RUSSIAN FEDERATION - MEASURES ON THE IMPORTATION OF LIVE PIGS, PORK AND OTHER PIG PRODUCTS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION REPORT OF THE PANEL
Document: REPORT OF THE PANEL
Date: 19 August 2016
Document codes: WT/DS475/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
REPORT OF THE PANEL

LIST OF ANNEXES
ANNEX A
WORKING PROCEDURES OF THE PANEL
Contents Page
Annex A-1 Working Procedures of the Panel A-2
Annex A-2 Additional Working Procedures concerning strictly confidential information
(SCI)
A-7
Annex A-3 Additional Working Procedures for Panel's expert consultation A-9
ANNEX B
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
EUROPEAN UNION
Contents Page
Annex B-1 First part of integrated executive summary of the arguments of the European
Union
B-2
Annex B-2 Second part of the integrated executive summary of the arguments of the
European Union
B-17

RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Contents Page
Annex B-3 First part of the integrated executive summary of the arguments of the Russian
Federation
B-33
Annex B-4 Second part of the integrated executive summary of the arguments of the
Russian Federation
B-44
ANNEX C
ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES
Contents Page
Annex C-1 Integrated executive summary of the arguments of Australia C-2
Annex C-2 Integrated executive summary of the arguments of Brazil C-4
Annex C-3 Integrated executive summary of the arguments of India C-8
Annex C-4 Integrated executive summary of the arguments of Japan C-11
Annex C-5 Integrated executive summary of the arguments of Norway C-13
Annex C-6 Integrated executive summary of the arguments of the United States C-17

CASES CITED IN THIS REPORT
Short Title Full Case Title and Citation
Argentina – Import
Measures
Appellate Body Reports, Argentina – Measures Affecting the Importation of
Goods, / / , adopted 26
January 2015
Argentina – Footwear (EC) Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Safeguard Measures on Imports of
Footwear, , 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
(Article 21.5 – Canada)
Panel Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon – Recourse
to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada, WT/DS18/RW, adopted 20 March 2000,
DSR 2000:IV, p. 2031
Canada – Aircraft Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian
Aircraft, WT/DS70/AB/R, adopted 20 August 1999, DSR 1999:III, p. 1377
Canada – Aircraft Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft,
WT/DS70/R, adopted 20 August 1999, upheld by Appellate Body Report
WT/DS70/AB/R, DSR 1999:IV, p. 1443
Canada – Autos Appellate Body Report, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive
Industry, WT/DS139/AB/R, WT/DS142/AB/R, adopted 19 June 2000, DSR
2000:VI, p. 2985
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 – Dairy Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk
and the Exportation of Dairy Products, WT/DS103/AB/R, WT/DS113/AB/R, and
Corr.1, adopted 27 October 1999, DSR 1999:V, p. 2057
Canada – Wheat Exports
and Grain Imports
Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and
Treatment of Imported Grain, WT/DS276/AB/R, adopted 27 September 2004,
DSR 2004:VI, p. 2739
Canada – Renewable Energy
/ Canada – Feed-in Tariff
Program
Appellate Body Reports, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable
Energy Generation Sector / Canada – Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff
Program, WT/DS412/AB/R / WT/DS426/AB/R, adopted 24 May 2013, DSR
2013:I, p. 7
Canada – Renewable Energy
/ Canada – Feed-in Tariff
Program
Panel Reports, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy
Generation Sector / Canada – Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program,
WT/DS412/R and Add.1 / WT/DS426/R and Add.1, adopted 24 May 2013, as
modified by Appellate Body Reports WT/DS412/AB/R / WT/DS426/AB/R, DSR
2013:I, p. 237
China – Auto Parts Panel Reports, China – Measures Affecting Imports of Automobile Parts,
WT/DS339/R, Add.1 and Add.2 / WT/DS340/R, Add.1 and Add.2 /
WT/DS342/R, Add.1 and Add.2, adopted 12 January 2009, upheld
(WT/DS339/R) and as modified (WT/DS340/R / WT/DS342/R) by Appellate
Body Reports WT/DS339/AB/R / WT/DS340/AB/R / WT/DS342/AB/R, DSR
2009:I, p. 119
China – GOES Appellate Body Report, China – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on
Grain Oriented Flat-Rolled Electrical Steel from the United States,
WT/DS414/AB/R, adopted 16 November 2012, DSR 2012:XII, p. 6251
China – HP-SSST (Japan) /
China – HP-SSST (EU)
Appellate Body Reports, China – Measures Imposing Anti-Dumping Duties on
High-Performance Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes ("HP-SSST") from Japan /
China – Measures Imposing Anti-Dumping Duties on High-Performance
Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes ("HP-SSST") from the European Union,
WT/DS454/AB/R and Add.1 / WT/DS460/AB/R and Add.1, adopted 28 October
2015
China – Intellectual
Property Rights
Panel Report, China – Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of
Intellectual Property Rights, WT/DS362/R, adopted 20 March 2009, DSR
2009:V, p. 2097

