12-3658 JOB/ACC/32                   6 July 2012 
 
 Working Party on the          Original:  English  
Accession of Kazakhstan  
 
 
WORKING PARTY ON THE ACCESSION OF 
KAZAKHSTAN TO THE WTO 
 
Submission by the Republic of Kazakhstan 
 
 
 The following submission is being circulated to Members of the Working Party, at the request of the Delegation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.   
 
 
_______________ 
 JOB/ACC/32 
Page 2 
 
 
  - Technical Barriers to Trade, Standards and Certification 
(a) Legal Framework 
1. The representative of Kazakhstan informed Member s of the Working Party that her country's 
legal framework for technical regulations, standa rds and conformity assessment systems had been 
governed by international agreements of the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC)1 and of the 
Customs Union (CU)2, other EurAsEC and CU legal instruments,  and relevant nati onal legislation of 
Kazakhstan.  She noted that the legal framework outlined in these Agreements and legal instruments 
required certain products circulating in the terr itories of the EurAsEC and CU Parties to meet 
established technical regulations, as well as sanitary  and phytosanitary (SPS) requirements established 
as technical regulations.  In particular, trade (i ncluding both importation and circulation in the 
domestic market) in products on the territory of Kazakhstan could be restricted or banned if the 
products in question did not meet these requirements.  The CU Parties, all of whom also were members of EurAsEC, had agreed to harmonize thei r policies and regulatory systems in the area of 
technical regulation within the established EurAsEC system and sought to confirm and to intensify 
their cooperation in this area within the framework of the CU.  The goal of this harmonization was to 
ensure uniform requirements for the circulation of g oods within the territories of the CU Parties in the 
area of technical regulation, through common techni cal regulations that had been developed using 
procedures established in conformity with CU or EurAsEC Acts adopted as international agreements 
or decisions among the participating EurAsEC and CU Parties.  These technical regulations were 
applied directly in the territories of the CU Parti es, and no separate national legislation was necessary.  
The provisions of the EurAsEC and CU Agreements and other EurAsEC and CU Acts were based on 
the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), and technical regulations were applied with the purpose of protecting the life and (or) health of humans, property, environment, 
animal and plant life and (or) health, and preventing actions that might mislead consumers, as well as 
for the purpose of ensuring energy efficiency and saving resources.  The representative of Kazakhstan 
emphasized that technical regulations adopted a nd applied within the EurAsEC and CU were not 
adopted for any other purposes. 
2. The representative of Kazakhstan stated that the legal basis for the common policy was the 
EurAsEC Agreement on the Basics of Harmonization of Technical Regulations of The Eurasian Economic Community Members of 24 March 2005 (h ereafter:  EurAsEC Agreement on Basics of 
Technical Regulation Harmonization) and the EurAsEC Agreement on Implementation of 
                                                      
1 Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Kyrgyz Republic, and Tajikistan. 
2 Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, and Belarus.  JOB/ACC/32 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Coordinated Policy in the Field of Technical Regu lation, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of 
25 January 2008 (hereafter -  EurAsEC Agreement on Technical Regulation Policy Coordination), as 
well as the Agreement on Uniform Principles and Ru les of Technical Regulation in the Republic of 
Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian  Federation of 18 November 2010 (hereafter – 
CU Agreement on Uniform Technical Regulation Pr inciples); the Rules of the Development of the 
Technical Regulations, approved by EurAsE C Interstate Council Decision No. 1175 of 
17 August 2008, Regulation on development of technical regulations of Eurasian Economic 
Community (EurAsEC Interstate Council Decision No. 1175); and CU Commission Decision No. 527 
of 28 January 2011, Regulation on Development,  Adoption, Amendment and Cancellation of 
Technical Regulations of the Customs Union (CU Commission Decision No. 527).  These Agreements and Decisions established the main  instruments of the common policy applied in 
Kazakhstan in the following areas: 
- harmonization of national legislation in the area of technical regulation; 
- development and adoption of technical regula tions of the CU and of EurAsEC stipulating 
mandatory and binding requirements for th e goods subject to technical regulation; 
- implementation of common proce dure on development of technical  regulations in the territory 
of each CU and EurAsEC Party; 
- harmonization of standards and the implementa tion of relevant international standards as a 
basis for the elaboration of technical regulations; 
- implementation of common forms and rules for conformity assessment; 
- conducting conformity assessment (confirmation) of products or prod uct-related production 
processes, installation, setup, operation (use), storage, carrying (transportation), sale and 
disposal, including testing and certification; as well as  
- accreditation and/or designation of certific ation (conformity confirmation) bodies and 
accreditation of test laboratories (centres) participating in the process of mandatory confirmation of conformity.  
3. She added that the CU Agreement on the Ci rculation of Goods Subject to Mandatory 
Conformity Assessment on the Customs Territory  of Customs Union of 11 December 2009 (hereafter 
– the CU Agreement on Product Circulation) provided  for development of a Unified list of goods for 
which it was possible to issue a certificate and to register a declaration of conformity assessment using a common form during the transition period, until the adoption of CU technical regulations 
(hereafter – Unified List).  The Unified List was established by CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 18 June 2010 "On Technical Regulation in the Cust oms Union" (hereafter:  CU Commission Decision 
No. 319) and later replaced by the CU Commission Decision No. 620 of 7 April 2011 "On the Unified 
List's Update with Regard to Products Subj ected to Mandatory Conformity Assessment 
(Confirmation) within the Framework of the CU w ith Issuance of Single Documents, approved by 
CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 18 June 2010".  In accordance with Explanatory Note 1, paragraph 2 to the list of products adopted by CU Commission Decision No. 620, a declaration of 
conformity based on the CU common form could not be used for goods produced by foreign JOB/ACC/32 
Page 4 
 
