WT/DS494/4  
 
11 November 2016  
(16-6228) Page: 1/8 
  Original: English  
 
 EUROPEAN UNION – COST ADJUSTMENT METH ODOLOGIES AND  
CERTAIN ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS FROM RUSSIA  
(SECOND COMPLAINT)  
REQUEST FOR THE ESTA BLISHMENT OF A PANEL  BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATI ON 
The following communication, dated 7 November 2016 , from the deleg ation of the Russian 
Federation  to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 
of the DSU.  
 
_______________  
 
 
On 7 May 2015, the Russian Federation requested consultations with the European Union pursuant 
to Articl es 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of 
Disputes ("DSU"), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  
("GATT  1994") and Articles 17.2 and 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article V I of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("ADA") with respect to Council Regulation (EC) No 
1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not 
members of the European Community,1 in particular Articles 2.3 and  2.5 thereof, the cost 
adjustment methodology used by the European Union authorities in anti -dumping procedures, as 
well as anti -dumping measures imposed on imports of ammonium nitrate and certain welded tubes 
and pipes of iron or non -alloy steel originati ng in the Russian Federation (document WT/DS494/1, 
G/L/1115, G/ADP/D110/1, G/SCM/D107/1). The first round of consultations was held on 
26 June 2015.  
After the first round of consultations, the Russian Federation identified additional aspects in 
respect of the definitive anti -dumping measures on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in the 
Russian Federation and requested, on 29 March 2016, further consultations with the European 
Union  pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the DSU, Article XXII:1 of the GATT 199 4 and Articles 17.2 
and 17.3 of the ADA (document WT/DS494/1/Add.1, G/L/1115/Add.1, G/ADP/D110/1/Add.1, 
G/SCM/D107/1/Add.1).  
The second round of consultations was carried out on 19 May 2016. Those consultations, 
unfortunately, did not resolve the dispute.  
Given the aforementioned, my authorities have instructed me to request the establishment of a 
panel pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the GATT 1994 and Articles 17.4 
                                                
1 OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51 (corrigendum OJ 2010 L 7, p. 22) codifying Counci l Regulation (EC) 
No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the 
European Community (OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1) and its subsequent amendments including in particular Council 
Regulation (EC) No 2331/96 (OJ  L 317, 6.12.1996, p. 1); Council Regulation (EC) No 905/98 (OJ L 128, 
30.4.1998, p. 18); Council Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000 (OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2); Council Regulation 
(EC) No 1972/2002 (OJ L 305, 7.11.2002, p. 1); Council Regulation (EC) No 461/20 04 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, 
p. 12); and Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17) and corrigendum to Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, OJ L 7, 12.1.2010, p. 22, as amended, including by Regulation (EU) 
No 765/2012 of the European P arliament and of the Council of 13 June 2012, OJ L 237, 3.9.2012, p.1; 
Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012, OJ L 344, 
14.12.2012, p.1 and Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 of the European Parliament and o f the Council  of 
15 January  2014, OJ L18, 21.1.2014, p.1: codified by Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the 
European Union, OJ L 176, 30 .6.2016, p. 21 –54. WT/DS494/4  
 
