RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/405  
 
9 March  2018 
(18-1448) Page: 1/2 
Dispute Settlement Body  
3 January 2018  
   
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 3 JANUARY  2018 
Chairman: Mr. Junichi I hara (Japan ) 
1  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – MEASURES ON THE IMPO RTATION OF LIVE PIGS , PORK AND 
OTHER  PIG PRODUCTS FROM TH E EUROPEAN UNION  
A.  Recourse to Article 22.2 of the DSU by the European  Union (WT/DS475/17)  
1.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from the European Union contained in 
document WT/DS475/17 and invited the representative of t he European Union to speak.  
1.2.  The representative of the European  Union  said that the EU had requested a special DSB 
meeting in order to ensure that there was legal certainty and to avoid ambiguities since the parties 
to the dispute had not been able to enter  into a sequencing agreement. He said that the EU had 
requested the suspension of concessions to preserve its rights in these dispute settlement 
proceedings. If the Russian Federation had agreed to a sequencing agreement as proposed by the 
EU, this step wo uld not have been necessary at this stage. The EU took note of the information 
provided by the Russian Federation on measures taken to implement the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings. These were very important, including on the issue of adaptation of sanit ary measures 
to regional conditions under the terms of Article  6 of the SPS Agreement. The EU was currently in 
the process of analysing all relevant elements. The EU understood that the Russian  Federation had 
objected to the proposed level of suspension an d that the matter would now be referred to 
arbitration, in line with Article  22.6 of the DSU.  
1.3.  The representative of the Russian  Federation  referred to Russia's communication, dated 
8 December  2017 and contained in WT/DS475/16. He noted that by virtue of th is communication, 
Russia had informed the Membership and the DSB that all rulings and recommendations of the 
DSB in the dispute " Russian Federation – Measures on the Importation of Live Pigs, Pork and Other 
Pig Products from the European Union" (DS475) had  been fully implemented within the reasonable 
period of time, as agreed by the parties to this dispute. The Federal Service for Veterinary and 
Phytosanitary Surveillance had issued the Letter of 5  December  2017 No. FS-NV-7/26504 that 
addressed all measures  that had been found to be inconsistent with the WTO obligations of the 
Russian  Federation in this dispute. The SPS  restrictions in respect of the whole territory of the EU 
(the so -called EU -wide ban) and in respect of the whole territory of a number of in dividual EU 
member States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland) had been lifted and replaced by SPS 
restrictions only in respect of ASF  affected administrative territories of certain EU member States. 
It included the administrative territories of EU  memb er States that had been declared by the EU as 
ASF affected. The list of these territories was attached to the Letter of the Federal Service. With 
regard to the products from the EU and its member States, specifically, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania 
and Poland,  the Russian Federation said that the prior SPS restrictions that had been found 
inconsistent with the SPS  Agreement had been replaced in line with international standards ; 
i.e. the requirements of Chapter  15 of the OIE Code. Therefore, as a result of thes e steps, the 
Russian  Federation had fully implemented the DSB's  rulings and recommendations in this dispute 
pursuant to Article  19.1 of the DSU.  WT/DSB/M/405  
 
- 2 - 
 
1.4.  In light of the action taken and its communication of 20  December  2017 (WT/DS475/18) , the 
Russian  Federation re iterated its strong disagreement with the allegations of the EU contained in 
document WT/DS475/17. Therein, the EU claimed that the Russian Federation had failed to comply 
with the DSB's recommendations and rulings within the reasonable period of time in t his dispute. 
The Russian Federation therefore reiterated its objection to the request from the EU for a 
suspension of concessions or other obligations, including the proposed level as contained in 
document WT/DS475/17. Therefore, the matter should be refer red to arbitration pursuant to 
Article  22.6 of the DSU. The Russian Federation further stated that the EU had failed to address 
disagreement concerning the existence or consistency with a covered agreement of measures that 
had been taken by the Russian Fed eration to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
in dispute. In the view of the Russian Federation, the EU should have taken recourse to the 
appropriate mechanisms set out in the DSU, namely , Article  21.5 of the DSU , before submitting its 
request for suspension of concessions or other obligations pursuant to Article  22.2 of the DSU. The 
Russian  Federation further noted that compliance proceedings had to precede retaliation in case of 
any disagreement over compliance and such disagreement ha d to be resolved through the 
establishment of a compliance panel. The Russian Federation wished to take the opportunity to 
request the EU to provide its reasons for filing its request pursuant to Article  22.2 of the DSU and 
its allegations that the Russian  Federation had failed to comply with the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings. The Russian Federation stood ready to discuss pending issues, including any possible 
procedural approaches.  
1.5.  The representative of the United  States  said that his delegation interv ened at the meeting to 
comment on two issues. First, the United States understood that the Russian Federation had 
objected in advance of this meeting to the request from the EU made pursuant to Article  22.2 of 
the DSU. The United States noted that, upon th e Russian Federation's  objection to the EU's 
request , the matter had been automatically referred to arbitration  under  Article  22.6 of the DSU, 
as provided for in the text of th at provision. Therefore, this item could have been removed from 
the Agenda and t his meeting could have been cancelled. Second, the United States noted the 
Russian Federation's statement that the EU had "failed" to commence compliance proceedings 
under Article  21.5 of the DSU before submitting its request under Article  22.2 of the DSU.  The 
United States noted that Article  22.2 of the DSU stated that if a Member failed to bring a 
challenged measure found to be inconsistent with a covered agreement into compliance therewith 
within the reasonable period of time determined under Article  21.3 of the DSU, then such Member 
shall, if requested, enter into negotiations with the complaining Member "with a view to developing 
mutually acceptable compensation ". If no such agreement was reached, DSU  Article  22.2 stated 
that "any party having invoked t he dispute settlement procedures may request authorization from 
the DSB to suspend the application of the Member concerned of concessions or other obligations 
under the covered agreements".  
1.6.  The United  States noted that , further,  DSU Article  23.2 set out th e actions to obtain redress 
for a breach of WTO rules and confirmed that a Member shall "follow the procedures set forth in 
Article  22 to determine the level of suspension of concessions or other obligations and obtain DSB 
authorization in accordance with those procedures before suspending concessions or other 
obligations under the covered agreements in response to the failure of the Member concerned to 
implement the recommendations and rulings within that reasonable period of time ". There was 
thus no suppo rt in the text of Article  22.2, or Article  23.2, for the suggestion that a Member would 
be required to first bring a separate compliance proceeding under Article  21.5 of the DSU. The 
United  States noted, however, that any level of suspension of concessions  determined in the 
arbitration must be equivalent to the current level of nullification and impairment. This was clear 
from the text of Article  22.4 of the DSU, which stated that the "level of the suspension of 
concessions or other obligations authorized b y the DSB shall be equivalent to the level of the 
nullification or impairment" , thus referring to the present level at the time suspension was 
authorized by the DSB.  
1.7.  The representative of the European  Union  reiterated that the EU was in the process of 
analysing all available information. The EU regretted that the Russian Federation had not agree d to 
a sequencing agreement  in this dispute , which would have made the current step unnecessary at 
this point.  
1.8.  The DSB took note  of the statements and that the matte r raised by the Russian  Federation in 
document WT/DS475/18 has been referred to arbitration, as required by Article  22.6 of the DSU.  
__________