RUSSIAN FEDERATION – MEASURES ON THE IMPORTATION OF LIVE PIGS, PORK AND OTHER PIG PRODUCTS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION AB-2016-5
Document: Report of the Appellate Body
Date: 23 February 2017
Document codes: WT/DS475/AB/R
Complainant: EU
Respondent: Russia
Third parties: Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea, Norway, Taiwan, U.S., Brazil, South Africa
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.7, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 2.3, 5.5, 8, Annex C, 7, Annex B  Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)Art. I:1, III:4, XI:1  GATT 1994

RUSSIAN FEDERATION – MEASURES ON THE IMPORTATION OF LIVE PIGS, PORK AND
OTHER PIG PRODUCTS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
AB-2016-5
Report of the Appellate Body

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT
Abbreviation Description
2006 Memorandum Memorandum dated 4 April 2006 between the European Community
represented by DG Health and Consumer Protection and the
Presidency and the Russian Federation represented by the Federal
Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance concerning
principles of zoning and regionalisation in the veterinary field (Panel
Exhibit EU-61)
Accession Protocol Protocol on the Accession of the Russian Federation, WT/MIN(11)/24 /
WT/L/839, 17 December 2011
ALOP Appropriate level of protection
Article 6 Guidelines Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Guidelines to
Further the Practical Implementation of Article 6 of the Agreement on
the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, adopted by
the Committee at its meeting of 2-3 April 2008,
ASF African swine fever
Customs Union Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia
Customs Union Decision
No. 317
Decision of the Customs Union Commission No. 317 of 18 June 2010
on Common Veterinary (Veterinary and Health) Requirements in
relation to Goods Subject to Veterinary Control (Inspection), as
amended (Panel Exhibit RUS-25.b)
DG SANCO European Commission's Directorate General for Health and Consumer
Protection
DSB Dispute Settlement Body
DSU Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of
Disputes
EU panel request Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the European Union of
27 June 2014,
FSVPS Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance
(Rosselkhoznadzor)
OIE World Organisation for Animal Health (formerly Office International
des Epizooties)
Panel Report Panel Report, Russian Federation – Measures on the Importation of
Live Pigs, Pork and Other Pig Products from the European Union,

SPS Agreement Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
Terrestrial Code OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code, available at:
<http://www.oie.int/international-standard-setting/terrestrial-
code/access-online/>
Working Party Report Report of the Working Party on the Accession of the Russian
Federation to the World Trade Organization, WT/ACC/RUS/70 /
WT/MIN(11)/2, 17 November 2011
Working Procedures Working Procedures for Appellate Review, WT/AB/WP/6, 16 August
2010
WTO World Trade Organization
WTO Agreement Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

PANEL EXHIBITS CITED IN THIS REPORT
Exhibit
Number
Description Short Title
(if applicable)
RUS-25
a.(RU)
b.(EN)
Decision of the Customs Union Commission No. 317 of
18 June 2010 on Common Veterinary (Veterinary and
Health) Requirements in relation to Goods Subject to
Veterinary Control (Inspection), as amended
Customs Union Decision
No. 317
RUS-28
a.(RU)
b.(EN)
Letter dated 25 January 2014 from FSVPS to its Heads of
Territorial Departments, FS-EN-8/1023

RUS-29
a.(RU)
b.(EN)
Letter dated 27 February 2014 from FSVPS to its Heads
of Territorial Departments, FS-NV-8/2972

RUS-37
a.(RU)
b.(EN)
Letter dated 11 September 2014 from FSVPS to its Heads
of Territorial Departments, FS-NV-8/17431

RUS-53
a.(RU)
b.(EN)
Letter dated 2 April 2014 from FSVPS to DG SANCO,
FS-EN-8/5095

RUS-296 Data from OIE WAHIS Interface, as at 31 August 2015
EU-14
a.(RU)
b.(EN)
Letter dated 29 January 2014 from FSVPS to DG SANCO,
FS-SA-8/1277

EU-15
a.(RU)
b.(EN)
Letter dated 14 February 2014 from Russia's Ministry of
Agriculture to DG SANCO, [NF]-12-26/1650

EU-16
a.(RU)
b.(EN)
FSVPS website announcement dated 6 February 2014,
available at: http://fsvps.ru/fsvps/news/8935.html (RU)
and <http://fsvps.ru/fsvps/main.html?_language=en>
(EN)
FSVPS website
announcement
EU-17
a.(RU)
b.(EN)
List of returned consignments of pig products, annexed
as Annex 2 to Letter dated 6 August 2014 from FSVPS to
DG SANCO, FS-EN-7/14507 (Panel Exhibit EU-171)
List of returned
consignments
EU-52 Veterinary certificate for piglets for fattening, being
exported from the European Union into the Russian
Federation, 11 November 2006
Veterinary certificate for
EU exports to Russia
EU-61 Memorandum dated 4 April 2006 between the European
Community represented by DG Health and Consumer
Protection and the Presidency and the Russian Federation
represented by the Federal Service for Veterinary and
Phytosanitary Surveillance concerning principles of zoning
and regionalisation in the veterinary field
2006 Memorandum
EU-161
a.(RU)
b.(EN)
Letter dated 29 January 2014 from FSVPS to its Heads of
Territorial Departments, FS-SA-7/1275

Exhibit
Number
Description Short Title
(if applicable)
EU-168
a.(RU)
b.(EN)
Letter dated 2 April 2014 from FSVPS to its Heads of
Territorial Departments, FS-EN-8/5081

EU-169
a.(RU)
b.(EN)
Letter dated 27 June 2014 from FSVPS to its Heads of
Territorial Departments, FS-EN-8/11315

EU-171
a.(RU)
b.(EN)
Letter dated 6 August 2014 from FSVPS to DG SANCO,
FS-EN-7/14507

CASES CITED IN THIS REPORT
Short Title Full Case Title and Citation
Argentina – Footwear
(EC)
Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Safeguard Measures on Imports of
Footwear, WT/DS121/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, DSR 2000:I,
p. 515
Australia – Apples Appellate Body Report, Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation
of Apples from New Zealand, WT/DS367/AB/R, adopted 17 December
2010, DSR 2010:V, p. 2175
Australia – Salmon Appellate Body Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of
Salmon, WT/DS18/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VIII,
p. 3327
Canada – Continued
Suspension
Appellate Body Report, Canada – Continued Suspension of Obligations
in the EC – Hormones Dispute, WT/DS321/AB/R, adopted
14 November 2008, DSR 2008:XIV, p. 5373
Canada – Periodicals Appellate Body Report, Canada – Certain Measures Concerning
Periodicals, WT/DS31/AB/R, adopted 30 July 1997, DSR 1997:I,
p. 449
EC – Approval and
Marketing of Biotech
Products
Panel Reports, European Communities – Measures Affecting the
Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, WT/DS291/R, Add.1 to
Add.9 and Corr.1 / WT/DS292/R, Add.1 to Add.9 and Corr.1 /
WT/DS293/R, Add.1 to Add.9 and Corr.1, adopted 21 November
2006, DSR 2006:III, p. 847
EC – Asbestos Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting
Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, WT/DS135/AB/R,
adopted 5 April 2001, DSR 2001:VII, p. 3243
EC – Bananas III Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Regime for the
Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R,
adopted 25 September 1997, DSR 1997:II, p. 591
EC – Bananas III
(Article 21.5 –
Ecuador II) /
EC – Bananas III
(Article 21.5 – US)
Appellate Body Reports, European Communities – Regime for the
Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas – Second Recourse to
Article 21.5 of the DSU by Ecuador, WT/DS27/AB/RW2/ECU, adopted
11 December 2008, and Corr.1 / European Communities – Regime for
the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas – Recourse to
Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States, WT/DS27/AB/RW/USA
and Corr.1, adopted 22 December 2008, DSR 2008:XVIII, p. 7165
EC – Export Subsidies on
Sugar
Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Export Subsidies on
Sugar, WT/DS265/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R, WT/DS283/AB/R, adopted
19 May 2005, DSR 2005:XIII, p. 6365

Short Title Full Case Title and Citation
EC – Hormones Appellate Body Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat
Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted
13 February 1998, DSR 1998:I, p. 135
EC – Poultry Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting
the Importation of Certain Poultry Products, WT/DS69/AB/R, adopted
23 July 1998, DSR 1998:V, p. 2031
EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties
on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil,
WT/DS219/AB/R, adopted 18 August 2003, DSR 2003:VI, p. 2613
EC and certain member
States – Large Civil
Aircraft
Appellate Body Report, European Communities and Certain Member
States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft,
WT/DS316/AB/R, adopted 1 June 2011, DSR 2011:I, p. 7
India – Agricultural
Products
Appellate Body Report, India – Measures Concerning the Importation
of Certain Agricultural Products, WT/DS430/AB/R, adopted
19 June 2015
India – Agricultural
Products
Panel Report, India – Measures Concerning the Importation of Certain
Agricultural Products, WT/DS430/R and Add.1, adopted 19 June 2015,
as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS430/AB/R
Japan – Agricultural
Products II
Appellate Body Report, Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural
Products, WT/DS76/AB/R, adopted 19 March 1999, DSR 1999:I,
p. 277
Japan – Agricultural
Products II
Panel Report, Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products,
WT/DS76/R, adopted 19 March 1999, as modified by Appellate Body
Report WT/DS76/AB/R, DSR 1999:I, p. 315
Japan – DRAMs (Korea) Appellate Body Report, Japan – Countervailing Duties on Dynamic
Random Access Memories from Korea, WT/DS336/AB/R and Corr.1,
adopted 17 December 2007, DSR 2007:VII, p. 2703
US – Animals Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Importation of
Animals, Meat and Other Animal Products from Argentina,
WT/DS447/R and Add.1, adopted 31 August 2015
US – Continued
Suspension
Appellate Body Report, United States – Continued Suspension of
Obligations in the EC – Hormones Dispute, WT/DS320/AB/R, adopted
14 November 2008, DSR 2008:X, p. 3507
US – Corrosion-Resistant
Steel Sunset Review
Appellate Body Report, United States – Sunset Review of Anti-
Dumping Duties on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
from Japan, WT/DS244/AB/R, adopted 9 January 2004, DSR 2004:I,
p. 3
US – FSC Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign
Sales Corporations", WT/DS108/AB/R, adopted 20 March 2000,
DSR 2000:III, p. 1619
US – Gasoline Appellate Body Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated
and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R, adopted 20 May 1996,
DSR 1996:I, p. 3
US – Lamb Appellate Body Report, United States – Safeguard Measures on
Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and
Australia, WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R, adopted 16 May 2001,
DSR 2001:IX, p. 4051
US – Large Civil Aircraft
(2nd complaint)
Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting Trade in
Large Civil Aircraft (Second Complaint), WT/DS353/AB/R, adopted
23 March 2012, DSR 2012:I, p. 7
US – Poultry (China) Panel Report, United States – Certain Measures Affecting Imports of
Poultry from China, WT/DS392/R, adopted 25 October 2010,
DSR 2010:V, p. 1909

Short Title Full Case Title and Citation
US – Section 211
Appropriations Act
Appellate Body Report, United States – Section 211 Omnibus
Appropriations Act of 1998, WT/DS176/AB/R, adopted 1 February
2002, DSR 2002:II, p. 589
US – Shrimp Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain
Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 November
1998, DSR 1998:VII, p. 2755

APPELLATE BODY

Russian Federation – Measures on the
Importation of Live Pigs, Pork and Other
Pig Products from the European Union

Russian Federation, Appellant/Appellee
European Union, Other Appellant/Appellee

Australia, Third Participant
Brazil, Third Participant
China, Third Participant
India, Third Participant
Japan, Third Participant
Korea, Third Participant
Norway, Third Participant
Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan,
 Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, Third Participant
South Africa, Third Participant
United States, Third Participant
AB-2016-5

Appellate Body Division:

Servansing, Presiding Member
Ramírez-Hernández, Member
Van den Bossche, Member

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1. The Russian Federation (Russia) and the European Union each appeals certain issues of law
and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, Russian Federation – Measures on the
Importation of Live Pigs, Pork and Other Pig Products from the European Union1 (Panel Report).
1.2. In these proceedings, the European Union 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." 2 In particular, the European Union identified as the
measures at issue before the Panel specific bans on imports from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Poland, as well as the refusal by Russia to accept imports of the produc ts at issue from the entire
European Union , amounting to an EU -wide ban. 3 The measures at issue in this dispute are set
forth in more detail in section 7.3.5 and Table 2 of the Panel Report. The products at issue
comprise live pigs and their genetic materi al, pork, and certain other pig products. 4 The product
coverage of the measures at issue is set forth in more detail in Table 1 in section 7.3.4 of the
Panel Report.
1.3. In the Panel Report, circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on
19 August 2016, the Panel found that Russia has acted inconsistently with its obligations under
Articles 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6, 6.1, and 8, and Annex es C(1)(a) and C(1)(c) to the
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (S PS Agreement) and has
thus nullified or impaired benefits accruing to the European Union under that Agreement.5
1.4. Specifically, the Panel made the following findings that are relevant to this appeal:
a. the European Union has demonstrated the existence of the a lleged EU -wide ban as a
composite measure which reflects Russia's refusal to accept certain imports of the
products at issue from the European Union. The basis for Russia's refusal is the
requirement contained in the veterinary certificates negotiated with the European Union.
According to this general requirement, the whole of the European Union, except for

1 WT/DS475/R, 19 August 2016.
2 Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the European Union of 27 June 2014 , WT/DS475/2
(EU panel request), p. 1.
3 EU panel request, pp. 1-2; European Union's first written submission to the Panel, paras. 86-87; Panel
4 EU panel request, p. 1; Panel Report, para. 2.10 and Table 1 at para. 7.144.
5 Panel Report, paras. 8.8-8.9.

Sardinia, has to be free of African swine fever ( ASF) for three years in order for the
products at issue to be imported into Russia. Following the ASF o utbreaks in Lithuania,
the products from the European Union do not meet that requirement. Therefore, the
actions by Russia to apply this general requirement to the current situation in the
European Union result in an EU -wide ban of the products at issue at tributable to Russia.
Hence, the EU -wide ban is a measure susceptible to challenge under the WTO dispute
settlement mechanism6;
b. there is no limitation in the Protocol o n the Accession of the Russian Federation to the
WTO7 (Accession Protocol) to the Panel' s assessmen t of the merits of the
European Union's claims brought in respect of the EU-wide ban8;
c. the import restrictions on the products at issue from Estonia and Latvia were within the
Panel's terms of reference9;
d. with respect to the European Union's claims regarding the EU-wide ban, pursuant to the
SPS Agreement:
i. Russia recognizes the concepts of pest - or disease-free areas and areas of low pest
or disease prevalence in respect of ASF, and , therefore, the EU -wide ban is not
inconsistent with Russia's obligations under Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement10;
ii. in the period between 7 February 2014 and 11 September 2014, the European Union
objectively demonstrated to Russia, pursuant to Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement,
that there were areas within the European Un ion, outside of Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland, that were free of ASF and were likely to remain so11; and
iii. Russia did not adapt the EU-wide ban to the SPS characteristics related to ASF in the
areas where the products subject to that measure originat ed, nor to the
SPS characteristics related to ASF in Russia. Therefore, the EU -wide ban is
inconsistent with Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement12; and
e. with respect to the European Union's claims regarding the bans on imports of the
products at issue from Esto nia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, pursuant to the
SPS Agreement:
i. Russia recognizes the concepts of pest - or disease-free areas and areas of low pest
or disease prevalence in respect of ASF, and , therefore, the bans on imports of the
products at issue fro m Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are not inconsistent
with Russia's obligations under Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement13;
ii. at least as at 11 September 2014, the European Union had provided to Russia the
necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate, pursuant to Article 6.3 of the
SPS Agreement, that there were areas within Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland that
were free of ASF and were likely to remain so14;
iii. at least as at 11 September 2014, the European Union had failed to provide to
Russia the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate, pursuant to Article 6.3 of
the SPS Agreement, that there were areas within Latvia that were free of ASF and
were "likely to remain so"15; and

6 Panel Report, para. 8.1.a.
7 WT/MIN(11)/24 / WT/L/839, 17 December 2011.
8 Panel Report, para. 8.1.b.
9 Panel Report, para. 8.1.c.
15 Panel Report, para. 8.1.e.viii. (emphasis original)

iv. Russia did not adapt the bans on imports of the products at issue from Eston ia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland to the SPS characteristics related to ASF in the areas
where the products subject to the bans on imports from these four EU member
States originated , nor to the SPS characteristics related to ASF in Russia.
Furthermore, Russia did not perform a risk assessment on which it could base its
evaluation of the relevant elements to determine the SPS characteristics of the areas
from which the products at issue originate. Therefore, the bans on imports of the
products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are inconsistent with
Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement.16
1.5. In addition, the Panel made a number of findings that have not been appealed. In particular,
with respect to the EU-wide ban, the Panel concluded that: (i) the EU-wide ban is an SPS measure
within the meaning of Annex A(1) to the SPS Agreement 17; (ii) the EU-wide ban is not based on
the World Organisation for Animal Health ( OIE) Terrestrial Animal Health Code ( Terrestrial Code)
and is, therefore, inconsistent with Russia's obligation to base its SPS measures on international
standards, pursuant to Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement18; (iii) Russia's process of consideration of
the European Union's requests for recognition of ASF-free areas is inconsistent with Annex C(1)(a),
Annex C(1)(c), and Article 8 of the SPS Agreement19; (iv) the EU-wide ban does not fall within the
scope of Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement 20; (v) Russia did not base the EU -wide ban on a risk
assessment within the meaning of Annex A (4) to the SPS Agreement, thus breaching Articles 5.1
and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement21; (vi) Russia had not rebutted the presumption of inconsistency in
respect of Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement and, therefore, the EU-wide ban is inconsistent with
Article 2.222; (vii) the EU-wide ban is inconsistent with Article 5.3 of the SPS Agreement23; and
(viii) the EU-wide ban is inconsistent with Articles 5.6 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.24
1.6. With respect to the bans on imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
and Poland, the Panel concluded that these bans are SPS measures within the meaning of
Annex A(1) to the SPS Agreement25; that these bans do not conform to the relevant international
standards contained in the Terrestrial Code and are , therefore, inconsistent with Article 3.2 of the
SPS Agreement26; and that these bans, as applicable to treated products, are not "based on" the
relevant international standards, as articulated in Articles 15.1.14 to 15.1.16 of the
Terrestrial Code, and are therefore, to the exten t that they are applicable to treated products,
inconsistent with Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement.27
1.7. With respect to the bans on imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Lithuania, and
Poland, the Panel concluded that, as applicable to non -treated products, the bans are not "based
on" the relevant international standards, as articulated in the relevant Articles of Chapter 15.1 of
the Terrestrial Code, and are , therefore, to the extent that they are applicable to non -treated
products, inconsistent with Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement.28 With respect to the ban on imports
of the products at issue from Latvia, the Panel concluded that, as applicable to non -treated
products, the ban is "based on" the relevant international standards, as articulated in the relevant
Articles of Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code, and is, therefore, to the extent that it is applicable
to non-treated products, consistent with Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement.29
1.8. Furthermore, w ith respect to the bans on imports of the products at issue from Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, the Panel concluded that: (i) Russia's process of consideration of the
European Union's requests for recognition of ASF -free areas is inconsistent with Annex C(1)(a),

Annex C(1)(c), and Article 8 of the SPS Agreement30; (ii) the bans on imports of the products at
issue from the four affected EU member States do not fall within the scope of Article 5.7 of the
SPS Agreement31; (iii) Russia did not base the bans on imports of the products at issue from the
four affected EU member States on a risk assessment within the meaning of Annex A(4) to the
SPS Agreement, thus breaching Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement32; (iv) Russia has not
rebutted the presumption of inconsistency resulting from the Panel's fin ding under Article 2.2 of
the SPS Agreement , and theref ore the bans on imports of the products at issue from the
four affected EU member States are also inconsistent with Article 2.233; (v) the bans on imports of
the products at issue from the four affected EU member States are inconsistent with Article 5.3 of
the SPS Agreement34; and (vi) the country-specific import bans, as applicable to treated products,
are inconsistent with Articles 5.6 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.35
1.9. Finally, with respect to the European Union's claims regarding both the EU-wide ban and the
bans on imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, the Panel
found these measures to be inconsistent with Article 2.3, first sentence, of the SPS Agreement
because they arbitrarily and unjustifiably discriminate between Members where identical or similar
conditions prevail, and also to be inconsistent with Article 2.3, second sentence, of the
SPS Agreement because they are applied in a manner which constitutes a disgui sed restriction on
international trade.36
1.10. On 23 September 2016 , Russia notified the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), pursuant to
Articles 16.4 and 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of
Disputes (DSU), of its intention to appeal certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and
certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel, and filed a Notice of Appeal 37 and an
appellant's submission pursuant to Rule 20 and Rule 21, respectively, of the Working Procedures
for Appellate Review38 (Working Procedures). On 28 September 2016, the European Union notified
the DSB, pursuant to Articles 16.4 and 17 of the DSU, of its intention to appeal certain issues of
law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations devel oped by the Panel, and filed
a Notice of Other Appeal 39 and an other appellant's submission pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Working Procedures. On 11 October 2016, the European Union and Russia each filed an
appellee's submission.40 On 14 October 2016, Australia, Brazil, and the United States each filed a
third participant's submission. 41 On the same day, China, India, Japan, Korea, Norway, and the
Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu each notified its intention to
appear at the oral heari ng as a third participant. 42 On 17 October 2016, South Africa notified its
intention to appear at the oral hearing as a third participant.43
1.11. On 2 November 2016, the Appellate Body Division hearing this appeal received a letter from
Russia requesting that the Division allow simultaneous English-to-Russian interpretation at the oral
hearing in th ese appellate proceeding s. Russia explained that government officials in charge of
sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) issues intending to participate in the oral hearing did not have
sufficient English skills to follow a hearing conducted in English. Russia stated that it would bear all
costs associated with such simultaneous interpretation.
1.12. On 3 November 2016, the Division invited the European Union and the third particip ants to
comment in writing on Russia's request by 5 p .m. on Monday, 7 November. The European Union
submitted a response on 4 November and comments from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Norway, and
the United States were received on 7 November 2016.

35 Panel Report, paras. 8.1.e.xiii and 8.1.e.xiv.
37 WT/DS475/8.
38 WT/AB/WP/6, 16 August 2010.
39 WT/DS475/9.
40 Pursuant to Rules 22 and 23(4) of the Working Procedures.
41 Pursuant to Rule 24(1) of the Working Procedures.
42 Pursuant to Rule 24(2) of the Working Procedures.
43 Pursuant to Rule 24(4) of the Working Procedures.

1.13. The European U nion opposed Russia's request, submitting that it was not related to the
efficient conduct of the hearing or the effective exercise by Russia of its rights under the DSU but ,
rather, reflected an attempt to promote Russian, de facto , as a language in WTO d ispute
settlement.
1.14. In their respective comments, Japan, Norway, and the United States stated that they ha d
no objection to Russia providing English -to-Russian interpretation, at its own expense, so that all
Members of its delegation could follow the proce edings. Brazil considered that such a request
should be granted only in exceptional circumstances , and took no position on whether such
circumstances were present in this case. Australia opposed the request, considering it unnecessary
in light of its expectation that the issues on appeal would be of a legal, rather than factual, nature.
1.15. On 14 November 2016, the Division issued a Procedural Ruling. The Division noted that
Russia's request related to simultaneous English -to-Russian interpretation at the oral hearing.
Russia did not request, and the Division did not address in its Ruling, Russian -to-English
interpretation. The Division authorized Russia to use interpreters for the purpose of simultaneous
interpretation from English to Russian at the oral heari ng and determined that, in the interest of
orderly procedure in the conduct of this appeal, the interpretation facilities in the designated
hearing room would be used by the Russian interpreters for simultaneous interpretation.44
1.16. By letter of 21 November 20 16, the Chair of the Appellate Body notified the Chair of the
DSB that the Appellate Body would not be able to cir culate its Report within the 60 -day period
pursuant to Article 17.5 of the DSU, or within the 90 -day period pursuant to the same provision. 45
The Chair of the Appellate Body explained that this was due to a number of factors, including the
substantial workload of the Appellate Body , scheduling difficulties arising from appellate
proceedings running in parallel with an overlap in the composition o f the Divisions hearing the
appeals, and the fact that the Appellate Body was at the time composed of five, rather than the
full complement of seven , Appellate Body Members. On 16 December 2016, the Chair of the
Appellate Body informed the Chair of the DSB that the Appellate Body Report in these proceedings
would be circulated no later than 23 February 2017.46
1.17. The oral hearing in this appeal was held on 24 November 2 016. The participants and
third participants made oral statements and responded to questions posed by the Members of the
Appellate Body Division hearing the appeal.
2 ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTICIPANTS
2.1. The claims and arguments of the participants are reflected in the executive summaries of
their written submissions provided to the Appellate Body.47 The No tices of Appeal and
Other Appeal, and the executive summaries of the participants' claims and arguments, are
contained in Annexes A and B of the Addendum to this Report, WT/DS475/AB/R/Add.1.
3 ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTICIPANTS
3.1. The arguments of the third pa rticipants that filed written submission s are reflected in the
executive summaries of those submissions provided to the Appellate Body48, and are contained in
Annex C of the Addendum to this Report, WT/DS475/AB/R/Add.1.