- 2 - 
 
  and 17.5 of the ADA with respect to the measures of the European  Union  identified below that 
affect imports from the Russian Federation.  
I. "AS SUCH " CLAIMS ON CERTAIN AS PECTS OF ARTICLE 2(3 ) AND ARTICLE 2(5) O F 
THE BASIC REGULATION  AND COST ADJUSTMENT METHODOLOGY  
A. FIRST SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 2(3) OF THE BASIC REGU LATION  
The first subparagraph of Article 2(3) of the Basic Regulation stipulates:  
"When there are no or insufficient sales of the like product in the ordinary course of 
trade, or where because of the particular market situation such sales do not permit a 
proper comparison, the normal value of the like product shall be calculated on the 
basis of the cost of production in the country of origin plus a reasonable amount for 
selling, general and administrative costs and for profits, or on the basis of the export  
prices, in the ordinary course of trade, to an appropriate third country, provided that 
those prices are representative ." (emphasis added)  
The Russian Federation challenges t he following part of the first subparagraph of Article 2(3) of the 
Basic Regulati on: "provided that those prices are representative ". 
This measure appears to be  inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the ADA because it requires that in the 
calculation of normal value of the like product only "representative " prices shall be applied to both 
alternative methods of determination of normal value of the like product.  
B. SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 2(3) OF THE BASIC REGULATION  
The second subparagraph of Article 2(3) of the Basic Regulation stipulates:  
"A particular market situation for the produ ct concerned  within the meaning of the 
first subparagraph may be deemed to exist, inter alia, when prices are artificially low , 
when there is significant barter trade, or when there are non -commercial processing 
arrangements. " (emphasis added)  
The Russian Federation challenges t he second subparagraph of Article 2(3) of the Basic Regulation 
to the extent it provides that "a particular market situation for the product concerned " exists 
"when prices are artificially low " thus introducing an additional circumst ance for determining 
normal value via alternative methods.  
This measure appears to be  inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the ADA since it extends the grounds 
for using alternative methods of determining normal value while "a particular market situation for 
the product concerned " is limited only to the situation described in the second Supplementary 
Provision to paragraph 1 of Article VI in Annex 1 to the GATT 1994.  
C. SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 2(5) OF THE BASIC REGULATION  
The second subparagraph of Artic le 2(5) of the Basic Regulation stipulates:  
"If costs associated with the production and sale of the product under investigation 
are not reasonably reflected in the records of the party concerned, they shall be 
adjusted or established on the basis of the c osts of other producers or exporters in the 
same country or, where such information is not available or cannot be used, on any 
other reasonable basis, including information from other representative markets ." 
(emphasis added)  
The Russian Federation challen ges the following part of the second subparagraph of Article 2(5) of 
the Basic Regulation: "or, where such information is not available or cannot be used, on any other 
reasonable basis, including information from other representative markets ". 
This measure  appears to be  inconsistent with Articles 2.2.1.1 and 2.2 of the ADA since it 
authorizes the investigating authority of the European Union to use costs other than "cost of WT/DS494/4  
 
- 3 - 
 
  production in the country of origin " for construction of the normal value  as a resul t of adjustment 
or establishment of the costs associated with production and sale of the product under 
consideration without ensuring that such adjusted or established costs represent the cost of 
production in the country of origin . 
D. COST  ADJUSTMENT METH ODOLOGY  
The Russian Federation challenges the cost adjustment methodology used by the European Union 
authorities in anti -dumping procedures thereby the European Union:  
(i) rejects the costs reflected in the records that are kept by the exporter or producer 
under investigation in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles 
of the exporting country and reasonably reflect the costs associated with the 
production and sale of the product under consideration as not reasonably reflecting 
the costs ass ociated with the production and sale of the product under 
consideration when such costs and/or prices, in particular, input costs and/or 
prices are viewed by the European Union authorities as "artificially or abnormally 
low" due to alleged "distortions " or "market impediments " like government price 
regulation or the application of export duties in the country of origin; and  
(ii) replaces and/or adjusts such recorded costs data using the costs data obtained 
from other sources, including so called "representative  markets ", which are viewed 
as unaffected by such "distortions " or "market impediments " without ensuring that 
such adjusted or established costs represent the cost of production in the country 
of origin.  
The cost adjustment methodology appears to be incons istent with:  
1) Article 2.2.1.1 of the ADA because in applying the cost adjustment methodology the 
European Union rejects the costs reflected in the records that are kept by the exporter 
or producer under investigation in accordance with the generally accepte d accounting 
principles of the exporting country and reasonably reflect the costs associated with the 
production and sale of the product under consideration ; 
2) Article 2.2 of the ADA because in applying the cost adjustment methodology for 
construction of the  normal value the European Union uses costs other than "cost of 
production in the country of origin "; 
3) Article 2.2.1.1 of the ADA because in applying the cost adjustment methodology the 
European Union uses costs other than "costs associated with the product ion and sale 
of the product under consideration " reasonably reflected in the records kept by the 
exporter or producer under investigation in accordance with the generally accepted 
accounting principles of the exporting country.  
II. CLAIMS CONCERNING TH E EXPIRY REVIEW AND THE DECISION ON EXTENSIO N OF 
ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES IMP OSED BY THE EUROPEAN  UNION ON IMPORTS OF 
WELDED TUBES AND PIP ES ORIGINATING IN TH E RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
On 19 December 2008, the European Union imposed anti -dumping measures on imports of certain 
welded tubes and pipes of iron or non -alloy steel ( "welded tubes and pipes ") originating in the 
Russian Federation.2 On 27 January 2015, as a result of the expiry review the European Union 
extended these measures for another 5 -year period.3 
                                                