Short Title Full Case Title and Citation
China – Publications and
Audiovisual Products
Panel Report, China – Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution
Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products,
WT/DS363/R and Corr.1, adopted 19 January 2010, as modified by Appellate
Body Report WT/DS363/AB/R, DSR 2010:II, p. 261
China – Rare Earths Appellate Body Reports, China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Rare
Earths, Tungsten, and Molybdenum, WT/DS431/AB/R / WT/DS432/AB/R /
WT/DS433/AB/R, adopted 29 August 2014
China – Rare Earths Panel Reports, China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Rare Earths,
Tungsten, and Molybdenum, WT/DS431/R and Add.1 / WT/DS432/R and Add.1
/ WT/DS433/R and Add.1, adopted 29 August 2014, upheld by Appellate Body
Reports WT/DS431/AB/R / WT/DS432/AB/R / WT/DS433/AB/R
China – Raw Materials Appellate Body Reports, China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various
Raw Materials, WT/DS394/AB/R / WT/DS395/AB/R / WT/DS398/AB/R, adopted
22 February 2012, DSR 2012:VII, p. 3295
China – Raw Materials Panel Reports, China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw
Materials, WT/DS394/R, Add.1 and Corr.1 / WT/DS395/R, Add.1 and Corr.1 /
WT/DS398/R, Add.1 and Corr.1, adopted 22 February 2012, as modified by
Appellate Body Reports WT/DS394/AB/R / WT/DS395/AB/R / WT/DS398/AB/R,
DSR 2012:VII, p. 3501
Chile – Price Band System Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures
Relating to Certain Agricultural Products, WT/DS207/AB/R, adopted 23 October
2002, DSR 2002:VIII, p. 3045 (Corr.1, DSR 2006:XII, p. 5473)
Dominican Republic –
Import and Sale of
Cigarettes
Appellate Body Report, Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the
Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes, WT/DS302/AB/R, adopted 19 May
2005, DSR 2005:XV, p. 7367
Dominican Republic –
Safeguard Measures
Panel Report, Dominican Republic – Safeguard Measures on Imports of
Polypropylene Bags and Tubular Fabric, WT/DS415/R, WT/DS416/R,
WT/DS417/R, WT/DS418/R, and Add.1, adopted 22 February 2012, DSR
2012:XIII, p. 6775
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 – 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)
Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and
Distribution of Bananas – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by
Ecuador, WT/DS27/RW2/ECU, adopted 11 December 2008, as modified by
Appellate Body Report WT/DS27/AB/RW2/ECU, DSR 2008:XVIII, p. 7329
EC – Bananas III (US) Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and
Distribution of Bananas, Complaint by the United States, WT/DS27/R/USA,
adopted 25 September 1997, as modified by Appellate Body Report
WT/DS27/AB/R, DSR 1997:II, p. 943
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 – Bed Linen Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on
Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India, WT/DS141/AB/R, adopted 12
March 2001, DSR 2001:V, p. 2049
EC – Chicken Cuts Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Customs Classification of
Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts, WT/DS269/AB/R, WT/DS286/AB/R, adopted 27
September 2005, and Corr.1, DSR 2005:XIX, p. 9157
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
EC – Fasteners (China) Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping
Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China, WT/DS397/AB/R,
adopted 28 July 2011, DSR 2011:VII, p. 3995