44 The Procedural Ruling is contained in Annex D-1 of the Addendum to this Report,

45 WT/DS475/10.
46 WT/DS475/11.
47 Pursuant to the Appellate Body communication on "Executive Summaries of Written Submissions in
Appellate Proceedings" and "Guidelines in Respect of Executive Summaries of Written Submissions in
Appellate Proceedings" (WT/AB/23, 11 March 2015).
48 Pursuant to the Appellate Body communication on "Executive Summaries of Written Submissions in
Appellate Proceedings" and "Guidelines in Respect of Executive Summaries of Written Submissions in
Appellate Proceedings" (WT/AB/23, 11 March 2015).

4 ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL
4.1. The following issues are raised in this appeal:
a. whether the Panel erred in finding that the EU -wide ban is attributable to Russia, and
that Russia's terms of accession to the WTO d id not limit the Panel's assessment of the
European Union's claims regarding the EU-wide ban (raised by Russia);
b. whether the Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement:
i. by not finding that this provision requires consideration of the evidence relied upon
by the importing Member (raised by Russia); and
ii. by not fi nding that this provision contemplates a certain period of time for the
importing Member to evaluate and verify the evidence provided by the exporting
Member (raised by Russia);
c. whether the Panel erred in its interpretation of the relationship b etween Arti cle 6.1
and Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement by finding a violation of Article 6.1 by the
importing Member in a situation where the exporting Member has failed to comply with
Article 6.3 (raised by Russia); and
d. whether the Panel erred in finding that Russi a recognizes the concepts of pest - or
disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence in respect of ASF, and
that, therefore, the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland, as well as the EU -wide ban , are not inconsistent with Russia's
obligation under the first sentence of Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement (raised by the
European Union).
5 ANALYSIS OF THE APPELLATE BODY
5.1 The measures at issue
5.1. Before turning to the issues of law and legal interpretation raised in this appeal, we provide a
brief overview of the measures at issue in this dispute , namely: (i) the "EU-wide ban", consisting
of Russia's ban on the importation of the products at issue from the entire European Union; and
(ii) the country-specific import bans imposed by Russia on the products at issue from Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. 49 The Panel found that the European Union had properly identified
these as the measures at issue in this dispute.50
5.1.1 The EU-wide ban
5.2. In its panel request , the European Union identified as one of the measures at issue the
"refusal by Russia to accept imports of the products at issue from the entire EU, amounting to an
EU-wide ban."51 The European Union characterized this measure both as an action (in the for m of
an import ban or restriction) and, in the alternative, as an omission (in the form of a failure to
accept imports from the European Union). The European Union also sought the review of this
measure as such and as applied, de jure and de facto, and insofar as it is written or unwritten.
5.3. The Panel examined various documents submitted by the European Union to demonstrate the
existence of the EU-wide ban. The documents consist of the following:
a. A letter, dated 29 January 2014, from the Russian Federal Ser vice for Veterinary and
Phytosanitary Surveillance ( Rosselkhoznadzor) (FSVPS) to the European Commission's
Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection (DG SANCO). 52 The Panel
considered that this letter provided "a clear reference to the fact tha t, as a consequence

49 Panel Report, para. 7.37.
50 Panel Report, para. 7.170.
51 Panel Report, para. 7.47 (quoting EU panel request, p. 2).
52 Letter dated 29 January 2014 from FSVPS to DG SANCO, FS-SA-8/1277 (Panel Exhibit EU-14.b).

of the detection of ASF in the European Union's territory, … products accompanied with
veterinary certificates attesting to the veterinary requirements provided in the bilateral
certificates agreed by Russia and the European Union in 20 06 would be returned upon
arrival to Russia."53
b. A letter, dated 29 J anuary 2014, from FSVPS to its h eads of territorial departments,
recalling requirements in the bilateral veterinary certificates, which, the Panel noted,
"are precisely related to the absen ce of ASF, for the last three years, in the entire
territory of the European Union".54
c. A letter, dated 14 February 2014, from Russia's Ministry of Agriculture to DG SANCO,
which states that the two detected cases of ASF in wild boar in Lithuania "considerab ly
changes the epizootic status not only of Lithuania, but of the whole EU". 55 In addition,
the letter provides that, "in order to avoid a complete halt of trade in pork products with
the EU, [FSVPS] agreed upon the imports of safe finished deep heated products."56
d. An announcement on the FSVPS website, dated 6 February 2014, that border agents in
Russia had banned consignments of pork products (frozen heads and hearts) of Austrian
and German origin in the Tver and Pskov regions because of alleged ASF risks in the
entire territory of the European Union.57
e. A list of rejected consignments of pig products with reasons for rejection that was
attached as Annex 2 to a letter, dated 6 August 2014, from FSVPS to DG SANCO. 58
According to the document, the products at issue were not allowed entry into Russia due
to the unreliability of information regarding the ASF status of the European Union's
territory in the accompanying veterinary certificates.59
5.4. On the basis of its review of the foregoing documents, the Panel concluded that Russia's
authorities had rejected consignments of the products at issue that failed to satisfy the
requirement of EU -wide freedom from ASF for a period of three years (with the exception of
Sardinia). The Panel added that "[t]hese actions taken toget her constitute a composite measure"
comprising the "EU -wide ban" that the Panel assessed for its conformity with the relevant
provisions of the SPS Agreement.60
5.1.2 The country-specific import bans
5.5. In its panel request, the European Union also identified countr y-specific bans on imports of
certain non-treated pig products from Lithuania and Poland as measures at issue in this dispute.

53 Panel Report, para. 7.63.
54 Letter dated 29 January 2014 from FSVPS to its Heads of Territorial Departments, FS-SA-7/1275
(Panel Exhibit EU-161.b). See also Panel Report, para. 7.64.
55 Letter dated 14 February 2014 from Russia's Ministry of Agriculture to DG SANCO, [NF]-12-26/1650
(Panel Exhibit EU-15.b). See also Panel Report, para. 7.67.
56 Letter dated 14 February 2014 from Russia's Ministry of Agriculture to DG SANCO, [NF]-12-26/1650
(Panel Exhibit EU-15.b). See also Panel Report, para. 7.68.
57 FSVPS website announcement dated 6 February 2014, available at:
<http://fsvps.ru/fsvps/main.html?_language=en> (FSVPS website announcement) (Panel Exhibit EU-16.b).
See also Panel Report, para. 7.69; and European Union's first written submission to the Panel, para. 93.
58 List of returned consignments of pig products (Panel Exhibit EU-17.b), attached as Annex 2 to Letter
dated 6 August 2014 from FSVPS to DG SANCO, FS-EN-7/14507 (Panel Exhibit EU-171.b) (List of returned
consignments). See also Panel Report, para. 7.70.
59 List of returned consignments (Panel Exhibit EU-17.b). See also Panel Report, para. 7.70. The Panel
noted that Russia had admitted that it "imposed import restrictions with respect to the consignments of pork
products accompanied by veterinary certificates dated later than 27 January 2014 – a few days after Lithuania
experienced its first ASF outbreak." (Panel Report, para. 7.70 (quoting Russia's response to Panel question
No. 25, para. 10)) The Panel also referred to "other supporting evidence" demonstrating the existence of the
EU-wide ban. (Ibid., paras. 7.71-7.73 (referring to, inter alia, Letter dated 29 January 2014 from FSVPS to its
Heads of Territorial Departments, FS-SA-7/1275 (Panel Exhibit EU-161.b); and Letter dated 29 January 2014
from FSVPS to DG SANCO, FS-SA-8/1277 (Panel Exhibit EU-14.b))) In particular, the Panel noted that "[t]he
letter of FSVPS of 2 April 2014 to DG SANCO, recognizes the existence of the import restrictions of the
products at issue into Russia". (Ibid., para. 7.71 (referring to Letter dated 2 April 2014 from FSVPS to
DG SANCO, FS-EN-8/5095 (Panel Exhibit RUS-53.b)))
60 Panel Report, para. 7.83.

With respect to Lithuania, the European Union maintained that a ban on such imports was set out
in a letter from FSVPS to its heads of territorial departments on 25 January 2014.61 With respect to
Poland, FSVPS issued a similar letter on 27 February 2014. 62 Following a letter dated 2 April 2014
from FSVPS to its heads of territorial departments, these bans on imports from Lithuania an d
Poland were extended to certain processed pork products.63
5.6. Subsequently, in its first written submission to the Panel, the European Union referred to
restrictions on imports from Latvia and Estonia that had been adopted through sepa rate letters
from FSVPS to its heads of t erritorial departments on 27 June 2014 and 11 September 2014,
respectively.64 These measures were not identified in the European Union's panel request.
Although the parties agreed that these two sets of restrictions were within the Panel's terms of
reference, the Panel decided to consider this question on its own motion. 65 The Panel found that
the import restrictions on the products at issue from Estonia and Latvia were "closely related to
the measures explicitly described in the European Union's panel request" 66, and were therefore
within its terms of reference.67
5.2 Russia's claims relating to the attribution of the EU-wide ban
5.7. Russia appeals the Panel's finding that the EU -wide ban is a measure attributable to Russia.
Russia also appeals the Panel's finding that there is no limitation, in Russia's terms of accession to
the WTO, on the Panel's assessment of the merits of the European Union's claims as they pertain
to the EU -wide ban. These two claims on appeal address findings contained in sections 7.3.2
and 7.3.3, respectively, of the Panel Report. Russia also requests, should we reverse the Panel's
findings pertaining to the EU -wide ban as a measure, that we consequently also reverse all of the
Panel's findings that the EU -wide ban is inconsistent with Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6,
5.7, 6.1, 6.3, 8, and Annex C to the SPS Agreement.68
5.8. We begin by summarizing the Panel's findings before addressing Russia's claims on appeal.
5.2.1 The Panel's findings
5.9. Before the Panel, the European Union identified as a distinct measure at issue the "refusal by
Russia to accept imports of the products at issue from the entire EU, amounting to an EU -wide
ban".69 The Panel explained that it would examine whether the EU -wide ban is susceptible to
challenge under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization
(WTO Agreement) by, first, identifying the "content and extent" of the alleged measure, and,
second, by verifying whether it is "attributable" to Russia.70
5.10. With regard to the existence of the measure, the Panel noted that the European Union had
submitted various letters and instructions from Russian authorities, including the following
documents71: (i) a letter, dated 29 January 2014, from FSVPS to DG SANCO 72; (ii) a letter,
dated 29 J anuary 201 4, from FSVPS to its h eads of territorial departments73; (iii) a letter,

61 EU panel request, p. 1 (referring to Letter dated 25 January 2014 from FSVPS to its Heads of
Territorial Departments, FS-EN-8/1023 (Panel Exhibit RUS-28.b)).
62 EU panel request, p. 2 (referring to Letter dated 27 February 2014 from FSVPS to its Heads of
Territorial Departments, FS-NV-8/2972 (Panel Exhibit RUS-29.b)).
63 EU panel request, p. 2 (referring to Letter dated 2 April 2014 from FSVPS to its Heads of Territorial
Departments, FS-EN-8/5081 (Panel Exhibit EU-168.b)).
64 Panel Report, para. 7.117 and fns 271 and 272 to para. 7.158 (referring to Letter dated 27 June 2014
from FSVPS to its Heads of Territorial Departments, FS-EN-8/11315 (Panel Exhibit EU-169.b); and Letter dated
11 September 2014 from FSVPS to its Heads of Territorial Departments, FS-NV-8/17431 (Panel Exhibit
RUS-37.b)).
65 Panel Report, para. 7.119.
66 Panel Report, para. 7.160.
67 Panel Report, para. 7.167.
68 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 82.
69 Panel Report, para. 7.47 (quoting EU panel request, p. 2).
70 Panel Report, para. 7.57.
71 Panel Report, para. 7.60.
72 Letter dated 29 January 2014 from FSVPS to DG SANCO, FS-SA-8/1277 (Panel Exhibit EU-14.b).
73 Letter dated 29 January 2014 from FSVPS to its Heads of Territorial Departments, FS-SA-7/1275
(Panel Exhibit EU-161.b).

dated 14 February 2014, from Russia's Ministry of Agriculture to DG SANCO 74; (iv) an
announcement by FSVPS, dated 6 February 2014, regarding a ban on the importation of pork
products of Austrian and German origin due to alleged ASF risks in the entire European Union75;
and (v) instances of banned exports of pork products from EU member States after
25 January 2014.76 The Panel reviewed these documents and other evidence and concluded that
the European Union had established that the actions undertaken by Russia amounted to a ban on
the importation of certain pig products from the entire European Union.77
5.11. The Panel then examined whether the EU -wide ban is a measure attributable to Russia. The
Panel started by recalling that acts or omissions of the organs of a State, including those of the
executive branch, are usually attributable to the State. 78 The Panel then noted that the evidence
before it supported the proposition that Russia was undertak ing specific actions rendering it
impossible for exporters in the European Union to export the products at issue to Russia. 79
Specifically, the Panel found that these actions demonstrated that imports of the products at issue
from the European Union were re fused by the territorial departments of FSVPS. Having observed
that, pursuant to Russia's domestic legislation, FSVPS and its territorial departments are organs of
the Russian Government, the Panel concluded that FSVPS's actions, and those of the heads of its
territorial departments, are attributable to Russia.80
5.12. The Panel recognized that, "as of 25 January 2014, the entire territory of the
European Union except for Sardinia is not free of ASF – thus not matching the exact wording in the
bilaterally agreed veterinary certificates."81 However, in the Panel's view, "it is Russia, rather than
the European Union, that takes the action that gives effect to the import ban." 82 In addition, the
Panel observed that "the terms of the veterinary certificates are not what is required by the
European Union for imports into its territory, but what is required by Russia for products to enter
into its territory."83 The Panel further noted that Russia "more broadly regulates the importation of
the products at issue" 84 by requiring not only the presentation of a veterinary certificate by the
exporting country, but also compliance with a number of requirements under the control of the
Russian authorities, including the issuance of an import permit by Russia. Finally, the Panel noted
that, following an outbreak of ASF in Lithuania on 24 January 2014, the Russian authorities
"actively enforce[d]" 85 the requirement in the bilateral veterinary certificates that the entire
European Union, except for Sardinia, be ASF -free for three years fo r the products at issue to be
imported into Russia. The Panel thus concluded that the European Union had demonstrated the
existence of the EU -wide ban as a "composite measure" consisting of Russia's refusal to accept
imports of the products at issue from the European Union.86
5.13. The Panel then turned to examine Russia's argument that the validity of the bilateral
veterinary certificates is a term of Russia's WTO membership, and that the recognition of these
certificates in the terms of Russia's accession implie s the consistency of these certificates with
Russia's obligations under the WTO agreements. The Panel considered that the question before it
was "whether Russia can rely on its terms of accession to effectively shield the measure at issue
from further scrutiny under the DSU and the SPS Agreement."87

74 Letter dated 14 February 2014 from Russia's Ministry of Agriculture to DG SANCO, [NF]-12-26/1650
(Panel Exhibit EU-15.b).
75 European Union's first written submission to the Panel, para. 93; FSVPS website announcement
(Panel Exhibit EU-16.b).
76 List of returned consignments (Panel Exhibit EU-17.b); European Union's first written submission to
the Panel, paras. 94-96.
77 Panel Report, para. 7.74.
78 Panel Report, para. 7.75 (referring to, inter alia, Appellate Body Report, US – Corrosion-Resistant
Steel Sunset Review, para. 81).
79 Panel Report, para. 7.77.
80 Panel Report, para. 7.79.
81 Panel Report, para. 7.80.
82 Panel Report, para. 7.80.
83 Panel Report, para. 7.80.
84 Panel Report, para. 7.81.
85 Panel Report, para. 7.83.
86 Panel Report, para. 7.84.
87 Panel Report, para. 7.98.

5.14. The Panel noted the language of paragraph 893 of the Report of the Working Party on the
Accession of the Russian Federation to the W TO88 (Working Party Report), according to which
"[b]ilateral veterinary export c ertificates initialled by one of the CU [Customs Union] Parties
before 1 July 2010, as well as any subsequent amendments to such certificates agreed with the
authorised body of such CU Party, would remain valid for exports from the relevant country into
the customs territory of the CU until an export certificate was agreed with a CU Party based on the
agreed positions of the other CU Parties."89 The Panel considered that this language "would seem
to imply that Russia's commitment is to acknowledge the validi ty of the bilateral veterinary export
certificates or their amendments for those imports from [WTO] Members into Russia." 90 Referring
to Appellate Body jurisprudence regarding the use of waivers from WTO obligations91, the Panel
considered that, where a Memb er claims that a provision in its protocol of accession allows it to
depart from other obligations enshrined in the WTO agreements, the text of such a provision
should at least have clear and unambiguous language to that effect. 92 The Panel observed that the
text of paragraph 893 of Russia's Working Party Report does not refer to Russia's substantive
obligations under the SPS Agreement, or provide that the application of the requirements
contained in the bilateral veterinary certificates is automatically con sistent with Russia's rights and
obligations under the SPS Agreement.93 The Panel, therefore, was "not persuaded by Russia's
argument that its terms of accession to the WTO render the direct or indirect application of the
bilateral veterinary export certifi cates consistent with its obligations under the SPS Agreement."94
As a result, the Panel found no limitation, in Russia's terms of accession, to assessing the merits of
the European Union's claims brought in respect of the EU-wide ban.95
5.2.2 Whether the Panel erred in attributing the EU-wide ban to Russia
5.15. Russia appeals the Panel's finding that the EU -wide ban is a measure attributable to Russia.
Russia claims, first, that the Panel erroneously attributed the "content" of the bilateral veterinary
certificates to Russia.96 In referring to the "content" of the bilateral veterinary certificates, Russia
focuses on the condition in those certificates that , in order for the relevant products to be certified
for export to Russia, the entire European Union (with the excep tion of Sardinia) must be free of
ASF for a period of three years. According to Russia, while it is authorized by its domestic law to
require veterinary certificates in order to import the products at issue, the specific condition of
EU-wide freedom from A SF is not set out in Russia's SPS legislation. As Russia puts it, "the Panel
overlooked the difference between the general requirement to provide some form of a valid
veterinary certificate … with the specific requirements contained in the EU -Russia bilate rally
negotiated veterinary certificates." 97 Russia underscores that, "[w]hile the former is a national
SPS measure attributable to the Russian Federation, the latter is not."98 Russia further asserts that
the Panel failed to recognize the sequencing inheren t in the bilateral veterinary certificates,
whereby the European Union must first issue a valid certificate before Russia may recognize the
validity of the certificate and allow access to imports.99
5.16. The European Union responds that Russia is seeking to misr epresent the Panel's findings by
arguing that the Panel considered the bilateral veterinary certificates to constitute Russia's national
SPS measures. According to the European Union, the Panel never used such reasoning but, rather,
examined several pieces of evidence and concluded that the measure at issue consists of different
actions by Russia that amount to the EU -wide ban.100 Moreover, the European Union points out
that the definition of an SPS measure broadly refers to "any" measure, and that any act or

88 WT/ACC/RUS/70 / WT/MIN(11)/2, 17 November 2011.
89 Panel Report, para. 7.103 (quoting Working Party Report, para. 893). (emphasis added by the Panel)
90 Panel Report, para. 7.105.
91 Panel Report, paras. 7.106-7.107 (referring to Appellate Body Reports, EC – Bananas III,
paras. 164-166 and 183; and EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 – Ecuador II) / EC – Bananas III
(Article 21.5 – US), para. 382).
92 Panel Report, para. 7.108.
93 Panel Report, para. 7.109. The Panel also considered that paragraph 1450 of the Working Party
Report did not provide otherwise. (Ibid., para. 7.110)
94 Panel Report, para. 7.111.
95 Panel Report, para. 7.116.
96 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 45 et seq.
97 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 53.
98 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 53.
99 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 73 et seq.
100 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 73 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.74).

omission may be a measure for the purposes of WTO dispute settlement. 101 The European Union
further submits that Russia's alternative argument regarding sequencing also reflects a
misrepresentation. In the European Union's view, a proper explanation of sequ encing would take
into account the fact that, as a first step, Russia failed to agree to the adaptation of the wording of
the bilateral veterinary certificates in order to give effect to Russia's WTO obligations.102
5.17. In US – Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset R eview, the Appellate Body stated that, "[i]n
principle, any act or omission attributable to a WTO Member can be a measure of that Member for
purposes of dispute settlement proceedings." 103 With regard to the EU -wide ban, Russia's
argumentation suggests that the "act" the Panel attributed to Russia consists of the condition of
EU-wide freedom from ASF over a three -year period. We do not see that this is supported by the
manner in which the European Union framed its challenge. The Panel noted that, in its panel
request, the European Union indicated that it was challenging the "refusal by Russia to accept
imports of the products at issue from the entire EU, amounting to an EU -wide ban." 104 The
European Union added that it was identifying "this specific measure at i ssue both as an action (an
import ban or restriction) and, in the alternative, as an omission (failure to accept imports from
the EU)" .105 Although the European Union also referred, in its panel request, to evidence that
contained references to the need for proper veterinary certificates in order to import the products
at issue106, the European Union's challenge with respect to the EU -wide ban is clearly directed at
Russia's decision, either through action or omission, to deny the importation of the products at
issue.
5.18. Moreover, we do not see that the Panel attributed the bilateral veterinary certificates, or the
condition regarding EU-wide freedom from ASF, to Russia. In assessing whether the EU -wide ban
could be attributed to Russia, the Panel focused principal ly on the fact that "it is Russia, rather
than the European Union, that takes the action that gives effect to the import ban."107 As the Panel
observed, even if one considers the role of the bilateral veterinary certificates, they "are not what
is required by the European Union for imports into its territory, but what is required by Russia for
products to enter into its territory." 108 The Panel further noted that the requirement concerning
veterinary certificates forms part of a broader regulatory framework in Russia governing the
importation of products.109 Although the Panel acknowledged that Russia's import ban "is grounded
on the inability of the European Union's veterinarians to certify [compliance with] the requirement
set out in the bilaterally agreed veter inary certificates", the Panel held that it was "Russia's
authorities [that] actively enforce this requirement by rejecting consignments of the products at
issue that fail to satisfy this requirement". 110 Accordingly, the Panel concluded that "[t]hese
actions taken together constitute a composite measure, and this is what the European Union refers
to as an 'EU-wide ban', and this is what constitutes a measure at issue attributable to Russia."111
5.19. In light of the manner in which the European Union framed its clai ms before the Panel and
the Panel's analysis and conclusions regarding those claims, we see no support for the assertion
that the Panel attributed the content of the bilateral veterinary certificates – in the form of the
condition of EU -wide freedom from A SF over a three -year period – to Russia. Rather, the Panel
clearly explained that the measure it was attributing to Russia was Russia's decision to deny the
importation of the products at issue – i.e. the EU -wide ban. Although Russia may have relied on
the particular condition of EU -wide freedom from ASF set out in the certificates to ban imports of

101 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 74.
102 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 104. In the European Union's view, the certificates
could easily be adapted in accordance with Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement, as Russia did for imports of beef
from the European Union in 2011, and for imports of poultry from Canada in 2015. (Ibid., paras. 105-107)
103 Appellate Body Report, US – Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review, para. 81. (fn omitted)
104 Panel Report, para. 2.9 (quoting EU panel request, p. 2).
105 Panel Report, para. 2.9 (quoting EU panel request, p. 2).
106 Panel Report, para. 2.9 (quoting EU panel request, pp. 1-2). The European Union notes that the
Russian authorities stated that "veterinary doctors in the EU Member-States must stop certification of the
above-mentioned 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." (European Union's appellee's submission, para. 76 (quoting Letter dated 29 January 2014
from FSVPS to DG SANCO, FS-SA-8/1277 (Panel Exhibit EU-14.b)))
107 Panel Report, para. 7.80.
108 Panel Report, para. 7.80.
109 Panel Report, paras. 7.81-7.82.
110 Panel Report, para. 7.83.
111 Panel Report, para. 7.83.