 
  manufacturers located outside the territory of th e CU.  However, CU Commission Decision No. 620 
still provided for the possibility of using a certific ate of conformity for such goods based on the 
CU common form.  In Kazakhstan, a declaration of conformity for goods manufactured outside of Kazakhstan could be done under the Law No. 603 "O n Technical Regulating" of 9 November 2004 
(hereafter - Law on Technical Regulating).  CU Commission Decision No. 319 also determined the 
criteria for the inclusion of conformity assessment  bodies and testing laboratories into a Unified 
Register of Certification Bodies and Testing Laboratories of the Customs Union (hereafter - the CU Unified Register) and established the rules for th e formation and maintenance of the Unified List 
and Unified Register by the national authorised bodies.  CU Commission Decision No. 319 also established the regulations for the importation of products listed on the CU Unified List.  
The Agreement on Mutual Recognition of Accred itation of Certification Bodies and Testing 
Laboratories Performing Conformity Assessment  of 11 December 2009 (hereinafter – the 
CU Agreement on Mutual Recognition of Accred itation Bodies) established the principles for a 
common CU system of mutual recognition of accreditation, the responsibilities of the accreditation bodies of the CU Parties, and general principles of  accreditation, pending the gradual replacement of 
this mutual recognition system by the adoption and application of common EurAsEC and CU technical regulations by the CU Parties. 
4. The representative of Kazakhstan further explaine d that in accordance with Article 4 of the 
CU Agreement on Uniform Technical Regulation Prin ciples CU technical regulations could only be 
developed for goods on the Unified List of 61 "ris ky" products in respect of which mandatory 
requirements (technical regulations) could be establishe d within the framework of the Customs Union.  
The list of 61 products was approved by CU Commission Decision No. 526 of 28 January 2011 
"On the Unified List of Products, in Respect of Wh ich Mandatory Requirements are Established in the 
Frame of the Customs Union" (hereafter:  CU Commission Decision No. 526).  This list could be expanded by subsequent CU Commission Decisions if new risks were identified.  Of these 
61 products, 47 had been identified for priority attention in the development and adoption of 
CU technical regulations. 
5. The effect of CU technical regulations for certa in product had to be te rminated once relevant 
EurAsEC technical regulations for this product came  into force.  Schedules for the development of 
priority EurAsEC and CU technical regulations th at would establish the desired harmonized regime 
were provided in the EurAsEC Interstate Co uncil Decision No. 521 of 19 November 2010 
"The Schedule of Development of EurAsEC First- Priority Technical Regulations" (hereafter:  
EurAsEC Interstate Council Decision No. 521) and CU Commission Decision No. 492 of 8 December 2010 "On Schedule of Development of Priority Technical Regulations of the Customs  JOB/ACC/32 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Union" (hereafter:  CU Commission Decision No . 492), respectively, with a view to their 
development during 2011.  Once CU or EurAsEC tec hnical regulations came into effect, they would 
be applied with direct effect, a nd relevant national requirements, est ablished by laws of the CU or 
EurAsEC Parties, would no longer be applied in th e territories of those Parties.  The CU Parties 
ensured the release of products that conformed to CU or EurAsEC technical regulations into 
circulation without (i) laying out additional require ments other than those contained in the CU or 
EurAsEC technical regulations (ii) carrying out  additional conformity assessment procedures.  
In order to ensure the comparability of conformity  assessment results with CU  or EurAsEC technical 
regulations, the CU Parties carried out coor dinated policy aimed at ensuring measurements 
uniformity.  It was expected that, by 31 December 2012, the CU Commission would have adopted all of the 47 priority CU technical regulations which would enter into force no later than 
31 December 2014, after a transitional period befo re application of the relevant CU technical 
regulations to allow producers, im porters, and exporters to become acquainted with the new technical 
regulations.  By that date, all ot her national mandatory technical re quirements applied on the territory 
of CU Parties would be replaced by CU technical  regulations or would no  longer be applied. 
6. The CU and EurAsEC technical regulations ha d to be developed and adopted only for the 
purpose of: protecting life or health of human, an imals and plants, property, environment; ensuring 
energy efficiency and resource saving; preventing practices that might mislead consumers (Article 5 of the EurAsEC Agreement on Technical Regulatio n Policy Coordination and Article 4.2 of the 
CU Agreement on Uniform Technical Regulation Prin ciples).  The CU Parties were not allowed to 
adopt CU and EurAsEC technical regulations for an y other purposes.  The CU and EurAsEC technical 
regulations established requirements for products and product-related processes, in particular: 
maintenance, operation, storage, transportation, realisation and utilisation as well as identification 
rules and conformity assessment forms and schemes.  It also could contain requirements for terminology, packaging, labeling and SPS requirements.  The CU te chnical regulations had to be 
developed in accordance with recommendations on a module structure laid down in Resolution of the 
Interstate Council of the EurAsEC No. 321 of 21 October 2006.  The representative of Kazakhstan 
affirmed that Article 5.2 of the EurAsEC Agre ement on Technical Regulation Policy Coordination 
and Article 4.4 of the CU Agreement on Uniform Te chnical Regulation Principles established that the 
relevant international standards,  and other documents (i.e., rules, directives and recommendations or 
any other documents accepted by international st andardizing organizations) would be used as the 
basis for elaborating the EurAsEC and CU tech nical regulations, except in cases where such 
documents were absent, or did not conform with the purposes of the technical regulations of the 
Customs Union, in particular, due to climatic a nd geographical factors or technological and other 
particularities.  CU Commission Decision No. 527 which provided for regulations for the JOB/ACC/32 
Page 6 
 
 
  development, adoption, amendment and cancellation of  technical regulations on the territories of the 
CU Parties, was amended and improved by CU  Commission Decision No. 606 of 7 April 2011 
"Amendments to the Regulations on the Developmen t, Adoption, Amendment and Cancellation of the 
Technical Regulations of the Customs Union" (hereafter:  CU Commission Decision No. 606). 
7. For the purpose of conformity assessment, the CU Parties, in accordance with Article 6 of the 
CU Agreement on Uniform Technical Regulation Prin ciples and Article 5 of the EurAsEC Agreement 
on Technical Regulation Policy Coordination, could a pply international and re gional standards and in 
the absence thereof - national standards.  The a pplication of these standards on a voluntary basis 
ensured the compliance with CU or EurAsEC t echnical regulation requirements.  The national 
standards contained rules for testing and measure ment techniques, including rules of sampling 
required for application and implementation of technical regulation requirements and conduct of 
conformity assessment.  
8. Products subject to CU and EurAsEC technical re gulations could be released for circulation 
within the CU customs territory upon results of conformity assessment.  The CU Parties conducted 
conformity assessment in accordance with CU or EurAsEC technical regulations. Conformity assessment had to be carried out in the form of registration, testing, expertise and conformity verification.  Mandatory conformity verification ( assessment) had to be implemented in the form of: 
(i) conformity declaration (in the form of regist ration of the declarations) or (ii) certification. 
Conformity assessment procedures in the CU technical  regulations had to be established on the basis 
of standard schemes of conformity assessment. 
9. For the purposes of the registration of declara tion of conformity, the following persons could 
act as applicants:  a juridical person or a natural person registered as an individual entrepreneur in 
accordance with national legislation of CU Par ties or a person acting as a producer/seller or 
performing the duties on behalf of foreign producer on the basis of a contract, concluded with the 
producer.  Application of international, regional a nd (or) national standards included into the List of 
Standards on a voluntary basis was a sufficient conditi on to constitute compliance with CU technical 
regulation requirements.  However, non-compliance with the standards included into the List of 
Standards did not mean non-compliance w ith the CU technical regulations.  
10. Pursuant to Article 8 of the CU Agreemen t on Uniform Technical Regulation Principles, 
activity related to conformity assess ment had to be carried out by the accredited certification bodies 
and testing laboratories included into the Unified Register.  The Unified Register was formed in 
accordance with the CU Agreement on Products Ci rculation.  Recognition of results issued by 
accredited certification bodies and testing laboratories had to be carried out in accordance with the  JOB/ACC/32 
 Page 7 
 