2 Council Regulation (EC) No 1256/2008 of 16 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti -dumping duty 
on imports of certain welded tubes and pipes of iron or non -alloy steel originating in Belarus, the People's 
Republic of China and Russia following a proceeding pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, 
originating in Thailand following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the same Regulation, originating 
in Ukraine following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) 
of the same Regulation, and terminating the proceedings in respect of imports of the same product originating 
in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Turkey (OJ L 343, 19.12.2008, p. 236 -273).  
3 Commission Implementing Reg ulation (EU) 2015/110 of 26 January 2015 imposing a definitive anti -
dumping duty on imports of certain welded tubes and pipes of iron or non -alloy steel originating in Belarus, the WT/DS494/4  
 
- 4 - 
 
  The Rus sian Federation considers that the above decision to extend the anti -dumping measures on 
welded tubes and pipes as a result of the expiry review and the underlying investigation are 
inconsistent with Articles 2.2.1.1, 2.2.1 and 11.3 of the ADA because the European Union in 
applying the ordinary course of trade test as part of its determination of the normal value in the 
course of the expiry review:  
1) failed to calculate the cost of production of welded tubes and pipes on the basis of the 
records that are kept  by the producer under investigation in accordance with the 
generally accepted accounting principles of the exporting country and reasonably 
reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the product under 
consideration by rejecting gas price s actually paid;  
2) used costs other than "costs associated with the production and sale of the product 
under consideration " reasonably reflected in the records kept by the exporter or 
producer under investigation in accordance with the generally accepted acc ounting 
principles of the exporting country.  
III. CLAIMS CONCERNING TH E ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES IMP OSED BY 
THE EUROPEAN UNION ON IM PORTS OF AMMONIUM NI TRATE FROM THE  RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION AND THE U NDERLYING INVESTIGAT IONS  
A. MEASURES AT ISSUE  
On 24 September 20 14, the European Union extended for another five years anti -dumping 
measures on imports of ammonium nitrate from the Russian Federation.4  
These anti -dumping measures were originally imposed, subsequently reviewed and are currently 
levied pursuant to:  
1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2022/95 of 16 August 1995 imposing a definitive anti -
dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, OJ L 198, 
23.8.1995, p. 1 –14; 
2) Council Regulation (EC) No 663/98 of 23 March 1 998 amending Regulation (EC) 
No 2022/95 imposing a definitive anti -dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate 
originating in Russia, OJ L 93, 26.3.1998, p. 1 –7; 
3) Council Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 of 15 April 2002 imposing a definitive anti -
dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate origin ating in Russia, OJ L 102, 
18.4.2002, p. 1 –11; 
4) Council Regulation (EC) No 993/2004 of 17 May 2 004 amending Regulation (EC) 
No 658/2002 imposing a definitive anti -dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate 
originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No 132/2 001 imposing a definitive anti -
dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of 
ammonium nitrate originating in Poland and Ukraine, and terminating the anti -
dumping proceeding in respect of imports originating in Lithuani a, OJ L 182, 
19.5.2004, p. 28 –33; 
5) Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 of 21 June 2 005 amending Regulation (EC) 
No 658/2002 imposing a definitive anti -dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate 
originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 imposing  a definitive anti -
dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia , Ukraine, 
following a partial interim review pursuant to Arti cle 11(3) of Regulation (EC) 
No 384/96, OJ L 160, 23.6.2005, p. 1 –9; 
                                                                                                                                                  
People 's Republic of China and Russia and terminating the proceeding for im ports of certain welded tubes and 
pipes of iron or non -alloy steel originating in Ukraine following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 20, 27.1.2015, p. 6 -30). 
4 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 999/2014 of 23 September 2014 imposing a definitive 
anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to 
Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 280, 24.9.2014, p. 19 –51). WT/DS494/4  
 