the products at issue, it was Russia's "actions" of "enforc[ing] this requirement by rejecting
consignments of the products at issue" that the Panel considered to constitute "a measure at issue
attributable to Russia".112 Russia does not dispute that it banned the importation of the products at
issue, or that the European Union had provided a sufficient evidentiary basis to establish the
existence of the ban. Accor dingly, we do not consider that Russia's arguments on appeal disturb
the Panel's attribution of the EU-wide ban to Russia.
5.20. To the extent that Russia is suggesting that the import ban may not be attributed to Russia
because the basis upon which it was impos ed is derived, in part, from a condition that is not set
out in Russian law, Russia's claim cannot be sustained. We do not see on what grounds the act of
a Member may not be attributed to that Member due to the fact that the basis for doing so is not
contained in that Member's municipal law. As we have set out above, the decision to deny the
importation of the products at issue is undeniably an act of the Russian Government. It is
immaterial that the condition in the bilateral veterinary certificates upon w hich Russia's decision
was based may have been developed in conjunction with, or may have involved prior action on the
part of, the European Union. Moreover, to the extent that Russia maintains that the basis for the
EU-wide ban is a relevant consideration because it justifies its conduct under WTO law, this is, in
our view, not relevant to whether the import ban itself is attributable to Russia. Indeed, the
question of whether a measure is consistent with, or may be justified in respect of, a Member's
WTO obligations may only be engaged once the attribution of that measure to the respondent has
been established. Thus, we do not agree with Russia to the extent that it maintains that the fact
that the basis for banning the importation of the products at issue emanates from veterinary
certificates jointly agreed to by Russia and the European Union somehow undermines the
attribution of the EU-wide ban to Russia.
5.21. Moreover, we take note of Russia's "alternative" argument that the Panel failed to
understand conformity with the bilateral veterinary certificates as consisting of certain sequential
steps: first, the issuance of valid veterinary certificates by the European Union; and, second, the
recognition of the validity of such certificates by Russia. According to Russia, "there can be no
legitimate finding of the Russian Federation's compliance, or lack thereof, with the valid bilateral
veterinary certificates because that would represent a contingent second step in the certification
process that would occur … only after the European Union veterinary officials have issued a valid
bilateral veterinary certificate." 113 We have noted above that, even if one takes into account the
condition in the bilateral veterinary certificates regarding EU-wide freedom from ASF, this does not
undermine the conclusion that Russia decided on the basis of this condition to impose an import
ban. The fact that the issuance of a certificate by the European Union must precede Russia's
recognition of the validity of that certificate does not a lter this conclusion. Irrespective of the
events preceding Russia's conduct, the fact remains that Russia undertook actions to deny the
importation of the products at issue, and it is these actions that the Panel found to comprise the
measure attributable to Russia.
5.2.2.1 Conclusion on Russia's claim regarding the attribution of the EU -wide ban to
Russia
5.22. In sum, we consider that the measure that the Panel attributed to Russia was not the
condition in the bilateral veterinary certificates of EU -wide fre edom from A SF over a
three-year period but, rather, Russia's decision to deny the importation of the products at issue,
i.e. the EU -wide ban. Russia does not dispute that it banned the importation of the products at
issue, and the fact that the basis for doing so may not have been set out in Russian law does not
alter the conclusion that the EU-wide ban is attributable to Russia.
5.23. For the foregoing reasons, we uphold the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.84 and 8.1.a of
the Panel Report, that the EU-wide ban is attributable to Russia.

112 Panel Report, para. 7.83. We note that, in referring to the EU-wide ban as a "composite measure",
the Panel was referring to the "actions taken together" by the Russian authorities of "rejecting consignments of
the products at issue". We also note the Panel's statement that FSVPS and its territorial departments are
organs of the Russian Government. (Ibid., para. 7.79)
113 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 81. (emphasis original)

5.2.3 Whether the Panel erred in finding that Russia's terms of accession to the WTO
did not limit the Panel's assessment of the European Union's claims regarding the
EU-wide ban
5.24. Russia further claims that the "validity" of the bilateral veterina ry certificates must be given
"full legal effect" by requiring a finding that Russia's actions taken to comply with the requirements
of the certificates render them WTO -consistent.114 Russia's claim rests on two interrelated
propositions. First, Russia submi ts that the commitment in its Working Party Report that the
bilateral veterinary certificates "would remain valid" amounts to a commitment during Russia's
accession process that the only certificates that can be used to import the products at issue are
those agreed to by Russia and the European Union. Second, Russia maintains that, in order to
ensure the "full legal effect" of the bilateral veterinary certificates, Russia must, in acting in
accordance with those certificates, be found to have acted consistently with its WTO obligations.
5.25. The European Union responds that Russia's reading of its Working Party Report is contrary
to Russia's terms of accession, which establish that the obligation to maintain the validity of the
bilateral veterinary certificates is a commitment, not a right. In addition, the European Union
disagrees with Russia's attempt to portray the certificates as "frozen in time ".115 The
European Union recalls that paragraph 893 of the Working Party Report refers to "any subsequent
amendments" to the bilateral certificates. According to the European Union, such reference is
logical from a regionalization perspective, because the obligation of adaptation under Article 6.1 of
the SPS Agreement is a continuing one. 116 The European Union argues that t he rationale for
introducing the commitment regarding the validity of bilateral certificates was to allow, and not to
restrict, trade with Russia, and notes that paragraph 892 of the Working Party Report contains a
reference to regionalization and Article 6 of the SPS Agreement as the concern of the
WTO Members that sought a commitment from Russia regarding the validity of bilateral
certificates.117 Thus, the European Union submits that, contrary to Russia's position that its
bilateral certificates are deemed to be consistent with Russia's WTO obligations, a cumulative
reading of paragraphs 892 and 893 of the Working Party Report reveals the concern of certain
Members regarding Russia's compliance with the regionalization obligations in the
SPS Agreement.118
5.26. As a preliminary matter, we note our understanding that this claim by Russia is distinct from
its claim that the EU -wide ban was erroneously attributed to Russia. As we have remarked above,
whether a measure can be attributed to a Member does not, in our view , engage the question of
whether such measure is consistent with, or may be justified in respect of, that Member's
WTO obligations. Such an understanding comports with the manner in which the Panel structured
its analysis of the issues, in which it first a ddressed the attribution question in section 7.3.2 of its
Report, before turning to examine, in section 7.3.3 of its Report, whether Russia's accession
commitments nevertheless shield the EU -wide ban from further scrutiny under the
SPS Agreement.119
5.27. We therefore turn to assess whether the terms of Russia's accession commitments in its
Working Party Report shield the EU-wide ban from further scrutiny under the SPS Agreement.
5.28. With regard to the manner in which the text of paragraph 893 of the Working Party Re port
relates to Russia's overall undertakings in its Accession Protocol, we note that paragraph 2 of the
Accession Protocol provides that the protocol, "which shall include the commitments referred to in
paragraph 1450 of the Working Party Report, shall be an integral part of the WTO Agreement".
Paragraph 1450, in turn, provides that the Working Party took note of the commitments by Russia
as set out in several paragraphs of the Working Party Report, including paragraph 893. Thus, by
virtue of these referen ces, the commitments by Russia that are set out in paragraph 893 of its

114 Russia's appellant's submission, section II.D.
115 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 92.
116 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 93 (referring to Appellate Body Report,
India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.154).
117 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 95.
118 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 96.
119 In its Notice of Appeal, Russia separately appeals discrete paragraphs in section 7.3.2
(e.g. paras. 7.74 and 7.76-7.84) and section 7.3.3 (e.g. paras. 7.108-7.112 and 7.114-7.116) of the Panel
Report. (Russia's Notice of Appeal, WT/DS475/8, para. 4)

Working Party Report form an integral part of the Accession Protocol. In addition, as Russia
acknowledges, these commitments apply in respect of all WTO Members.120
5.29. Russia relies princip ally on the language contained in paragraphs 892 and 893 of its
Working Party Report, which provide as follows:
892. Members expressed concern regarding a mandatory requirement to use a
common CU [Customs Union] Veterinary Certificate. They noted that curr ently, some
exporting countries had veterinary certificates that included requirements that differed
significantly from those in the common form and the veterinary requirements of the
Russian Federation. These differences reflected conditions in the export ing country or
region, in line with Article 6 of the WTO SPS Agreement and other international
agreements. These Members sought confirmation that the Russian Federation and its
CU partners would negotiate specific certificates with requirements that could differ
from the CU Common Requirements and that export certificates currently in effect
with the Russian Federation would remain valid until CU replacement had been
agreed. Moreover, if there was no certificate governing trade in a regulated product,
these Members sought confirmation that an exporting country could negotiate a
certificate with the CU Parties that included require ments that differed from the
CU Common Requirements.
893. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian
Federation and its CU Parties would work with interested Members to negotiate
veterinary certificates that included requirements that differed from the CU common
form and specific CU Common Requirements, if an exporting country made a
substantiated request prior to 1 January 2013 to negotiate such a veterinary export
certificate. Bilateral veterinary export certificates initialled by one of the CU Parties
before 1 July 2010, as well as any subsequent amendments to such certificates agreed
with the authoris ed body of such CU Party, would remain valid for exports from the
relevant country into the customs territory of the CU until an export certificate was
agreed with a CU Party based on the agreed positions of the other CU Parties. Bilateral
veterinary export certificates initialled by one of the CU Parties between 1 July 2010
and 1 December 2010 would remain valid for import and circulation of relevant goods,
only in the territory of the CU Party that initialled the certificate, until a bilateral
veterinary certificate was agreed with a CU Party based on the agreed positions of the
other CU Parties. These new certificates would include terms on matters dealt within
an international treaty that were no less favourable than the corresponding terms on
that matter in such treaty that was concluded prior to 1 July 2010 between a Party
and the relevant third country. While such bilateral veterinary export certificates could
contain requirements that differed from the CU Common Form and specific provisions
of the Common Requirements, such certificates had to ensure the appropriate level of
protection as determined by the CU Parties. The Working Party took note of these
commitments.121
5.30. It is noted, in paragraph 892, that WTO Members expressed the concern that there was a
mandatory requirement to use a Customs Union 122 common veterinary certificate, notwithstanding
the fact that some exporting countries had negotiated bilateral veterinary certificates containing
requirements that "currently … differed significantly" from tho se in the Customs Union common
certificate. These differences "reflected conditions in the exporting country or region, in line with
Article 6 of the WTO SPS Agreement and other international agreements". These Members thus
sought confirmation that Russia would negotiate certificates that differed from the Customs Union
common certificate with respect to conditions in the exporting country as they relate to, inter alia,
Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. In addition, paragraph 892 indicates that Members also s ought
confirmation that any export certificates currently in effect with Russia "would remain valid",
i.e. would remain in effect, until a replacement form for the Customs Union had been agreed.
Thus, where a bilateral veterinary certificate had been negot iated with certain WTO Members,
paragraph 892 would seem to indicate that these Members sought to avoid trade disruptions that
might result from requiring reliance on the Customs Union common certificate in lieu of such a

120 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 60.
121 Fns omitted.
122 The Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia.

bilaterally negotiated certificate . We further note that, by virtue of the express reference in
paragraph 892 to Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, it is clear that the particular differences between
the two types of certificates related to concerns regarding regionalization.
5.31. Paragraph 893 t hen sets out the commitment undertaken by Russia, namely, that the
relevant " [b]ilateral veterinary export certificates … as well as any subsequent amendments to
such certificates … would remain valid … until an export certificate was agreed with a
[Customs Union] Party". Against the background of the concerns described in paragraph 892, this
commitment reflects an undertaking regarding the status of bilate ral veterinary certificates
vis-à-vis the Customs Union common certificate. Using language identical t o that in
paragraph 892, this commitment provides that the bilateral veterinary certificates "would remain
valid", ensuring that bilateral veterinary certificates would continue to remain in effect until a
Customs Union common certificate was agreed. In ad dition, by referring to "any subsequent
amendments", paragraph 893 also evidences the understanding that existing bilateral veterinary
certificates would be subject to modification. This is further supported by language in the bilateral
veterinary certificates between Russia and the European Union, which refers to the possibility of
modifying "[a]dministrative territories, zones and time periods" on the basis of mutual agreement
in accordance with certain principles of zoning and regionalization.123
5.32. Taking t he above considerations together, we understand Russia's commitment in
paragraph 893 as an undertaking that addresses which certificate would remain in effect, until
amended or replaced, in trade relations between WTO Members and Russia. In other words, Russia
accepted that, where a bilateral veterinary certificate exists, it is this certificate, and not the
Customs Union common certificate, that would be considered a valid certificate. Russia maintains
that, by virtue of the terms "would remain valid" in p aragraph 893, the bilateral veterinary
certificates must not only be "recognized as … legitimate veterinary certificate [s] for export"124,
but that this also means that "the certificates are presumed to be WTO -consistent."125 As an initial
matter, we draw a distinction between, on the one hand, the bilateral veterinary certificates, which
require, inter alia, certain factual attestations regarding the disease status in the exporting country
and, on the other hand, the WTO -consistency of actions taken by the imp orting country. It is not
at issue whether the bilateral veterinary certificates between the European Union and Russia are
themselves WTO-consistent. Rather, the question is whether a particular SPS measure – in this
case, the EU-wide ban, which was adopted on the basis of the ASF status in the European Union –
is consistent with Russia's obligations under Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.
5.33. We recall the Appellate Body's observation in India – Agricultural Products that the "main
and overarching" 126 obligation under Article 6 is to ensure that SPS measures are adapted to
regional SPS characteristics, and that the nature of that obligation "is not static, but rather
ongoing".127 Such an obligation, the Appellate Body added, requires that SPS measures be
adjusted ov er time so as to establish and maintain their continued suitability in respect of the
SPS characteristics of the relevant areas . The fact that a WTO Member has adapted its measures
to the SPS characteristics of an area at a specific point in time may not e nsure that such
adaptation remains adequate when the particular SPS characteristics of that area evolve.
Therefore, even if one were to maintain that the condition of EU-wide freedom from ASF may have
been reflective of the SPS situation at the time the bi lateral veterinary certificates were originally
agreed, this does not rule out that the SPS characteristics of the relevant areas may have changed
over time. Moreover, as we have suggested, the question of whether the condition of EU -wide

123 A footnote in the relevant bilateral veterinary certificates provides that "Administrative territories,
zones and time periods may be modified with a mutual agreement on the basis of the Memorandum of
4 April 2006 on zoning and regionalisation". (Veterinary certificate for piglets for fattening, being exported
from the European Union into the Russian Federation, 11 August 2006 (Veterinary Certificate for EU exports to
Russia) (Panel Exhibit EU-52)) The 2006 Memorandum was agreed between the European Union and Russia
and contains provisions aimed at applying the principles of zoning and regionalization to the international
movement of animals and products of animal origin between EU member States and Russia. (See Panel Report,
para. 7.371 (referring to e.g. Veterinary certificate for EU exports to Russia (Panel Exhibit EU-52); and
Memorandum dated 4 April 2006 between the European Community represented by DG Health and Consumer
Protection and the Presidency and the Russian Federation represented by the Federal Service for Veterinary
and Phytosanitary Surveillance concerning principles of zoning and regionalisation in the veterinary field
(2006 Memorandum) (Panel Exhibit EU-61)))
124 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 66.
125 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 67.
126 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.141.
127 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.132.

freedom from ASF accurately reflects the prevailing SPS situation at a particular point in time is
distinct from the question of whether the SPS measure that was taken – in this case, a measure
banning the importation of the products at issue – is consis tent with the provisions of the
SPS Agreement, and in particular Article 6. Thus, irrespective of the commitment in Russia's terms
of accession to the WTO regarding which certificate would be operative in the conduct of certain
trade to Russia from other WTO Members, Russia remains under an ongoing obligation, pursuant
to Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, to adapt its measures to regional SPS characteristics.
5.34. Russia maintains that, by finding that its compliance with the bilateral veterinary certificates
is WTO-inconsistent, the Panel is requiring Russia to act inconsistently with paragraph 893 of the
Working Party Report by unilaterally invalidating the conditions of those certificates. 128 We do not
consider that the commitment set out in paragraph 893 can be understood as an obligation holding
Russia or any other WTO Member captive to the terms of the bilateral veterinary certificates, when
acting in accordance with those terms would put that Member at variance with its WTO rights or
obligations. We also do not consider that Russia must, as it suggests, choose between violating the
terms of its Working Party Report or other obligations in the WTO covered agreements. As the
Appellate Body has explained, provisions of the WTO covered agreements must be read "in a way
that gives mean ing to all of them, harmoniously". 129 Accordingly, while Russia and other
WTO Members agreed that the bilateral veterinary certificates would continue to remain in effect
until a Customs Union common certificate was agreed, this cannot be read to absolve the Members
involved from acting in good faith to make the necessary amendments to the certificates so as to
ensure that SPS measures taken on the basis of such certificates a re in compliance with their
WTO obligations. As noted above, paragraph 893 refers no t only to the bilateral veterinary
certificates as they were agreed at the time of accession, but also to "any subsequent
amendments".130
5.2.3.1 Conclusion on Russia's claim regarding Russia's terms of accession to the WTO
5.35. In sum, given the ongoing nature of the ob ligation under Article 6 of the SPS Agreement
and the requirement that SPS measures be adjusted over time to en sure adaptation to regional
SPS characteristics, the fact that a WTO Member has adapted its measures to the
SPS characteristics of an area at a s pecific point in time may not ensure that such adaptation
remains adequate when the particular SPS characteristics of that area evolve. Irrespective of the
commitment in Russia's terms of accession to the WTO regarding which certificate would be
operative in the conduct of certain trade to Russia from other WTO Members, Russia remains
under an ongoing obligation, pursuant to Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, to adapt its measures to
regional SPS characteristics.
5.36. For the foregoing reasons, we uphold the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.116 and 8.1.b of
the Panel Report, that Russia's terms of accession to the WTO d id not limit the Panel's assessment
of the European Union's claims regarding the EU-wide ban.
5.3 Claims under Article 6 of the SPS Agreement
5.37. We now turn to the participants' claims on appeal with respect to the Panel's analysis under
Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.
5.38. In its appeal, Russia requests us to reverse the Panel's conclusions contained in
paragraphs 8.1.d.iv, 8.1.e.vii, and 8.1.e.ix of its Report131, namely:
 in the period between 7 February 2014 and 11 September 2014, the European Union
objectively demonstrated to Russia, pursuant to Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, that
there are areas within the European Union, outside of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuan ia, and
Poland, which are free of ASF and are likely to remain so;

128 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 67.
129 Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Footwear (EC), para. 81. (emphasis original; fn omitted)
130 As also noted, the bilateral veterinary certificates themselves refer to the possibility of modifying
"[a]dministrative territories, zones and time periods" on the basis of mutual agreement in accordance with
certain principles of zoning and regionalization.
131 Russia's response to questioning at the oral hearing.

 at least as at 11 September 2014, the European Union had provided to Russia the
necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate, pursuant to Article 6.3 of the
SPS Agreement, that there are areas within Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland, that are free
of ASF and are likely to remain so; and
 Russia did not adapt the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland to the SPS characteristics related to ASF of the areas
where the products subject to the bans on the imports from these four EU member
States originated nor to the SPS characteristics related to ASF in Russia. Furthermore,
Russia did not perform a risk assessment on which it could base its evaluat ion of the
relevant elements to determine the SPS characteristics of the areas from which the
products at issue originate. Therefore, the bans on the imports of the products at issue
from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are inconsistent with Article 6.1 of the
SPS Agreement.
5.39. In particular, Russia raises two claims of error with respect to the Panel's analysis under
Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement and one claim of error with respect to the Panel's analysis under
Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement.
5.40. First, Russia submits that the Panel erred in failing to find that Article 6.3 requires panels to
take into account the scientific and technical evidence relied upon by an importing Member, as well
as that Member's assessment of the evidence submitted by an e xporting Member, in accordance
with the importing Member's appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection (ALOP). 132
Russia asserts that, as a result of its incorrect interpretation, the Panel erred in finding, in
paragraphs 7.963 and 7.456 of its Report, that the European Union had provided Russia with the
necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that areas within Lithuania, Poland, Latvia, and
Estonia, and the European Union as a whole, respectively, were ASF-free.133 Likewise, Russia
maintains that the Panel erred in finding, in paragraphs 7.1004 and 7.456 of its Report, that the
European Union had provided Russia with the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that
the ASF -free areas within Lithuania, Poland, and Estonia, and the Europ ean Union as a whole,
respectively, were likely to remain so.134
5.41. Second, Russia claims that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 6.3 by failing to
find that this provision contemplates a certain time period for an importing Member to evaluate
and verify the evidence provided by an exporting Member.135 Russia submits that, as a result of its
improper interpretation, the Panel erred in finding, in paragraphs 7.963 and 7.1003 of its Report,
that, as at 11 September 2014, the European Union had provide d the necessary evidence to
objectively demonstrate to Russia that parts of Estonia are, and are likely to remain,
disease-free.136
5.42. Third, Russia asserts that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 6.1 by finding that
an importing Member can be fou nd to have failed to adapt its measures to the SPS characteristics
of areas within an exporting Member's territory even in the situation where the exporting Member
has failed to provide the necessary evidence, pursuant to Article 6.3, in order to objective ly
demonstrate that such areas are, and are likely to remain, pest - or disease-free or of low pest or
disease prevalence. 137 Russia maintains that, as a result of its interpretative error, the Panel
improperly found, in paragraph 7.1028 of its Report, that the ban on imports of the products at
issue from Latvia is inconsistent with Article 6.1, despite having found, in paragraph 7.995 of its

132 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 93 (referring to Panel Report, paras. 7.384, 7.389,
7.391-7.396, 7.399, 7.404, 7.406, 7.412-7.414, 7.416, 7.454, 7.930, 7.932, 7.933, 7.938, 7.940, 7.969,
7.976, 7.978, 7.985, 7.987, 7.996, 7.1003, and 7.1004).
133 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 95.
134 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 95.
135 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 195 (referring to Panel Report, paras. 7.384, 7.393-7.396,
7.399, 7.404, 7.406, 7.412-7.414, 7.416, 7.454, 7.930, 7.932, 7.933, 7.938-7.940, 7.963, 7.969, 7.978,
7.987, and 7.996).
136 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 195.
137 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 259 (referring to Panel Report, paras. 7.365, 7.1011 (second
sentence), 7.1020, 7.1027, and 7.1028).