 
  CU Agreement on Mutual Recognition of Accreditation Bodies.  Results of conformity assessment of 
products for which no technical regulations of th e CU or EurAsEC came into force had to be 
recognised in accordance with the Agreement on Products Circulation. 
11. Pursuant to Article 9 of the CU Agreement on Uniform Technical Regulation Principles, the 
liability for non-compliance with requirements of CU  technical regulations as well as for violation of 
conformity assessment procedures was established by legislation of each member-state.  Each CU member-state had a right to take all appropriate measures whenever it ascertained that products did not conform to the requirements of CU  technical regulations.  Such measures included 
actions aimed at prohibiting their placement on the market, withdrawing the products from the market in accordance with the national legislation of CU Pa rties and informing other members-states thereof.  
CU Parties aimed to harmonize all relevant legisl ation in the sphere of establishing liabilities for 
violation of the requirements of CU technical  regulations as well as conformity assessment 
procedures.  With this view the CU Parties de veloped a draft Agreement submitted for approval by 
the CU Parties establishing types of  administrative violations and ch arges for the violations in the 
sphere of technical regulation and the applica tion of the sanitary, veterinary, and phytosanitary 
measures which had been expected to be approved a nd ratified by the CU Parties before the end of 
2012.  Furthermore, CU Parties had a right to take  emergency measures to prevent entry of hazardous 
products into the CU market.  Any CU Party seekin g to apply such measures had to notify the other 
CU Parties of taking them. 
12. The domestic legislative framework on technical regulation, standardization, certification and 
accreditation in Kazakhstan was based on Law No. 603-II "On Technical Regulating" of 9 November 2004, which had replaced Laws No. 433- 1 "On Standardization" of 16 July 1999 and 
No. 434-1 "On Certification" of 16 July 1999.  In  her view, the new Law took into account the main 
principles of the WTO Agreement on Technical Ba rriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), including 
inter alia  national treatment, transparency, and priority consideration given to international standards 
in drawing up domestic technical regulations and standards.  This Law was the basis for the 
development of technical regulati ons, standards, procedures for r ecognition of conformity assessment 
and accreditation; it aimed at striking a balance be tween the degree of government intervention and 
the goal of protecting the public.  The two main objec tives of the Law were (i) to ensure the safety of 
products through the application of mandatory tec hnical regulations; and ( ii) to enhance product 
competitiveness through the application of voluntary st andards.  The Law also ensured that ratified 
international agreements had priority over national legislation.  Existing legislation in the area was 
being brought into conformity with the Law "On Technical Regulating" and the provisions of the 
TBT Agreement.  To this end, Law No. 209 "On Am endments and Addenda into Certain Legislative JOB/ACC/32 
Page 8 
 
 
  Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Issues of  Technical Regulating" of 29 December 2006 had 
introduced amendments to 33 Laws.  In addition,  four new laws had been adopted – the Laws 
"On Toys Safety", "On Safety of Chemical Products ", "On Safety of Machinery and Equipment" and 
"On Food Safety".  In the area of accreditation, two new draft Laws had be en developed and were 
being considered in Parliament – "On Accredita tion in the Field of C onformity Assessment" and 
"On Amendments and Adde nda in Certain Legislative Acts on the Issues of Accreditation".  
These Laws were aimed at building the legal framework for accreditation and at harmonizing accreditation requirements with international sta ndards, including those of the International 
Accreditation Forum (IAF) and the Internationa l Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC). 
In addition, new regulatory acts on technical regula tion were being develope d and existing ones were 
being revised.  She held the view that the provisions of the national legislation in this area could not constitute a barrier to international trade. 
13. The representative of Kazakhstan noted that Eu rAsEC and CU Agreements and the EurAsEC 
and CU Acts implementing the CU policy on tech nical regulation substantially had replaced the 
Law No. 603 "On Technical Regulating" of 9 November 2004 (hereafter - Law on Technical 
Regulating) as the overall legal framework for tec hnical regulations, standards, and conformity 
assessment systems in Kazakhstan with the establishment of the CU regime on 1 January 2010.  However, certain provisions of the Law "On Technical  Regulating" remained in effect (to the extent 
they did not conflict with CU and EurAsEC Agr eement on Technical Regulation Policy Coordination 
and EurAsEC and CU Acts, including CU Commission  Decisions).  The development and application 
of standards, conformity assessment, State control and supervision, metrological control, and liability 
issues in Kazakhstan would continue to be admi nistered on the national level under the CU and 
EurAsEC regimes, with regard to the following issues: 
- national standards within the meaning of th e TBT Agreement (development, adoption) and 
standards organizations;  
- sets of rules;  
- state control and supervision (inspection) to  ensure compliance with the requirements of 
technical regulations; 
- assurance of uniformity of measurements; 
- violations of technical regulations and wit hdrawal of products from the domestic market;  
- operation of the national aspects of developing and maintaining the system of certificates of 
conformity assessment and declarations of conformity, including national part of the 
Unified Register of certificates and declarations;  
- operation of the national aspects of developing and maintaining the system of certification 
bodies and testing laboratories (centres) of th e CU, including accreditation and national part 
of the Unified Register of certification bodies and testing laboratories; 
- voluntary conformity assessment;  
- rights and obligations of applicants in th e field of mandatory conformity assessment;   JOB/ACC/32 
 Page 9 
 
 
  - coordination of the activities, positions and pr ocedures of the Government in the field of 
technical regulation; 
- procedures for the determination of liability in the case of violation of technical regulations 
and sanctions therefore until the decision to transfer these issues to the CU was made; 
- providing required transparency; and  
- financing in the field of technical regulation.  
(b) Institutions 
14. As for the CU Commission, the representative of Kazakhstan said that it had the following 
functions:  (i) approval of Common List and its main tenance procedure; (ii) approval of action plans 
for development of CU technical regulations; (iii)  adoption, amending and revoking of CU technical 
regulations; (iv) establishment of procedure for de velopment, adoption, amending and cancellation of 
CU technical regulations; (v) establishment of procedure for adoption and approval of list of 
international and regional or nati onal standards; (vi) approval of standard schemes of conformity 
assessment; (vii) approval of forms of common doc uments on conformity assessment; (viii) approval 
of regulation on a procedure for imports into the CU territory of products subject to mandatory 
requirements; and (ix) approval of common mark of  circulation on the territory of CU Parties. 
15. The representative of Kazakhstan stated that draf t technical regulations were developed in the 
participating countries using internal procedures be fore being proposed by the authorised national 
bodies in the field of technical regulation to the designated EurAsEC or CU bodies for harmonization, further review, and adoption as provided for in the rele vant international agreem ents or CU decisions.  
For EurAsEC, the Commission for Technical Regulat ion and Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary 
Measures in Trade of the EurAsEC Integration Committee (hereafter:  the EurAsEC Commission for 
Technical Regulation), through the authorised national bodies of the EurAsEC Parties, coordinated the Parties' efforts on the development of techni cal regulations, including sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures.  After publishing a draft technical regul ation and collecting public comments, the EurAsEC 
Integration Committee then forwarded the agreed draf t technical regulation to the EurAsEC Interstate 
Council for adoption as an Agreement as provided fo r in Article 3 of the EurAsEC Agreement on 
Technical Regulation Harmonization.  In the CU fram ework, this coordination and transparency role 
was fulfilled by the Coordination Committee on Tec hnical Regulation, Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
measures (hereafter:  the CU Coordination Committ ee), which received draft technical regulations 
from the authorised bodies of the CU Parties, coordina ted the development of a draft text and resolved 
disputes concerning it among the CU Parties' aut horities.  The Coordination Committee, with the 
assistance of the CU Commission Secretariat, then ci rculated the draft technical regulation for public 
review and comment and prepared analysis and recommendations on the draft technical regulations 
before forwarding the proposals to the CU Commissi on for adoption through decisions.  As set-out in JOB/ACC/32 
Page 10 
 