Short Title Full Case Title and Citation
EC – Fasteners (China) Panel Report, European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on
Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China, WT/DS397/R and Corr.1, adopted
28 July 2011, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS397/AB/R, DSR
2011:VIII, p. 4289
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 – Hormones (Canada) Panel Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones),
Complaint by Canada, WT/DS48/R/CAN, adopted 13 February 1998, as
modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, DSR
1998:II, p. 235
EC – Hormones (US) Panel Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones),
Complaint by the United States, WT/DS26/R/USA, adopted 13 February 1998,
as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, DSR
1998:III, p. 699
EC – IT Products Panel Reports, European Communities and its member States – Tariff
Treatment of Certain Information Technology Products, WT/DS375/R /
WT/DS376/R / WT/DS377/R, adopted 21 September 2010, DSR 2010:III,
p. 933
EC – Sardines Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines,
WT/DS231/AB/R, adopted 23 October 2002, DSR 2002:VIII, p. 3359
EC – Seal Products Appellate Body Reports, European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the
Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, WT/DS400/AB/R /
WT/DS401/AB/R, adopted 18 June 2014
EC – Selected Customs
Matters
Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Selected Customs Matters,
WT/DS315/AB/R, adopted 11 December 2006, DSR 2006:IX, p. 3791
EC – Selected Customs
Matters
Panel Report, European Communities – Selected Customs Matters,
WT/DS315/R, adopted 11 December 2006, as modified by Appellate Body
Report WT/DS315/AB/R, DSR 2006:IX, p. 3915
EC – Tariff Preferences Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of
Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries, WT/DS246/AB/R, adopted 20 April
2004, DSR 2004:III, p. 925
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
Guatemala – Cement I Appellate Body Report, Guatemala – Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding
Portland Cement from Mexico, WT/DS60/AB/R, adopted 25 November 1998,
DSR 1998:IX, p. 3767
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
India – Autos Panel Report, India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector, WT/DS146/R,
WT/DS175/R, and Corr.1, adopted 5 April 2002, DSR 2002:V, p. 1827
India – Patents (US) Appellate Body Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and
Agricultural Chemical Products, WT/DS50/AB/R, adopted 16 January 1998, DSR
1998:I, p. 9
India – Quantitative
Restrictions
Appellate Body Report, India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of
Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products, WT/DS90/AB/R, adopted 22
September 1999, DSR 1999:IV, p. 1763
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 – Alcoholic Beverages
II
Appellate Body Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/AB/R,
WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996, DSR 1996:I, p. 97
Japan – Apples Appellate Body Report, Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples,
WT/DS245/AB/R, adopted 10 December 2003, DSR 2003:IX, p. 4391
Japan – Apples Panel Report, Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples,
WT/DS245/R, adopted 10 December 2003, upheld by Appellate Body Report
WT/DS245/AB/R, DSR 2003:IX, p. 4481

