found absent a finding of consistency with 
Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement.  
30. Based on the above, the Russian Federation requests the Appellate Body to reverse the 
Panel's interpretation that in situations in which an exporting Member requests for zone 
recognition, a violation of Article 6.1 can be found with respect to the conditions in the exporting 
Member even where the exporting Member has failed to provide the necessary evidence, and, 
accordingly, to reverse its findings under Article 6.1 vis -à-vis Latvia.  
 
 
 
 WT/DS4 75/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- B-8 - 
 
   ANNEX B -2 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF  THE EUROPEAN UNION 'S OTHER APPELLANT 'S SUBMISSION1 
A. Claims  
1. The Pane l erred in the interpretation and application of the first sentence of 
Article  6.2 of the SPS Agreement when finding that Russia recognizes the concepts of 
pest- or disease -free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence in respect of 
ASF, and there fore, the measures at issue are not inconsistent with Russia's obligations 
under that provision  
1. A panel faced with an SPS measure adopted by a Member which has in place a regulatory 
framework that (only)  formally  recognizes the concepts described in the  first sentence of 
Article  6.2 may still find an inconsistency of a challenged measure with the first sentence of 
Article  6.2. 
2. A determination by a panel based solely on the text of the regulatory framework  of the 
importing Member according to which that M ember formally recognizes the concept of disease -free 
areas can only be a provisional  one. In such a case, the European Union submits that a panel 
should subsequently seek to confirm  its provisional conclusion in light of its analysis under 
Articles 6.3 an d 6.1 of the SPS Agreement.  
3. Contrary to what the Panel posits, the European Union's proposed interpretation would not 
lead to the inutility and redundancy of the first sentence of Article 6.2 for several reasons.  
4. First, throughout the covered agreements th ere was used as a general drafting technique  
the spelling out of the more general obligations in first place, followed by more specific obligations 
afterwards. Article 6.2 starts with the phrase "in particular", clearly indicating that it develops a 
certai n aspect which is already contained in a more general form in Article  6.1.  
5. Second , the Appellate Body clearly indicated that the recognition of the concept of 
disease -free areas in Article 6.2 should be harmoniously interpreted  in the light of the 
require ments in Article 6.1 and not read in isolation.  
6. Third, the first sentence of Article 6.2 is the place where a panel's analysis may start and 
may very well end, without the need of going any further into the analysis of the other provisions 
in Article 6, i n a scenario like India-Agricultural Products . However, in the present scenario a panel 
would reach only a provisional conclusion  under Article 6.2, which may very well not be 
confirmed after a full analysis under Articles 6.3 and 6.1. Indeed, in such a ca se a panel faced with 
an SPS measure adopted by a Member which has in place a regulatory framework that only 
formally recognizes the concepts described in the first sentence of Article 6.2 will still find the 
challenged measure inconsistent with the first sentence of Article 6.2.  
7. Finally , the European Union considers helpful the fact that elsewhere in its report the Panel 
made findings according to which neither on the face of the measures at issue, nor in their 
application , Russia recognizes the concept of  regionalization.  
8. Therefore, the Panel erred in the interpretation and application of the first sentence of 
Article  6.2 of the SPS Agreement when finding that Russia recognizes the concepts of pest - or 
disease -free areas and areas of low pest or disease pr evalence in respect of ASF, and thus, the 
measures at issue are not inconsistent with Russia's obligations under that provision.  
 