- 5 - 
 
  6) Council Regulation (EC) No 236/2008 of 10 March 2008 concerning terminating the 
partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of the 
anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, OJ L 75, 
18.3.2008, p. 1 –7; 
7) Council Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 of 8 July 2008 imposing a definitive anti -
dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry 
review pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) 
of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, O J L 185, 12.7.2008, p. 1 –34; 
8) Council Regulation (EC) No 989/2009 of 19 October 2009 amending Regulation (EC) 
No 661/2008 imposing a definitive anti -dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate 
originating in Russia, OJ L 278, 23.10.2009, p. 1 –2; 
9) Commission Decision 2012/629/EU of 10 October 2012 amending Decision 
2008/577/EC accepting the undertakings offered in connection with the anti -dumping 
proceeding concerning imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, OJ L 277, 
11.10.2012, p. 8 –10; 
10) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 999/2014 of 23 September 2014 
imposing a definitive anti -dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in 
Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1225/2009, OJ L 28 0, 24.9.2014, p. 19 –51;  
11) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 Sep tember 2008, Case T -348/05, 
JSC Kirovo -Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat v Council of the European Union, [2008] 
ERC II -159; and  
12) Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber)  of 9 Jul y 2009, Case 
T-348/05 INTP, JSC Kirovo -Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat v Council of the 
European Union, application for interpretation of the judgment of the Court of First 
Instance of 10 September 2008 in Case T ‑348/05, [2009] ERC II -00116.  
B. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE COMPLAINT  
Claims with Respect to the Scope of the Applicable Measures  
1) The European Union  violated Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 5.3, 
5.4, 9.1, 9.3 and 18.1 of the ADA and Artic les I:1, II:1 (a) and (b), VI:1 and VI:2 of 
the GATT 1994 because it initiated an expiry review, made likelihood of recurrence of 
injury and dumping determinations, extended the anti -dumping measures, levied and 
continues levying anti -dumping duties on imp orts of stabilized ammonium nitrate, as 
well as industrial -grade ammonium nitrate, for which no anti -dumping investigation 
was ever conducted and no dumping and material injury determinations were ever 
made.  
2) The European Union  violated Articles 5.3 and 11. 3 of the ADA by initiating the expiry 
review that led to the adoption of Regulation 999/2014.  
3) The European Union  acted contrary to Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 
4.1, 11.1, 11.3 and 18.1 of the ADA by conducting a single expiry review with regard 
to anti -dumping measures having different product scopes of application, combining 
within such review the likelihood of recurrence of injury and dumping determinations 
with regard to products subject to anti -dumping measures having different sc opes of 
application and by extending the measures applicable to JSC Kirovo -Chepetsky 
Khimichesky Kombinat based on the likelihood of injury and dumping determinations 
for the product other than that which formed the basis for the anti -dumping measures 
applied on products of this company.  
4) The European Union acted contrary to Articles 11.3, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 4.1, 6.8 and 
paragraphs 3, 5 and 7 of Annex II of the ADA by making a recurrence of injury WT/DS494/4  
 
- 6 - 
 
  determination based on erroneous and incomplete data provide d by the domestic 
industry and by incorrectly defining the domestic industry.  
Claims with Respect to the Establishment of the Likelihood of Recurrence of Injury  
5) The European Union  acted in breach of Articles 11.3, 3.1 and 3.2 of the ADA by failing 
to perfo rm proper undercutting calculations.  
6) The European Union  violated Articles 11.3, 3.1, 3.4 and 4.1 of the ADA by:  
a) making the likelihood of recurrence of injury determination based on data 
relating to a non -representative sample of the European Union  domestic  
industry;  
b) making the likelihood of recurrence of injury determination based on the 
incomplete, non -representative and erroneous data provided by the sampled 
European Union  companies;  
c) failing to examine and explain the significantly divergent economic pe rformance 
between the sampled and non -sampled European Union  domestic producers.  
7) The European Union  acted contrary to Articles 11.3 and 3.1 of the ADA by erroneously 
concluding that there were no indications that the non -injurious situation of the 
European  Union  domestic industry would be sustainable.  
8) The European Union  violated Articles 11.3 and 3.1 of the ADA by determining that the 
expiry of the measure would be likely to lead to recurrence of injury and recurrence or 
continuation of dumping without basi ng that determination on positive evidence and an 
objective examination of the relevant factors, including the level of production 
capacities available in Russia and the ability of third country markets to absorb Russian 
exports.  
Claims with Respect to the  Establishment of the Likelihood of Recurrence of 
Dumping  
9) The European Union  acted in breach of Articles 2.1, 2.3, 6.8, 6.10 and 11.3 of the ADA 
by not drawing reasoned and adequate conclusions due to the failure to examine the 
impact of the absence of dum ping by the largest Russian exporters during the period of 
review.  
10) The European Union  violated Articles 11.3 of the ADA by proceeding to the 
determination of the likelihood of recurrence of dumping without first determining the 
likelihood of continuation o f dumping.  
11) The European Union  failed to comply with Article 11.3, 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4 of the ADA, as 
well as Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994 by relying on a continuation of dumping without 
conducting proper dumping margin calculations that comply with Article 2  of the ADA.  
Claims with Respect to the Continuous Levying of the Anti -Dumping Duties  
12) The European Union  failed to comply with Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994, Articles 1, 9.3 
and 11.1 of the ADA, since by extending the anti -dumping measures against imports of 
ammonium nitrate it applied the anti -dumping duties that (i) were incorrectly 
established under Articles 2.2.1.1, 2.2.1 and 2.2 of the ADA and Articles VI:I and VI:2 
of the GATT 1994, because:  
 the costs of production for calculation of dumping margins w ere not based 
on records kept by the producer under investigation in accordance with the 
generally accepted accounting principles of the exporting country and 
reasonably reflecting the costs associated with the production and sale of 
the product under cons ideration;  WT/DS494/4  
 