 
  Article 6.1 of the EurAsEC Agreement on Technical  Regulation Policy Coordi nation and Article 7.2 
of the CU Agreement on Uniform Technical  Regulation Principles, mandatory assessment 
(confirmation) of conformity (compliance) of  products with requirements of EurAsEC and 
CU technical regulations was confirmed by a declaration of compliance or certification that was 
issued by a certification body listed in the Unifie d Register based on tests performed by accredited 
laboratories and testing centres.  Among CU Parti es, unified conformity assessment procedures were 
established in the technical regulations on the basis of model schemes of conformity assessment. 
16. Concerning accreditation of conformity assessment bodies: accreditation enabled a 
conformity assessment body included in the Unifie d Registry to issue documents on conformity 
assessment within the area of its accreditation th at would be accepted within the territory of 
Kazakhstan as well as the rest of the CU.  Ar ticles 2 and 3 of the CU Agreement on Product 
Circulation established the responsibility of th e CU Parties' accreditation bodies to conduct 
comparative examinations (peer assessment) of pr ocedures in the bodies of other CU Parties and to 
implement, where possible, relevant internationa l standards in the national accreditation system; to 
maintain the national Register of accredited certif ication bodies and laboratories; and to consider 
complaints from enterprises connected with an  accredited certification body or laboratory.  
Apart from the Unified List the CU Commission al so was charged to create common forms for the 
certification and declaration of conformity; the Un ified Register of certification bodies and testing 
laboratories at the level of the CU; and the Unified Register of certificates of conformity and declarations of conformity.  CU Commission De cision No. 319 established these facilities and the 
regulations for their maintenance.  In contrast, EurA sEC did not maintain either a Unified Register of 
certification bodies and testing laboratories or a Un ified List of products subject to technical 
regulations and mandatory conformity assessment at the Community level.  Therefore, each 
EurAsEC Party determined the products subjected to mandatory confirmation of conformity with 
respect to EurAsEC technical regulations.  The sam e situation currently existed with certification 
bodies and test laboratories.  With time, as the CU and EurAsEC systems of technical regulation 
evolved, it was expected that the EurAsEC Intersta te Council would adopt the CU Unified Register of 
accepted certification bodies and laboratories, but currently, each EurAsEC Party determined its own list of certification bodies and laboratories.  JOB/ACC/32 
 Page 11 
 
 
  (c) Technical Regulations, International and National Standards, and Conformity 
Assessment Procedures  
- (i) Technical Regulations 
17. Concerning technical regulations, the Repr esentative of Kazakhstan said that the 
Law "On Technical Regulating" established mandato ry requirements for (i) products – aimed at 
ensuring the protection of human life and health, the environment, national security, as well as the 
prevention of deceptive practices; and (ii) related processes – aimed at ensuring product safety.  Technical regulations set forth mandatory require ments for products (and processes), contained an 
exhaustive list of such requirements, and had the st atus of direct application.  These requirements 
were applied in an equal and un iform manner regardless of the product's country or place of origin.  
The development of technical regulations was based on international and regional standards.  As soon 
as new technical regulations were adopted, existi ng domestic and regional standards containing 
duplicative or conflicting provisions became void.  Technical regulations were also aimed at 
eliminating technical barriers to trade and increasing product competitiveness. 
 - (ii) Voluntary National and International Standards 
18. With regard to standards, she said that pur suant to the Law "On Technical Regulating", 
standards were voluntary and applie d equally regardless of the origin of the product or service.  
Whereas the application of a variety of standards ha d been foreseen (includi ng international, regional 
and national), the application of international sta ndards would prevail.  International or foreign 
countries' standards and regulations were used in  drawing up national standards, except when such 
standards were inefficient or inadequate for achie ving the desired objectives.  The procedure for the 
development and application of standards was go verned by rules approved by an Order of the 
Committee on Technical Regulating and Metrology.   She added that the Committee on Technical 
Regulating and Metrology of the Ministry of I ndustry and New Technologies was the only authorised 
State body in charge of administering work and issuing standards in the field of standardization, metrology and certification.  
- (iii) Disposition of Mandatory National Standards of Kazakhstan 
19. Some Members requested information on the e limination of WTO-inconsistent mandatory 
national standards.  In particular, these Members enquired whether there were any explicit plans to 
address such "holdover" standards.  The representa tive of Kazakhstan replied that Kazakhstan had no 
timetable for phase-out of "holdover" mandatory na tional standards.  However, at the moment JOB/ACC/32 
Page 12 
 
 
  Kazakhstan had 3,468 national standards, incl uding 2,356 standards already harmonized with 
international standards which accounted for 68 pe r cent of the total.  By 2011, Kazakhstan had 
reached 70 per cent of harmonization.  This list included national standards, voluntary as well as 
mandatory ones.  She noted that mandatory "holdo ver" standards would remain in effect until the 
moment of adoption of a relevant technical re gulation.  Kazakhstan had suspended adoption of 
national technical regulations since formation of the Customs Union and launch of active work on 
developing EurAsEC technical regulations.  As soon  as CU or EurAsEC technical regulations were 
adopted, the mandatory "holdover" standards would la pse.  In particular, in 2011, 47 CU technical 
regulations and 35 EurAsEC technical  regulations were to be deve loped.  The representative of 
Kazakhstan clarified that statistics applied to all "holdover" standards used in Kazakhstan.  
20. Some Members of the Working Party strongly en couraged Kazakhstan to bring its standards 
and technical regulations system into compliance with WTO requirements prior to WTO accession.  The representative of Kazakhstan replied that K azakhstan was currently considering making the 
commitment contained in the following paragraph.  
21. [The representative of Kazakhstan said that in international trade Kazakhstan shall be guided 
by the requirements of international standards,  except for cases provided by the WTO Agreement on 
Technical Barriers to Trade, when such internationa l standards or relevant pa rts would be ineffective 
or inappropriate means for the fulfillment of the legi timate security objectives.  Therefore standards of 
Kazakhstan shall not create any barriers to internat ional trade.  Kazakhstan confirmed that upon its 
accession to the WTO, Kazakhstan would comply with  all provisions of the Agreement on Technical 
Barriers to Trade without recourse to any transitional period.] 
22. A Member welcomed the proposed commitmen t statement that upon accession, Kazakhstan 
will comply with all provisions of the TBT Agreem ent without recourse to any transitional period.   
This Member expressed the view that a commitment should explicitly include a commitment to amend or rescind any existing standard, technical re gulation or conformity assessment procedure that 
was not compliant with the WTO TBT Agreement.  This Member requested further information on 
how Kazakhstan intended to implement this co mmitment if all WTO-inconsistent mandatory 
standards had not been phased-out and whether th ese mandatory standards would become voluntary. 
23. In reply, the representative of Kazakhstan said that  Kazakhstan, jointly with other CU Parties, 
was actively working on development of techni cal regulations which would replace "holdover" 
mandatory standards.  Pending their replacement  by EurAsEC and CU technical regulations, 
"holdover" standards, which contained mandatory re quirements were in force only to the extent that 
they ensured:  protection of human life or health, property of natural and le gal persons, and State or  JOB/ACC/32 
 Page 13 
 