 
                                               
1 Total number of words (including footnotes but excluding executive summary) = 5419; total number 
of words of the executive summary = 536.  WT/DS4 75/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- B-9 - 
 
  ANNEX B -3 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF  THE EUROPEAN UNION'S  APPELLEE'S SUBMISSIO N1 
A. Claims  
1. The Panel correctly found that the E U-wide ban is a measure at issue attributable 
to Russia  
1. It is not in dispute that exports of the products at issue from the entire European Union to 
Russia have ceased. Russia has essentially only two points on appeal, which have no merit : 
(i) that the EU-wide ban is attributable to the European Union and not to Russia and (ii) that the 
European Union has agreed to this because of the bilateral veterinary certificates and Russia's 
terms of accession to the WTO.  
2. Russia adduces three types of "creative"  arguments.  
3. First, Russia attempts to differentiate between "the requirement to present a valid 
veterinary certificate" and "the exact content of the EU -Russia bilateral veterinary certificates".  
4. Russia misrepresents the Panel's findings. The Panel n ever mentions that the bilaterally 
negotiated certificates are the measure at issue. The measure at issue consists of different actions 
which amount to an EU -wide ban.  
5. A "sanitary measure" is a defined term, as set out in Annex A(1). The definition "in cludes" 
"all relevant laws, decrees, regulations, requirements and procedures". The Panel has correctly 
found that the EU -wide ban is an SPS measure. Any act or omission may be a measure for the 
purposes of dispute settlement.  
6. The European Union recall s the different actions attributable to the Russian government, 
which taken together clearly denote the existence of a composite measure – the EU -wide ban –, 
referred to by Russia as Russia's "provisional compliance with the terms / language of the 
veterin ary certificates": the letter FS -SA-8/1277, the FSVPS Instructions FS -SA-7/1275, the letter 
НF-12-26/1650, a press clipping on the FSVPS webpage and the rejection of several consignments 
by the Russian authorities after 25 January 2014. As a matter of fact , the effect of the above 
actions was the practical absence of new attempts by exporters to ship the products at issue to 
Russia.  
7. Second , Russia claims that because the validity of the bilateral veterinary certificates is a 
term of Russia 's accession to  the WTO, the bilateral certificates are "frozen in time".  
8. Russia's interpretation is contrary to the terms of its WTO a ccession. The text of 
paragraph  893 clearly refers to "any subsequent amendments" of bilateral certificates, in line with 
the contin uing obligation in Article 6.1.  
9. The Panel could not find that the provision relied on by Russia has clear and unambiguous 
language to the effect that Russia's Protocol of Accession would allow it to depart from other 
obligations enshrined in the Multila teral Trade Agreements.  
10. To the contrary, a reading of the provisions at issue in good faith, in accordance with the 
ordinary meaning to be given to the terms in their context and in light of their object and purpose 
reveals that Members were concerned with respect to R ussia's compliance with its 
WTO obligations, in particular with respect to regionalization. (paragraph 892).  
                                               
1 Total number of words (including footnotes but  excluding executive summary) = 23380; total number 
of words of the executive summary = 2176.  WT/DS4 75/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- B-10 - 
 
