WT/DS475/2  
 
30 June 2014  
(14-3832)  Page: 1/6  
  Original: English  
 
 RUSSIAN FEDERATION – MEASURES ON THE IMPORTATION OF LIVE PIGS, PORK  
AND OTHER PIG PRODUCTS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION 
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY THE EUROPEAN UNION 
The following communication, dated 27 June 2014, from the delegation of the European Union to 
the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.  
_______________ 
  My authorities have instructed me to request the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 6 of 
the WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) with 
respect to the adoption, maintenance and application of certain measures by the Russian Federation (Russia) affecting the importation of live pigs and their genetic material, pork and 
certain other pig products from the European Union (Russian Federation – Measures on the 
Importation of Live Pigs, Pork and Other Pig Products from the European Union - DS475) . 
 
On 8 April 2014, the European Union (EU) requested consultations with Russia pursuant to 
Articles 1 and 4 of the DSU, Article 11 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) and Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), concerning certain Russian measures affecting the importation of 
live pigs and their genetic material, pork and certain other pig products ("the products at issue") 
from the EU, purportedly because of concerns related to a limited number of cases of African swine fever (ASF)
1. 
 
The consultations took place on 30 April and 1 May 2014 with a view to reaching a satisfactory settlement of the matter. Unfortunately, the consul tations failed to settle the dispute.  The EU 
therefore requests that a panel be established purs uant to Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU, Article 11 
of the SPS Agreement and Article XXIII of the GATT 1994 to examine the matter based on the 
standard terms of reference, as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU.  
The EU challenges certain Russian measures adopting, maintaining or applying an import ban or 
import restrictions, which prevent the importation of the products at issue from the EU into Russia.   
The specific measures at issue are: 
 
 A ban on imports from Lithuania as described in the administrative notice from the Russian 
Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision of 25 January 2014 (FS-EN-
8/1023). This notice announced a temporary restriction on imports of "live pigs and its genetic material; pork products (which were no t heat treated no less than 72ºC for at least 
30 minutes); products from slaughter of wild boars; horn-hoofed and leather, intestinal 
materials; bristles; feed for pigs; hunting trophies, which were not subjected to full 
taxidermy treatment; previously used equipment for maintenance, transportation, slaughter and cutting of pigs" from Lithuania as of 25 January 2014. This measure was notified to the 
WTO on 10 February 2014 (G/SPS/N/RUS/48); 
                                               
1 Since January 2014, ASF was confirmed in the following cases in the EU: on 24 January in two wild 
boars in Lithuania, on 17 and 19 February in two wild boars in Poland. On 30 May 2014 two additional ASF 
cases were confirmed in wild boar in Poland, inside the already established restricted area. On 26 June 2014 
ASF was confirmed in Latvia in three wild boars and in three pigs in a backyard farm in an area that has 
already been restricted due to Classical swine fever. All cases occurred very close to the Belarus border. WT/DS475/2 
 
- 2 - 
 
   
 A ban on imports from Poland as described in the administrative notice from the Russian 
Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision of 27 February 2014 (FS-NV-8/2972) announcing a temporary restriction on imports of "live pigs and its genetic material; 
pork products (which were not heat treated  no less than 80ºC for at least 30 minutes); 
products from slaughter of wild boars; horn -hoofed and leather, intestinal materials; 
bristles; feed for pigs; hunting trophies, which were not subjected to full taxidermy 
treatment; previously used equipment for maintenance, transportation, slaughter and 
cutting of pigs" from Poland as of 27 February 2014. This measure was notified to the WTO on 4 March 2014 (G/SPS/N/RUS/49);  
 