 
  municipal property; protection of the environment and of animal and plant life or health; prevention of 
deceptive practices and energy efficiency (all of  which were set out in the Law "On Technical 
Regulating", the EurAsEC Agreement on Techni cal Regulation Policy Coordination and the 
CU Agreement on Technical Regulation Principles) .  Further, such national standards, were 
considered by her Government to be "technical re gulations" as that term was defined in Annex 1 of 
the WTO TBT Agreement. 
24. Some Members enquired how Kazakhstan intended to implement indicated commitment if all 
WTO-inconsistent mandatory standards had not been phased out. The representative of Kazakhstan 
replied that mandatory standards (GOSTs) would be phased out as soon as new relevant technical 
regulations were adopted.  In acco rdance with the timetable of deve lopment of technical regulations 
43 technical regulations were to be developed an d implemented within the period of 2009-2011.  
According to amendments which would be ma de into the Law "On Technical Regulating" 
international standards or parts thereof should be used as a basis for technical regulations, provided 
they fulfilled the objectives of technical regulati on.  She also noted that, in accordance with 
the Law "On Technical Regulating", the use of  standards in Kazakhstan was voluntary.  
National standards contradicting the WTO require ments were being reviewed with a purpose to 
harmonize them with international standards.  Sh e further noted that the standards were being 
reviewed within the framework of the annual plan on the standards development.  In addition, the 
Law "On Technical Regulating" (sub- paragraph 5 of Article 4) prior itized the use of international 
standards. 
- (iv) Conformity Assessment Procedures including the Accreditation of Conformity 
 Assessment Bodies 
25. Concerning conformity assessment, she said that the Law "On Technical Regulating" 
provided for (i) "conformity recognition" – a pro cess that determined whether products and processes 
conformed to technical regulations or standards; a nd (ii) "accreditation" – an official recognition by 
an accreditation body of the competence and eligibility  of juridical persons to perform conformity 
recognition.  Conformity recognitions could be (i ) mandatory – by a certification of an accredited 
certification body or a producer's declaration of c onformity (for products subject to technical 
regulation requirements); and (ii) voluntary – by a certification or a conformity declaration of the 
producer/seller indicating that the requirements of st andards, other documents or special requirements 
were met (for products not subject to mandatory c onformity recognition).  A Member enquired how a 
manufacturer could obtain a certificate.  In response, the representative of Kazakhstan said that the procedure of issuing conformity certificates was stipulated by the Technical Regulation "Procedures JOB/ACC/32 
Page 14 
 
 
  of Conformity Certification" adopted by the Gove rnment Resolution No. 90 of 4 February 2008:  
(i) applicant submitted to a conformity certification body an application for carrying out certification; 
(ii) the conformity certification body reviewed th e application and informed the applicant of its 
decision within three days upon receipt of the application; (iii) the decision for carrying out 
certification procedure had to contain all basic certification conditions based on the established 
certification procedures for the type of product bei ng certified; it also had to contain the proposed 
certification scheme, list of the necessary technical documents, list of the parameters, inspection conditions and title of laboratory/cen tre (further – laboratory) which carried out the testing; (iv) if the 
applicant agreed with the conditions of the certif ication procedures, they concluded a contract for 
carrying out the works; (v) tests were carried out on the samples, the design, structure and production 
technology of which had to be the sa me as that of the product supplied to
 consumers; 
(vi) the conformity certification body or an accr edited laboratory, upon request of the conformity 
certification body or a commission consisting of aud itors appointed by the applicant, carried out 
sampling.  Quantity of samples, procedure of th eir selection, storage rules were established in 
accordance with the regulatory and methodical documents on certification and testing methods of a specific product; (vii) the applicant had to submit  technical documentation for the samples, the 
structure and content of which were established in  the normative documents of a specific product as 
well as the technical documents to be submitted in accordance with th e basic certification conditions, 
mentioned in the item (iii) above; (viii) accredited laboratories carried out testing on the samples 
provided to the conformity certification body; (ix)  certification tests had to be carried out in 
accordance with the methods and within the terms st ipulated in the regulatory documents designed for 
a specific product but no longer than 30 calendar days ; (x) after analysis of the test results and other 
documents on product conformity, the confor mity certification body conducted conformity 
assessment, which took the form of expert conclusion.   The conformity certificate was issued by the 
conformity certification body on the basis of the expe rt conclusion.  In case of negative testing results, 
the conformity certification body had to issue the decision indicating the reasons of refusal.  
26. The representative of Kazakhstan further describ ed that the Government Resolution No. 367 
"On Mandatory Conformity Assessment of Products in the Republic of Kazakhstan" of 20 April 2005 
established two lists of products subject to ma ndatory conformity assessment in Kazakhstan:  
(i) List of Products and Services subject to Mand atory Certification; and (ii) List of Goods 
Conformity of which could be Verified by Declarat ion of Conformity.  To circulate as well as enter 
into Kazakhstan's market, the listed products had to undergo conformity assessment for the purposes 
of mandatory requirements and had to be accompanie d with a conformity certificate or a declaration 
of conformity.  With respect to relationship of the two lists with the Unified List adopted by the CU Commission Decision No. 620 of 7 April 2011 , the representative of Kazakhstan noted that  JOB/ACC/32 
 Page 15 
 
 
  products, that passed mandatory conformity assessment  in Kazakhstan, would still need to receive 
conformity certificate or declaration of conformity in a CU Party, when be ing exported into such 
CU Party, if this product was not included into the Unified List.  She reminded that these CU and 
national lists were subject to revision upon adopti on of a relevant CU technical regulation on a 
product included into the lists mentioned above. 
27. Referring to a previous statement of Kazakhsta n on revisiting and subse quent elimination of 
the list of products subject to mandatory certifica tion upon adoption of relate d technical regulations, a 
Member of the Working Party commented that this  was over-optimistic and could even be misleading 
since some categories of products would always re quire mandatory certification (i.e. pharmaceuticals, 
some medical devices, etc.).  In this regard, this  Member asked Kazakhstan to confirm whether it was 
considering it, and if yes, then, would products lik e pharmaceuticals and medical devices be subject to 
conformity certification.  The representative of Ka zakhstan replied that Kazakhstan currently did not 
foresee to cancel mandatory conformity assessment  requirements for all products.  In general, 
a conformity assessment scheme for a specific product would be establis hed in a relevant 
Customs Union or EurAsEC technical regulation. 
28. As for pharmaceuticals, the representative of Kazakhstan said that, in accordance with the 
national legislation, medicines were subject to ma ndatory conformity certification.  Moreover, in 
order to receive access to Kazakhstan's market, medi cines were subject to State registration conducted 
by the Ministry of Health.  Within the framewo rk of CU, medicines were not included into the 
Unified List of Products Subject to Mandatory Requirements within the Framework of Customs 
Union adopted by the CU Commission Decision No. 526 of 28 January 2011.  Therefore, 
the development of a CU technical regulation for medicines was not planned. 
29. With respect to medical devices the representativ e of Kazakhstan noted that pursuant to the 
national legislation, certain types of medical devices (cotton wool, gauze, bandages and other 
dressings products, poultices impregnated or coated with pharmaceutical substances, first aid kits, 
syringes, blood transfusion equipment, sterile surg ical catgut and similar materials for surgical wound 
closure, sterile surgical or dental absorbent hemost atic agents, intrauterine contraceptive) were subject 
to mandatory certification.  Within the framewo rk of the Customs Union, medical devices were 
included into the Unified List.  However, in the course of discussion of the draft CU technical regulation "On Safety of Medical Devices", taking in to account international practice, the CU Parties 
took a decision on inexpediency of its adoption an d necessity of developing a draft (i) Agreement on 
Conducting of Common Policy in the Sphere of Circul ation of Medical Devices and (ii) Action Plan JOB/ACC/32 
Page 16 
 