   11. In fact, Russia confirms that the position of the Panel and the European Union on this point 
is correct. Russia sums up its ca se by asserting that the cert ificates must be "presumed" 
WTO-consistent. Indeed, all measures attributable to  a WTO Member are presumed 
WTO consistent, until the contrary is demonstrated in DSU proceedings.  
12. Third, the alleged "sequencing"  argument adva nced by Russia is a misrepresentation. The 
impossibility of the EU veterinary officials to sign valid certificates is due to Russia's own refusal to 
adapt the said certificates to the regional conditions in the European Union and in Russia.  
13. A proper ex planation of "sequencing" would take into account that as a first step Russia 
failed to agree to the adaptation of the wording of the bilateral certificates in accordance with the 
EU proposals and scientific evidence. Russia agreed in the past with adaptat ion of the certificates 
(i) for imports of beef from the European Union and (ii) for imports of poultry from Canada.  
14. Russia's appeal on this point should be dismissed.  
2. Claims related to regionalization  
i) The Panel did not err in its interpretation of Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement with 
regard to the scientific and technical evidence relied upon by the importing Member  
15. There are several introductory remarks. First, it is unclear what Panel finding Russia is 
actually appealing, as it invites con sideration of 30 paragraphs of the Panel Report. Second , Russia 
does not explicitly appeal the findings at paragraph 8.1(d)(iv). Third, Russia attempts to fault the 
Panel for a "failure to interpret". This looks like a disguised Article 11 of the DSU appea l. Fourth , 
Russia asserts that Article 6.3 must be interpreted so as to "require panels" to do something. Fifth, 
Russia refers to evidence allegedly "relied upon" by Russia. Russia did not conduct an assessment 
of risk and the Panel's findings under Articl es 5.1 and 5.7 are not appealed in this context. Sixth, 
Russia adds to its appeal claim a reference to Russia's ALOP. The materials characterised as 
"evidence" submitted by Russia are not part of the "matter" that the Panel was required to assess 
under Art icle 6.3.  
16. The European Union considers that these observations are in themselves sufficient to 
dispose of Russia's appeal on this point.  
17. The Panel made findings with respect to the evidence and information supplied by the 
European Union and not wit h regard to Russia's alleged assessment of this information, because 
Russia never assessed this information.  
18. Contrary to what Russia alleges, the Panel did not omit the words "in order to" and "to the 
importing Member".  
19. The European Union disagree s that two different elements (risk assessment and risk 
management) should be "merged" into only one subjective requirement. Russia attempts to 
equate "necessary" (evidence) in Article 6.3 with a subjective test at the unfettered discretion of 
an importing  Member.  
20. The context of Article 6.3 confirms this understanding. Article 3.3 provides that Members 
may depart from international standards on the basis of a risk assessment or as a consequence of 
a higher ALOP.  
21. The European Union agrees that it i s possible that a risk assessment may be based on 
divergent or minority views, as long as these views are from qualified and respected sources. The 
present case is different from previous cases such as the Hormones  or GMOs  cases, which involved 
relatively "new" issues.  
22. Russia's allegations should be dismissed, taking into account that:  
 the Panel did not commit any legal error and did not omit to give meaning to each and 
every word in Article 6.3;  WT/DS4 75/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- B-11 - 
 
   Russia does not have any risk assessment;  
 the issue of a risk assessment based on divergent or minority views, from qualified and 
respected sources, is not likely to arise in a case like the present one;  
 Russia's ALOP was found by the Panel to be high, but not very high and not zero risk; 
Russia considers approp riate the level of protection reflected in the OIE Terrestrial Code;  
 the Panel has found that the EU regionalization measures represent a significantly less 
trade restrictive alternative which meets Russia's ALOP;  
 the factors to be taken into account under  Article 6.3 are objective factors.  
23. According to Article 11 of the DSU, the standard of review in an SPS case, including with 
respect to Article 6.3, is for a panel to make an objective assessment of the matter before it.  
24. The Appellate Body will no t reach the stage of considering whether or not it can complete 
the analysis because it will not reverse the Panel's findings under Article 6.3.  
25. Russia reiterates arguments which it dropped before the Panel, as they had no relevance to 
the present dis pute, related to containment zones and compartments. The EU regionalization 
measures are in line with the OIE Terrestrial Code.  
26. Russia further states that the Panel did not make factual findings about the science and 
technical evidence allegedly "relie d on" by Russia. But Russia has no risk assessment.  
27. The Appellate Body should reject this ground of appeal and uphold the findings of the Panel.  
ii) The Panel did not err in its interpretation of Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement with 
regard to the reas onable period of time for exporting Members to collect the 
necessary evidence and for importing Members to review the respective evidence  
28. A reasonable period of time is normally required in the process envisaged by Article 6.3. The 
Panel was right to c onclude that the European Union supplied the necessary evidence to Russia in 
order to objectively demonstrate that ASF -free areas are free and are likely to remain free in the 
European Union, and in particular in Estonia.  
29. Russia employs as a "litigati on technique" a "stuffing" of claims exclusively under Article 6, 
while by their very nature such claims are closely linked to other provisions of the SPS Agreement, 
such as Articles 5.1, 5.7 and Annex C, while not appealing the respective findings of the Panel.  
30. First, according to Article 4.3.1. of the OIE Terrestrial Code, the process of regionalization is 
"best implemented by trading partners through establishing parameters and gaining agreement on 
the necessary measures prior to outbreaks of disease ". 
31. Second , the European Union provided abundant information and evidence with respect to 
the ASF situation and the respective regionalization measures in the European Union (including 
Estonia), so as to objectively demonstrate to Russia that ASF -free a reas are ASF -free and are 
likely to remain so. Such information and evidence comprises (i) general information and evidence 
with respect to the ASF regulatory framework in the European Union; (ii) specific information and 
evidence pertaining to Estonia and  (iii) immediate and constant updates with respect to the 
ASF situation in the European Union, including Estonia.  
32. The European Union provided to Russia the necessary evidence with respect to geography, 
epidemiological surveillance, the effectiveness of  sanitary controls in respect of ASF, relevant 
ecosystems, the prevalence of the disease and the existence of control or eradication programmes, 
in order to objectively demonstrate to Russia the requirements under Article 6.3.  
33. Third, between the notifi cation of an outbreak to the OIE and the moment trade resumes 
between the respective Members there is normally a short suspension period. This is a situation 
covered by Article 5.7.  WT/DS4 75/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- B-12 - 
 