Short Title Full Case Title and Citation
Japan – Film Panel Report, Japan – Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and
Paper, WT/DS44/R, adopted 22 April 1998, DSR 1998:IV, p. 1179
Korea – Alcoholic Beverages Panel Report, Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS75/R, WT/DS84/R,
adopted 17 February 1999, as modified by Appellate Body Report
WT/DS75/AB/R, WT/DS84/AB/R, DSR 1999:I, p. 44
Korea – Certain Paper Panel Report, Korea – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from
Indonesia, WT/DS312/R, adopted 28 November 2005, DSR 2005:XXII,
p. 10637
Korea – Dairy Appellate Body Report, Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of
Certain Dairy Products, WT/DS98/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, DSR 2000:I,
p. 3
Korea – Various Measures
on Beef
Appellate Body Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled
and Frozen Beef, WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R, adopted 10 January 2001,
DSR 2001:I, p. 5
Mexico – Corn Syrup
(Article 21.5 – US)
Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose
Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the
DSU by the United States, WT/DS132/AB/RW, adopted 21 November 2001,
DSR 2001:XIII, p. 6675
Philippines – Distilled Spirits Appellate Body Reports, Philippines – Taxes on Distilled Spirits,
WT/DS396/AB/R / WT/DS403/AB/R, adopted 20 January 2012, DSR 2012:VIII,
p. 4163
Thailand – Cigarettes
(Philippines)
Appellate Body Report, Thailand – Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes
from the Philippines, WT/DS371/AB/R, adopted 15 July 2011, DSR 2011:IV,
p. 2203
Thailand – H-Beams Panel Report, Thailand – Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections
of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland, WT/DS122/R, adopted 5
April 2001, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS122/AB/R, DSR
2001:VII, p. 2741
Turkey – Textiles Appellate Body Report, Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing
Products, WT/DS34/AB/R, adopted 19 November 1999, DSR 1999:VI, p. 2345
US – 1916 Act (Japan) Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, Complaint by Japan,
WT/DS162/R and Add.1, adopted 26 September 2000, upheld by Appellate
Body Report WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R, DSR 2000:X, p. 4831
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 – Anti-Dumping and
Countervailing Duties
(China)
Panel Report, United States – Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing
Duties on Certain Products from China, WT/DS379/R, adopted 25 March 2011,
as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS379/AB/R, DSR 2011:VI, p. 3143
US – Carbon Steel Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany, WT/DS213/AB/R
and Corr.1, adopted 19 December 2002, DSR 2002:IX, p. 3779
US – Clove Cigarettes Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of
Clove Cigarettes, WT/DS406/R, adopted 24 April 2012, as modified by Appellate
Body Report WT/DS406/AB/R, DSR 2012: XI, p. 5865
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 – Continued Suspension Panel Report, United States – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC –
Hormones Dispute, WT/DS320/R and Add.1 to Add.7, adopted 14 November
2008, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS320/AB/R, DSR 2008:XI,
p. 3891
US – COOL Panel Reports, United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL)
Requirements, WT/DS384/R / WT/DS386/R, adopted 23 July 2012, as modified
by Appellate Body Reports WT/DS384/AB/R / WT/DS386/AB/R, DSR 2012:VI,
p. 2745
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

Short Title Full Case Title and Citation
US – Cotton Yarn Appellate Body Report, United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on
Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan, WT/DS192/AB/R, adopted 5 November
2001, DSR 2001:XII, p. 6027
US – Countervailing and
Anti-Dumping Measures
(China)
Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping
Measures on Certain Products from China, WT/DS449/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted
22 July 2014
US – Gambling Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border
Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, WT/DS285/AB/R, adopted 20 April
2005, DSR 2005:XII, p. 5663 (and Corr.1, DSR 2006:XII, p. 5475)
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 – Hot-Rolled Steel Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-
Rolled Steel Products from Japan, WT/DS184/AB/R, adopted 23 August 2001,
DSR 2001:X, p. 4697
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
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
US – Shrimp II (Viet Nam) Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp from
Viet Nam, WT/DS429/R and Add.1, adopted 22 April 2015, upheld by Appellate
Body Report WT/DS429/AB/R
US – Upland Cotton Appellate Body Report, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton,
WT/DS267/AB/R, adopted 21 March 2005, DSR 2005:I, p. 3
US – Wool Shirts and
Blouses
Appellate Body Report, United States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven
Wool Shirts and Blouses from India, WT/DS33/AB/R, adopted 23 May 1997, and
Corr.1, DSR 1997:I, p. 323
US – Zeroing (EC) Appellate Body Report, United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for
Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing"), WT/DS294/AB/R, adopted 9 May
2006, and Corr.1, DSR 2006:II, p. 417

TABLE OF EXHIBITS CITED IN THIS REPORT*
No. Full Title Short Title (for frequently cited exhibits,
where applicable)
EU-1 OIE Terrestrial Code, 23rd edition, introductory note. Terrestrial Code
EU-2 User's Guide, OIE Terrestrial Code Terrestrial Code User Guide
EU-3 Chapter 15.1., African Swine Fever, OIE Terrestrial
Code