 A ban on imports from Lithuania and Poland as described in the administrative notice of the 
Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision of 2 April 2014 (FS-EN-8/5081). This notice announced the extension of the import restrictions in force to 
processed products containing pork excluding ready-to-use feed for cats and dogs which 
underwent thermal treatment (temperature not lower than 70ºC, duration of treatment not 
less than 20 minutes), from Lithuania and Poland as of 7 April 2014. These measures were 
notified to the WTO on 4 April 2014 as updates to the original WTO notifications 
(G/SPS/N/RUS/48/Add.2 and G/SPS/N/RUS/49/Add.1); 
  The refusal by Russia to accept imports of the products at issue from the entire EU, 
amounting to an EU-wide ban. The EU identifies  this specific measure at issue both as an 
action (an import ban or restriction) and, in the alternative, as an omission (failure to accept imports from the EU). The EU seeks review of th is specific measure at issue as such and as 
applied, de jure  and de facto  (that is, based on all the relevant facts). The EU also seeks 
review of this specific measure at issue both insofar as it is written, and insofar as it is unwritten. The EU notes the letter sent to the EU dated 29 January 2014 (FS-SA-8/1277) 
from the Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision referring to 
certain export certificates previously used for certain exports from the EU to Russia, and notably the phrase "healthy animals grown in farms and/or administrative territories officially free from contiguous animal diseases, including African Swine Fever during 3 years 
in the whole territory of the EU except Sardin ia." In this respect, the Russian authorities 
made the following statement: "veterinary doctors in the EU Member-States must stop certification of the abovementioned products . Otherwise these products accompanied with 
these veterinary certificates issued after 27.01.2014, cannot be allowed into the territory of 
the Member States of the Customs Union and are subject to returns." 
 
This measure was confirmed and re-iterated in a letter of 14 February 2014 ( НF-12-
26/1650) from the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation, stating that "this incident considerably changes the epizootic status not only of Lithuania, but of the whole EU". Since the end of January 2014, imports of the products at issue were no longer 
accepted, as evidenced inter alia  by: 
 
- an official announcement of the Russi an Federal Service for Veterinary and 
Phytosanitary Supervision from 6 February 2014, according to which the importation 
of pork products (frozen heads and hearts) of Austrian and German origin was banned 
in the Tver and Pskov regions, because of alleged ASF risks in the whole EU.
2 
 
- Before the imposition of the import ba n against Poland, Russia already rejected a 
frozen pork meat consignment that was subsequently re-imported to the EU on 31 January 2014. The reason for rejection was that in the export certificate, the situation 
on ASF would not be correctly certified as regards ASF outbreaks on the territory of 
Lithuania. 
 
Each of the measures at issue appears to be inconsistent with Russia's obligations under the 
following provisions of the SPS Agreement and th e GATT 1994, except as stated otherwise in the 
following paragraphs. 
 
Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement, because Russia has not ensured, and does not ensure, that the 
measures at issue are not applied beyond the extent necessary to protect human or animal life or 
                                               
2 http://fsvps.ru/fsvps/news/8935.html. WT/DS475/2 
 
- 3 - 
 
  health. It is not necessary from a safety point of view for Russia to restrict imports from disease-
free and, therefore, unaffected areas in the EU3; and to restrict imports of those products that 
pose no risk of disease transmission.  
Further, Russia did not ensure that the measures at issue were based on scientific principles. 
There is no scientific basis, whether specific or general, for restricting imports from non-affected areas of the EU and for  restricting imports of those products that pose no risk of disease 
transmission. Russia failed and fails to ensure that the measures at issue are not maintained 
without sufficient scientific evidence. 
Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the SPS Agreement, because the Russian measures are neither "based 
on" nor "conform to" the relevant international standards, guidelines or recommendations, as 
provided for in Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the SPS Agreement. Furthermore, they are inconsistent with 
Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement, as there is no  scientific justification for departing from the 
relevant standards, guidelines or recommendatio ns, nor are the measures at issue a consequence 
of the level of sanitary protection sought by Russia. 
Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement, because Russia does not ensure that the measures at 
issue are based on an assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances, of the risks to human or 
animal life or health, taking into account risk assessment techniques developed by the relevant 
international organizations, as required by Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement. Russia has neither provided, nor referred to, any such risk assessment.  
Moreover, in adopting, maintaining and/or applying the measures at issue, Russia did not and does 
not take into account available scientific evidence; relevant processes and production methods; 
relevant inspection, sampling and testing methods; the prevalence of specific diseases or pests; 
the existence of pest- or disease-free areas; the relevant ecological and environmental conditions; 
and quarantine or other treatment. Russia has provided no evidence that it has taken these 
matters into account, as required by Article 5.2 of the SPS Agreement. Had Russia properly taken 
these matters into account, it would have concluded that the measures at issue are unnecessary 
and unjustified. 
Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement, because Russia has failed to comply with any of its 
requirements: in this case, it is incorrect to proceed on the basis that relevant scientific evidence is 
insufficient. The measures at issue do not appear to be provisional. Russia did not proceed on the 
basis of available pertinent information, including that from the relevant international 
organizations, as well as from sanitary measures applied by other Members. Although Russia obtained the information necessary for a more obje ctive assessment of risks, it has not shown, 
and does not show any sign of, reviewing the sanitary measure accordingly within a reasonable 
period of time.  
Articles 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, because Russia has not ensured, and does not 
ensure, that the measures at issue are adapted to the sanitary characteristics of the area from 
which the products at issue originate and to whic h they are destined. In assessing the sanitary 
characteristics of the affected area, Russia failed to take into account, inter alia , the level of 
prevalence of ASF, the existence of eradication and control programs (immediately implemented in 
accordance with international standards laid down by the OIE), and appropriate criteria or 
guidelines developed by the relevant international organizations.  
Furthermore, Russia fails to recognise the concepts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low 
pest or disease prevalence, as required by Articl e 6.2 of the SPS Agreement. Russia also does not 
make any determination with respect to such areas based on factors such as geography, 
ecosystems, epidemiological surveillance, and the effectiveness of sanitary controls. Russia fails to 
recognise the EU territory, excluding the restricted areas, as disease-free areas, despite the implementation of appropriate regionalisation measures. 
                                               