   34. The moment a Member is asking for information which is not necessary f or a more objective 
assessment of risk, that Member can no longer benefit from the provisional shelter of Article 5.7 
and the respective delays are undue as per Annex C(1)(a).  
35. Article 5.7 itself employs the notion of a "reasonable period of time" , with respect to the 
obligation (on importing Members) to review the measure in light of a more objective assessment 
of risk. Russia did not review the measures at issue within a reasonable period of time, and Russia 
did not appeal this finding by the Panel.  
36. The notions of reasonable period of time in Article 5.7 and undue delays in Annex C(1)(a) 
are related to each other. While Russia claims that 3 days do not constitute a reasonable period of 
time with respect to assessing the EU ASF regionalization measur es in Estonia, at the same time 
Russia made unnecessary information requests (resulting in undue delays) only 5 days after the 
receipt of the EU regionalization request regarding Lithuania.  
37. Fourth , the European Union recalls that most of the products at issue from Estonia were 
already subject to the EU -wide ban since 29 January 2014.  
38. Fifth, the ASF regionalisation measures in Estonia, while presenting certain particularities, 
are sufficiently closely related to the ASF regionalization measures in t he other affected 
EU Member States. Russia did not need an extensive period of time so as to assess the respective 
regionalization measures.  
39. Russia's third ground of appeal should be rejected. The Appellate Body will not need to 
complete the analysis, as it will uphold the Panel's findings.  
iii) The Panel did not err in its interpretation of the relati onship between Articles 6.1 
and 6.3 of the SPS Agreement  
40. The debate with regard to regionalization measures is relevant only with regard to 
non-treated products.  
41. At the interim review stage the European Union noted that certain paragraphs of the interim 
report were factually inaccurate. The European Union promptly provided Russia significant 
information on revised or updated control measures with regard to Latvia from the first case until 
11 September 2014.  
42. The European Union did not previously provide the Panel with copies of these 
communications because it was never asked to do so. The European Union could not anticipate, 
and the Panel did no t indicate at any moment during the proceedings, that the relevant date it will 
take into account with regard to Latvia will be a date subsequent to the date of the Panel 
establishment.  
43. The Panel considered that the supplied evidence is "new evidence" . However, the position 
with respect to Article 6.1 remained unchanged.  
44. The Panel did not err with respect to the interpretation of th e relationship between 
Articles  6.3 and 6.1 neither as a matter of principle, nor in the particular case of the 
region alization measures in Latvia. Russia's fourth ground of appeal should be rejected.  
 