Report, that the European Union had failed to show that the ASF-free areas within Latvia's territory
were likely to remain so.138
5.43. In response, the European Union requests us to uphold the Panel's conclusions contained in
paragraphs 8.1.d.iv, 8.1.e.vii, and 8.1.e.ix of its Report.139
5.44. In its other appeal, the European Union requests us to reverse the Panel's conclusions,
contained in paragraphs 8.1.d.iii and 8.1.e.iv of its Report, that Russia recognizes the concepts of
pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence in respect of ASF, and
that, therefore, the EU -wide ban and the country -specific bans on the importation of the products
at issue from the four affected EU member States are not inconsistent with Russia's obligation
under the first sentence of Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement.140 Russia requests us to uphold these
Panel conclusions.141
5.3.1 Russia's claims under Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement
5.45. We begin by assessing Russia's claims on appeal concerning the Panel's analysis under
Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement. First, we provide an overview of the Panel's findings under
Article 6.3, referring, where r elevant, to the Panel's broader assessment of the European Union's
claims under Article 6. Next, we examine the content of Article 6.3 in the context of the process of
adaptation of measures to regional SPS characteristics pursuant to Article 6. We then pr oceed to
evaluate the merits of Russia's claims, namely , that: (i) the Panel erred in its interpretation of
Article 6.3 by failing to find that this provision requires panels to take into account the scientific
and technical evidence relied upon by an impo rting Member 142; and (ii) the Panel erred in its
interpretation of Article 6.3 by failing to find that this provision contemplates a "reasonable period
of time" for the importing Member to evaluate and verify the evidence submitted to it by the
exporting Member.143
5.3.1.1 The Panel's findings
5.46. The Panel conducted its analysis under Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement as part of its
assessment of the European Union's claims under Article 6. In setting out the order of its analysis,
the Panel stated that it would first examine "whether Russia recognizes the concept of disease-free
areas within the meaning of Article 6.2".144 Next, the Panel would turn to examining "whether the
European Union provided the necessary evidence … in order to objectively demonstrate to Russia
that within the European Union there are areas that are, and are likely to remain, pest - or
disease-free in accordance with Article 6.3".145 Finally, the Panel would consider "whether Russia
complied with the obligation in Article 6.1 to ensure the adaptation of its measures to the
SPS characteristics of the area from which the products originate and to which they are
destined."146
5.47. The Panel began its analysis under Article 6.3 by setting out the legal test it would apply in
order to assess whether the European Union had provided the necessary evidence to objectively
demonstrate to Russia that areas within the European Union are, and are likely to remain,
ASF-free. The Panel noted that Article 6.3 does not specify what type of evidence an exporting

138 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 259 (referring to Panel Report, paras. 7.995 and 7.1028).
Russia limits the scope of its claim to the Panel's findings with respect to the ban on imports of the products at
issue from Latvia. However, should we reverse the Panel's findings under Article 6.3 – that the European Union
provided the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate to Russia that areas within Estonia, Lithuania, and
Poland, and the European Union as a whole, are and are likely to remain ASF-free – Russia requests us also to
reverse the Panel's findings that the EU-wide ban and the country-specific bans on imports of the products at
issue from Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland are inconsistent with Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement.
139 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 256.
140 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 50 (referring to Panel Report, paras. 7.373,
7.379, and 7.485 with respect to the EU-wide ban, and to Panel Report, paras. 7.925 and 7.1029 with respect
to the country-specific bans on imports of the products at issue from the four affected EU member States).
141 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 2.
142 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 93.
143 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 198-199 and 201.

Member must provi de in order to make the objective demonstration required under that
provision.147 However, the Panel took the view that the factors listed in the second sentence of
Article 6.1, as well as the second sentence of Article 6.2, inform what evidence an exporting
Member needs to provide in order to make an objective demonstration under Article 6.3. The Panel
also considered the Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation of Article 6 of the
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 148 (Article 6 Guidelines) to
be informative in this respect. 149 Thus, according to the Panel, an exporting Member seeking to
objectively demonstrate to the importing Member that areas within its territory are pest - or
disease-free or of low pest or disease pr evalence should submit evidence relating, where relevant,
to: (i) geography; (ii) ecosystems; (iii) epidemiological surveill ance; (iv) effectiveness of
SPS controls; (v) level of prevalence of specific diseases or pests; (vi) existence of eradication or
control programmes; and (vii) information corresponding to appropriate criteria or guidelines
developed by the relevant international organizations. 150 The Panel cautioned that the amount of
evidence in respect of each category has to be determined on a case -by-case basis, taking due
account of the actual circumstances analysed by a panel. 151 The Panel also explained that it is
impossible for any Member to provide "laboratory -type scientific proof" that a particular disease is
not present in a certain area. 152 Rather, what an exporting Member must objectively demonstrate
depends on the specific disease and on the situation in the particular area at issue.153
5.48. Applying this test to the circumstances of this dispute, the Panel took the view that the
European Union needed to provide to Russia the necessary evidence in respect of:
(i) epidemiological surveillance of ASF; (ii) the effectiveness of sanitary or phytosanitary controls
in respect of ASF; (iii) regarding ecosystems, the presence of ASF in wildlife; and (iv) the l evel of
prevalence of ASF. 154 The Panel stated that, were it to find that "the European Union [had]
provided to Russia the necessary evidence in respect of the freedom of ASF in certain areas, and
the likelihood of those areas remaining ASF -free, regardless of subsequent developments", the
European Union "would have succeeded in objectively demonstrating that at any given point in
time the areas it claims to be ASF-free, are free of such disease and are likely to remain so."155
5.49. With respect to the "temporal fra mework" for its assessment 156, t he Panel considered it
appropriate to examine the matter referred to it up to and including the date of adoption of
Russia's latest measure at issue – namely, the ban on imports of the products at issue from
Estonia, adopted on 11 September 2014.157 Applying this temporal framework to its analysis under
Article 6.3, the Panel found it appropriate to examine the evidence provided by the
European Union to Russia up to 11 September 2014, as well as "any subsequent information on
record", in order "to determine if and at which points in time the European Union provided the
necessary evidence".158
5.50. Using this framework, the Panel reviewed the information that the European Union had
provided to Russia in support of its request for recogni tion of the relevant areas as ASF -free. This
information included: updates on the evolving ASF situation in the four affected EU member
States159; communications sent by the European Union to Russia in connection with consultations
on the manner in which to address the situation 160; and letters containing information requested
by Russia so as to determine whether the European Union had sufficiently substantiated its
"regionalization" request.161

147 Panel Report, para. 7.385.
148 Adopted by the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures at its meeting of 2-3 April 2008,

150 Panel Report, paras. 7.389 and 7.395. See also para. 7.930.
151 Panel Report, para. 7.389.
152 Panel Report, para. 7.400.
153 Panel Report, para. 7.400.
155 Panel Report, para. 7.414.
156 Panel Report, section 7.3.6.
157 Panel Report, para. 7.176.
158 Panel Report, para. 7.417.
159 Panel Report, para. 7.420.
160 Panel Report, para. 7.421.
161 Panel Report, para. 7.422.

5.51. Having examined this information, the Panel concluded that, in the p eriod up
to 11 September 2014, the European Union had "objectively demonstrated to Russia that there
[were] areas within the European Union territory, outside of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland,
which [were] free of ASF and [were] likely to remain s o".162 The Panel also noted that the latest
available information on the spread of ASF in the European Union, submitted by the parties after
11 September 2014, served to "confirm and support" this conclusion.163
5.52. Concerning the existence of ASF -free areas withi n Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland,
the Panel acknowledged "the difference in time in respect … of ASF outbreaks in the four affected
EU member States", and thus undertook a "composite and progressive examination" of the bans
on imports of the products at issue from each affected EU member State. 164 Having reviewed
"common evidentiary elements"165, the Panel concluded that the European Union had "provided to
Russia the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that, at any given point in time, there
were ASF-free areas within each of [those] States."166 The Panel, however, found it "more difficult"
to determine whether the information provided by the European Union was sufficient to objectively
demonstrate that such areas were "likely to remain" ASF-free.167 In particular, the Panel observed
that, while it would have to reach its conclusions based on the evidence that the European Union
had provided to Russia as at 11 September 2014, "neither party could have known", at that date,
"what the situation would be almost one year later". 168 Indeed, the Panel noted that the
European Union's complaint was "brought during the course of an active outbreak" of ASF "at a
time when the situation continued to evolve rapidly", and that both parties had provided
information regarding cases of ASF within the four affected EU member States occurring until late
2015.169 For the Panel, "the provision of information in this context should be detailed and
efficient", lest it prove "very difficult to consider that such evidence amount s to what is necessary"
to make the objective demonstration required under Article 6.3.170
5.53. Having reviewed specific evidence in respect of Lithuania and Poland171, the Panel concluded
that, based on information available as at 11 September 2014, the European Union had provided
to Russia the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that the ASF -free areas within those
States' territories were likely to remain so. 172 Similarly, with respect to Estonia, the Panel found
that, as at 11 September 2014, the Europea n Union had provided to Russia the necessary
evidence to objectively demonstrate that the ASF -free areas within that State's territory were
likely to remain so. 173 Given that the first ASF outbreak in Estonia occurred in September 2014,
the Panel also consid ered that "the shorter time -frame for the consideration of the necessary
evidence of the effectiveness of control measures necessitate[d] an examination of additional
information provided by the European Union after September 2014."174 The Panel found that s uch
additional information "seem[ed] to demonstrate an effective control system that ha[d] prevented
movement of infected boar into the ASF -free area and contained outbreaks in domestic pig
holdings within infected zones, with few cases [having] affect[ed] a small pig population". Thus,
according to the Panel, this information "[did] not undermine" 175 but, rather, "confirm[ed] and
support[ed]"176 a conclusion that, as at 11 September 2014, the European Union had provided to
Russia the necessary evidence to obje ctively demonstrate that the ASF -free areas within Estonia
were likely to remain so.
5.54. Finally, with respect to Latvia, the Panel found that, as at 11 September 2014, the
European Union had failed to submit to Russia the necessary evidence to objectively dem onstrate

162 Panel Report, para. 7.456.
163 Panel Report, para. 7.456. See also para. 7.455 (referring to Data from OIE WAHIS Interface, as at
31 August 2015 (Panel Exhibit RUS-296), submitted by Russia with its comments on the European Union's
responses to Panel questions).
164 Panel Report, para. 7.941.
165 Panel Report, paras. 7.942-7.962.
166 Panel Report, para. 7.963.
167 Panel Report, para. 7.964.
168 Panel Report, para. 7.965.
169 Panel Report, para. 7.965.
170 Panel Report, para. 7.967.
171 Panel Report, paras. 7.969-7.976 and 7.978-7.985, respectively.
172 Panel Report, paras. 7.976 and 7.985, respectively.
173 Panel Report, para. 7.1004.
174 Panel Report, para. 7.998.
175 Panel Report, para. 7.1003.
176 Panel Report, para. 7.1004.

that areas within that State's territory were likely to remain ASF -free. In particular, the Panel
stated that, while the European Union had provided to Russia "a fair amount of information in
respect of the measures applied in Latvia, including sw iftly communicating the facts of the
outbreaks to Russia", it had "failed to provide updated and additional information on Latvia's early
detection, surveillance and eradication plans after the outbreaks", which "would have been
necessary for Russia to evaluate the capacity and effectiveness of Latvia's ASF control plans".177
5.55. The Panel noted that all four affected EU member States had experienced further
ASF outbreaks after September 2014, and stated that it would address such subsequent
developments in the c ontext of its analysis under Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement.178 In the
context of that analysis, the Panel explained that Article 6.1 sets forth an "ongoing … obligation to
ensure adaptation" of measures, thus requiring an assessment of the SPS characteristics of the
relevant areas in light of "the most updated information on record".179 Having assessed the parties'
arguments and evidence concerning ASF outbreaks that occurred in th e four affected
EU member States between 11 September 2014 and 2 September 2015, the Panel concluded that,
in August 2015, there were areas within each of the four affected EU member States that
"remained free of ASF".180
5.3.1.2 Interpretation of Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement
5.56. Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement is part of Article 6, entitled "Adaptation to Regional
Conditions, Including Pest - or Disease-Free Areas and Areas of Low Pest or Disease Prevalence".
Article 6 of the SPS Agreement provides:
1. Members shall ensure that their sanitary or phytosanitary measures are adapted
to the sanitary or phytosanitary characteristics of the area – whether all of a country,
part of a country, or all or parts of several countries – from which the product
originated and to which the product is destined. In assessing the sanitary or
phytosanitary characteristics of a region, Members shall take into account, inter alia,
the level of prevalence of specific diseases or pests, the existence of eradication or
control programmes, and appropriate criteria or guidelines which may be developed
by the relevant international organizations.
2. Members shall, in particular, recognize the concepts of pest - or disease -free
areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence. Determination of such areas shall
be based on factors such as geography, ecosystems, epidemiologi cal surveillance, and
the effectiveness of sanitary or phytosanitary controls.
3. Exporting Members claiming that areas within their territories are pest - or
disease-free areas or areas of low pest or disease prevalence shall provide the
necessary evidenc e thereof in order to objectively demonstrate to the importing
Member that such areas are, and are likely to remain, pest - or disease-free areas or
areas of low pest or disease prevalence, respectively. For this purpose, reasonable
access shall be given, u pon request, to the importing Member for inspection, testing
and other relevant procedures.
5.57. Article 6 addresses several aspects of the process of adaptation of Members' measures to
regional SPS characteristics. The Appellate Body has noted "the existence o f important common
elements throughout Article 6", which "reveal the interlinkages that exist among the paragraphs of
this provision". 181 The "main and overarching obligation" is set forth in the first sentence of
Article 6.1, according to which Members shal l ensure that their measures are "adapted" to the
SPS characteristics of the areas from which the products at issue originate and to which they are
destined. The remainder of Article 6 "elaborates" on aspects of that obligation and sets forth "the

177 Panel Report, para. 7.995. Among the necessary information that was missing, the Panel referred to
the eradication plan for Latvia, which the European Union provided to Russia only on 19 May 2015 –
i.e. almost 11 months after the initial ASF outbreak. (See ibid., para. 7.992)
178 Panel Report, paras. 7.977, 7.986, 7.994, and 7.1002.
179 Panel Report, para. 7.1014.
180 Panel Report, paras. 7.1015-7.1018.
181 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.141.

respective duties that apply to importing and exporting Members in this connection". 182 The
regional "characteristics" that are relevant for the adaptation of an SPS measure are those relating
to the specific risk that such a measure seeks to address. In the case of a pest or disease, the
specific risk consists of the "likelihood of entry, establishment or spread" of that pest or disease
"within the territory of an importing Member" and "the associated potential biological and
economic consequences". 183 This risk is re levant to determining the level of protection deem ed
appropriate by the Member establishing an SPS measure to protect "human, animal or plant life or
health within its territory". 184 Therefore, as with any SPS measure, the regulating Member's
adaptation of i ts measures to regional SPS characteristics may be informed by that Member's
ALOP.
5.58. Under the first sentence of Article 6.1, Members are required to ensure that their measures
are adapted to regional SPS characteristics. The Appellate Body has noted that this requirement "is
an ongoing obligation that applies upon adoption of an SPS measure as well as thereafter". 185
Thus, Members are required to ensure adaptation both when adopting SPS measures and as they
maintain them, and may be required to adjust such me asures over time as the SPS characteristics
of the relevant areas change. 186 The Appellate Body has also highlighted that the obligation
contained in the first sentence of Article 6.1 applies to both "the area from which the product
originated and the area to which the product is destined".187
5.59. The second sentence of Article 6.1 speaks to a Member's "assess[ment of] the sanitary or
phytosanitary characteristics of a region", which must be conducted taking into account,
"inter alia, the level of prevalence of sp ecific diseases or pests", the "existence of eradication or
control programmes", and any "appropriate criteria or guidelines" developed by the relevant
international organizations. We consider this sentence to indicate that a Member must evaluate all
the evidence relevant to "assessing" the SPS characteristics of an area. This assessment, in turn,
provides the basis, and therefore constitutes a prerequisite, for the adaptation of that Member's
measures to such SPS characteristics pursuant to the first sente nce of Article 6.1. We note that
certain parallels exist between the assessment of the SPS characteristics of an area and the
assessment of risks pursuant to Articles 5.1 through 5.3 of the SPS Agreement. In particular,
Article 5.2 requires Members conduct ing a risk assessment to take into account, inter alia , the
"prevalence of specific diseases or pests" and the "existence of pest - or disease-free areas". In
light of these parallels, we consider that the assessment of the SPS characteristics of an area
within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 6.1 may be conducted as part of a Member's
risk assessment pursuant to Articles 5.1 through 5.3.188
5.60. The main and overarching obligation to ensure adaptation of measures to regional
SPS characteristics is fu rther informed by the second sentence of Article 6.2, which refers to a
Member's "[d]etermination" of pest - or disease -free areas or areas of low pest or disease
prevalence.189 Under this sentence, Members are required to base such a determination on factors
such as "geography, ecosystems, epidemiological surveillance, and the effectiveness of sanitary or
phytosanitary controls". By its own terms, the second sentence of Article 6.2 applies only in the
situation where the level of pest or disease prevalence in a particular area is relevant. When such
a situation arises, a Member must, as part of its assessment of the SPS characteristics of the

182 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.141.
183 Annex A(4) to the SPS Agreement.
184 Annex A(5) to the SPS Agreement.
185 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.157. (emphasis original; fn omitted)
186 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.132.
187 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.132.
188 See Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.644. In this respect, we note that, similar to the obligation
under Article 6.1 to adapt measures to regional SPS characteristics, the requirement under Article 5.1 that
measures be based on a risk assessment does not apply solely at the time of adoption but, rather, throughout
the maintenance of such measures. (See Panel Reports, Japan – Agricultural Products II, paras. 8.28-8.31; and
EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.3031)
189 Annex A(6) to the SPS Agreement defines a pest- or disease-free area as "[a]n area, whether all of a
country, part of a country, or all or parts of several countries, as identified by the competent authorities, in
which a specific pest or disease does not occur." In turn, Annex A(7) to the SPS Agreement defines an area of
low pest or disease prevalence as "[a]n area, whether all of a country, part of a country, or all or parts of
several countries, as identified by the competent authorities, in which a specific pest or disease occurs at low
levels and which is subject to effective surveillance, control or eradication measures."

relevant area, make a "determination" as to the pest or disease status of that area, based on
factors such as those listed in the second sentence of Article 6.2.190
5.61. Article 6.3, for its part, addresses the situation where an exporting Member claims that
areas within its territory are pest - or disease -free or of low pest or disease prevalence. In this
situation, the exporting Member must, pursuant to the first sentence of Article 6.3, "provide the
necessary evidence" in support of its claim "in order to objectively demonstrate to the importing
Member" that the relevant areas "are, and are likely to remain, pest- or disease-free or of low pest
or disease prevalence". The second sentence of Article 6.3 adds that the exporting Member shall
give the importing Member reasonable access to the areas covered by its claim, in order for the
importing Member to conduct "inspection, testin g and other relevant procedures". The duties set
forth in Article 6.3 are aimed at facilitating the process of ad aptation of measures to the
SPS characteristics of areas within an exporting Member's territory. That Member is usually best
placed to gather a nd provide information about the level of pest or disease prevalence in areas
located within its territory. In fact, without this cooperation by the exporting Member, it may prove
difficult for an importing Member to determine the pest or disease status of such areas and to
adapt its measures to their SPS characteristics.191
5.62. When an exporting Member claims that a certain area within its territory is pest - or
disease-free or of low pest or disease prevalence, the importing Member must evaluate all the
evidence relevant to making a determination as to the pest or disease status of that area. To this
end, the importing Member will have to examine and verify the evidence provided by the exporting
Member. Also, where relevant, the importing Member may analyse data gathered through on-site
visits to the area concerned and rely upon any other information that it may have acquired from
other sources, including from competent international organizations. 192 As discussed in
paragraphs 5.59 and 5.60 above, an importing Member's "determination" of the pest or disease
status of a given area is addressed by the second sentence of Article 6.2, and forms part of that
Member's "assess[ment]" of the SPS characteristics of that area within the meaning of the second
sentence of Article 6.1. By contrast, the importing Member's evaluation of the relevant evidence is
not covered by Article 6.3, which addresses the "duties that apply to … exporting Members".193
5.63. We now focus more closely on the terms of the first sentence of Article 6.3. In particular, we
ascertain what an exporting Member has to do in order to provide the "necessary evidence … to
objectively demonstrate to the importing Member" that are as within the exporting Member's
territory "are, and are likely to remain, pest - or disease-free areas or areas of low pest or disease
prevalence". We note that the term "evidence" has been defined as "[s]omething (including
testimony, documents and tangib le objects) that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an
alleged fact".194 We further observe that the evidence provided by the exporting Member under the
first sentence of Article 6.3 is aimed at demonstrating the pest or disease status of a particul ar
area within that Member's territory. This indicates that an exporting Member is expected to
provide particularized evidence with respect to the pest or disease and the area concerned, and
cannot merely adduce generic information or unsubstantiated asser tions. Depending on the
circumstances of the case, this evidence may encompass laboratory -type scientific information
(e.g. the pathogenicity of a given disease) and/or technical information about the situation on the
ground (e.g. the effectiveness of SPS controls in place in the area covered by the exporting
Member's claim). We further consider that the non -exhaustive list of factors enumerated in the
second sentence of Article 6.2 – including geography, ecosystems, epidemiological surveillance,
and the effectiveness of SPS controls – may shed light on the type of evidence that an exporting
Member is expected to provide under Article 6.3.195
5.64. Turning to the meaning of the term "necessary", we consider that this term is not to be read
in isolation from the rem ainder of the first sentence of Article 6.3. In particular, the "necessary"
nature of the evidence to be provided by the exporting Member relates to that Member's "objective

190 We examine the obligations set forth in Article 6.2, and especially the requirement to "recognize the
concepts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence" in the first sentence
thereof, in section 5.3.3 of this Report.
191 See e.g. Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.664.
192 This reading comports with Article 5.3.7(d) of the Terrestrial Code, which requires an importing
Member to "determine … whether it accepts an area as a zone for the importation of animal products".
193 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.141. (emphasis added)
194 Black's Law Dictionary, 7th edn, B.A. Garner (ed.) (West Group, 1999), p. 578.
195 See Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.660.

demonstration" with respect to the pest or disease status of an area within its te rritory. This
objective demonstration is to be made "to the importing Member", whose authorities must
evaluate the evidence provided by the exporting Member in respect of the relevant area.
Accordingly, we consider that the term "necessary" qualifies the n ature, quantity, and quality of
the evidence to be provided by the exporting Member, which must be sufficient to enable the
importing Member ultimately to make an objective "determination" as to the pest or disease status
of the area concerned, within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 6.2. As we have
explained in paragraph 5.59 above, this determination forms part of the importing Member's
assessment of the SPS characteristics of that area, within the meaning of the second sentence of
Article 6.1, and provides the basis for the importing Member's adaptation of its measure to such
SPS characteristics, as required by the first sentence of Article 6.1. At the same time, the term
"necessary" may also indic ate certain limitations on the nature, quantity, and quality of the
evidence to be provided by the exporting Member: in particular, the exporting Member cannot be
required to provide evidence that is excessive or not pertinent to a determination by the imp orting
Member with respect to the pest or disease status of the relevant area.
5.65. What exactly constitutes "necessary" evidence for the purposes of the first sentence of
Article 6.3 must be ascertained in light of the facts and circumstances of each case. Giv en the
interlinkages between the various provisions of Article 6, an analysis of whether the evidence is
"necessary" may be informed by what the second sentences of Articles 6.1 and 6.2 require for an
assessment of the SPS characteristics of the relevant a rea. Moreover, an importing Member will
usually design its SPS measures, as well as the modalities of t heir adaptation to regional
SPS characteristics, on the basis of its ALOP. Therefore, the importing Member's ALOP may inform
the nature, quantity, and quality of the evidence that an exporting Member is expected to provide
in order to make the objective demonstration provided for in Article 6.3.196 The situation may arise
where, upon review, the evidence provided by the exporting Member proves insufficient f or the
importing Member to reach a determination as to the pest or disease prevalence in the area
concerned in light of its ALOP. In this case, the importing Member may request the exporting
Member to supply additional evidence, pursuant to Article 6.3.197 In this situation, however, the
term "necessary" also serves to ensure that requests for additional information by the importing
Member do not go beyond what is required for determining the pest or disease status of the
relevant areas.198
5.66. Finally, we wish to highlight an implication stemming from the fact that the objective
demonstration by the exporting Member, provided for in the first sentence of Article 6.3, is
addressed "to the importing Member". As discussed in paragraph 5.64 above, it is for the
importing Member's authorities to evaluate all evidence relevant to the pest or disease status of a
given area. Hence, a panel's review of compliance by the exporting Member with Article 6.3 must
be limited to assessin g whether the evidence provided by the exporting Member to the importing
Member is of a nature, quantity, and quality sufficient to enable the importing Member's
authorities ultimately to make a determination as to the pest or disease status of the relevan t
areas within the exporting Member's territory. However, a panel assessing compliance with

196 We note that, in the context of Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, the Appellate Body has stated that
a risk assessment "cannot be entirely isolated" from the ALOP, as there may be circumstances in which the
ALOP chosen by a Member "affects the scope or method of the risk assessment". (Appellate Body Reports,
US – Continued Suspension / Canada – Continued Suspension, para. 534) According to the Appellate Body,
"the determination of whether scientific evidence is sufficient to assess the existence and magnitude of a risk
[is not] disconnected from the intended level of protection." (Ibid., para. 686) At the same time, the
Appellate Body has cautioned that the chosen ALOP "must not affect the rigour or objective nature of the risk
assessment" or "pre-determine [its] results". (Ibid., para. 534) Similar considerations apply, in our view, in the
context of the process set out in Article 6. For instance, the importing Member's ALOP may be relevant for
assessing what constitutes "low pest or disease prevalence" and what scientific and technical evidence is
required, pursuant to the first sentence of Article 6.3, to show that the level of pest or disease prevalence in a
given area is, indeed, "low". However, this does not suggest that the importing Member's ALOP may affect the
rigour or pre-determine the result of that Member's evaluation of the evidence in respect of the relevant areas
under the second sentences of Articles 6.1 and 6.2.
197 In this respect, we observe that the typical administrative steps set out in the Article 6 Guidelines
contemplate an exchange of information in good faith between the exporting Member and the importing
Member, whereby the former provides scientific and technical information about areas within its territory and
the latter reviews it and communicates any deficiencies.
198 This finds support in Annex C(1)(c) to the SPS Agreement, which requires Members to ensure, with
respect to any procedure to check and ensure the fulfilment of SPS measures, that "information requirements
are limited to what is necessary for appropriate control, inspection and approval procedures".