EU-5 Chapter 2.8.1., African Swine Fever, OIE Terrestrial
Manual

EU-6 G/SPS/N/RUS/46 (Ukraine) G/SPS/N/RUS/46
EU-7 G/SPS/N/RUS/48 (Lithuania) G/SPS/N/RUS/48
EU-8 G/SPS/N/RUS/48/Add.1 (Lithuania) G/SPS/N/RUS/48/Add.1
EU-9 G/SPS/N/RUS/49 (Poland) G/SPS/N/RUS/49
EU-10 G/SPS/N/RUS/48/Add.2 (Lithuania) G/SPS/N/RUS/48/Add.2
EU-11 G/SPS/N/RUS/49/Add.1 (Poland) G/SPS/N/RUS/49/Add.1
EU-12 G/SPS/N/RUS/64 (Latvia) G/SPS/N/RUS/64
EU-13 G/SPS/N/RUS/76 (Estonia) G/SPS/N/RUS/76
EU-14.a. a. (RU) Letter from Russia to the EU of 29 January
2014, FS-SA-8/1277
Russia's letter to the European Union of
29 January 2014, FS-SA-8/1277
EU-14.b. b. (EN) translation
EU-15.a. a. (RU) Letter from Russia to the EU of 14 February
2014, НФ-12-26/1650
Russia's letter to the European Union of
14 February 2014, FS- НФ-12-26/1650
EU-15.b. b. (EN) translation
EU-16.a. a. (RU) FSVPS announcement of 6 February 2014
(http://fsvps.ru/fsvps/news/8935.html)
Russian FSVPS announcement of
6 February 2014
EU-16.b. b. (EN) translation
EU-17.a. a. (RU) List of returned consignments, Annex 2 to
the Letter from Russia to the EU of 6 August 2014,
FS-EN-7/14507 (irrelevant or confidential
information has been redacted)
List of returned consignments
EU-17.b. b. (EN) translation
EU-18.a. a. (RU) Instructions on Measures for the Prevention
and Eradication of African Swine Fever, approved by
the Chief Directorate of Veterinary Medicine at the
USSR Ministry of Agriculture on 21 November 1980
Russian ASF prevention and eradication
measures of 21 November 1980
EU-18.b. b. (EN) translation
EU-21 African Swine Fever from 2007 to 2014, compilation
by the European Commission of maps from OIE

EU-23 African Swine Fever spread in the Russian Federation
and the risk for the region, FAO, December 2009

EU-24 Scientific Opinion on African Swine Fever, EFSA Panel
on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), EFSA Journal
2010 8(3)1556
EFSA Scientific Opinion on ASF, EFSA Journal
2010 8(3)1556
EU-25 Scientific Report of EFSA, Evaluation of possible
mitigation measures to prevent introduction and
spread of African swine fever virus through wild
boar, EFSA Journal 2014 12(3)3616
Scientific Report of EFSA on ASF, EFSA Journal
2014 12(3)3616
EU-26 Scientific Opinion on African Swine Fever, EFSA Panel
on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), EFSA Journal
2014 12(4):3628
EFSA Scientific Opinion on African Swine Fever,
EFSA Journal 2014 12(4):3628

* Exhibits cited in Appendices 1 and 2 below are not included in this table.

No. Full Title Short Title (for frequently cited exhibits,
where applicable)
EU-27 ASF diagnosis and molecular characterization
Lithuania, EURL-ASF, CISA-INIA, 1317, 28/10/2014

EU-28 ASF diagnosis and molecular characterization Poland,
EURL-ASF, CISA-INIA, 1145, 30/09/2014
ASF diagnosis and molecular characterization
Poland, EURL-ASF, CISA-INIA, 1145,
30/09/2014
EU-29 ASF diagnosis and molecular characterization Latvia,
EURL-ASF, CISA-INIA, 1232, 17/10/2014
ASF diagnosis and molecular characterization
Latvia, EURL-ASF, CISA-INIA, 1232,
17/10/2014
EU-30 ASF diagnosis and molecular characterization
Estonia, EURL-ASF, CISA-INIA, 1375, 7/11/2014
ASF diagnosis and molecular characterization
Estonia, EURL-ASF, CISA-INIA, 1375,
7/11/2014
EU-31 Council Directive 2002/60/EC of 27 June 2002 laying
down specific provisions for the control of African
swine fever and amending Directive 92/119/EEC as
regards Teschen disease and African swine fever, OJ
L 192, p.27
Council Directive of 27 June 2002, 2002/60/EC
EU-32 Commission Decision 2003/422/EC of 26 May 2003
approving an African swine fever diagnostic manual,
OJ L 143, p.35