 
  of harmonization CU Parties' legislation of in the sphere of circulation medical devices.  Therefore, 
medical devices would be excluded from technical regulating. 
30. A declaration of conformity could be prepared  on the basis of evidence collected by the 
applicant alone or on the basis of evidence obtained with the participation of a conformity assessment 
organization.  The declaration of conformity ha d to be registered by the relevant accredited 
conformity assessment organization and was valid – similarly to a conformity certificate – on the entire territory of Kazakhstan.  
31. Recognising the need for keeping track of ma nufacturer declarations of conformity, a 
Member expressed concern that instituting an official  register/requiring official registration could be 
disproportionate and unnecessarily trade-restrictive,  especially concerning imports, since it would be 
certainly more burdensome in practice for non-domes tic suppliers to apply for this registration.  
This Member noted that his country required the ma nufacturer to keep a full technical file with the 
specifications of the product including the supplier d eclaration of conformity.  This file had to be 
made available to public authorities (mainly in the framework of market surveillance) under their 
simple request.  In this regard, this Member requ ested information on (i) the formalities to accomplish 
in order to have a supplier declaration of conformity registered, (ii) if any, costs to be borne by the 
manufacturer/importer/legal representative, (iii) the le ngth of registration proce dure, and (iv) grounds 
of refusal.  In addition, this Member enqui red as to whether Kazakhstan considered less 
trade-restrictive modalities to process supplier's d eclaration of conformity, such as allowing the 
manufacturer/importer/legal representative to keep a full technical file (including the declaration) at 
disposal of the authorities under their simple re quest, and subsequently how does Kazakhstan intend 
to avoid that this provision put the foreign manuf acturers in a less favourable position compared to 
domestic ones. 
32. The representative of Kazakhstan replied that at the moment CU legal framework did not 
stipulate uniform procedures in the sphere of declar ation of conformity.  Therefore, with respect to 
requirements and procedures related to declaration of conformity the national legislation applied. 
The Chapter 4 of the Resolution of the Gove rnment of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 90 
"On Approval of the Technical Regulation "Conformity Confirmation Procedures" of 
4 February 2008 established the following procedure of declaration by the market participants.  Manufacturer (performer) undertook a declaration b ased on the documents confirming the conformity 
of products to the specified requirements.  The following documents could be used as a basis for 
declaration by manufacturer (performer):  (i) pr otocols of approval and other control testing 
conducted by the manufacturer (performer) and/or ac credited testing laboratories; (ii) previously  JOB/ACC/32 
 Page 17 
 
 
  obtained certificates in force, or testing protoc ols for primary products, materials, components; 
(iii) statement of State control confirming the product compliance with the requirements of the 
legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan; and (iv)  documents confirming the conformity of products 
to the specified requirements (deliveries of primary products, production process, assembling, 
finished products, package, marking), quality mana gement system certificates.  In this regard, 
consideration and registration of the declaration of conformity by a conformity assessment body had 
to be paid by the manufacturer (performer) on a cont ractual basis.  Declaration could be undertaken 
for specific products or a group of homogeneous  products in relation to which the common 
requirements were established. Decl aration could be taken for the pe riod determined by the products 
manufacturer (performer) based on the planned period of production of such products or the sales period of a products lot, but not longer than for one year.  Declaration accepted by manufacturer (performer) had to be registered in an accredited conformity assessment body.  Within a period not 
exceeding three days, conformity assessment body had to consider and check the following:  
(i) presence of these kind of products in the list of the products conformity of which can be verified by the declaration; (ii) eligibility of manufacturer (performer) to undertake the declaration; (iii) completeness and accuracy of the indicati on of the regulatory standardization documents 
provided for the confirmation of these products conf ormity; (iv) presence of all documents provided 
by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan for these products manufacture; and (v) accuracy of 
filling the declaration.  Upon results of c onsideration and check, conformity assessment body 
registered the declaration in a special section of th e registered declarations record.  The registered 
declaration had to be kept by manufacturer (pe rformer) along with the documents on the basis of 
which the declaration had been filed, within the peri od not less than three years after its expiry date.  
Within the same period, the conformity assessmen t body shall keep a copy of the registered 
declaration and the supporting documents.  If the requirements of regulatory documents indicated in the declaration as well as reorganization of the le gal person had changed, manufacturer (performer) 
had to issue new declaration and submit it for registration to the conformity assessment body.  With respect to costs involved, she stated that the amount of payments for the works on review and 
registration of the declarations had to be dete rmined on a contractual basis between conformity 
assessment bodies and producers (performers).  As fo r the reasons of refusal of registration of 
conformity declaration, the representative of Kaza khstan said that the registration could be refused 
only for the following reasons:  (i) a product's conformity could be verified only in the form of certification; and (ii) the presented materials were not  sufficient to verify the conformity of a product 
with safety requirements provided for in the releva nt technical regulation or, when the technical 
regulation had not been developed - to the releva nt regulatory legal act.  In conclusion, the 
representative of Kazakhstan stated that the requirements were the same for domestic and foreign JOB/ACC/32 
Page 18 
 
 
  suppliers.  Thus, the registration re quirement equally extended to both domestic and foreign suppliers.  
Therefore, there was no provision in the legislation that put foreign manufactur ers in a less favourable 
position compared to domestic manufactures. 
33. Asked specifically about the existence of an a ppeal process, she said that an applicant could 
appeal decisions on conformity recognition to th e Board of Appeals of the conformity recognition 
organization concerned, and then to the Board of  Appeals of the Committee on Technical Regulating 
and Metrology of the Ministry of Industry and New Technologies; the decisions of the latter could be appealed in court.  Pursuant to State standard  ST RK 3.10-2007 "The Order of the Examination of 
Appeals", an appeal had to be filed in writing, en closing all relevant documen ts, within one month of 
the contested decision of the accredited certification body.  The Board took a decision within 15 days and the applicant was notified in the following 10 days. 
34. She added that any domestic or foreign organi zation could act as a conformity certification 
body or a test laboratory as long as it had recei ved accreditation in accordance with established 
legislation of Kazakhstan.  Certification bodies or la boratories were not allowed to operate (e.g. issue 
conformity assessments) outside their scope of accreditation.  In the absence of accredited laboratories, tests could be conducted by competent non-accredited test laboratories only by request made to the Committee on Technical Regulating and Me trology.  Foreign conformity certificates, test 
protocols, accreditation certificates, and other docum ents issued by foreign accreditation bodies would 
be recognised in accordance with international trea ties/agreements.  Asked to provide more specific 
information on the foreign conformity certificates, th e representative of Kazakhstan said that in this 
case, the international treaties/agreements were the bilateral or multilateral treaties/agreements signed 
by Kazakhstan with foreign countries which provi ded for the unilateral or mutual recognition of 
conformity assessment results.  In the absence of inte rnational treaties/agreements, test results issued 
by foreign authorised bodies would only be r ecognised through the accreditation of these foreign 
bodies in Kazakhstan's national accreditation system, in line with Article 6.1 of the WTO TBT Agreement.  At present, there were no foreign bodies accredited as conformity assessment organizations or laboratories in Kazakhstan.  The representative of Kazakhstan also noted that 
according to the Article 33 of the Law of the Re public of Kazakhstan "On Technical Regulating":  
(i) certificates of conformity, test protocols, and conformity marks of foreign countries were 
recognised in accordance with international agreem ents; (ii) procedures for recognition of foreign 
conformity certificates, test protocols, conformity  marks and of other documents in the conformity 
assessment sphere were established by the Comm ittee on Technical Regulation and Metrology. 
She also added that, according to the Rules on Rec ognition of Foreign Certificates of Conformity, 
Test Protocols, Conformity Marks and of Other Documents in the Conformity Assessment Sphere  JOB/ACC/32 
 Page 19 
 