Article 6.3 is not called upon to determine for itself, based on the evidence provided by the
exporting Member, whether the relevant areas are, and are likely to re main, pest- or disease-free
or of low pest or disease prevalence.
5.3.1.3 Whether the Panel erred in not finding that Article 6.3 requires consideration of
the evidence relied upon by the importing Member
5.67. We now proceed to evaluate Russia's claim that the Panel er red in its interpretation of
Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement by failing to find that this provision requires panels to take into
account the scientific and technical evidence relied upon by the importing Member, as well as the
importing Member's assessmen t of the evidence submitted by the exporting Member, in light of
the importing Member's ALOP. 199 According to Russia, Article 6.3 requires panels assessing the
exporting Member's compliance with that provision to consider: (i) findings regarding the quality,
nature, extent, and timing of the evidence provided by the exporting Member to the importing
Member; (ii) findings regarding evidence generated by the importing Member from audits and
investigations conducted on the territory of the exporting Member; (iii ) an assessment and
findings of the quality and credibility of the scientific and technical evidence relied upon by the
importing Member; (iv) evaluations of the exporting Member's evidence by the importing Member;
(v) an assessment of the importing Member's ALOP; and (vi) an assessment of the experience and
knowledge of the importing Member in combating the disease in question.200
5.68. In Russia's view, this interpretation finds support in the text and context of Article 6.3.
Beginning with the text, Russia argue s that the words "in order to", followed by the phrase
"objectively demonstrate to the importing Member", indicate that the focus of the exporting
Member's task of assembling the necessary evidence is "to convince the importing Member to
accept the proffer ed zone" as being, and likely to remain, disease -free.201 Russia asserts that an
importing Member's assessment of the evidence pursuant to Article 6.3 is directed at evaluating
the scientific and technical evidence put forth by the exporting Member, and may entail drawing
from different, and possibly competing, sources. 202 Russia further submits that the word
"necessary" before the word "evidence" indicates that the sufficiency of an exporting Member's
evidence may depend on the importing Member's ALOP. 203 In terms of context, Russia maintains,
first, that the second sentence of Article 6.3, which accords the importing Member the right to
inspect a zone "for the purpose of verifying" the exporting Member's demonstration 204, indicates
that panels "cannot ignore" the evidence obtained from inspection visits and audit reports relied
upon by the importing Member. 205 Second, Russia points out that Arti cle 5.3.7(d) of the
Terrestrial Code requires an importing Member to "determine … whether it accepts an area as a
zone for t he importation of animal products". 206 Third, Russia notes that the nine typical
administrative steps in the recognition process set out in the Article 6 Guidelines envisage that the
importing Member evaluates the information provided by the exporting Member .207 Fourth, Russia
submits that, since the importing Member's evaluation under Article 6 forms part of that Member's
risk assessment under Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement208, a panel's task is limited to
reviewing whether the assessment carried out by the importing Member is objectively
justifiable.209 Finally, in Russia's view, interpreting Article 6.3 as not requiring consideration of the
scientific and technical evidence relied upon by the importing Member in light of that Member's

199 See supra, para. 5.40.
200 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 155.
201 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 113. (emphasis original)
202 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 119.
203 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 124. According to Russia, this is buttressed by
paragraphs 8-10 of the Article 6 Guidelines, which state that an importing Member may reach any
determination under Article 6 in accordance with its ALOP.
204 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 127 (quoting Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural
Products, para. 5.140).
205 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 128.
206 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 131.
207 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 132-133.
208 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 135 (referring to Panel Report, US – Animals, paras. 7.644
and 7.1025).
209 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 136 (referring to Appellate Body Reports,
US – Continued Suspension / Canada – Continued Suspension, para. 590).

ALOP would not al low for the adequate protection of the life and health of animals, thereby
frustrating the object and purpose of the SPS Agreement.210
5.69. The European Union, for its part, maintains that the Panel did not err in its interpretation of
the first sentence of Artic le 6.3 of the SPS Agreement with regard to the scientific and technical
evidence relied upon by an importing Member. 211 The European Union recognizes that, as part of
the process set out in Article 6, the evidence submitted by the exporting Member must be
assessed by the importing Member. However, the European Union contends that the first sentence
of Article 6.3 speaks solely to the "evidence" that an exporting Member must provide to an
importing Member in the context of the administrative process between th e two Members. 212
Therefore, according to the European Union, the "matter" before the Panel in this dispute was the
question of whether the evidence provided to Russia by the European Union fulfilled the
requirements of Article 6.3.213 By contrast, the Europea n Union argues that the "self -fabricated"
information that Russia submitted to the Panel during the course of the proceedings did not form
part of that matter. 214 Hence, the European Union asserts that the Panel rightfully omitted to
review that information, otherwise it would have engaged in an impermissible de novo review.215
The European Union also maintains that, contrary to Russia's position, the first sentence of
Article 6.3 does not relate to the importing Member's ALOP but, rather, to the necessary evid ence
relating to the matters specified in that sentence. 216 For the European Union, Russia's attempt to
equate the word "necessary" in Article 6.3 with a subjective test, giving unfettered discretion to
the importing Member, is at odds with the notion of "ne cessity" und er Article XX(b) of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 – on which the SPS Agreement elaborates – and
with the concept of "objective demonstration" in Article 6.3.217
5.70. We begin our assessment by recalling that, under the first sentence of Article 6.3, an
exporting Member claiming that areas within its territory are pest- or disease-free or of low pest or
disease prevalence must "provide the necessary evidence" in support of its claim "in order to
objectively demonstrate to the importing Member" that the relevant areas "are, and are likely to
remain, pest- or disease-free or of low pest or disease prevalence". Further, in paragraph 5.64
above, we have explained that the evidence to be provided by the exporting Member under the
first sentence of Article 6.3 must be of a nature, quantity, and quality sufficient for an objective
determination by the importing Member as to the pest or disease status of the relevant area. In
paragraph 5.62 above, we have noted that Article 6.3 addresses exclusively the "duties that apply
to … exporting Members" in connection with the process set out in Article 6. 218 Thus, we consider
that Article 6.3 does not address the obli gations of the importing Member in the context of this
process.
5.71. Rather, the obligations of the importing Member in connection with the process of adapting
measures to regional SPS characteristics are set forth in Articles 6.1 and 6.2. In particular, when
an exporting Member claims, pursuant to Article 6.3, that areas within its territory are pest - or
disease-free or of low pest or disease prevalence, the importing Member is required to evaluate all
the relevant evidence concerning those areas, with a view to "determin[ing]" their pest or disease
status under the second sentence of Article 6.2 and "assessing" their SPS characteristics under the
second sentence of Article 6.1. In conducting their evaluation, the importing Member's authorities
must review the evidence provided by the exporting Member. They may also rely upon data
gathered through on-site visits to the areas concerned and on any other relevant evidence that the
importing Member may have acquired from other sources, including from competent inter national
organizations. We have further considered that the importing Member's assessment of the
SPS characteristics of the relevant areas may, in certain cases, be conducted as part of a
Member's risk assessment pursuant to Articles 5.1 through 5.3. In this respect, we note that, in its
analysis under Article 6.1, the Panel found that Russia did not base the measures at issue on a risk

210 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 147-151.
211 European Union's appellee's submission, section III.B.2.iii.
212 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 142.
213 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 144.
214 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 144. See also paras. 142 and 192.
215 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 145.
216 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 147.
217 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 159-160.
218 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.141. (emphasis added)

assessment219; nor did Russia show that its authorities had otherwise conducted an evaluation of
scientific and technical evidence in respect of the SPS characteristics of the relevant areas.220
5.72. In light of the above, while we consider that the proces s of adaptation to regional
SPS characteristics pursuant to Article 6 requires that all the pertinent evidence in respect of the
relevant areas (including by relying upon scientific and technical evidence in its possession) be
evaluated, we disagree with Russia that this requirement is contained in Article 6.3. As set out in
paragraph 5.62 above, the obligations of an importing Member in connection with the process of
adapting measures to regional SPS characteristics are set forth in Articles 6.1 and 6.2; Article 6.3,
in turn, sets out the duties of an exporting Member claiming that areas wi thin its territory are
pest- or disease-free or of low pest or disease prevalence. Thus, the Panel's task under Article 6.3
was to assess whether the evidence provided by the European Union to Russia was of a nature,
quantity, and quality sufficient to ena ble the Russian authorities ultimately to make a
determination as to the pest or disease status of the relevant areas within the European Union. In
paragraph 5.66 above, we have clarified that, in conducting an assessment under Article 6.3, a
panel is not called upon to determine for itself, based on the evidence provided by the exporting
Member, whether the relevant areas are, and are likely to remain, pest - or disease-free or of low
pest or disease prevalence.
5.73. In articulating what it considered to be its task under Article 6.3, the Panel stated that, if it
were to find that "the European Union [had] provided to Russia the necessary evidence in respect
of the freedom of ASF in certain areas, and the likelihood o f those areas remaining ASF -free,
regardless of subsequent developments", then it would conclude that "the European Union [had]
succeeded in objectively demonstrating that at any given point in time the areas it claims to be
ASF-free, are free of such dise ase and are likely to remain so." 221 This statement is somewhat
ambiguous as to whether the Panel considered that the ass essment of whether the
European Union had provided the necessary evidence required for an "objective demonstration" of
the ASF status of the relevant areas was to be conducted by the Panel itself , rather than by the
Russian authorities.
5.74. While the Panel's articulation of its task may be read as suggesting that the Panel did not
clearly recognize the role of the Russian authorities in evalua ting evidence in respect of the
relevant areas, we observe that, in the remainder of its analysis, the Panel correctly identified the
importing Member's authorities as the proper addressee of the European Union's objective
demonstration of the pest or dise ase status of the relevant areas under Article 6.3. For instance,
the Panel found that "the European Union [had] provided to Russia the necessary evidence to
objectively demonstrate" that, at any given point in time, there were ASF -free areas within the
four affected EU member States. 222 Similarly, the Panel found that "the European Union had not
provided sufficient information to 'objectively demonstrate' to Russia " that the ASF -free areas
within Latvia were likely to remain so. 223 Specifically, the Panel stat ed that the European Union
had failed to provide to Russia "information [that] would have been necessary for Russia to
evaluate the capacity and effectiveness of Latvia's ASF control plans". 224 These findings indicate to
us that, despite some ambiguity in th e language used in parts of its reasoning, the Panel properly
understood its role under Article 6.3, and limited its review to whether the European Union's
evidence was sufficient to enable the Russian authorities to reac h a determination as to the
ASF status of the relevant areas.

219 Panel Report, paras. 7.482, 7.483, 7.1025, and 7.1026.
220 In this respect, we recall that, while the importing Member's ALOP may inform the nature, quantity,
and quality of the evidence that an exporting Member is expected to provide in order to make the objective
demonstration provided for in Article 6.3, it cannot affect the rigour or pre-determine the result of that
Member's evaluation of the evidence in respect of the relevant areas under the second sentences of Articles 6.1
and 6.2. (See supra, para. 5.65 and fn 196 thereto) Therefore, we do not see that Russia's ALOP in respect of
ASF would affect its obligation to objectively evaluate the evidence provided by the European Union with a view
to determining the pest or disease status of the relevant areas and assessing their SPS characteristics.
221 Panel Report, para. 7.414. Similarly, later in its Report, the Panel stated that "to objectively
demonstrate that there are ASF-free areas in the European Union …, the European Union's burden … [was] to
demonstrate that it provided Russia the necessary evidence" in respect of the relevant factors previously
identified by the Panel. (Ibid., para. 7.428)
222 Panel Report, para. 7.963. (emphasis added) The Panel used similar wording also in its conclusion
that "the European Union [had] provided to Russia the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate" that
ASF-free areas within Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland were likely to remain so. (Ibid., para. 7.1004)

5.75. Based on the foregoing, while the Panel could have been clearer in articulating its task
under Article 6.3, we find that the Panel did not err in its interpret ation of Article 6.3 of the
SPS Agreement by not finding that this pr ovision requires consideration of the evidence relied
upon by the importing Member.
5.3.1.4 Whether the Panel erred in not finding that Article 6.3 contemplates a period of
time for the importing Member to evaluate and verify the evidence provided by the
exporting Member
5.76. Russia also claims that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 6.3 of the
SPS Agreement by not finding that this provision contemplates some time for the importing
Member to evaluate and verify the evidence provided by the exporting Membe r.225 Russia submits
that, as a consequence of its incorrect interpretation, the Panel improperly set the cut -off date for
its assessment at 11 September 2014, thereby establishing a timeframe of only three days
between the date of the first ASF outbreak in Estonia (8 September 2014) and the date at which,
according to the Panel, the European Union had provided the necessary evidence to Russia under
Article 6.3. According to Russia, this time interval was insufficient for the Russian authorities to
even trans late the relevant documents into Russian, let alone send experts to carry out an
inspection visit to Estonia.226
5.77. Russia contends that the importing Member's evaluation of whether the exporting Member
has provided the "necessary" evidence, as well as the impo rting Member's conduct of "inspection,
testing and other relevant procedures" 227, are actions that take a reasonable period of time to be
completed.228 In Russia's opinion, what constitutes a "reasonable" time period depends on various
factors229, including: the timespan that has elapsed between the disease outbreak and the
"regionalization" request230; the expansion of disease -free areas and/or the establishment of new
disease-free areas 231; the differences in veterinary services and geography between exporting
countries232; whether the exporting country is dealing with an outbreak for the first time or has
already accumulated experience from prior outbreaks 233; and whether, during the importing
Member's evaluation, disease outbreaks occur in the alleged disease -free areas.234 Russia asserts
that its interpretation finds support in the context of Article 6.3. In particular, Russia points to the
Article 6 Guidelines and Article 5.3.7(d) of the Terrestrial Code, which both indicate that the
importing Member should evaluate the information provided by the exporting Member and reach a
determination thereon within a reasonable period of time. 235 Russia also stresses that, under
Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a) to the SPS Agreement, not every lapse of time constitutes an undue
delay, as "a certain period of time is usually necessary for a Member to undertake and complete a
control, inspection or approval procedure". 236 In this respect, Russia also recalls the Panel's
finding, in the context of Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement, that a Member may require a certain
period of time to process detailed and complex information.237
5.78. The European Union acknowledges that, in principle, the process set out in Article 6 requires
a certain time period to be completed. In particular, the European Union argu es that a "short
suspension period" is usually needed between the notification of an outbreak to the OIE and the
moment trade resumes, in order for the exporting and the importing Members to conduct their
respective domestic procedures.238 However, for the E uropean Union, such a suspension period is
not covered by Article 6.3 but, rather, by Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement, which allows the
importing Member temporarily to stop trade based on a "less" objective risk assessment, while

225 See supra, para. 5.41.
226 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 202.
227 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 210-211.
228 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 212.
229 See, generally, Russia's appellant's submission, para. 237.
230 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 214.
231 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 215.
232 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 215-216.
233 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 218.
234 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 217.
235 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 223 and 225.
236 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 227 (quoting Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.113).
237 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 230.
238 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 221.

seeking the additional in formation necessary for a "more" objective risk assessment. 239 In turn,
the European Union contends that the notion of a reasonable period of time under Article 5.7 is
"related" to the notion of "undue delay" under Annex C(1)(a) to the SPS Agreement.240 According
to the European Union, Russia is improperly attempting to "merge" an analysis under
Annex C(1)(a) and Article 5.7 with the analysis under Article 6.3.241 The European Union maintains
that, given the factual circumstances of this case, the Panel correctly concluded that the
European Union had provided Russia with the necessary evidence for the Russian authorities to
determine that areas within Estonia were and were likely to remain ASF -free.242 In particular, the
European Union asserts that, after the first ASF case in Lithuania in January 2014, but well before
the first ASF case in Estonia in September 2014, it had provided the Russian authorities with
"abundant information and evidence" so as to objectively demonstrate the existence of areas,
including within the territory of Estonia, that were and were likely to remain ASF-free.243
5.79. In paragraphs 5.59-5.62 above, we have explained that, when adapting measures to
regional conditions pursuant to Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, an importing Member is required
to evaluate all the relevant evidence concerning the areas that the exporting Member claims to be
pest- or disease -free or of low pest or disease prevalence. The import ing Member's evaluation
must include the evidence provided by the exporting Member, and may encompass data gathered
through on-site visits to the areas concerned, as well as any other relevant scientific and technical
information that the importing Member may have acquired from other sources, including from
competent international organizations. We have also clarified that the importing Member's
evaluation of the relevant evidence is not covered by Article 6.3 but, rather, relates to the
importing Member's "determination" as to the pest or disease status of the relevant areas under
the second sentence of Article 6.2, and constitutes a component of that Member's "assess[ment]"
of the SPS characteristics of those areas pursuant to the second sentence of Articl e 6.1. In turn,
the assessment and determination made by the importing Member under the second sentences of
Articles 6.1 and 6.2 provide the basis for the "adapt[ation]" of th at Member's measures to the
SPS characteristics of the relevant areas, as required by the first sentence of Article 6.1.
5.80. The importing Member's evaluation of the relevant evidence for the purposes of assessing
the SPS characteristics of a particular area and determining its pest or disease status can hardly
be performed instantly but, rather, requires a certain period of time to be carried out. Neither
participant disputes this, and the Panel itself recognized that "a Member may require [a] certain
[period of] time to process detailed and complex information", and "may even need to tra nslate
such information in order to properly assess it". 244 Likewise, the adaptation of a measure to the
SPS characteristics of the relevant area may require a certain period of time in light of the
importing Member's domestic regulatory processes. Hence, when an exporting Member claims that
areas within its territory are pest - or disease -free or of low pest or disease prevalence, the
importing Member must be accorded a certain period of time to conduct its evaluation of the
relevant evidence concerning the p est or disease status of such areas and to adapt its measures
accordingly, as prescribed by Article 6.1 and the second sentence of Article 6.2.
5.81. However, the time that may be taken by the importing Member for its evaluation of
evidence concerning the pest or disease status of the relevant areas is not left to that Member's
unfettered discretion. In fact, we note that Annex C(1)(a) to the SPS Agreement requires Members
to "ensure, with respect to any procedure to check and ensure the fulfilment of [SPS] meas ures,
that … such procedures are undertaken and completed without undue delay". 245 This obligation to
proceed without undue delay helps shed light on the appropriateness of the period of time that the
importing Member enjoys to evaluate the relevant evidence concerning the pest or disease status
of a given area in the context of its assessment and determination pursuant to the second
sentences of Articles 6.1 and 6.2, and adapt its measures to the SPS characteristics of the relevant

239 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 222.
240 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 228.
241 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 224.
242 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 207.
243 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 213.
245 Annex C(1) is given operational effect through Article 8 of the SPS Agreement, according to which
"Members shall observe the provisions of Annex C in the operation of control, inspection and approval
procedures". We observe that the Panel found that the process set out in Article 6 constitutes a procedure
falling within the purview of Article 8 and Annex C(1). (Panel Report, paras. 7.518, 7.521, 7.522, 7.1057,
and 7.1061) These Panel findings have not been appealed.

areas pursuant to the firs t sentence of Article 6.1. In particular, the notion of "undue delay" does
not cover any lapse of time, but only delays that "[go] beyond what is warranted" or are otherwise
"unjustifiable".246 This suggests that what constitutes an appropriate period of tim e is to be
assessed on a case -by-case basis and may depend on, among other things, the nature and
complexity of the procedure to be undertaken and completed.247
5.82. In light of the above, we consider that the time required for an importing Member to
evaluate all the relevant evidence relating to a given area pertains to the determination of the pest
or disease status of that area pursuant to the second sentence of Article 6.1, the assessment of its
SPS characteristics pursuant to the second sentence of Article 6.2, and ultimately the adaptation of
the importing Member's measures to such SPS characteristics pursuant to the first sentence of
Article 6.1. Likewise, the period of time required for the importing Member's authorities to fulfil
such duties and obligatio ns is covered by the disciplines of Articles 6.1 and 6.2, and is not part of
the duties of an exporting Member pursuant to Article 6.3. We therefore disagree with Russia that
the Panel was required, as part of its analysis under Article 6.3, to take into a ccount the period of
time required for the Russian authorities to evaluate and verify the evidence provided by the
European Union.
5.83. Instead, as we have explained in paragraph 5.72 above, the Panel's task under A rticle 6.3
was to assess whether the evidence provided by the European Union to Russia was of a nature,
quantity, and quality sufficient to enable the Russian authorities ultimately to make a
determination as to whether the relevant areas were, indeed, ASF -free and likely to remain so. To
recall, the Panel found that the evidence provided by the European Union as at
11 September 2014 was sufficient for Russia to make such a determination with respect to areas
within Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland, as well a s to areas within the European Union outside of the
four affected member States. 248 The scope of these Panel findings is limited to the
European Union's compliance with Article 6.3. By contrast, contrary to Russia's position, the
Panel's findings do not impl y that Russia was required to comply with its obligations under
Articles 6.1 and 6.2 immediately after the European Union had provided the necessary evidence
under Article 6.3. In our view, the Panel did not require Russia to have evaluated all the scienti fic
and technical evidence in respect of the relevant areas by 11 September 2014. Rather, Russia
enjoyed a certain period of time to conduct its evaluation with a view to reaching a determination
as to the ASF status of the relevant areas and assessing the ir SPS characteristics. Nor do we
believe that the Panel's findings imply that Russia was required t o adapt its measures to the
SPS characteristics of such areas by that date.
5.84. In this regard, we note that the Panel did consider the period of time required for the
Russian authorities to evaluate and verify the evidence provided by the European Union and move
forward with the process. For instance, when examining the consistency of Russia's measures with
Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a) to the SPS Agreement , the Panel considered that, when a Member
"makes unnecessary information requests, which go far beyond what would be required to make a
substantive assessment of the situation subject to the procedure at issue", that Member would act
in a manner that impedes un dertaking and completing the respective procedures without undue
delay.249 The Panel found that, at several points in the process, Russia addressed "excessive
information requests" to the European Union with respect to the ASF situation in the relevant
areas.250 The Panel concluded that, by making such requests, Russia failed to undertake and
complete the procedure without undue delay, inconsistently with Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a). 251
These Panel findings have not been appealed. We thus proceed on the basis tha t Russia failed to
carry out its duties in connection with the process set out in Article 6 within an appropriate period
of time.
5.85. Finally, we observe that, while the Panel stated that it would examine the matter referred to
it up to 11 September 2014, and found that the European Union had provided the necessary
evidence in respect of areas within Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland, as well as areas within the

246 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 437; Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of
247 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1497; US – Poultry (China),
para. 7.354; US – Animals, para. 7.114.
248 Panel Report, paras. 7.456 and 7.1004.
250 Panel Report, paras. 7.568-7.570, 7.1085, and 7.1086.
251 Panel Report, paras. 7.584 and 7.1099.