EU-33 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/43/EU of
27 January 2014 concerning certain interim
protective measures relating to African swine fever in
Lithuania, OJ L 26, p.44

EU-34 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/93/EU of
14 February 2014 concerning certain protective
measures relating to African swine fever in Lithuania,
OJ L 46, p.20

EU-35 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/100/EU of
18 February 2014 concerning certain interim
protective measures relating to African swine fever in
Poland, OJ L 50, p.35

EU-36 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/134/EU of
12 March 2014 concerning certain protective
measures relating to African swine fever in Poland,
OJ L 74, p.63

EU-37 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/178/EU of
27 March 2014 concerning animal health control
measures relating to African swine fever in certain
Member States, OJ L 95, p.47
Commission Implementing Decision of
27 March 2014, 2014/178/EU
EU-38 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/417/EU of
27 June 2014 concerning certain interim protective
measures relating to African swine fever in Latvia, OJ
L 192, p.66

EU-39 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/448/EU of
8 July 2014 amending Implementing Decision
2014/178/EU as regards African swine fever in
Latvia, OJ L 201, p.31
Commission Implementing Decision of
8 July 2014, 2014/448/EU

EU-40 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/502/EU of
24 July 2014 concerning certain interim protective
measures relating to African swine fever in Lithuania,
OJ L 222, p.20
Commission Implementing Decision of
24 July 2014, 2014/502/EU
EU-41 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/513/EU of
31 July 2014 amending the annex to Implementing
Decision 2014/178/EU as regards the areas in
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia under restriction for
African swine fever, OJ L 231, p.7

EU-42 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/530/EU of
13 August 2014 concerning certain interim protective
measures relating to African swine fever in Latvia, OJ
L 242, p.31

No. Full Title Short Title (for frequently cited exhibits,
where applicable)
EU-43 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/637/EU of
28 August 2014 amending the Annex to
Implementing Decision 2014/178/EU as regards the
areas under restriction for African swine fever in
certain Member States, OJ L 259, p.23

EU-44 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU of
9 October 2014 concerning animal health control
measures relating to African swine fever in certain
Member States and repealing Implementing Decision
2014/178/EU, OJ L 295, p.63

EU-50 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/442/EU of
7 July 2014 approving the plans for the eradication
of African swine fever in feral pigs in certain areas of
Lithuania and Poland, OJ L 200, p. 21

EU-51 Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation of
Article 6 of the Agreement on the Application of
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, WTO
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures,

SPS Committee Guidelines on the
Implementation of Article 6
EU-52 Veterinary certificate for piglets for fattening, being
exported from the EU into the Russian Federation,
11/08/2006
Veterinary certificate for piglets for fattening,
11/08/2006
EU-53 Veterinary certificate for pigs for breeding, exported
from the EU into the Russian Federation, 11/08/2006
Veterinary certificate for pigs for breeding,
11/08/2006
EU-54 Veterinary certificate for pork meat and raw meat
preparations, exported from the EU into the Russian
Federation, 11/08/2006
Veterinary certificate for pork meat and raw
meat preparations, 11/08/2006
EU-55 Veterinary certificate for slaughter pigs, exported
from the EU to the Russian Federation, 16/12/2009
Veterinary certificate for slaughter pigs,
16/12/2009
EU-56 Veterinary certificate for finished food products,
containing raw material of animal origin, exported
from the EU to the Russian Federation, 24/05/2011
Veterinary certificate for finished food products,
containing raw material of animal origin,
24/05/2011
EU-57 Veterinary certificate for canned meat, salamis and
other ready for consumption meat products,
exported from the EU to the Russian Federation,
24/05/2011
Veterinary certificate for canned meat, salamis
and other ready for consumption meat
products, 24/05/2011
EU-61 Memorandum 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 compartmentalization in the veterinary
field of 4 April 2006
European Union-Russia Memorandum of
4 April 2006 concerning principles of zoning and
compartmentalization in the veterinary field
EU-62 Letter of 29 January 2014 from the EU to Russia and
its Annex (pp. 1-5), ARES(2014)209377, SANCO
G7/RF/mh(2014)219959
European Union's letter to Russia of
29 January 2014, ARES(2014)209377, SANCO
G7/RF/mh(2014)219959
EU-63 Excel spreadsheet on Poland, Annex to the Letter of
29 January 2014 (pp. 6-8)