 
 
 WT/DS4 75/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- B-13 - 
 
  ANNEX B -4 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF  THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION'S  APPELLEE'S SUBMISSIO N 
1  INTRODUCTION1 
1. Pursuant to Rule 22(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, th e Russian 
Federation hereby submits its Appellee's Submission.2  
2. The Russian Federation requests the Appellate Body to reject the European Union appeal, 
and to uphold the Panel's finding that the Russian Federation recognizes the concept of 
regionalizat ion pursuant to Article 6.2, first sentence, of the SPS Agreement. The European Union's 
argument is based on the erroneous assumption that the only manner in which Members can 
satisfy their obligations under Article 6.2 is by applying regionalization in th e challenged 
SPS measure. This position is unsupported both by the principles of treaty interpretation and the 
jurisprudence.  
A. The European Union's interpretation  of Article 6.2, first sentence, is unsupported 
by the ordinary meaning, context, and objec t and purpose  
3. The Panel did not err in its legal interpretation of Article 6.2, first sentence. The ordinary 
meaning, context, and object and purpose of Article 6.2, first sentence, support the Panel's 
interpretation of this provision as requiring only proof of an express recognition of the concepts of 
pest-or disease -free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence, including through a 
Member's national SPS regulatory and legislative framework.  
4. The ordinary meaning of the phrase "recognize the  concepts" confirms the Panel's 
interpretation that Article 6.2 requires Members to enable the application of the concept of pest -or 
disease -free areas, and areas of low pest or disease prevalence. This directly contradicts the 
European Union's argument th at Article 6.2 requires Members to apply regionalization in their 
challenged SPS measures. Indeed, the European Union's interpretation of Article 6.2, first 
sentence, erroneously conflates the requirements of Article 6.1 with the requirements of 
Article  6.2, first sentence. The European Union's interpretation of Article 6.2, first sentence, is also 
contradicted by the phrase "in particular" in Article 6.2. The existence of this phrase demonstrates 
that Article 6.2 is linked to Article 6.1, and not, as the E uropean Union claims, the reverse.  
5. Moreover, the Panel's interpretation of Article 6.2, first sentence, is confirmed by the context 
of the second sentence of Article 6.2, which provides guidance on the factors that Members may 
take into account when re cognizing the concepts of pest -or disease -free areas and of low pest or 
disease prevalence. It is further supported by the overall structure and design of Article 6, 
whereby more general obligations are set out first in Article 6.1, followed by more specif ic 
obligations in Articles 6.2 and 6.3. Indeed, Article 6.2 is a subset of Article 6.1 to the extent that it 
refers to situations involving pest or disease. Conversely, nothing in the context of Article 6.2, first 
sentence, supports the European Union's in terpretation.  
6. The object and purpose of Article 6 further confirm that the Panel correctly interpreted 
Article 6.2, first sentence. The Panel's interpretation properly differentiates between a situation 
where regionalization is outright prohibited (such  as with respect to India's Avian Influenza 
outbreaks), and a situation where a Member has in place a detailed regulatory and legislative 
framework recognizing regionalization. In doing so, the Panel's interpretation furthers the object 
and purpose of ince ntivizing importing Members to create a legal framework that recognizes and 
facilitates the concepts of pest - or disease -free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence. 
To the contrary, the European Union's interpretation would not enable panels an d the 
                                               
1 Total number of words (including footnotes but excluding executive summary) = 10071; total number 
of words of the executive summary = 965.  
2 The Russian Federa tion should not be taken to agree with any argument or proposition advanced by 
the European Union that is not specifically addressed in this Appellee's Submission.  WT/DS4 75/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- B-14 - 
 