- 7 - 
 
   for construction of normal value for the producers under investigation the 
European Union used costs other than "cost of production in the country of 
origin " of ammonium nitrate;  
and (ii) thereby exceeded the dumping margins had they been prope rly established.  
13) The European Union  violated Article 11.3 of the ADA, since it has extended the 
duration of anti -dumping duties that were based on dumping margins calculated not in 
line with Articles 2.2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.2 of the ADA.  
14) The European Union  impos ed and continues levying anti -dumping duties on the 
product concerned from Russia based on a country -wide dumping margin pursuant to a 
methodology that does not conform to the provisions of Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 9.3 and 
11.3 of the ADA, as well as Articles  I:1, VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994 along with the 
second Supplementary Provision to Article VI:1 in Annex I to the GATT 1994 and thus 
acted in breach of said provisions, as well as Article 11.3 of the ADA.  
15) The European Union  violated Articles 1 and 18.1 of the ADA, because its anti -dumping 
measures in respect of ammonium nitrate originating in the Russian Federation are not 
in conformity with the provisions of Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, as 
interpreted by the ADA.  
Claims with Respect to the C onduct of the Expiry Review Investigation  
16) The European Union  violated Articles 6.1.2, 6.4 and 11.4 of the ADA by delaying on 
numerous occasions access to the non -confidential file by the Russian exporters.  
17) The European Union  acted in breach of Articles 6.1 .3, 6.2, 6.4 and 11.4 of the ADA by 
failing to provide to the interested parties the full text of the written application 
received on 28 March 2013, on the basis of which the European Union  initiated the 
expiry review.  
18) The European Union  failed to comply w ith Articles 6.5 and 11.4 of the ADA by treating 
as confidential, without any good cause shown, information supplied by the domestic 
industry.  
19) The European Union  acted contrary to Articles 6.5.1 and 11.4 of the ADA by failing to 
require the domestic indust ry to furnish sufficiently detailed non -confidential 
summaries of the data submitted in confidence.  
20) The European Union  violated Articles 6.8 and 11.4 and paragraphs 3, 5, 6 and 7 of 
Annex II of the ADA by refusing to rely on information provided by Russian  exporters, 
whereas the conditions to resort to facts available were not met.  
21) The European Union  breached Articles 6.9 and 11.4 of the ADA by not informing the 
interested parties of the essential facts under consideration which formed the basis for 
the dec ision to extend the anti -dumping measures.  
22) The European Union  acted in violation of Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the ADA as it 
failed to provide in sufficient detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of 
fact and law considered material by t he investigating authority and to explain the 
reasons which led to the acceptance or rejection of the arguments of the interested 
parties.  
IV. REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF PANEL  
This request covers the measures set out above as well as any and all amendmen ts, replacements, 
extensions, related and implementing measures and any act of the European Union  authorities 
that would affect the measures at issue. This request also concerns any and all notices, disclosures 
and reports of the European Commission, Counc il of the European Union, the Court of Justice of 
the European Union and other European Union  institutions, and any amendments thereof, WT/DS494/4  
 
- 8 - 
 
  produced or to be produced in the future, in connection with any of the measures at issue 
including, but not limited to,  all interim reviews, expiry reviews and other proceedings that have 
taken place to date.  
The above European Union  measures nullify or impair the benefits accruing to the Russian 
Federation directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.  
Therefore, the Russian Federation requests, pursuant to Article s 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, 
Article  XXIII of the GATT 1994 and Articles 17.4 and 17.5 of the ADA that the Dispute Settlement 
Body ( "DSB") establish a panel to examine the matter, with the standard terms of refere nce, as 
forth in Article 7.1 of the DSU.  
The Russian Federation requests that this request be placed on the agenda of the DSB meeting to 
be held on 23 November 2016.  
__________