European Union outside of the four affected member States 252, the Panel, in fact, also took into
account information submitted after 11 September 2014 at several points in its analysis. Indeed,
the Panel expressly recognized that its factual assessment was made more complex by the
"constantly shifting situation and frequent expansion of the protection and su rveillance zones" in
the four affected EU member States.253 In reviewing the evidence provided by the European Union
in respect of areas within Estonia claimed to be disease -free or of low disease prevalence, the
Panel considered that, given that the first A SF outbreak in tha t EU member State occurred on
8 September 2014, the "time -frame for the consideration of the necessary evidence of the
effectiveness of control measures" required an "examination of additional information provided by
the European Union after September 2014".254 In its review, the Panel found that this additional
information "[did] not undermine" its conclusion that, as at 11 September 2014, the
European Union had provided to Russia the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that
the A SF-free areas within Estonia were likely to remain so. 255 The Panel also expressed its
awareness that Estonia experienced further ASF outbreaks after September 2014, and stated that
it would address such subsequent developments in the context of its analysis under Article 6.1.256
Having conducted this additional review, the Panel concluded that the arguments and evidence
adduced by the parties concerning ASF outbreaks that occurred in Estonia between
11 September 2014 and 2 September 2015 showed that, "in Augus t 2015, there were areas in
Estonia that remained free of ASF."257
5.86. In sum, an importing Member's evaluation of the evidence provided by an exporting
Member requires a certain period of time to be completed. This period of time is not covered by
Article 6.3 but, rather, by Article 6.1 and the second sentence of Article 6.2, as informed by
Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a) to the SPS Agreement. The Panel did take into account the period of
time required for the Russian authorities to evaluate and verify the evidence provided by the
European Union, and made the unappealed finding that Russia failed to complete the process set
out in Article 6 within an appropriate period of time. Moreover, we disagree with Russia that the
Panel improperly set the cut -off date for its assessment at 11 September 2014. The Panel did, in
fact, consider evidence submitted after that date as part of its analysis under Article 6.1. We
therefore find that the Panel did not err in its interpretation of Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement by
not finding that this provision contemplates a certain period of time for the importing Member to
evaluate and verify the evidence provided by the exporting Member.
5.3.1.5 Conclusions on Russia's claims under Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement
5.87. With respect to Russia's c laims on appeal that the Panel erred in its interpretation of
Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, we consider that the proces s of adaptation to regional
SPS characteristics pursuant to Article 6 requires that the importing Member evaluate all the
relevant evidence concerning the areas that an exporting Member claims are pest - or disease-free
or of low pest or disease prevalence. This evaluation is addressed by the second sentences of
Articles 6.1 and 6.2 of the SPS Agreement , as it relates to the importing Me mber's determination
of the pest or disease status of the areas concerned and its assessment of their
SPS characteristics, with a view to adapting its measures accordingly. Similarly, the period of time
that the importing Member may take to conduct its eva luation and to adapt its measures to the
SPS characteristics of the relevant areas is covered by Article 6.1 and the second sentence of
Article 6.2, as informed by Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a) to the SPS Agreement. By contrast, neither
the importing Member' s evaluation of the relevant evidence nor the period of time required to
carry out this evaluation are covered by Article 6.3, which addresses the duties that apply to the
exporting Member in connection with the process set out in Article 6. A panel's revi ew under
Article 6.3 is limited to assessing whether the evidence provided by the exporting Member to the
importing Member is of a nature, quantity, and quality sufficient to enable the importing Member's
authorities ultimately to make a determination as t o the pest or disease status of the areas that
the exporting Member claims to be pest- or disease-free or of low pest or disease prevalence.

252 Panel Report, para. 7.1004.
255 Panel Report, para. 7.1003.
256 Panel Report, para. 7.1002.
257 Panel Report, para. 7.1018.

5.88. For the reasons set out above, we uphold the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.456, 7.963,
and 7.1004 of the Panel Report, that, as at 11 September 2014, the European Union had provided
the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate to Russia that: (i) areas within Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland, a s well as areas within the European Union outside of the four affected
member States, were ASF-free; and (ii) the ASF -free areas within Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland,
as well as the ASF -free areas within the European Union outs ide of the four affected
member States, were likely to remain so. 258 We note that the Panel 's conclusions, as set out in
paragraphs 8.1.d.iv, 8.1.e.vii, and 8.1.e.viii of its Report, are worded somewhat differently from
the Panel's findings mentioned above. Therefore, while we uphold these conclusions, we
understand them as follows:
a. in the perio d between 7 February 2014 and 11 September 2014, the European Union
had provided the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate to Russia, pursuant to
Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, that there were areas within the European Union,
outside of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, which were free of ASF and were likely
to remain so;
b. at least as at 11 September 2014, the European Union had provided the necessary
evidence to objectively demonstrate to Russia, pursuant to Article 6.3 of the
SPS Agreement, that there were areas within Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland that
were free of ASF;
c. at least as at 11 September 2014, the European Union had provided the necessary
evidence to objectively demonstrate to Russia, pursuant to Article 6.3 of the
SPS Agreement, that the ASF-free areas within Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland were likely
to remain so; however, the European Union failed to provide the necessary evidence to
objectively demonstrate to Russia, pursuant to Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, that
the ASF-free areas within Latvia were likely to remain so.
5.3.2 Russia's claim regarding the relationship between Article 6.1 and Article 6.3 of the
SPS Agreement
5.89. We now turn to Russia's claim that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 6.1. In
particular, Russia submits that the Panel erred in finding that an importing Member can be found
to have failed to adapt its measures to the SPS characteristics of areas within an exporting
Member's territory even in a situation where the exporting Member ha s failed to provide the
necessary evidence, pursuant to Article 6.3, in order to objectively demonstrate that such areas
are, and are likely to remain, pest - or disease-free or of low pest or disease prevalence. 259 Russia
contends that, as a result of its inter pretative error, the Panel improperly found that the ban on
imports of the products at issue from Latvia is inconsistent with Article 6.1.260 We begin by
providing a brief overview of the Panel's findings under Article 6.3 and Article 6.1 in respect of the
ban on imports of the products at issue from Latvia.
5.3.2.1 The Panel's findings
5.90. As part of its analysis under Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, the Panel evaluated whether
the European Union had provided the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate to Russ ia
that areas within the territory of Latvia were, and were likely to remain, ASF -free.261 The Panel
made the intermediate finding that the European Union had provided to Russia the necessary
evidence to objectively demonstrate that, "at any given point in t ime, there were ASF -free areas"

258 As discussed in footnote 138 above, had we reversed the Panel's findings under Article 6.3, Russia
would have requested us also to reverse the Panel's findings that the EU-wide ban and the country-specific
bans on imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland are inconsistent with Article 6.1.
Since we are, instead, upholding the Panel's findings under Article 6.3, we need not address Russia's
conditional claim on appeal.
259 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 259 (referring to Panel Report, paras. 7.365, 7.1011 (second
sentence), 7.1020, 7.1027, and 7.1028).
260 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 259 (referring to Panel Report, paras. 7.995 and 7.1028).
261 Panel Report, paras. 7.942-7.968 and 7.987-7.995.

within Latvia.262 However, the Panel also found that the European Union had not provided Russia
with the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that such ASF -free areas within Latvia
were likely to remain so. In particu lar, the Panel considered that, "although the European Union
[had] provided to Russia a fair amount of information in respect of the measures applied in
Latvia", it had "failed to provide updated and additional information on Latvia's early detection,
surveillance and eradication plans after the outbreaks", which would have been "necessary for
Russia to evaluate the capacity and effectiveness of Latvia's ASF control plans".263
5.91. In setting out the legal test for its analysis under Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement, the
Panel addressed the potential implications of its findings under Article 6.3 for that analysis. The
Panel noted the Appellate Body's statement in India – Agricultural Products that "an exporting
Member claiming … that an importing Member has faile d to determine a specific area within that
exporting Member's territory as 'pest - or disease-free' – and ultimately adapt its SPS measures to
that area – will have difficulties succeeding in a claim that the importing Member has thereby
acted inconsistentl y with Articles 6.1 or 6.2, unless that exporting Member can demonstrate its
own compliance with Article 6.3."264 However, the Panel also noted that, according to the
Appellate Body, the above statement does not suggest that a Member adopting or maintaining an
SPS measure can " only" be found to have breached the obligation in the first sentence of
Article 6.1 after an exporting Member has made the objective demonstration provided for in
Article 6.3.265 In particular, the Panel recalled the Appellate Body's stat ements that, "even in the
absence of such objective demonstration by an exporting Member, a Member may still be found to
have failed to ensure that an SPS measure is adapted to regional conditions within the meaning of
Article 6.1 in a situation where, for example, the concept of pest - and disease -free areas is
relevant, but such Member's regulatory regime precludes the recognition of such concept." 266
Moreover, "pest - or disease -free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence, which are
specifically addressed in Articles 6.2 and 6.3, are only a subset of the SPS characteristics that may
call for the adaptation of an SPS measure pursuant to the first sentence of Article 6.1."267 These
considerations confirm that "a Member may act inconsistently with the o bligation under the first
sentence of Article 6.1 absent the objective demonstration provided for in Article 6.3 by an
exporting Member."268 Having noted these statements by the Appellate Body, the Panel concluded:
We understand the Appellate Body's guidance as indicating that a determination of
whether a Member ensures adaptation of its measures to the SPS characteristics of
the importing Member or prevailing in its territory, pursuant to Article 6.1 of the
SPS Agreement, can be found even when an exporting Member has failed to make the
objective demonstration pursuant to Article 6.3. In light of this guidance, we will
assess whether the import bans on the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland, are adapted to the SPS characteristics of areas within those
affected EU member States and of Russia.269
5.92. The Panel then turned to assess whether the country -specific bans imposed on imports of
the products at issue from the four affected EU member Stat es were adapted to regional
SPS characteristics, as required under the first sentence of Article 6.1. The Panel found that, by
imposing country-wide bans on imports of such products from the four affected EU member States
(including Latvia), Russia failed to recognize the existence of ASF -free areas within these member
States, and thus failed to adapt its measures to the SPS characteristics of such areas.270 Moreover,
the Panel noted that, starting in 2007, there had been ASF outbreaks in Russia, and that the

262 Panel Report, para. 7.963. According to the Panel, the existence of ASF-free areas within the
territory of Latvia continued through August 2015, despite the occurrence of several ASF outbreaks in other
parts of the country. (See ibid., para. 7.1017)
263 Panel Report, para. 7.995.
264 Panel Report, para. 7.1009 (quoting Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products,
para. 5.156).
265 Panel Report, para. 7.1010 (quoting Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products,
para. 5.157 (emphasis original)).
266 Panel Report, para. 7.1010 (quoting Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products,
para. 5.157).
267 Panel Report, para. 7.1010 (quoting Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products,
para. 5.157).
268 Panel Report, para. 7.1010 (quoting Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products,
para. 5.157).
269 Panel Report, para. 7.1011.
270 Panel Report, para. 7.1020.

disease had not been eradicated.271 The Panel took the view that the existence of a disease within
the importing country was a "factor[] that affect[s] the potential risks presented by imported
products and that thus must be considered when determining whether a particular measure is
adapted to the SPS characteristics of the region to which a product is destined." 272 Thus, the Panel
found that Russia had failed to adapt its measures to the SPS characteristics of the areas to which
the products at issue were destined. 273 Finally, the Panel observed that Russi a had not based
either its EU -wide ban or the country -specific bans on imports of the products at issue from the
four affected EU member States on a risk assessment. In the Panel's view, the lack of a risk
assessment limited Russia's ability to assess the SPS characteristics of the areas from wh ich the
products at issue originated, and of the areas to which they were destined, with a view to ensuring
adaptation of its measures to such characteristics. 274 Based on the foregoing, the Panel concluded
that Russia's bans on imports of the products at issue from the four affected EU member States
(including Latvia) were inconsistent with Article 6.1.
5.3.2.2 Whether the Panel erred in finding that Russia had failed to ensure adaptation
of its ban on imports of the products at issue from Latvia to regional SPS characteristics
5.93. Russia maintains that, when an exporting Member has requested the recognition of a
disease-free area, it must first demonstrate that the conditions of Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement
are met; only after the exporting Member has provided the necessary evidence pursuant to
Article 6.3 is the importing Member's obligation triggered under Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement.
For Russia, the reference in the second sentence of Article 6.1 to the "level of preval ence of
specific diseases or pests" in the relevant areas ties the importing Member's obligation to ensure
adaptation directly to the exporting Member's objective demonstration under Article 6.3. Thus,
Russia contends that, when an exporting Member has fai led to provide the necessary evidence to
objectively demonstrate to the importing Member, pursuant to Article 6.3, that areas within its
territory are and are likely to remain pest- or disease-free or of low pest or disease prevalence, an
importing Member has no obligation to adapt its measures to the SPS characteristics of such areas
under Article 6.1.275
5.94. Russia further submits that the typical administrative steps of the process described in the
Article 6 Guidelines, as well as Article 5.3.7 of the Terrestr ial Code, all indicate that the importing
Member's ability to adapt its measures to the SPS characteristics of areas within the exporting
Member's territory depends on the exporting Member's objective demonstration as to the pest or
disease status of such areas.276 In Russia's view, the Panel erred in attaching no significance to the
exporting Member's duty to provide the necessary evidence that a particular area is likely to
remain disease -free, thereby depriving Article 6.3 of meaning and reducing this prov ision to "a
nullity".277 In support of its interpretation, Russia also relies upon the Appellate Body's statement
in India – Agricultural Products that an exporting Member will have difficulties succeeding in a
claim under Article 6.1 and/or Article 6.2 if i t has not demonstrated its own compliance with
Article 6.3.278 Russia acknowledges that, according to the Appellate Body, a violation of Article 6.1
and/or Article 6.2 could be found even absent the exporting Member's compliance with Article 6.3
in certain specific situations.279 However, Russia contends that this is not the case here.280
5.95. The European Union requests the Appellate Body to uphold the Panel's finding that Russia
failed to adapt the ban on imports of the products at issue from Latvia to the SPS characteristics of
areas within the Latvian territory. In particular, the European Union submits that the Panel did not
err in its interpretation of the relationship between Article 6.1 and Article 6.3. 281 The

271 Panel Report, para. 7.1022.
272 Panel Report, para. 7.1023.
273 Panel Report, paras. 7.1020-7.1023 and 7.1027.
274 Panel Report, paras. 7.1026-7.1027.
275 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 265.
276 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 278-283.
277 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 291.
278 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 293 (referring to Appellate Body Report,
India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.156). See also Russia's appellant's submission, para. 294 (referring to
279 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 296 (referring to Appellate Body Report,
India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.157).
280 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 303. See also paras. 307-312.
281 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 255.

European Union argues that the scenarios in which a violation of Article 6.1 and/or Article 6.2
could be found even absent the exporting Member's compliance with Article 6.3, as identified by
the Appellate Body in India – Agricultural Products , do not constitute an exhaustive list. For
example, in a situati on where sufficient evidence is already in the possession of the importing
Member, that Member could be found to breach Article 6.1 even if the exporting Member has not
complied with Article 6.3. In addition, the European Union stresses that the Panel's fi nding that
Russia failed to adapt its ban on imports of the products at issue from Latvia to the
SPS characteristics of areas within Russia is, alone, sufficient to conclude that Russia's measure is
inconsistent with Article 6.1.282
5.96. Russia's claim on appeal raises the issue of the relationship between Article 6.1 and
Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement. In particular, we must ascertain what implications, if any, a
finding that an exporting Member has failed to comply with Article 6.3 may have for an
assessment of an importing Member's compliance with Article 6.1. At the outset of our analysis,
we recall that, pursuant to the first sentence of Article 6.1, a Member must ensure the adaptation
of its measures to the SPS characteristics of the area from which a prod uct originated and of the
area to which the product is destined. Under the second sentence of Article 6.1, that Member must
assess the SPS characteristics of the relevant areas with a view to adapting its measures
accordingly. In turn, Article 6.3 applies to the particular situation in which an exporting Member
claims that areas within its territory are pest- or disease-free or of low pest or disease prevalence.
In this situation, the exporting Member must, pursuant to the first sentence of Article 6.3, "provide
the necessary evidence" in support of its claim "in order to objectively demonstrate to the
importing Member" that the relevant areas "are, and are likely to remain, pest - or disease-free or
of low pest or disease prevalence".
5.97. The relationship between Article 6.1 and Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement was addressed by
the panel and the Appellate Body in India – Agricultural Products. The panel in that dispute stated
that Article 6.3 "is not directly linked to the first two paragraphs of Article 6".283 The
Appellate Body expressed concern at that panel's statement. 284 It held that, while "there is no
explicit conditional language linking Article 6.1 and Article 6.3", all the provisions composing
Article 6 "need to be read together" 285, as they are all "linked to, and interact with, the
overarching obligation to ensure that a Member's SPS measures are adapted to the
SPS characteristics of the relevant areas".286 Based on a holistic reading of the three paragraphs of
Article 6, the Appellate Body explained that, wh en the importing Member has "received a request
from an exporting Member to recognize an area within its territory as 'disease-free'", the exporting
Member "will be able to establish that the importing Member's failure to recognize and determine
that disease-free area, and to adapt its SPS measure accordingly, is inconsistent with Articles 6.1
and 6.2 only if that exporting Member can also establish that it took the steps prescribed in
Article 6.3."287
5.98. The Appellate Body, however, also clarified that this sh ould not suggest that "a Member
adopting or maintaining an SPS measure can only be found to have breached the obligation in the
first sentence of Article 6.1 after an exporting Member has made the objective demonstration
provided for in Article 6.3."288 Rather, situations exist in which, "even in the absence of such
objective demonstration by an exporting Member, a Member may still be found to have failed to
ensure that an SPS measure is adapted to regional conditions within the meaning of Article 6.1."289
One such situation is, for instance, where "the concept of pest - and disease-free areas is relevant,
but a Member's regulatory regime precludes the recognition of such concept." 290 Second, pest- or
disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalenc e " are only a subset of the
SPS characteristics that may call for the adaptation of an SPS measure pursuant to the first
sentence of Article 6.1".291 Third, under certain circumstances, the adaptation of a measure to
regional SPS characteristics "may be accompl ished by taking into account relevant criteria and

282 European Union's response to questioning at the oral hearing.
283 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.674.
284 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.144.
285 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.155. (emphasis original)
286 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.144. (fn omitted)
287 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.156.
288 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.157. (emphasis original)
289 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.157.
290 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.157.
291 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.157.

guidelines developed by [the relevant international] organizations, if any". 292 Finally, the
Appellate Body recalled that "the overarching requirement under Article 6.1 to ensure the
adaptation of SPS measur es is an ongoing obligation that applies upon adoption of an
SPS measure as well as thereafter." 293 The Appellate Body concluded that all of these
considerations reinforce that a Member may be found to have acted inconsistently with the
obligation under the first sentence of Article 6.1 even in the absence of the exporting Member
providing the necessary evidence for an objective demonstration under Article 6.3.294
5.99. In the statements above, the Appellate Body was explaining that, on the one hand, the
exporting Me mber's compliance or non -compliance with Article 6.3 will, in many cases, have
implications for the importing Member's ability to assess the SPS characteristics of areas located
within the exporting Member's territory and to adapt its measures accordingly, as required by
Article 6.1. This is because, as discussed in paragraph 5.61 above, the exporting Member is
usually best placed to gather and provide information about the level of pest or disease prevalence
in areas located within its territory, such that, without its cooperation, an importing Member's
ability to determine the pest or disease status of such areas and to adapt its measures to their
SPS characteristics may, in certain cases, be impaired. On the ot her hand, the Appellate Body
rejected the notion that an importing Member's violation of Article 6.1 would necessarily be
contingent on the exporting Member's compliance with Article 6.3. Indeed, the Appellate Body
considered that, in certain situations, t he importing Member may be required to adapt its
measures to regional SPS characteristics irrespective of the exporting Member's showing that it
has complied with Article 6.3.
5.100. In light of the above, we consider that a panel should conduct a careful case -by-case
examination, based on all relevant circumstances, before reaching its conclusions as to the
relationship between the exporting Member's compliance or non -compliance with Article 6.3 and
the alleged breach of Article 6.1 by the importing Member. In the present dispute, the Panel found,
in the context of its analysis under Article 6.3, that the European Union had provided Russia with
the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that, at any given point in time, there were
ASF-free areas within the territory of Latvia. 295 However, the Panel also found that the
European Union had not provided the necessary evidence for an objective demonstration that such
ASF-free areas within Latvia were likely to remain so. 296 In our view, the issue of the potential
implications of a finding that an exporting Member has not complied with Article 6.3 for an analysis
of whether the importing Member has breached its obligations under Article 6.1 arises, in
particular, in connection with the latter finding by the Panel, rel ating to the likelihood that areas
within Latvia would remain ASF-free.
5.101. The Panel understood the Appellate Body's guidance as indicating that an importing
Member's violation of Article 6.1 "can be found even when an exporting Member has failed to
make the objective demonstration pursuant to Article 6.3".297 This understanding by the Panel is
not, in itself, at odds with the Appellate Body's statements in India – Agricultural Products. In fact,
as discussed in paragraph 5.98 above, the Appellate Body recognized that, in certain situations, an
importing Member may be required to adapt its measures to regional SPS characteristics
irrespective of whether or not an exporting Member has complied with Article 6.3.
5.102. Yet, we recall that at the core of this dispute lies the European Union's request for Russia
to recognize areas both outside and inside of each of the four affected EU member States as
ASF-free and likely to remain so, and to adapt its SPS measures accordingly. I n these factual
circumstances, once the Panel had found that the European Union had failed to provide the
necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate to Russia that the ASF -free areas within Latvia
were likely to remain so 298, we would have expected the Pa nel to consider the potential
implications of that finding for the question of whether Russia had complied with its obligation
under Article 6.1 to adapt the ban on imports of the products at issue from Latvia to the
SPS characteristics of those areas. To the extent the Panel considered that the factual
circumstances of this dispute fell within one of the situations identified by the Appellate Body in

292 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.157.
293 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.157. (emphasis original; fn omitted)
294 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.157.
295 Panel Report, para. 7.963.
296 Panel Report, para. 7.995.
297 Panel Report, para. 7.1011.
298 Panel Report, para. 7.995.

India – Agricultural Products, where an importing Member's violation of Article 6.1 may be found
even though the exporting Member has failed to show compliance with Article 6.3, we would have
expected the Panel to provide reasoning in this respect.
5.103. The Panel provided no explanation as to whether it considered the factual circumstances of
this dispute to be aki n to one of the situations identified by the Appellate Body in
India – Agricultural Products . Nor did the Panel explore whether additional, comparable
circumstances existed in this dispute that otherwise warranted a finding that Russia had failed to
ensure the adaptation of the ban on imports of the products at issue from Latvia under Article 6.1
despite the fact that the European Union had failed to make an objective demonstration pursuant
to Article 6.3. Rather, the Panel moved on to assess whether Russi a had adapted its measures to
the SPS characteristics of the relevant areas, including areas within the territory of Latvia,
pursuant to the first sentence of Article 6.1. In so doing, the Panel d id not attach any significance
to its finding that the Europ ean Union had failed to provide the necessary evidence to objectively
demonstrate to Russia that areas within the territory of Latvia were likely to remain ASF -free. We
therefore find that the Panel erred in finding, in paragraph 7.1028 of the Panel Report, that Russia
had failed to adapt the ban on imports of the products at issue from Latvia to the ASF-free areas
within Latvia.
5.104. In light of this conclusion, we must now ascertain the consequences of the Panel's error for
the Panel's ultimate conclusion tha t the ban on imports of the products at issue from Latvia is
inconsistent with Article 6.1. In this respect, we recall the Panel's finding that "Russia did not base
either its EU-wide ban or the bans on products at issue from the four ASF -affected member States
on a risk assessment ."299 According to the Panel, the lack of a risk assessment limited Russia's
ability to, inter alia, assess the SPS characteristics of the relevant areas within the territory of
Latvia and to adapt its measure accordingly. 300 Therefore, the Panel found that Russia's failure to
conduct a risk assessment "further reinforced" the conclusion that the ban on imports of the
products at issue from Latvia is inconsistent with Article 6.1.301 In paragraph 5.59 above, we have
taken the view that the assessment of the SPS characteristics of an area may, but need not, be
conducted as part of a Member's risk assessment. We have also explained that the assessment of
the SPS characteristics of an area provide s the basis for the adap tation of a measure to such
SPS characteristics pursuant to the first sentence of Article 6.1. As Russia did not base the ban on
imports of the products at issue from Latvia on a risk assessment, and did not show that its
authorities had otherwise conducted an evaluation of scientific and technical evidence in respect of
the SPS characteristics of areas within the Latvian territory, we fail to see the basis on which
Russia could have adapted its measure to the SPS characteristics of such areas.
5.105. Moreover, we observe that Russia's failure to adapt the measure in question to the
SPS characteristics of areas within the territory of Latvia was not the sole ground for the Panel's
finding of inconsistency with Article 6.1. Rather, the Panel also found that Russia failed to adapt its
measure to the SPS characteristics of areas within the territory of Russia, thereby breaching its
obligation under Article 6.1 in respect of the SPS characteristics of the area "to which the product
is destined".302 While Russia does not appeal this latter finding by the Panel 303, it contends that
this finding does not constitute an independent ground for finding an inconsistency with
Article 6.1, because the Panel did not make relevant f indings with respect to the
SPS characteristics prevailing in Russia 304, and did not compare such characteristics to those
prevailing in Latvia.305
5.106. We are not persuaded by Russia's contention that the Panel made no factual and legal
findings with respect of ASF prevalence in the areas with in the Russian territory "to which the
product is destined". The Panel observed that, starting in 2007, there ha d been ASF outbreaks in
Russia, and that the disease ha d not been eradicated. 306 According to the Panel, the presence of
ASF in these areas was highlighted by the consulted experts several times during the course of the

299 Panel Report, para. 7.1026.
300 Panel Report, para. 7.1026.
301 Panel Report, para. 7.1027.
302 Panel Report, para. 7.1028.
303 Russia's response to questioning at the oral hearing.
304 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 309.
305 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 311.
306 Panel Report, para. 7.1022.