   Appellate  Body to tailor their findings to reflect these distinctly different situations, and thus offers 
no incentive for Members to integrate the key principle of regionalization into their national 
regulatory systems.  
7. Moreover, under the Europ ean Union's interpretation, where an importing Member with a 
legal framework recognizes the concepts of pest -or disease -free areas or areas of low pest or 
disease prevalence but fails to apply them in a particular case, the panel or Appellate Body will 
necessarily find that the importing Member acted inconsistently with both Articles 6.1 and 6.2. 
Thus, in this situation, a panel will not be able to make independent findings under Articles 6.1 
and 6.2, thus rendering Article 6.2, first sentence, largely redu ndant.  
B. The European Union's application of Article 6.2, first sentence, is unsupported by 
the Panel's factual findings  
8. The European Union cannot demonstrate that the Panel's factual findings under Article 6.2, 
first sentence, are incorrect. The Pan el made factual findings that the Russian Federation 
recognizes regionalization based on not one, but numerous legislative documents and agreements: 
Customs Union Decision 317, the 2006 EU -Russia bilateral memorandum on regionalization, and 
the text of the  actual veterinary certificates applied between the Russian Federation and the 
European Union. These findings reflect the existence of a comprehensive framework for the 
recognition and application of the concepts of pest - or disease -free areas and areas of  low pest or 
disease prevalence as set out in Article 6.2, first sentence.  
9. Assuming, arguendo , that the  Appellate Body were to find that recognizing the concepts of 
pest- or disease - free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence would require some proof 
beyond implementing a legal framework that expressly recognizes the concept of regionalization, 
various actions taken by the Russian Federation demonstrate that the Russian Federation both 
recognizes and applies the concept of regionalization. T hese actions include the numerous letters 
sent by the Russian Federation to the European Union explaining its regionalization requirements 
and requesting additional evidence; the fact that the Russian Federation has applied, and made 
positive regionalizati on determinations, with respect to other Member States, and the fact that the 
Panel found that the EU -Russia bilateral veterinary certificates recognize regionalization.  
 
 
_______________  
 
 
 WT/DS4 75/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- C-1 - 
 
  ANNEX  C 
ARGUMENTS OF THE THI RD PARTICIPANTS  
Contents  Page  
Annex  C-1 Executive summary of Australia's third participant's submission  C-2 
Annex  C-2 Executive summary of Brazil's third participant's submission  C-3 
Annex  C-3 Executive summary of the United States' third participant's submission  C-4 
 
 WT/DS4 75/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- C-2 - 
 
   ANNEX  C-1 
EXECUTIV E SUMMARY OF AUSTRALIA 'S THIRD PARTICIPANT'S SUBMISSION  
ARTICLE 6 OF THE SPS  AGREEMENT  
1. Australia recalls the Panel's finding in this dispute that Russia had not breached Article 6.2 
because it recognized the concepts of pest - or disease -free areas and area s of low pest or disease 
prevalence in respect of African Swine Fever in its legislative framework.  
2. In Australia's view, the Appellate Body's findings in India – Agricultural Products  indicate 
that the obligation in Article 6.2 requires Members to do more  than simply refer to or recognise 
such concepts in the abstract.  
3. The Appellate Body clarified that the overarching obligation in Article 6.1 requires a Member 
to ensure that its SPS measures are adapted to regional SPS characteristics, and that the furth er 
paragraphs in Article 6 elaborate on the specific aspects of this obligation.1 
4. In light of the Appellate  Body's findings, Australia considers that to fulfil the obligation in 
Article  6.2, it is not sufficient for a Member to merely have a declaratory re cognition of the concept 
of regionalisation in its legislation. Rather, a Member must ensure that its SPS measures, as 
implemented, are adapted to regional SPS characteristics . 
 
 
                                               
1 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products , para. 5.141.  WT/DS4 75/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- C-3 - 
 
