WT/DS475/8  
 
28 September 2016  
(16-5197) Page: 1/2 
  Original: English  
 
 RUSSIAN FEDERATION – MEASURES ON  THE IMPORTATION OF L IVE PIGS,  
PORK AND OTHER PIG P RODUCTS FROM THE EUR OPEAN UNION  
NOTIFICATION OF AN A PPEAL BY  THE RUSSIAN FEDERATI ON 
UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 A ND ARTICLE 17 OF THE  UNDERSTANDING ON RUL ES 
AND PROCEDURES GOVER NING  THE SETTLEMENT OF DI SPUTES (DSU),  
AND UNDER RULE 20(1)  OF THE WORKING PROCE DURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW  
The following communication , dated 23 September 2016 , from the Delegation of the 
Russian  Federation , is being circulated to Members.  
 
_______________  
 
 
1. Pursuant  to Article 16.4 and Article 17.1 of the DSU, the Russian Federation 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 dev eloped by the Panel in the dispute  
Russian Federation – Measures on the importation of live pigs, pork and other pig products from 
the European Union ). Pursuant to Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review , the 
Russian Federation simultaneo usly 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 i ssue 
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 interpretat ions developed by the Panel in this dispute.1 
 
I. THE PANEL 'S FINDINGS REGARDING THE ALLEGED EU -WIDE BAN  
 
4. The Russian Federation 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 t o 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 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 Protocol,4 and, alternatively, the Panel's failure to recognize the 
sequencing inherent in the bilateral veterinary certificates. As a resu lt, 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 Agreement, 
and Article 3.3 DSU, in concluding that the Russian Federation's so -called EU -wide ban is conduct 
attributable to the Russian Fed eration that is inconsistent with  the SPS Agreement .5 These findings 
                                                
1 Pursuant to Rule 20(2)(d)(iii) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review this Notice of Appeal 
includes an indica tive 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 paragraphs 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.  WT/DS475/ 8 
 
- 2 - 
 
  are in error, and the Russian Federation respectfully 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 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.6 The Russian Federation also appeals the Panel's 
conclusions – based on this interpretative error – that the European Union has provided the 
necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate to the Russian Federation that ar eas 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 Federa tion that there are areas in Lithuania, 
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 Lith uania, Poland and Estonia that are likely to remain ASF -free pursuant to 
Article 6.3.9 These findings are in error and are 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 interpretation of Article 6.3 of 
the SPS Agreement as not requiring a reasonable period of time for exporting Members to collect 
the neces sary evidence, on the one hand, and for importing Members to review the necessary 
evidence, on the other hand.10 As a consequence 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 
European Union had provided the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate to the Russian 
Federation that parts of Estonia are and are like ly 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 respec t to Estonia.  
 
7. The Russian Federation further seeks review of the Panel's interpretation of Article 6.1 and 
its relationship to Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement.11 The Panel found that in situations involving a 
request by an exporting Member for zone recog nition 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 i n its territory are and are likely to remain disease -free under Article 6.3. Based on this 
erroneous legal interpretation, the Panel found that while the European Union had failed to provide 
the necessary evidence objectively demonstrating that parts of La tvia 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 Agreement.13 
 
__________  
                                                
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, 7.93 3, 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.  
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, 7.454, 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 R eport, 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 Appellate 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 the Panel's findings that the import 
restrictions on Lithuania, Poland and Estonia and the alleged E U-wide ban are inconsistent with Article 6.1 of 
the SPS Agreement. See, e.g., paras. 7.484, 7.1020, 7.1028.