EU-64 Letter of 31 January 2014 from the EU to Russia,
ARES(2014)226547, SANCO
G7/JP/mh(2014)241111, including (1) Annex to the
Veterinary certificate for pork meat and raw meat
preparations, exported from the EU into the Russian
Federation, (2) Annex to the Veterinary certificate
for piglets for fattening, exported from the EU into
the Russian Federation, (3) Annex to the Veterinary
certificate for pigs for breeding, exported from the
EU into the Russian Federation and (4) Annex to the
Veterinary certificate for slaughter pigs, exported
from the EU into the Russian Federation
European Union's letter to Russia of
31 January 2014, ARES(2014)226547, SANCO
G7/JP/mh(2014)241111

No. Full Title Short Title (for frequently cited exhibits,
where applicable)
EU-65 Letter of 7 February 2014 from the EU to Russia, and
its Annexes I-IV, ARES(2014)304571,
SANCO/G7/DP/tb(2014)328578
European Union's letter to Russia of
7 February 2014, ARES(2014)304571,
SANCO/G7/DP/tb(2014)328578
EU-66 African swine fever in Lithuania, presentation by the
State Food and Veterinary Service of Lithuania, 6–7
February 2014

EU-67 Protective measures introduced in Poland against the
African swine fever threat, General Veterinary
Inspectorate of Poland, 6–7 February 2014

EU-68 Protective measures against African swine fever in
Latvia, 6 February 2014

EU-69 Information on the implementation of protective
measures against African swine fever in Estonia, 7
February 2014

EU-70.a. a. (LT) Order concerning Order No B1-31 of 20
January 2014 of the Director of the State Food and
Veterinary Service on Measures to Prevent the
spread of African Swine Fever No B1-48 of 24
January 2014

EU-70.b. b. (EN) translation
EU-71.a. a. (LT) Order on Measures to Control African Swine
Fever No B1-49 of 24 January 2014

EU-71.b. b. (EN) translation
EU-72.a. a. (LT) Order on the Slaughter of Pigs as Part of the
Measures to Prevent the Spread of African Swine
Fever, 30 January 2014, No B1-60

EU-72.b. b. (EN) translation
EU-74.a. a. (LT) Contingency Plan for Classical Swine Fever
(CSF) and African Swine Fever (ASF) of Lithuania, 30
December 2011

EU-74.b. b. (EN) translation
EU-75.a. a. (PL) Polish Veterinary African Swine Fever
Contingency Plan, January 2014

EU-75.b. b. (EN) translation
EU-76.a. a. (LV) Plan for Combating Very Dangerous
Infectious Animal Diseases of the Republic of Latvia,
28 February 2013

EU-76.b. b. (EN) translation
EU-77.a. a. (EE) Code of Conduct for Control of African Swine
Fever of Estonia, 11 April 2013

EU-77.b. b. (EN) translation
EU-79 Final Report of an Audit carried out in Lithuania from
27 February to 2 March 2012 in order to Evaluate the
Actions Taken during Recent Outbreaks of Classical
Swine Fever and to Assess Contingency Planning of
Epizootic Disease, SANCO 2012-6386;

EU-80 Final Report of an Audit carried out in Latvia from 4
to 8 March 2013 in order to Evaluate the
Implementation of Contingency Plans in relation to
Animal Health, including provisions on the Protection
of Animals during Depopulation for Disease Control,
SANCO 2013-6777

EU-81 Final Report of a Specific Audit carried out in Latvia
from 15 to 19 June 2009 in order to Evaluate the
Contingency Plans for Epizootic Diseases and the
Eradication Programme for Rabies in the context of a
General Audit, SANCO 2009-8259

No. Full Title Short Title (for frequently cited exhibits,
where applicable)
EU-82 Final Report of an Audit carried out in Estonia from
15 to 19 April 2013 in order to Evaluate the
Implementation of Contingency Plans in relation to
Animal Health, including provisions on the Protection
of Animals during Depopulation for Disease Control,
SANCO 2013- 6781