  ANNEX C -2 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF  BRAZIL'S  THIRD PARTICIPANT'S SUBMISSION  
Brazil  considers that the panel addressed satisfactorily the relationship between 
Articles  6.1, 6.3 and 5 but is concerned about the interpretation given to Article 6.2, which would 
merely require WTO Members to "recognize the concept of pest - or disease -free ar eas", in 
abstract.  
Article 6.2 does not command solely a formal recognition of the principle of regionalization. 
It also entails that such recognition be practically functional. As any other relevant obligation 
enshrined in the SPS Agreement, the obligatio n to recognize the concept of  regionalization in 
Article 6.2 cannot be subject to a reductionist interpretation, that would devoid the provision of 
any practical repercussion and would encapsulate it on a mere theoretical level. The second 
sentence of the Article 6.2, moreover, defines precisely how the determination of the areas shall 
be made, making it clear that a mere recognition of the principle is not sufficient in order to 
comply with Article 6.2.  
As regards Article 6.3, Brazil considers that the pan el correctly found that the exporting 
Member must objectively demonstrate to the importing Member that some areas are, and are 
likely to remain, pest - or disease -free. As the panel correctly clarified Members have to "provide 
evidence" and not "merely info rmation" concerning the information related to the determination of 
a disease - or pest -free area. This requirement on the exporting member to demonstrate its claims 
of disease - or pest -free areas could be seem as an equivalent to the obligation put on the 
importing Member to "recognize" the concept of regionalization.  
 
 
 WT/DS4 75/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- C-4 - 
 
   ANNEX C -3 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF  THE UNITED STATES'  THIRD PARTICIPANT'S SUBMISSION  
1. The United  States welcomes the opportunity to present its views on certain findings raised 
on appeal by t he Russian Federation ("Russia") and the European Union ("EU") in 
Russian  Federation – Measures on the Importation of Live Pigs, Pork and Other Pig Products from 
the European Union  (DS475).  
2. First, contrary to what Russia argues in its appellant submiss ion, the text of Article 6 of the 
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  ("SPS Agreement") does not 
support a categorical rule that a breach of Article 6.1 – on the basis of a failure to recognize 
particular disease free areas – can occur only after an exporting Member has satisfied its 
Article  6.3 obligation to provide information.  
3. Second , contrary to what Russia argues, the Panel did not err in its interpretation of 
Article  6.3 by not taking into account in its Article 6.3 analysis evidence relied upon by Russia. 
Rather, both evidence supplied by the exporting Member pursuant to Article 6.3 and other 
evidence in the possession of the importing Member bear on the question of whether the importing 
Member has satisfied its Arti cle 6.1 obligation to ensure that its SPS measures are adapted to the 
SPS characteristics of relevant areas.  
4. Third, the Panel committed no error in its interpretation of Article 6.3 by failing to give 
Russia time to consider evidence following the Eston ian ASF outbreak. This claim by Russia reflects 
its continued confusion between Article 6.1 and Article 6.3 analysis.  
5. Fourth, Article 6.1 imposes obligations with respect to measures, while Article 6.2 requires 
recognition of concepts. Refusal to recogn ize specific areas as disease -free, standing alone, is 
unlikely to support a finding that the importing Member failed to recognize the concepts described 
in Article 6.2.  
 
 
_______________  
 
 
 WT/DS4 75/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- D-1 - 
 
  ANNEX  D 
PROCEDURAL RULING  
Contents  Page  
Annex  D-1 Procedural Ru ling of 14 November 2016 regarding the Russian  Federation's 
request for English -to-Russian interpretation at the oral hearing  D-2 WT/DS4 75/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- D-2 - 
 