 
  (approved by the Order of the Chairman of the Committee on Technical Regulation and Metrology on 
22 April 2005), recognition of foreign certificates of  conformity was carried out in accordance with 
international agreements to whic h Kazakhstan was a party.  Asked to clarify this statement, the 
representative of Kazakhstan said that in this case,  international agreements were bilateral or 
multilateral agreements signed by Kazakhstan with foreign countries on recognition of the results of 
conformity assessment.  In this regard, she refe rred to Article 6 of the WTO TBT Agreement which 
provided a possibility to conclude such agreements.  In the absence of the international agreement, 
conformity assessment of imported products was impl emented in accordance wi th the same rules and 
regulations set forth for domestic products. 
35. Asked whether Kazakhstan considered the WTO TBT Agreement as an international 
agreement or treaty, the representative of Kazakhs tan replied that her country considered the 
WTO TBT Agreement as an international agreement,  and would comply with its requirements upon 
its accession to the WTO.  In particular, in accord ance with Article 6 of the WTO TBT Agreement, 
the results of conformity assessment procedures of foreign countries, distinct from Kazakhstan's procedures, would, wherever possible, be rec ognised by Kazakhstan provided that conformity 
assessment bodies of foreign countries were accred ited in the national accreditation system of the 
Republic of Kazakhstan.  
36. This Member further commented that while  Article 6.3 of the WTO TBT Agreement 
encouraged Members to be willing to enter into ne gotiations on agreements for mutual recognition of 
each other's conformity assessment procedures, Article 6.1 clearly envisioned of other ways to arrive 
at mutually satisfactory understandings on recognitio n.  This Member asked Kazakhstan to describe 
and cite in the Working Party Report Kazakhstan's legislation th at established non-discriminatory 
conformity assessment procedures that would allow foreign certification bodies to certify conformity 
of exports to Kazakhstan.  The representative of  Kazakhstan replied that Article 6.1. of the 
WTO TBT Agreement provided that WTO Members, whenever possible, had to recognise conformity assessment results of other WTO Members if such procedures were different from national procedures.  Kazakhstan would recognise confor mity assessment procedures different from national 
procedures unilaterally if such a possibility was pr ovided in a bilateral or multilateral agreement 
signed by Kazakhstan.  Hence, the understandings refe rred to in Article 6.1 w ould be implemented by 
Kazakhstan in the form of bilateral or multilateral agreements.  She added that pursuant to Article 33 
of the Law "On Technical Regulating", certificates of conformity of foreign countries, testing results, 
conformity marks were recognised in accordance with international (bilateral or multilateral) 
agreements signed by Kazakhstan.  Procedures of  Recognition were determined by the Rules of 
Recognition of Certificates of Conformity of Fore ign Countries, Testing Results, Conformity Marks JOB/ACC/32 
Page 20 
 
 
  and Other Documents Issued in Foreign System s of Conformity Assessment, adopted by the 
Chairman of the Committee of Technical Regulating and Metrology on 22 April 2005.  Paragraph 5 of 
these Rules confirmed that foreign conformity certificates, testing protocols, conformity marks, and other documents had to be recognised if there was an international (either bilateral or multilateral) 
agreement with a country issuing the document.  If there was no such in ternational agreement, 
conformity assessment of imported products had to be conducted in  accordance with the rules and 
regulations in this sphere established for domestic products. 
37. Asked to provide information on international conformity assessment bodies which issued 
certificates that were recognised in Kazakhstan, th e representative of Kazakhstan said that conformity 
certificates were mutually recognised in accordance w ith signed international agreements.  At present, 
such mutual recognition agreements existed onl y with CIS Parties – (i) the Agreement on the 
Coordinated Policy on Standardi zation, Metrology and Certifica tion of 13 March 1992, which had 
established the Interstate Council for Standardizati on, Metrology and Certification (EASC) to carry 
out work on harmonizing standardization and c onformity assessment legislation; and (ii) the 
Agreement on Principles of Mutual Recognition of Certification Activities with the CIS Countries of 
4 June 1992, in the context of which Kazakhstan had agreed to recognise conformity certificates 
issued by CIS countries and to apply intergovernmental standards (GOST) alongside national standards (SS RK).  In addition, in 2010 the Na tional Center of Accreditation had become full 
member of ILAC and had signed the multilateral agreement on recognition of testing results 
(ILAC MRA).  In continuation of the work in this  direction, on 3 February 2011 the National Center 
of Accreditation had signed an agreement with ILAC on the use of ILAC MRA mark. 
38. Some Members noted the existence of bilate ral agreements on standards with China and 
Turkey and asked whether the provisions of  these agreements would be applied on a 
most-favoured-nation basis.  In reply, the represen tative of Kazakhstan said that the Protocol of 
Cooperation with the Turkish Institute of Standards of  6 June 1996 had expire d in 2001.  A new draft 
Protocol had been prepared which would provide fo r priority consideration given to international 
standards, the use of national Turkish and K azakhstani standards in both countries, and the 
recognition of testing protocols and conformity  certificates – provided that there was mutual 
accreditation of conformity assessment bodies and la boratories.  As for the Intergovernmental 
Agreement on Cooperation with the People's Republic  of China on Quality Assurance and Mutual 
Inspection of Exported and Imported Products of 5 July 1996, it provided for information exchange 
on legislation, conformity recognition and product s upervision procedures applicable to both sides.  
To implement the provisions of this Agreement, the two parties had signed a Memorandum on Mutual 
Understanding on 17 November 2006.  Also a Memo randum of Understanding between Committee of  JOB/ACC/32 
 Page 21 
 