Panel proceedings.307 In particular, the Panel referred to Dr Gavin Thomson's statements that the
ASF problem "is a regional one encompassing the Caucuses, Baltic States, the Russian F ederation
and eastern parts of the EU", and that, "from an ASF perspective, the whole region seems to be in
roughly the same position." 308 On this basis, the Panel took the view that the existence of a
disease within areas of the importing Member's territory is a "factor[] that affect[s] the potential
risks presented by imported products and that thus must be considered when determining whether
a particular measure is adapted to the SPS characteristics of the region to which a product is
destined."309 In light of the above, we consider that the Panel sufficiently substantiated its
reasoning and articulated its analysis as to the ASF situation in Russia as to provide an
independent ground for a finding that Russia's ban on imports of the products at issue from La tvia
is inconsistent with Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement.
5.3.2.3 Conclusion on Russia's claim regarding the relationship between Article 6.1 and
Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement
5.107. With respect to Russia's claim on appeal that the Panel erred in its interpretatio n of the
relationship between Article 6.1 and Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, we consider that an
exporting Member's failure to provide the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that
areas within its territory are pest - or disease -free or of low pest or disease prevalence will, in
many cases, have implications for the importing Member's ability to assess the SPS characteristics
of such areas and to adapt its measures accordingly. A panel may, in certain specific situations
such as those identified by the Appellate Body in India – Agricultural Products , find that an
importing Member failed to comply with Article 6.1 irrespective of the exporting Member's
compliance or non-compliance with Article 6.3. However, a panel should provide reasoning
explaining why the circumstances of the dispute fall within one or more of those specific situations,
or why they otherwise warrant a finding that the importing Member acted inconsistently with
Article 6.1. The Panel in this dispute did not provide such reasoning.
5.108. Therefore, we modify the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.1028 and 8.1.e.ix of the Panel
Report, to the effect that the European Union has failed to demonstrate that Russia did not adapt
the ban on imports of the products at issue from Latvia to the SP S characteristics of areas within
the Latvian territory, pursuant to Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement . However, given the Panel's
finding that Russia failed to adapt the ban on imports of the products at issue from Latvia to the
SPS characteristics of areas within Russia, the Panel's conclusion that this measure is inconsist ent
with Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement stands.
5.3.3 The European Union's claim under Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement
5.109. The European Union requests us to reverse the Panel's conclusions that Russia recognizes
the concepts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence in respect
of ASF, and that, therefore, the EU -wide ban and the country -specific bans on the importation of
the products at issue from the four affec ted EU member States are not inconsistent with Russia's
obligation under Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement.310 Furthermore, the European Union requests
us to complete the legal analysis and find that Russia has failed to comply with its obligation under
Article 6.2 to recognize the concept of regionalization in respect of ASF.311
5.110. For its part, Russia requests us to uphold the above conclusions of the Panel. 312
Furthermore, Russia requests that, in the event that we find that the Panel erred in its analysis
under Article 6.2, we complete the legal analysis and find that Russia recognizes the concept of
regionalization in respect of ASF.313

307 Panel Report, para. 7.1022.
308 Panel Report, para. 7.1023 (quoting Panel expert Dr Gavin Thomson's response to European Union's
question No. 5, para. 1.128).
309 Panel Report, para. 7.1023.
310 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 50 (referring to paras. 7.373, 7.379, 7.485,
and 8.1.d.iii of the Panel Report with respect to the EU-wide ban, and to paras. 7.925, 7.1029, and 8.1.e.vi of
the Panel Report with respect to the country-specific bans).
311 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 50.
312 Russia's appellee's submission, paras. 76, 78, and 96.
313 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 80.

5.3.3.1 The Panel's findings
5.111. Before the Panel, the European Union alleged that Russia is in breach of the obligation set
out in the first sentence of Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement to recognize the concepts of pest - or
disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence wi th respect to ASF. The
European Union argued that the country -specific bans and the EU -wide ban on the impo rtation of
the products at issue fail to distinguish between ASF -free areas and areas considered infected with
ASF within the E uropean Union and the four partially affected EU member States. 314 Therefore,
these measures do not match but, in fact, contradict the allegedly explicit recognition in Russian
legislation.315
5.112. In response, Russia argued before the Panel that the obligation in Article 6.2 to recognize
the concepts of pest - or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence does not
impose an obligation on the importing Member to recognize a specific area in the exporting
Member as pest- or disease-free or of low pest or disease prevalence, but that it merely requires
the importing Member to allow for the consideration of regionalization.316
5.113. At the outset of its analysis, the Panel noted that Article 6 does not specify any particular
manner in which a Member must "recognize" the concepts set out in Article 6.2. 317 The Panel then
quoted from the interpretation of Article 6.2 developed by the Appe llate Body in
India ‒ Agricultural Products, and went on to consider evidence submitted by Russia in support of
its contention that the concept of regionalization is recognized in Russia's legal framework. In
particular, the Panel considered several elements of Customs Union Decision No. 317318, as well as
the 2006 Memorandum between the European Union and Russia 319, and several elements of the
EU–Russia bilateral veterinary certificates.320
5.114. Thereafter, the Panel referred to statements of the panels in US – Animals and
India ‒ Agricultural Products that Article 6.2 simply requires an acknowledgement of the concept of
regionalization in the form of "abstract idea s" and thus imposes a less stringent or less exigent
obligation than Article 6.1, which requires Members to "ensure" that a measure is "adapted" to the
SPS characteristics of an area. 321 In light of this observation, the Panel found that "Russia's
legislative framework recognizes the concept of regionalization within the meaning of
Article 6.2."322
5.115. The Panel then state d that "the parties' arguments press us to further examine whether
such recognition in a Member's legislative [or] regulatory framework suffices for a Member to
comply with its obligations under the first sentence of Article 6.2 in respect of the specific
SPS measures at issue in a given case." 323 In particular, the Panel noted the European Union's
contention that "what matters for the present analysis 'is not the abstract, distinct from and taken
prior to , recognition of the concept of disease -free areas in the Russian legislation, but the
recognition of this concept through and upon adoption of the very SPS measure that is required to
be adapted to the SPS characteristics of the relevant areas.'"324

314 European Union's second written submission to the Panel, para. 91.
315 Panel Report, para. 7.374 (referring to European Union's second written submission to the Panel,
para. 92).
316 Panel Report, para. 7.374 (referring to Russia's second written submission to the Panel, para. 135, in
turn referring to the Article 6 Guidelines).
317 Panel Report, para. 7.367 (referring to Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products,
para. 5.136).
318 Panel Report, paras. 7.369 and 7.371 (referring to Decision of the Customs Union Commission
No. 317 of 18 June 2010 on Common Veterinary (Veterinary and Health) Requirements in relation to Goods
Subject to Veterinary Control (Inspection), as amended (Customs Union Decision No. 317) (Panel Exhibit
RUS-25.b)).
319 Panel Report, para. 7.371 (referring to 2006 Memorandum (Panel Exhibit EU-61)).
320 Panel Report, para. 7.371 (referring to Veterinary certificate for EU exports to Russia (Panel Exhibit
EU-52); and other veterinary certificates set out in Panel Report, fn 248 to para. 7.141).
321 Panel Report, para. 7.373 and fn 545 thereto (referring to Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.647,
in turn referring to Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.670).
323 Panel Report, para. 7.374.
324 Panel Report, para. 7.374 (quoting European Union's second written submission to the Panel,
para. 90 (emphasis original)).

5.116. The Panel then referred to the concerns expressed by the App ellate Body about certain
statements made by the panel in India – Agricultural Products, which could be read as excluding
that recognition of the concepts under Article 6.2 "could be done through and upon adoption of the
very SPS measure that is adapted to the SPS characteristics of the relevant areas." 325 However,
the Panel in the present dispute considered that, in India – Agricultural Products , the
Appellate Body was addressing a situation "where an SPS measure adopted by a Member could
recognize the conce pts mentioned in Article 6.2 even in the absence of such recognition in a
pre-existing regulatory framework".326 In the Panel's view, it was faced in the present case with a
different situation, because the measures at issue had been adopted in the context o f a regulatory
framework that contains "a general recognition of the concepts mentioned in the first sentence of
Article 6.2".327
5.117. Finally, the Panel explained that the European Union's claim under Article 6.2 in the
present case was "best examined in the con text of [the] analysis of a Member's obligation under
Article 6.1, rather than under Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement".328 In particular, the Panel
expressed a concern not to analyse "a crucial element of [the] assessment under Article 6.1,
i.e. whether Russ ia calibrated the measures at issue to the existence or not of ASF -free areas
within the European Union, through the lens of Article 6.2" and thus to act against the principle of
effective treaty interpretation.329
5.118. Based on these considerations, the Panel co ncluded that Russia recognizes the concepts of
pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence in respect of ASF, and
that, therefore, the EU -wide ban and the country -specific bans are not inconsistent with Russia's
obligation under the first sentence of Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement.330
5.3.3.2 Interpretation of Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement
5.119. The European Union appeals the Panel's finding that Russia recognizes the concepts of
pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence in respect of ASF.331 For its
part, Russia requests us to affirm the Panel's finding. 332 We begin by setting out our interpretation
of Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement as relevant to the claim before us. We then turn to review the
Panel's analysis and address the specific arguments raised on appeal by the participants.
5.120. The Appellate Body addressed the interpretation of Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement in
India – Agricultural Products . Th is provision is part of Article 6, which, as its title indicate s,
concerns the adaptation of measures to regional conditions. The overarching obligation is set out
in the first sentence of Article 6.1, and stipulates that Members shall ensure that their
SPS measures are "adapted" to the "sanitary or phytosanitary char acteristics" of the areas from
which the product originated and to which the product is destined.333
5.121. Article 6.2 elaborates on a specific aspect of that overarching obligation. 334 Beginning with
the words "Members shall", Article 6.2 stipulates a general obli gation.335 This obligation is
introduced with the words "in particular", which express a proposition in which something is said
about some, but not all, of a class.336 The words "in particular" connecting Article 6.2 to Article 6.1
thus clarify that the obligation in Article 6.2 regarding pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low

325 Panel Report, para. 7.375 (quoting Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products,
para. 5.143).
326 Panel Report, para. 7.375.
327 Panel Report, para. 7.376.
328 Panel Report, para. 7.376.
329 Panel Report, para. 7.378.
330 Panel Report, paras. 7.379, 7.925, 8.1.d.iii, and 8.1.e.vi.
331 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 50 (referring to paras. 7.373, 7.379, 7.485,
and 8.1.d.iii of the Panel Report with respect to the EU-wide ban, and to paras. 7.925, 7.1029, and 8.1.e.vi of
the Panel Report with respect to the country-specific bans). In this Report, we also refer to the "concepts of
pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence" jointly as the concept of
"regionalization".
332 Russia's appellee's submission, paras. 76, 78, and 96.
333 See Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.141.
334 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.141.
335 See e.g. Appellate Body Report, EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings, para. 97.
336 Oxford English Dictionary online, definition of "in particular", available at:
<http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/138260>.

pest or disease prevalence relates to a subset of the SPS characteristics that are relevant under
Article 6.1. 337 We recall that, in India – Agricultural Products , with respect to the obligation in
Article 6.1, the Appellate Body held that this is not a "static", but an ongoing obligation, requiring
that SPS measures be adjusted over time so as to remain adapted to the SPS characteristics of the
relevant areas.338
5.122. By referring to regional conditions "including" pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low
pest or disease prevalence, the title of Article 6 further supports the understanding that the pest or
disease status of an area is a subset of all the SPS characteristics of an area tha t may call for the
adaptation of an SPS measure. As such, the pest and disease status is part of the broader set of
regional conditions to be considered under Article 6.1.339 In this vein, together with the title to
Article 6, the words "in particular" in Article 6.2 underline the interlinkages between the first and
second paragraphs of Article 6.340 Furthermore, the Appellate Body highlighted the particular
saliency of "pest- or disease-free areas" and "areas of low pest or disease prevalence" as factors to
be taken into account in assessing the SPS characteristics of a region, pursuant to the second
sentence of Article 6.1.341
5.123. Article 6.2 describes the scope of the Members' obligation as "recogniz[ing] the concepts"
of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of lo w pest or disease prevalence. The definition of the
word "concept" includes "a general notion or idea". 342 The verb "recognize", in turn, is defined as
"[t]o accept the authority, validity, or legitimacy of" something. 343 Because the absence or low
prevalence of a pest or disease is part of the broader set of regional conditions to be considered
under Article 6.1, we must consider the meaning of the terms of Article 6.2 within the context of
the principal obligation stipulated in Article 6.1, namely, that SPS m easures be adapted to the
SPS characteristics of the area s from which the product originated and to which the product is
destined. Article 6.1 provides that Members shall "ensure" that their SPS measures are adapted to
the SPS characteristics of the area f rom which the product originated. The Appellate Body noted
that the verb "ensure" is defined as making certain the occurrence of a situation or outcome 344,
and thus envisages that Members take steps towards the achievement of adaptation of their
measures to the SPS characteristics of certain areas.
5.124. The Appellate Body understood the use of the verb "ensure" in connection with the
adaptation of "SPS measures" in the plural as indicating something that should be done
consistently and systematically by Members. 345 Moreover, the Appellate Body noted that the
reference to "SPS measures" in the plural suggests that the obligation of adaptation to regional
conditions applies generally, as well as in connection with each specific SPS measure maintained
by a Member. At the same time, the Appellate Body attached significance to the fact that Article 6
does not specify any particular manner in which a Member must ensure adaptation of its
SPS measures within the meaning of Article 6.1, or how it must recognize the concepts s et out in
Article 6.2.346 The Appellate Body considered that this suggests that Members enjoy a "degree of
latitude" in determining how to ensure adaptation of their SPS measures to regional conditions
pursuant to Article 6.1, and how to recognize the relevant concepts pursuant to Article 6.2.347
5.125. The second sentence of Article 6.2 refers to a Member's "determination" of pest - or
disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence, and stipulates that such
determination shall be based on factors such as those listed in that sentence. 348 As we see it,
making a determination pursuant to Article 6.2 requires the importing Member to take specific

337 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.140.
338 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.132.
339 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.133.
340 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.133.
341 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.133.
342 Oxford English Dictionary online, definition of "concept", available at:
<http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/38130>.
343 Oxford English Dictionary online, definition of "recognize", available at:
<http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/159656>.
344 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.132.
345 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.132.
346 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.136.
347 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.137.
348 In particular, the second sentence of Article 6.2 refers to geography, ecosystems, epidemiological
surveillance, and the effectiveness of sanitary or phytosanitary controls.

steps, and thus envisages a certain process, for the determination of pest- or disease-free areas or
areas of lo w pest or disease prevalence. In this vein, the Appellate Body has held that the
assessment of whether a Member has complied with the obligations in Articles 6.1 and 6.2 may
involve "scrutiny of the specific steps and acts that the Member has or has not ta ken" in light of
the SPS characteristics of the relevant areas, as well as of broader aspects of the importing
Member's regulatory regime governing SPS matters. 349 Specific instances of recognition or
non-recognition of the concepts of pest - or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease
prevalence may thus be relevant in the analysis of whether an importing Member complies with its
obligation under the first sentence of Article 6.2. Where such instances of recognition are
presented to a panel, these instances must be taken into consideration in the assessment of
whether or not a Member has complied with its obligation under Article 6.2.
5.126. Furthermore, we attach significance to the fact that Article 6.3 envisages that the
exporting Member may make the cl aim that areas within its territory are pest - or disease-free or
of low pest or disease prevalence. Taking into account the ongoing nature of the obligation to
adapt SPS measures to regional conditions, we consider that Article 6.2 requires the importing
Member to provide an effective opportunity for the exporting Member to make the claim,
addressed to the importing Member, that areas within its territory are pest - or disease-free or of
low pest or disease prevalence, by maintaining a practice of, or a proc ess for, receiving such a
claim by an exporting Member affected by a specific SPS measure. Accordingly, we see Article 6.2
not as an obligation to acknowledge the concept of regionalization as an abstract idea 350; rather,
we see it as an obligation to render operational the concepts of pest - or disease-free areas and
areas of low pest or disease prevalence.
5.127. Finally, we note that Article 6.2 does not prescribe a particular manner in which Members
must recognize the concepts of pest - or disease -free areas and areas of low pest or disease
prevalence. We therefore consider that a Member's recognition of such concepts may be expressed
in different ways. The recognition of the concepts of pest - or disease-free areas and areas of low
pest or disease prevalence will often be embodied in a Member's regulatory framework. In that
respect, the Appellate Body held that the assessment of the consistency of an SPS measure with
the obligations of Article 6.1 and Article 6.2 will be facilitated in circumstances where Members put
in place a regulatory scheme or structure that accommodates adaptation of SPS measures on an
ongoing basis.351
5.128. At the same time, we recall that the Appellate Body held that recognition of the relevant
concepts pursuant to Article 6.2 will not necessarily , and in every case, require an affirmative act
that is "distinct from and taken prior to" the adoption of an SPS measure. 352 Accordingly, specific
instances of recognition or non -recognition of the concepts of pest - or disease -free areas and
areas of low pest or disease prevalence may be relevant for assessing a Member's compliance with
Article 6.2. In this vein, we can also conceive of the situation where recognition of the relevant
concepts is not contained in the regulatory framework, but manifests itself in a Member's practice
of giving an effective opportunity to an exporting Member to make the claim that areas within its
territory are pest- or disease-free or of low pest or disease prevalence.
5.129. In sum, while the assessment of a Member's compliance with Article 6.2 will be a function
of the specific claims raised by the complainant and the circumstances of any particular case, we
consider that, in any event, the obligation to "recognize the concepts" of pest - or disease -free
areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence pursuant to Article 6.2 is part of the overarching
obligation of Members to ensure adaptation of their SPS measures to regional conditions under
Article 6.1. Moreover, the obligation in Article 6.2 must also be interpreted in light of t he fact that
Article 6.3 envisages that an exporting Member may make the claim, addressed to the importing
Member, that areas within its territory are pest - or disease -free or of low pest or disease
prevalence. In particular, we have found that the importi ng Member must provide an effective
opportunity for the exporting Member to make such a claim and thus render operational the
concepts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence. This may be
achieved through, individually or jointly: a provision in the reg ulatory framework; the very
SPS measure at issue; and a practice of recognizing pest - or disease-free areas or areas of low

349 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.137.
350 See Panel Report, para. 7.373.
351 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.138.
352 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.143. (emphasis original)

pest or disease prevalence. All these elements may be relevant in an assessment of a Member's
compliance with the obligation under Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement. As each element may
contribute to a different degree to the overall compliance by that Member with its obligation to
recognize the concepts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pes t or disease prevalence,
the focus of a panel's analysis will depend on the circumstances of the case and the particular
instruments at issue.
5.3.3.3 Whether the Panel erred in finding that Russia recognizes the concepts of
pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence in respect of ASF
5.130. We now turn to review the Panel's analysis under Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement, in
order to assess the European Union's claim that the Panel erred in finding that Russia recognizes
the concepts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence in respect
of ASF. In particular, the European Union contends that the Panel erred in considering that
Article 6.2 requires merely an "abstract" recognition of the concept of regionalizatio n, for instance,
in the form of a pre -existing regulatory framework.353 The European Union highlights that the text
of the first sentence of Article 6.2 does not refer to a particular manner in which a Member shall
recognize the concept of regionalization an d submits that, therefore, such recognition can occur in
different ways, such as through a pre -existing regulatory framework or through the very measure
at issue.354
5.131. For the European Union, a concrete measure post -dating the regulatory framework can in
fact contradict the formal regulatory framework, effectively deny "regionalization", and thus
amount to actual non -recognition of the concepts of pest - or disease-free areas and areas of low
pest or disease prevalence. 355 The European Union argues that, in such situations, an importing
Member would only "pay lip service" to the recognition of the concept and at the same time refuse
the imports of the products at issue. 356 Such conduct would not comply with the obligation under
Article 6.2 to recognize the concepts of pest - or disease -free areas and areas of low pest or
disease prevalence.
5.132. For its part, Russia submits that the Panel correctly found that Article 6.2 requires an
importing Member to make the application of regionalization legally possible, but it does n ot
require an examination of whether a particular challenged SPS measure is applied in a manner
consistent with "regionalization" requirements.357 Russia argues that Article 6.2 requires proof only
of an express recognition of the concepts of pest - or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or
disease prevalence, not of a Member's proper application of the concept of regionalization in a
particular challenged SPS measure.358
5.133. Russia submits that the approach advocated by the European Union would conflate
Article 6.1 and Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement: if an SPS measure accords recognition to a
"regionalization" request, it will likely comply with Article 6.1 and, consequently, with Article 6.2.
Conversely, "if an importing Member has determined not to accord r ecognition to a regionalization
request in violation of Article 6.1 and/or has failed to adapt its challenged SPS measure to
domestic SPS characteristics", then the panel would have to make "a negative finding of
'recognition' under Article 6.2", even wher e it is undisputed that the importing Member has
detailed the various concepts of regionalization in its regulatory framework. 359 For Russia, this
could lead to an "absurd situation" in which a panel finds, "solely on the basis of the
WTO-inconsistent application of a regionalization request, that a Member, in its entirety, does not
recognize the concept[s] of pest- or disease-free areas, or areas of low pest or disease prevalence
under Article 6.2, even if that Member has in place a robust and well -functioning regionalization
framework, and has actively recognized and applied regionalization in many different contexts over
a considerable period of time."360

353 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 30.
354 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 38.
355 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 33.
356 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 36.
357 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 51.
358 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 28.
359 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 66.
360 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 64. (emphasis original)

5.134. Turning to consider the Panel's analysis, we note that the Panel began by recalling the
Appellate Body's statement in India – Agricultural Products that Article 6 of the SPS Agreement
does not specify any particular manner in which a Member must "recognize" the concepts set out
in Article 6.2 and that it does not prescribe whether recognition of the relevant concept must be
"done in writing through a formal governmental act, or whether it may be accomplished in some
other manner".361 The Panel then reviewed a number of legal instruments relied upon by Russia in
support of its contention that it recognizes the co ncept of regionalization 362, and found that
Russia's regulatory framework recognizes such concept within the meaning of Article 6.2.363 The
Panel explained that this finding rested on the basis that the acknowledgement of particular
"abstract ideas" is suffici ent for the purposes of Article 6.2, which it considered to be a less
stringent obligation than that of "ensuring" that a measure is "adapted" to the SPS characteristics
of an area under Article 6.1.364 The Panel also considered that it could not take into a ccount in its
analysis under Article 6.2 specific instances of recognition or non -recognition of the concepts of
pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence. The Panel explained that,
if it did take into consideration specific i nstances of recognition or non -recognition of the concepts
of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence, it would be examining a
crucial element of the assessment under Article 6.1 – i.e. whether Russia calibrated the measures
at issue to the existence or not of ASF -free areas within the European Union – through the lens of
Article 6.2. For the Panel, this would reduce parts of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement to redundancy
and inutility and thus be incompatible with the principle of effective treaty interpretation.365
5.135. We have set out in paragraphs 5.119-5.129 above our interpretation of Article 6.2 of the
SPS Agreement. We consider that Articl e 6.2 elaborates on a specific aspect of the overarching
obligation in Article 6.1 that Members shall ensure that their SPS measures are "adapted" to the
SPS characteristics of the areas from which the product originated and to which the product is
destined.366 Furthermore, we consider that the obligation in Article 6.2 must be seen in light of the
fact that Article 6.3 envisages that the exporting Member may make the claim that areas within its
territory are pest- or disease-free or of low pest or disease pr evalence, and in light of the ongoing
nature of the obligation to adapt SPS measures to regional conditions. We have concluded that
Article 6.2 requires the importing Member to provide an effective opportunity for the exporting
Member to make the claim, ad dressed to the importing Member, that areas within its territory are
pest- or disease -free or of low pest or disease prevalence, by maintaining a practice of, or a
process for, receiving such claims from an exporting Member affected by a specific SPS measu re,
and thus render operational the concept of regionalization. Accordingly, we disagree with the Panel
that the obligation in Article 6.2 is separate from and "less exigent" or "less stringent" than that of
Article 6.1, and that it requires merely an ackn owledgement of the concept of regionalization in
the form of "abstract ideas".
5.136. Moreover, we consider that the Panel erred in finding itself precluded from taking into
account in its analysis under Article 6.2 specific instances of recognition or non -recognition of the
concepts of pest - or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence because this
would be incompatible with the principle of effective treaty interpretation. As explained above,
Article 6.2 and Article 6.1 do not set out separa te, unrelated obligations. Rather, as the
Appellate Body clarified in India – Agricultural Products, there are common elements throughout
Article 6, which reveal the interlinkages that exist among the paragraphs of that Article. 367
Because Article 6.2 elaborates on one specific aspect of the overarching obligation in Article 6.1
that Members ensure that their SPS measures are adapted to regional conditions, the question of
whether a Member recognizes the concepts of pest - or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or
disease prevalence may be a relevant consideration under both Article 6.1 and Article 6.2. It
follows from this that consideration of specific instances of recognition or non -recognition of the
concepts of pest - or disease -free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence may be
relevant for the analys es under both Articles 6.1 and 6.2. Against this background, the concern