3 Commission Implementing Decision concerning anim al health control measures relating to African 
swine fever in certain Member States (2014/178/EU), OJ L 95, 29.3.2014, p. 47, defines the affected areas in the EU in which protective measures apply, i.e. Sardinia and certain areas in South-eastern Lithuania and 
North-eastern Poland, bordering Belarus (so-called “reg ionalisation measures”). As regards the most recent 
cases of ASF in South-eastern Latvia, see the Commissi on Implementing Decision concerning certain interim 
protective measures relating to  African swine fever in Latvia. WT/DS475/2 
 
- 4 - 
 
   
With respect to Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreemen t, the EU considers that it has provided the 
necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate to Russia that the EU territory, excluding the restricted areas due to the presence of ASF, is a disease-free area or area of low ASF prevalence. 
For this purpose, access has been given, upon re quest, to Russia, for inspection, testing and other 
relevant procedures.   
Articles 5.3, 5.4 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement, be cause, in assessing the risk to animal health 
and determining the measures to be applied for achieving the appropriate level of sanitary 
protection, Russia failed to take into account all relevant economic factors referred to in Article 5.3 of the SPS Agreement, including the relative cost-effectiveness of alternative approaches to 
limiting risks. 
 Further, when determining the appropriate level of sanitary protection, Russia failed to take into 
account, or properly take into account, the objective of minimizing negative trade effects, as 
required by Article 5.4 of the SPS Agreement.  
Russia failed and fails to ensure that the measures at issue are not more trade-restrictive than 
required to achieve its appropriate level of sanitary protection, taking into account technical and economic feasibility, as required by Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement. Russia failed to take into account that there are other measures, which are reasonably available taking into account 
technical and economic feasibility, that achieve Russia's appropriate level of sanitary protection 
and that are significantly less restrictive to trade.   
The alternative measures would be those that take into account the principle of regionalisation 
(zoning) provided for in Article 6, as further set out in the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code on Zoning and Compartmentalisation (Chapter 4.3), and as also reflected in the OIE Terrestrial 
Animal Health Code on ASF (Chapter 15.1). Russia should recognise the EU territory (excluding the 
restricted areas due to the presence of ASF), as  a non-affected area. The alternative measures 
would also involve a narrower definition of the products at issue.  
Article 2.3 and Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement,  because the Russian measures arbitrarily or 
unjustifiably discriminate between Members where similar conditions prevail, including between 
the Russian territory and that of other Members. 
  