 
  Technical Regulating of the Republic of Kazakhsta n and State Department of Standardization of 
Chinese People's Republic was signed on 1 Septem ber 2011, which provided for development of 
cooperation in the sphere of sta ndardization between parties on the basis of internationally accepted 
principles.  Kazakhstan had also concluded interg overnmental bilateral agre ements on cooperation in 
the area of standardization, metrology and certifica tion with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Israel, 
Qatar, Lithuania and Turkmenistan, as well as interd epartmental agreements between the Ministry of 
Industry and New Technologies and its counterpa rts in the Czech Republic, Germany, Moldova, 
Singapore and the Slovak Republic.  These bilateral agreements were aimed at removing technical 
barriers in mutual trade as well as cooperating in th e sphere of research and technology by means of 
mutual recognition of standardization, metrology and certification systems, including conformity certificates.  She said that Kazakhstan stood ready to negotiate a bilateral agre ement on standards with 
any WTO Member.  She confirmed that upo n WTO accession, Kazakhstan would provide 
WTO Members with MFN treatment in relation to th e application of technical barriers to trade. 
39. A Member expressed concerns regarding the application of Kazakhstan's conformity 
assessment procedure in practice, notably in the case of pharmaceu ticals, noting that the resulting 
process seriously distorted trade, as it was time-cons uming and costly, and as such was incompatible 
with the WTO TBT Agreement.  Some Members s ought information on the requirement to receive 
separate permissions from the chief veterinarian to transport imports within Kazakhstan, even after 
obtaining a valid certificate of conformity.  These Members also enquired why new certificates of conformity were needed for the import of pharma ceuticals that had already obtained certificates of 
conformity.   
40. The representative of Kazakhstan replied that  these requirements c ould be justified under 
Article 2 of the WTO TBT Agreement, namely the objective to protect the health and safety of people or animals.  These procedures were mandatory for importers, as well as domestic producers, for the 
transportation of goods subject to State veterinary cont rol or included into the official list of products 
requiring mandatory certification.  She also ac knowledged that Kazakhstan's conformity assessment 
procedure provided for several schemes (modules) of  conformity confirmation, during which several 
consignments of identical products were tested.  If the nationally-accredited foreign certification body 
had performed all necessary conformity assessment procedures, the imported goods' certificate would be recognised and there would be no need to certify individual consignments.  She noted that the same 
certification rules and procedures were applicable  to both imported and domestic goods. With respect 
to permissions from the chief veterinarian to tran sport imports within Kazakhstan, the representative 
of Kazakhstan noted that Kazakhstan did not requ ire permission from the chief veterinarian to 
transport imported pharmaceuticals within the country. JOB/ACC/32 
Page 22 
 
 
  41. A Member of the Working Party requested mo re information on the implementation of the 
provisions of the new Law "On Technical Regulating" , enquiring specifically about the application of 
mandatory requirements in the area of teleco mmunications within the framework of the new 
legislation.  In reply, the representative of Kazakhstan said that the telecommunications sector, like all 
other sectors, fell within the coverage of the La w "On Technical Regulating".  Accordingly, the 
Law "On Communications" had been am ended, in particular Article 7 (stipulating the authority of the 
Government to approve technical regulations) and Article 16 (conformity assessment in the area of 
telecommunications).  
- (d) Transparency 
42. With regard to the transparen cy and publication requirements of the WTO TBT Agreement, 
the representative of Kazakhstan said that, for ad ministrative reasons, individual EurAsEC Parties 
established their own national enquiry points on tec hnical regulations and sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures.  In the case of Kazakhstan, the comb ined TBT/SPS Enquiry Point (Information Centre), 
had been established through Government Resolution No . 718 of 11 July 2005.  Any interested party 
could approach the enquiry point for information.  She also added that units responsible for providing 
information on SPS measures to the Enquiry Point had been created at the Ministries of Agriculture 
and Heath.  The main functions of the Enquiry Point for SPS and TBT measures were (i) interaction 
with the WTO Secretariat, WTO Members and inte rnational organizations to provide interested 
parties and foreign States with the following in formation and documents upon their request:  
(a) copies of documents and information on adopte d or proposed technical regulations, standards, 
sanitary and phytosanitary measures, amendmen ts made to them, (b) conformity assessment 
procedures, (c) membership or participation of  the Republic of Kazakhstan in international 
organizations and international treaties on standardization, SPS measures, conformity assessment, 
bilateral and multilateral accreditation, and (d) sour ces of publications of drafts, technical regulations, 
SPS measures and standards; and (ii) publication of notifications in the Enquiry Point's Journal.  
The representative of Kazakhstan further noted that to date there were no plans to divide the 
Enquiry Point on TBT and SPS into two separate enquiry points.  The Enquiry Point could be contacted at:  
Address: Astana city, Left Bank district,  
  Orynbor st. 11,   Astana 010000, 
  Republic of Kazakhstan 
Telephone: +7 (3172) 320641 
Fax:  +7 (3172) 323275 E-mail:  enquirypoint@mail.ru  Website: www.wto.memst.kz  JOB/ACC/32 
 Page 23 
 
 
  43. Adopted and draft regulations on SPS and TB T (technical regulations, sanitary rules and 
norms) were regularly published for comment on the web-sites of the Enquiry Point, Ministries of Health and Agriculture, local executive bodies and on  the web-sites of accred ited public associations. 
These regulations were also published in the j ournal "Bulletin of the TBT/SPS Enquiry Point". 
44. Draft technical regulations were developed an d examined by advisory panels on technical 
regulation, which were composed of representatives of State bodies, technical committees on standardization and other interested parties (i ncluding public organizations, scientific unions, 
businesses and entrepreneurial associations).  The composition and agenda of these panels were set 
under the supervision of the Committee of Technical Regulating.   
45. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that all technical regulation proposals would be 
published in the public information system of Kazakhs tan, the CU and the EurAsEC in digital form at 
least 60 days prior to their adoption.  Neither  the Law "On Technical Regulating" nor CU and 
EurAsEC agreements and acts on standardization or  technical regulation defined or limited the 
number or character of interested persons who coul d submit commentary or suggestions to drafts of 
technical regulation.  CU Commission Decision No. 527 explicitly provided for participation of all 
interested persons.  Draft amendments would be revised after taking into account the comments of 
interested persons.  He also noted that the releva nt international agreements and other legal acts did 
not provide for any restrictions on foreign persons to  participate in the public review of draft technical 
regulations as interested parties.  In accordan ce with CU Commission Decision No. 527, interested 
persons including persons from third countries, coul d submit their proposals and remarks on drafts of 
CU and EurAsEC technical regulations to the re levant national authorities as determined by the 
Government, to the CU Party-developer of the te chnical regulation, to the CU Commission or to 
Integration Committee EurAsEC (in the event of the technical regulation of EurAsEC), as relevant.  
Proposals would be considered and, upon review, a summary of comments on the draft of the technical regulation and a decision on each of them  would be prepared, including reasons for such 
decisions.   
46. As for standards, these were developed by t echnical committees on standardization, which 
included Government representatives and interested parties (including public organizations, scientific 
unions, businesses and entrepreneurial associations).   Comments were taken into account in the 
process of finalising draft technical regulations and standards, and the agreement of all interested 
parties was sought.  All interested parties could requ est copies of draft standards, technical regulations 
and conformity assessment procedures, as well as copies of the comments received on a draft.  Following review and approval at the inter-agency committee level, the draft would be submitted to JOB/ACC/32 
Page 24 
 
 
  the Government for approval.  Once adopted, th e technical regulation would be published in the 
"Code of Normative Acts of the President of the Republic of Kazakhsta n and Government of 
Kazakhstan", the republican level newspaper, th e official publication of the authorised body 
("Technical regulation bulletin"), and on the web (http://www.memst.kz).  A draft Plan on the 
development of standards was printed in the monthl y "Informational Catalog (re gister) of Standards" 
(ICS), published by Gosstandard (the authorised bod y) to enable interested parties to submit 
comments on drafts.  Drafts were published in the o fficial publication of Gosstandard.  In addition, 
Gosstandard had two subordinate State enterprises  – the Kazakh Institute of Standardization and 
Certification, and the Kazakh Institute of Me trology – which issued periodic publications 
("Gosstandard News", "Metrology", and "Monthl y Informational Index of Standards").  
Electronic versions of the plans for development of  technical regulations and standards were put on 
the web at http://wto.memst.kz.  The CU Commi ssion website, www.tsouz.ru, was the point of 
publication for documents related to  the development, adoption, a nd application of CU technical 
regulations.  For EurAsEC technical regulations, the website was www.evrazes.com.   
 
__________