361 Panel Report, para. 7.367 (referring to Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products,
para. 5.136).
362 Panel Report, paras. 7.369 and 7.371 (referring to Customs Union Decision No. 317 (Panel Exhibit
RUS-25.b); 2006 Memorandum (Panel Exhibit EU-61); and Veterinary certificate for EU exports to Russia
(Panel Exhibit EU-52), fn 1)).
363 Panel Report, para. 7.373.
364 Panel Report, para. 7.373.
365 Panel Report, paras. 7.377-7.378.
366 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.141.
367 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.141.

articulated by the Panel, and embraced by Russia on appeal, about an overlap in the analys es
under Articles 6.1 and 6.2 seems inapposite.
5.137. Furthermore, we have found above that recognizing the relevant concepts under
Article 6.2 may be achieved through, individually or jointly: a provision in the regulatory
framework; the very SPS measure at issue; and a practice of recogniz ing pest- or disease-free
areas or areas of low pest or disease prevalence. All such elements may be relevant to the
assessment of a Member's compliance with the obligation to recognize the relevant concepts
pursuant to Article 6.2. Different elements may contribute to different degrees to the overall
compliance by that Member with its obligation to recognize the relevant concepts. Accordingly, we
consider that a panel must take into account in its analysis all elements that may be relevant in a
particular case and, on that basis, reach a conclusion as to whether, overall, the Member complies
with the obligation to recognize the concepts of pest - or disease-free areas and areas of low pest
or disease prevalence. We therefore consider that the Panel erred in finding that it could not take
into account in its analysis under Article 6.2 specific instances of recognition or non -recognition of
the concept of regionalization.
5.138. In sum, we disagree with the Panel that Article 6.2 sets out a less st ringent obligation as
compared to Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement , requiring merely an acknowledgement of the
concept of regionalization in the form of "abstract ideas". We also consider that the Panel erred in
deeming itself precluded from taking into account in its analysis under Article 6.2 specific instances
of recognition or non -recognition of the concept of regionalization. Therefore, we reverse the
Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.379, 7.485, and 8.1.d.iii, and i n paragraphs 7.925, 7.1029,
and 8.1.e.vi of the Panel Report, that Russia recognizes the concepts of pest- or disease-free areas
and areas of low pest or disease prevalence in respect of ASF, and that , therefore, the EU-wide
ban and the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuan ia, and
Poland, are not inconsistent with Russia's obligations under Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement.
5.139. This brings us to the question of whether we can complete the legal analysis of whether
Russia recognizes the concept of regionalization within the meani ng of the first sentence of
Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement. The European Union requests us to complete the legal analysis
and find that Russia fails to recognize the concepts of pest - or disease-free areas and areas of low
pest or disease prevalence, and that therefore the EU -wide ban and country -specific bans on the
importation of the products at issue are inconsistent with Russia's obligation under Article 6.2.368
In this regard, the European Union refers to findings made by the Panel in its analysis unde r
Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement, and asserts that, according to those findings, neither on the face
of the measures at issue nor in their application does Russia recognize the concept of
regionalization.369
5.140. In response, Russia requests that, in the event that we reverse the Panel's findings under
Article 6.2, we complete the legal analysis and find that Russia recognizes the concept of
regionalization.370 Russia refers to several letters sent by its authorities to the European Union
explaining its "regionali zation" requirements and requesting proof that the areas claimed by the
European Union to be ASF -free were in fact ASF -free, and submits that these letters demonstrate
that Russia recognizes the concept of regionalization.371
5.141. At the outset, we note that the Appellate Body has completed the legal analysis with a
view to facilitating the prompt settlement and effective resolution of the dispute when sufficient
factual findings by the panel or undisputed facts on the panel record allowed it to do so. 372
However, t he Appellate Body has declined to complete the legal analysis where doing so would

368 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 50.
369 In particular, the European Union refers to findings made by the Panel in paragraphs 7.1357-7.1360
of the Panel Report. (European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 47)
371 Russia's appellee's submission, paras. 82-89.
372 See e.g. Appellate Body Reports, US – Gasoline, p. 19, DSR 1996:I, p. 18; Canada – Periodicals,
p. 24, DSR 1997:I, p. 469; EC – Hormones, para. 222; EC – Poultry, para. 156; US – Shrimp, paras. 123-124;
Australia – Salmon, paras. 117-118; Japan – Agricultural Products II, para. 112; US – FSC, para. 133;
US – Lamb, paras. 150 and 172; US – Section 211 Appropriations Act, para. 352; EC and certain member
States – Large Civil Aircraft, paras. 1174-1178; and US – Large Civil Aircraft (2nd complaint),
paras. 1272-1274.

involve addressing claims that the panel had not examined at all 373, particularly where, at the
appellate review stage, the participants did not sufficiently address the issue s the Appellate Body
would have needed to resolve in order to complete the legal analysis, including the probative value
of the evidence not considered by the panel.374
5.142. Turning to the request at issue that we complete the legal analysis with respect to the
European Union's claim under Article 6.2, we recall that, in principle, compliance with the
obligation of Article 6.2 may be achieved through, individually or jointly: a provision in the
regulatory framework; the very SPS measure at issue; and a practice of recognizing pest - or
disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence. A panel must take into account in
its analysis all elements that may be relevant in a particular case and, on that basis, reach a
conclusion as to whether, overall, the M ember complies with Article 6.2. Furthermore, we recall
that the obligation in Article 6.2 must also be seen in light of the fact that Article 6.3 envisages
that the exporting Member may make the claim that areas within its territory are pest - or
disease-free or of low pest or disease prevalence, and in light of the ongoing nature of the
obligation to adapt SPS measures to regional conditions. On this basis, we have concluded that
Article 6.2 requires the importing Member to provide an effective opportunity for the exporting
Member to make the claim, addressed to the importing Member, that areas within its territory are
pest- or disease -free or of low pest or disease prevalence, by maintaining a practice of, or a
process for, receiving such claims from an ex porting Member affected by a specific SPS measure.
Accordingly, we have found that Article 6.2 requires Members to render operational the concepts
of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence.
5.143. With these considerations in min d, and in order to complete the legal analysis, we turn to
assess whether there are sufficient findings by the Panel and undisputed evidence on the Panel
record to allow us to determine whether or not Russia recognizes the concepts of pest - or
disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence. We begin by noting that, in order
to determine whether Russia complies with the obligation to recognize these concepts, the Panel
considered several aspects of Customs Union Decision No. 317. In particula r, the Panel noted that
this Decision states:
"Regionalisation" is the determination of the well-being or otherwise of a country or its
administrative territory (republic, region, district, land, county, state, province, etc.)
in terms of the contagious a nimal diseases included in the list of dangerous and
quarantinable diseases of the Party, and in the control entities of third countries – in
terms of the diseases referred to in these Requirements.375
The Panel noted that the same legal instrument also sta tes: "Regionalization is carried out in
accordance with the recommendations of the World Organization for Animal Health [OIE]".376
5.144. With respect to the definition of the term "regionalization" contained in Customs Union
Decision No. 317, we note that it reflects the fact that a pest or disease may be limited to a certain
area. In particular, it refers to "republic, region, district, land, county, state, and province". The
definition itself, however, provides no effective opportunity for the European Union to m ake the
claim, addressed to Russia, that areas within the European Union are pest - or disease-free or of
low pest or disease prevalence. Thus it does not render operational the concepts of pest - or
disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence.
5.145. The Panel further found that Customs Union Decision No. 317 states that "Regionalization
is carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the World Organization for Animal Health
[OIE]".377 This raises the question of whether, on the basis of t hese recommendations, an
exporting Member has an effective opportunity to make the claim that areas within its territory are
pest- or disease -free or of low pest or disease prevalence. Because the Panel had found that

373 Appellate Body Reports, EC – Poultry, para. 107; EC – Asbestos, paras. 79 and 82; US – Section 211
374 See e.g. Appellate Body Report, Japan – DRAMs (Korea), para. 142.
375 Panel Report, para. 7.369 (quoting Customs Union Decision No. 317 (Panel Exhibit RUS-25.b),
"Terms used in the Common Veterinary (Veterinary and Health) Requirements", p. 1).
376 Panel Report, para. 7.369 (quoting Customs Union Decision No. 317 (Panel Exhibit RUS-25.b),
"Terms used in the Common Veterinary (Veterinary and Health) Requirements", p. 1).
377 Panel Report, para. 7.369 (quoting Customs Union Decision No. 317, "Terms used in the Common
Veterinary (Veterinary and Health) Requirements", p. 1).

Article 6.2 merely requires the acknow ledgement of regionalization in the form of "abstract
ideas"378, the Panel did not explore to what extent the OIE recommendations referred to in
Customs Union Decision No. 317 or other legal instruments provide an effective opportunity for the
European Union to make the claim that certain areas within the E uropean Union are pest - or
disease-free or of low pest or disease prevalence, thus render ing operational the concepts of
pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence.
5.146. We note tha t Customs Union Decision No. 317 refers to the recommendations of the OIE
generally, without identifying any specific recommendations. We consider that this reference may
be directed at Section 4, "General Recommendations: Disease Prevention and Control", of the
Terrestrial Code. In particular, Chapter 4.3 is concerned with "Zoning and Compartmentalisation".
Be that as it may, we note that the recommendations in Section 4 of the Terrestrial Code are
directed at OIE member countries and envisage that when OI E member countries adopt
SPS measures, they do so in accordance with such recommendations. However, the
OIE recommendations themselves provide no effective opportunity for the European Union to
make the claim, addressed to Russia, that areas within the Eur opean Union are pest - or
disease-free or of low pest or disease prevalence, and thus do not render operational the concept
of regionalization.
5.147. Furthermore, we note that the Panel found that Customs Union Decision No. 317
comprises chapters containing vete rinary requirements applicable to imports of a number of
products into the Customs Union territory. In particular, the Panel noted that Chapter 7 provides
that:
[t]he import into the customs territory of the Customs Union and/or the transfer
between Parties of healthy breeding and commercial pigs originating from territories
free from the following contagious animal diseases shall be permitted … [including]
African swine fever – during the last 36 months in the territory of the country or
administrative territory in accordance with regionalization.379
The Panel also considered relevant that all the chapters that refer to the products at issue in this
dispute include reference to the "ASF situation necessary for accepting imports of the respective
products" and to "the territory of the country or administrative territory".380
5.148. We note the Panel's finding that these elements of Customs Union Decision No. 317 refer
to the concept of regionalization. However, we do not see that these elements of Customs Union
Decision No. 317 provide an effective opportunity for the European Union to make the claim,
addressed to Russia, that areas within the European Union are pest- or disease-free or of low pest
or disease prevalence. At the same time, we are cognizant of the fact that, because the Panel had
found that Russia complies with the obligation of Article 6.2 by acknowledging regionalization in
the form of "abstract ideas" 381, the Panel did not further explore whether or to what extent
Russia's regulatory framework provide s an effective opportunity for the European Union to make
the claim that certain areas within the European Union are pest- or disease-free or of low pest or
disease prevalence, thus render ing operational the concepts of pest - or disease -free areas and
areas of low pest or disease prevalence.
5.149. Given the absence of Panel findings as to whether elements of Russia's regulatory
framework other than Customs Union Decision No. 317 recognize the concept of regionalization,
we must proceed to assess specific instances of application of this concept in order to determine
whether or not Russia is in compliance with its obligation under Article 6.2. The Panel made no
findings with respect to instances of application of the concepts of pest - or disease-free areas and
areas of low pest or disease prevalence concerning legal instrume nts other than the specific
SPS measures at issue. However, the Panel made a number of findings with respect to the specific
SPS measures at issue in the context of its analysis under Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement . In
particular, the Panel found that "[n]one of the measures at issue contains any explicit indication

378 Panel Report, para. 7.373.
379 Panel Report, para. 7.370 (quoting Customs Union Decision No. 317 (Panel Exhibit RUS-25.b),
Chapter 7).
380 Panel Report, para. 7.370 (quoting Customs Union Decision No. 317 (Panel Exhibit RUS-25.b),
Chapter 7). (emphasis added by the Panel)
381 Panel Report, para. 7.373.

that there is a possibility to recognize ASF -free zones or compartments from the territory of the
European Union."382 The Panel also found that the same holds true in respect of the application of
both the EU-wide ban and the country-specific bans.383 On the basis of these findings by the Panel,
we consider that the SPS measures at issue provide no effective opportunity for the
European Union to make the claim, addressed to Russia, that areas within the European Union are
pest- or disease-free or of l ow pest or disease prevalence. These measures thus do not render
operational the concepts of pest - or disease -free areas and areas of low pest or disease
prevalence.
5.150. Finally, we have found above that compliance with the obligation in Article 6.2 does not
necessarily require the recognition of the concepts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low
pest or disease prevalence in the regulatory framework or in a specific SPS measure, but that it
may also be demonstrated on the basis of an importing Member's practice of providing an effective
opportunity for the exporting Member to make the claim, addressed to the importing Member, that
areas wit hin its territory are pest - or disease -free or of low pest or disease prevalence, thus
rendering operational the concept of regionalization. However, because the Panel had found that
Russia complies with the obligation in Article 6.2 by acknowledging regio nalization in the form of
"abstract ideas"384, the Panel did not explore whether or to what extent Russia's administrative
practice with respect to SPS matters provided an effective opportunity for the European Union to
make the claim that certain areas with in the European Union are pest- or disease-free or of low
pest or disease prevalence, thus rendering operational the concept of regionalization.
5.151. In light of the above considerations, we note that the Panel's findings with respect to
Customs Union Decision No. 317 and with respect to the specific SPS measures at issue suggest
that Russia fails to provide an effective opportunity for the European Union to make the claim that
areas within its territory are ASF -free, and thus fails to render operational the con cept of
regionalization. At the same time, we note that, because the Panel had found that Russia complies
with the obligation in Article 6.2 by acknowledging the concept of regionalization as an "abstract
idea"385, and because the Panel erroneously considere d itself to be precluded from taking into
account specific instances of recognition of the concept of regionalization by Russia, the Panel did
not explore whether or to what extent Russia otherwise recognizes the concepts of pest - or
disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence in respect of ASF. In particular, the
Panel made no findings with respect to the recognition of the concept of regionalization with
respect to ASF in instruments of Russia's regulatory framework other than Customs Union Decision
No. 317. In addition, because the Panel considered itself precluded from taking into account
specific SPS measures, it neither explored specific instances of recognition, nor was it in a position
to determine whether there was an administrati ve practice in Russia in respect of the recognition
of the concept of regionalization.
5.152. In sum, we note that, while the considerations relating to Customs Union Decision No. 317
and the Panel findings regarding the SPS measures at issue suggest that Russia fails to recognize
the concepts of pest - or disease -free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence with
respect to ASF, we lack findings by the Panel as to whether or not other elements of Russia's
regulatory framework relating to SPS matters, as well as Russia's administrative practice, suggest
that Russia recognizes these concepts. We are therefore not in a position to complete the legal
analysis and determine, based on findings by the Panel or undisputed evidence before the Panel,
whether or not Russia recognizes the concepts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest
or disease prevalence in respect of ASF.
5.3.3.4 Conclusion on the European Union's claim under Article 6.2 of the
SPS Agreement
5.153. With respect to the European Union's claim that th e Panel erred in finding that Russia
recognizes the concepts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence
in respect of ASF pursuant to Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement, we consider that Article 6.2

382 Panel Report, para. 7.1358. Furthermore, the Panel found that, while the measures on Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland impose a "temporary restriction" on imports of the products at issue, they do not
explicitly provide for potential regionalization in the European Union. (Ibid., para. 7.1359)
383 Panel Report, para. 7.1360.
384 Panel Report, para. 7.373.
385 Panel Report, para. 7.373.

requires the importing Memb er to provide an effective opportunity for the exporting Member to
make the claim, addressed to the importing Member, that areas within its territory are pest - or
disease-free or of low pest or disease prevalence, by maintaining a practice of, or a process for,
receiving such a claim from an exporting Member affected by a specific SPS measure, and thus to
render operational the concept of regionalization. This may be achieved through, individually or
jointly: a provision in the regulatory framework; the ver y SPS measure at issue; and a practice of
recognizing pest - or disease -free areas or areas of low pest or disease prevalence. All these
elements may be relevant in the assessment of a Member's compliance with the obligation under
Article 6.2. As each element may contribute to a different degree to the overall compliance by that
Member with its obligation to recognize the concepts of pest - or disease-free areas and areas of
low pest or disease prevalence, the focus of a panel's analysis will depend on the ci rcumstances of
the case and the particular instruments at issue. We disagree with t he Panel's finding that
Article 6.2 requires merely an acknowledgement of the concept of regionalization in the form of
"abstract ideas". We also consider that the Panel erred in deeming itself precluded from taking into
account in its analysis under Article 6.2 specific instances of recognition or non -recognition of the
concept of regionalization.
6 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1. For the reasons set out in this Report, the Appellate Body makes the following findings and
conclusions.
6.1 Claims relating to the attribution of the EU-wide ban
6.2. We consider that the measure that the Panel attributed to Russia was not the condition in the
bilateral veterinary certificates of EU -wide freedom from ASF over a three -year period but, rather,
Russia's decision to deny the importation of the products at issue, i.e. the EU -wide ban. Russia
does not dispute that it banned the importation of the products at issue, and the fact that the
basis for doing so may not have been set out in Russian law does not alter the conclusion that the
EU-wide ban is attributable to Russia.
6.3. Moreover, the Panel was not barred from reviewing the WTO -consistency of the EU-wide ban
due to commitments set out in Russia's terms of accession to the WTO. Given the ongoing nature
of the obligation under Article 6 of the SPS Agreement and the requirement that SPS measures be
adjusted over time to ensure adaptation to regional SPS characteristics, the fact that a
WTO Member has adapted its measures to the SPS characteristics of an area at a specific point in
time may not ensure that such adaptation remains a dequate when the particular
SPS characteristics of that area evolve. Irrespective of the commitment in Russia's terms of
accession to the WTO regarding which certificate would be operative in the conduct of certain trade
to Russia from other WTO Members, Russia remains under an ongoing obligation, pursuant to
Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, to adapt its measures to regional SPS characteristics.
a. Consequently, we uphold the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.84 and 8.1.a of the Panel
Report, that the EU-wide ban is attributable to Russia.
b. In addition, we uphold the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.116 and 8.1.b of the Panel
Report, that Russia's terms of accession to the WTO d id not limit the Panel's assessment
of the European Union's claims regarding the EU-wide ban.
6.2 Claims relating to Article 6 of the SPS Agreement
6.4. With respect to Russia's claims on appeal that the Panel erred in its interp retation of
Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, we consider that the proces s of adaptation to regional
SPS characteristics pursuant to Article 6 requires that the importing Member evaluate all the
relevant evidence concerning the areas that an exporting Memb er claims are pest- or disease-free
or of low pest or disease prevalence. This evaluation is addressed by the second sentences of
Articles 6.1 and 6.2 of the SPS Agreement , as it relates to the importing Member's determination
of the pest or disease status of the areas concerned and its assessment of their
SPS characteristics, with a view to adapting its measures accordingly. Similarly, the period of time
that the importing Member may take to conduct its evaluation and t o adapt its measures to the
SPS characteristics of the relevant areas is covered by Article 6.1 and the second sentence of

Article 6.2, as informed by Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a) to the SPS Agreement. By contrast, neither
the importing Member's evaluation of the relevant evidence nor the peri od of time required to
carry out this evaluation are covered by Article 6.3, which addresses the duties that apply to the
exporting Member in connection with the process set out in Article 6. A panel's review under
Article 6.3 is limited to assessing wheth er the evidence provided by the exporting Member to the
importing Member is of a nature, quantity, and quality sufficient to enable the importing Member's
authorities ultimately to make a determination as to the pest or disease status of the areas that
the exporting Member claims to be pest- or disease-free or of low pest or disease prevalence.
6.5. Consequently, we find that the Panel did not err in its interpretation of Article 6.3 of the
SPS Agreement by not finding that this provision requires consideration of the evidence relied
upon by the importing Member. In addition, we find that the Panel did not err in its interpretation
of Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement by not finding that this provision contemplates a certain period
of time for the importing Member to evaluate and verify the evidence provided by the exporting
Member.
a. Therefore, we uphold the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.456, 7.963, and 7.1004 of
the Panel Report, that, as at 11 September 2014, the European Union had provided the
necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate to Russia that: (i) areas within Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, as well as areas within the European Union outside of the
four affected member States, were ASF-free; and (ii) the ASF-free areas within Estonia,
Lithuania, and Poland, as well as the ASF -free areas within the European Union outside
of the four affected member States, were likely to remain so.
b. We also uphold the Panel's conclusions contained in para graphs 8.1.d.iv, 8.1.e.vii,
and 8.1.e.viii of the Panel Report, which we understand as follows:
i. in the period between 7 February 2014 and 11 September 2014, the European Union
had provided the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate to Russia, pur suant
to Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, that there were areas within the
European Union, outside of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, which were free of
ASF and were likely to remain so;
ii. at least as at 11 September 2014, the European Union had provided the necessary
evidence to objectively demonstrate to Russia, pursuant to Article 6.3 of the
SPS Agreement, that there were areas within Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
that were free of ASF;
iii. at least as at 11 September 2014, the European Union had provided the necessary
evidence to objectively demonst rate to Russia, pursuant to Article 6.3 of the
SPS Agreement, that the ASF -free areas within Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland were
likely to remain so; however, the European Union failed to provide the necessary
evidence to objectively demonstrate to Russia, pursuant to Article 6.3 of the
SPS Agreement, that the ASF-free areas within Latvia were likely to remain so.
6.6. With respect to Russia's claim on appeal that the Panel erred in its interpretation of the
relationship between Article 6.1 and Article 6.3 of th e SPS Agreement, we consider that an
exporting Member's failure to provide the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that
areas within its territory are pest - or disease -free or of low pest or disease prevalence will, in
many cases, have implications for the importing Member's ability to assess the SPS characteristics
of such areas and to adapt its measures accordingly. A panel may, in certain specific situations
such as those identified by the Appellate Body in India – Agricultural Products , find t hat an
importing Member failed to comply with Article 6.1 irrespective of the exporting Member's
compliance or non-compliance with Article 6.3. However, the panel should provide reasoning
explaining why the circumstances of the dispute fall within one or more of those specific situations,
or why they otherwise warrant a finding that the importing Member acted inconsistently with
Article 6.1. The Panel in this dispute did not provide such reasoning.
6.7. Consequently, we find that the Panel erred , in paragraph 7 .1028 of the Panel Report, in
finding that Russia had failed to adapt its measure to the ASF-free areas within Latvia and thereby
acted inconsistently with Article 6.1.