   ANNEX D -1 
PROCEDURAL RULING OF  14 NOVEMBER 2016  
1. On 2 November 2016, we received a letter from the Russian Federation requesti ng that the 
Appellate Body Division hearing the above appeal allow simultaneous English -to-Russian 
interpretation at the oral hearing in this appellate proceeding. Specifically, Russia explains that 
government officials in charge of sanitary and phytosanit ary issues will participate in the 
oral hearing and that these officials do not have sufficient English skills to follow the hearing. 
Russia states that it will bear all costs associated with such simultaneous interpretation.  
2. On 3 November 2016, we invite d the European Union and the third participants to comment  
in writing on Russia's request. We received a response from the European Union on 4  November 
and responses from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Norway, and the United States on 7  November 2016.  
3. The Euro pean Union opposes Russia's request. The European Union submits that this 
request is not related to the efficient conduct of the hearing or the effective exercise by Russia of 
its rights under the DSU, but reflects an attempt to promote Russian, de facto , as a language in 
WTO dispute settlement. The European Union states that the DSU does not prevent any delegation 
from taking steps, within the structures of the delegation, to ensure simultaneous interpretation 
for convenience of one or more members of a de legation. For the European Union, Russia's 
request is in fact about access to the WTO interpretation booths. The European Union notes that 
WTO meeting rooms are equipped with a limited number of such booths and raises a number of 
general questions that may  arise in relation to the use and the allocation of these booths in 
practice.  
4. In their respective comments, Japan, Norway, and the United States express that they have 
no objection to Russia providing English -to-Russian interpretation at its own expense, so that 
Members of its delegation may follow the proceedings. Brazil considers that such a request should 
be granted only in exceptional circumstances and takes no position on whether such circumstances 
are present in this case. Australia opposes the reque st, considering it unnecessary in the light of 
its expectation that the issues on appeal will be of a legal, rather than factual, nature.  
5. Furthermore, Japan and the United States emphasize that they would oppose any request to 
allow interpretation going b eyond the one described in the preceding paragraph. Highlighting that 
the three official working languages of the WTO are English, French, and Spanish, both Japan and 
the United States object, in particular, to interpretation from Russian into an official WTO working 
language being provided by interpreters. Australia emphasizes that all Members accede to the 
WTO and participate in proceedings in full knowledge of the constraint of three official working 
languages. Brazil states that WTO Members may face dif ficulties in having to express themselves 
in one of the three official working languages of the WTO when these are different from their own 
languages. Brazil adds that it has faced this challenge in WTO dispute settlement for the 
past 20 years and that eve ry delegation should make every effort to resolve such languages issues 
within their delegation.  
6. We note that Russia requests that the Appellate Body Division hearing the above appeal 
allow only simultaneous English -to-Russian interpretation at the oral h earing in this appellate 
proceeding. Russia does not request, and we do not address in this ruling, Russian -to-English 
interpretation.  
7. We further note that the official working languages of the WTO are English, French, and 
Spanish. In the present case, th e appellate proceedings are being conducted in English and thus in 
one of the official working languages of the Organization.  
8. We recall that the  Appellate Body held in EC – Bananas III  that, in principle, it is for a 
WTO Member to determine the compositio n of its delegation in appellate proceedings.1 We 
therefore see no impediment for a WTO Member to include individuals providing interpretation 
                                               
1 Appellate Body Repor t, EC – Bananas III , paras. 10 and 12.  WT/DS4 75/AB/R/Add.1  
 
- D-3 - 
 
  from one of the WTO official working languages into another language for the benefit of those 
members of its dele gation lacking the language skills required to follow the hearing.  
9. At the same time, we consider interpretation provided by one member of a delegation to 
other members of that delegation present in the hearing room, and audible for all present in the 
room, not conducive to an efficient conduct of the hearing. In the interest of orderly procedure in 
the conduct of this appeal, the Division has therefore decided, on the basis of Rule 16(1) of the 
Working Procedures for Appellate Review, to allow the booths t o be used by the interpreters of the 
Russian delegation during the oral hearing in this dispute. We do not see that the due process 
rights of other participants at the oral hearing would be affected by these arrangements. We also 
note that the Panel allowe d for similar arrangements during the substantive meetings with the 
parties.  
10. In the light of these considerations, the Division hearing this appeal authorizes Russia to use 
interpreters for the purpose of simultaneous interpretation from English -to-Russian . We note that 
Russia has undertaken to engage the interpreters and that Russia will cover all costs associated 
with their engagement. We underline that the oral hearing is confidential and that Russia shall take 
all necessary measures to ensure that the i nterpreters engaged by Russia maintain the 
confidentiality of the proceedings. The Division requests that Russia indicate in its delegation list 
which members of its delegation act as interpreters. In the interest of orderly procedure in the 
conduct of thi s appeal, the interpretation facilities available in the designated hearing room shall 
be used for simultaneous interpretation.  
 
__________