For example, while Russia applies the measures at issue to imported products from the entire EU territory,  it does not apply similar measures with respect to like domestic products, and their 
internal movement within the Russian territory. In this context, it is noted that Russia does not 
appear to effectively control the spread of ASF in its own territory. Since its introduction in the Russian territory from the Caucasus region in 2007, ASF spread westwards and northwards, infecting the feral and domestic pig population. Acco rding to the notifications of Russia to the OIE, 
around 400 ASF outbreaks in farms affecting 500.0 00 domestic pigs and around 600 cases in wild 
boar were detected since 2007. The cases found in Lithuania and Poland, and later in Latvia, were located on the border with Belarus where the dise ase is also present, due to the spread of the 
disease from Russia. The genetic sequencing of virus isolates show a 100% homology between 
Lithuanian and Polish wild boar cases and the viral isolates circulating in Belarus and Russia.   
Furthermore, as regards restrictive measures rela ting to ASF against other Members, according to 
the letter of the Russian Federal Service for Ve terinary and Phytosanitary Supervision of 15 
January 2014 (FS-NW-8/528), despite the finding of ASF in wild boars in a forester-hunting ground in the Luhansk Region of Ukraine, close to the Russian border, Russia restricted imports of live 
pigs and pig products from the said Luhansk region only and did not apply a de jure  or de facto  
ban on all pigs and pig products originating in Ukraine.   
In this respect, it is also noted that Russia lifted certain import restrictions against Belarus despite 
the fact that ASF has been identified and notified in two regions of Belarus since June 2013. The movement of live pigs and pig products from pig farms and meat processing companies of the 
Mogilev Oblast, Belarus, was allowed by virtue of the administrative notice from the Russian 
Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance of 27 January 2014 (FS-EN-8/1093).  Russia continues refusing regionalisation with regard to the territory of the EU and its Member 
States. Thus, Russia is applying the measures at issue in a manner that constitutes a disguised WT/DS475/2 
 
- 5 - 
 
  restriction on international trade. Russia fails to avoid arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions in the 
levels it considers being appropriate in different situations, and such distinctions result in discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.  
Article 8 and Annex C.1(a), (b) and (c) of the SPS Agreement, because Russia failed and fails to 
modify the measures at issue in order to permit the resumption of imports to Russia of the 
products at issue from non-affected areas in the EU and/or with respect to appropriately treated or 
processed products. The EU repeatedly approached Russia since early February 2014 in order to 
achieve an adaptation of the measures at issue to the regional conditions in the EU. Russia was provided with all requested information, in addition to further information, provided at the EU's own initiative. Furthermore, a series of bilateral meetings were held between the EU authorities 
and the Russian authorities between February and June 2014, at which further information and 
explanations were provided. The resulting undue delay is reflected, inter alia , in: 
 
- the letter of the Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision 
of 12 March 2014 (FS-SD-4/3620); 
- the failure to reply to invitations by EU authorities of 31 January and 
14 February 2014 for urgent meetings; 
- the failure to reply to additional information and explanations provided by the EU, with 
letter of 21 May 2014 ;  
- requesting answers to questions where the EU already provided exhaustive replies – 
with a letter dated 16 May 2014, which howe ver reached the EU only on 4 June 2014 
(FS-EN-8/7999);  
- requesting answers to questions irrelevant to the case (e.g. information on 
establishments in unaffected areas graded by production volume and biosecurity);  
- the belated provisions of invitations for visas for a technical meeting agreed on 
21 February to take place 24-25 February 2014, which finally only took place on 
7 March 2014. Accordingly, Russia failed to observe the provisions of Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement on the operation of control, inspection and approval procedures and otherwise failed to ensure that its procedures are not inconsistent with the provisions of the SPS Agreement, as required by Article 8 of the SPS Agreement. 
Furthermore, Russia failed to ensure, with respect to its procedures for checking and ensuring the 
fulfilment of sanitary measures, that such procedures have been undertaken and completed without undue delay and in no less favourable manner for imported products than for like domestic 
products, as required by Annex C.1(a) to the SPS Agreement. 
 With respect to Annex C.1(b) to the SPS Agreement, Russia failed to ensure that the standard 
processing period of each procedure is published or that the anticipated processing period is 
communicated to the applicant upon request; that  when receiving an application, the competent 
body promptly examines the completeness of the documentation and informs the applicant in a precise and complete manner of all deficiencies; that the competent body transmits, as soon as 
possible, the results of the procedure in a precis e and complete manner to the applicant, so that 
corrective action may be taken if necessary; that even when the application has deficiencies, the competent body proceeds, as far as practicable, with the procedure if the applicant so requests; 
and that upon request, the applicant is informed  of the stage of the procedure, with any delay 
being explained.   
Finally, as regards Annex C.1(c) to the SPS Agreem ent, Russia failed to ensure that information 
requirements are limited to what is necessary for appropriate control, inspection and approval procedures.  
Article 7 and Annex B paragraphs 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the SPS Agreement, because certain measures 
at issue were taken by Russia against Lithuania on 25 January 2014 (ref. FS-EN-8/1032), but only 
notified to the WTO on 10 February 2014, that is , 16 days after their imposition. Another measure 
at issue, namely the import ban relating to the entire EU territory, has, to the knowledge of the 
EU, neither been published, nor notified to the WTO.  WT/DS475/2 
 
- 6 - 
 
   
Specifically, Russia failed to notify changes in its sanitary measures and to provide information on such sanitary measures in accordance with the provisions of Annex B of the SPS Agreement.  
 
With respect to the ban concerning Lithuania on the products at issue as notified in 
(G/SPS/N/RUS/48), Russia failed to immediately  notify other Members, through the WTO 
Secretariat, of the products covered, with a brie f indication of the objective and the rationale of 
the regulation, including the nature of the urgent problem. Russia also failed to provide copies of 
the regulation to other Members and to allow other Members to make comments in writing, discuss these comments upon request, and take the comments and the results of the discussions 
into account. 
 
With regard to the EU-wide ban, Russia failed to  ensure that the relevant measure was published 
promptly in such a manner as to enable the EU and its Member States to become acquainted with 
them. It also failed to allow Members a reasonab le interval between the publication and the entry 
into force of the ban to allow time for producers in exporting Members to adapt their products and method of production to the requirements of the importing Member. Further, given that the 
measure was not substantially the same as the content of the international standards, guidelines 
or recommendations and given that it had a significant effect on trade of the EU and its Member States, Russia failed to publish a notice at an early stage in such a manner as to enable interested Members to become acquainted with the proposal; to notify at an early stage other Members, 
through the Secretariat, of the products to be covered together with a brief indication of the 
objective and rationale of the proposed regulation  so that amendments could still be introduced 
and comments taken into account; to provide upon request to other Members copies of the 
proposed regulation and identify the parts which in substance deviate from international 
standards, guidelines or recommendations; without discrimination, allow reasonable time for other Members to make comments in writing, discuss these comments upon request, and take the 
comments and the results of the discussions into account. 
 I t  i s  n o t e d  t h a t ,  i n s o f a r  a s  t h e  E U - w i d e  b a n  i s  c o n c e r n e d ,  w e r e  i t  t o  b e  t h e  c a s e  t h a t  R u s s i a  considered that urgent problems of health protection arose, Russia failed to immediately notify 
other Members, through the WTO Secretariat, of the products covered, with a brief indication of 
the objective and the rationale of the regulation , including the nature of the urgent problem. 
Russia also failed to provide copies of the regulation to other Members and to allow other Members 
to make comments in writing, discuss these comments upon request, and take the comments and 
the results of the discussions into account.  
Article I:1 of the GATT 1994, because Russia is not granting the products at issue originating in 
the EU, immediately and unconditionally, the same advantages in respect of their importation, as 
it does to like products originating in any other country, in particular to products originating in Ukraine and Belarus, as already described in relation to claims on  Article 2.3 and Article 5.5 of the 
SPS Agreement. 
 Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, because the measures at issue accord less favourable treatment to 
the imported products at issue than that accorded to like products originating in Russia, with 
respect to laws, regulations and requirements af fecting their internal sale, offering for sale, 
purchase, transportation, distribution or use.  
 
Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, because the Russian measures constitute an import prohibition or 
restriction other than duties, taxes or other charges.  
*   *  * 
 The Russian measures at issue adversely affect exports to Russia of live pigs, fresh pork and the 
other products at issue originating in the EU and its Member States, and they nullify or impair the 
benefits accruing to the EU and its Member States directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.  
 
This request relates to the measures at issue and to any amendments, supplements, extensions, replacement measures, renewal measures and implementing measures.  
__________