EU-83 Final Report of a Specific Audit carried out in Poland
from 7 to 16 April 2008 in order to Evaluate the
Contingency Plans for Epizootic Diseases (in
particular Foot and Mouth Disease and Classical
Swine Fever) and to Follow-up Surveillance Activities
for Bluetongue, SANCO 2008-7789

EU-84.a. a. (RU) Letter of 5 February 2014 from Russia to the
EU, FS-SD 8/1640
Russia's letter to the European Union of
5 February 2014, FS-SD 8/1640
EU-84.b. b. (EN) translation
EU-85 Letter of 14 February 2014 from the EU to Russia,
ARES(2014)398065, SANCO/G7/PD(2014)428299

EU-86 Letter of 6 March 2014 from the EU to Russia,
ARES(2014)601346,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh/(2014)630598
European Union's letter to Russia of
6 March 2014, ARES(2014)601346,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh/(2014)630598
EU-87 Letter of 6 March 2014 from the EU to Russia,
ARES(2014)605187, SANCO G7/PD/mh
(2014)640752

EU-88 Working Document on EU preventive measures for
ASF, Annex to the Letter ARES(2014)605187
European Union Working Document on ASF,
ARES(2014)605187
EU-89 Protocol of the technical meeting-consultation
between the EU and the FGBI ARRIAH, FGBI VGNKI
experts as well as Rosselkhoznadzor representatives
which was held at the FGBI Federal Center for
Animal Health, Vladimir, 7 March 2014
Protocol of technical meeting between the
European Union and Russia of 7 March 2014
EU-90.a. a. (RU) Letter of 12 March 2014 from Russia to the
EU, FS-SD-4/3620
Russia's letter to the European Union of
12 March 2014, FS-SD-4/3620
EU-90.b. b. (EN) translation
EU-91 Letter of 13 March 2014 from the EU to Russia,
including a table with the EU replies the topics
mentioned in the letter FS-SD-4/3620 from Russia,
ARES(2014)709435,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014)745829
European Union's letter to Russia of
13 March 2014, ARES(2014)709435,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014)745829
EU-92 Letter of 21 May 2014 from the EU to Russia,
including its 6 Annexes answering specific questions,
ARES(2014)1658269, SANCO/G6/AB(2014)1782253
European Union's letter to Russia of
21 May 2014, ARES(2014)1658269,
SANCO/G6/AB(2014)1782253
EU-93.a. a. (RU) Letter dated 16 May 2014 from Russia to the
EU (received on 4 June 2014), FS-EN-8/7999
Russia's letter to the European Union of
16 May 2014, FS-EN-8/7999
EU-93.b. b. (EN) translation
EU-94 Letter of 13 June 2014 from the EU to Russia,
ARES(2014)1941949,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014)2038505
European Union's letter to Russia of
13 June 2014, ARES(2014)1941949,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014)2038505
EU-95 African swine fever in Lithuania, State Food and
Veterinary Service, Lithuania, 21 August 2014

EU-96 African swine fever in Poland, Update on
epidemiological situation and implemented actions,
Brussels, 3-4 November 2014

EU-97 African swine fever in Latvia, Standing Committee on
Plants, Animals, Food and Feed meeting, Brussels, 3-
4 November 2014

EU-98 African swine fever in Estonia, Standing Committee
on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, Brussels, 3-4
November 2014

No. Full Title Short Title (for frequently cited exhibits,
where applicable)
EU-100 Letter of 27 January 2014 lifting the ASF related
restrictions with respect to the Mogilev Oblast,
Belarus, FR-EN-8/1093

EU-101 Eradication plan of African swine fever in feral pigs in
certain areas of Lithuania (communicated to Russia
on 24 March 2015)

EU-102 Eradication plan of African swine fever in feral pigs in
certain areas of Poland (communicated to Russia on
24 March 2015)

EU-103 Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/570
of 7 April 2015 approving the plans for the
eradication of African swine fever in feral pigs in
certain areas of Estonia and Latvia, OJ L93, p.80

EU-104 Eurostat, trade statistics on exports of meat of
swine, fresh, chilled or frozen from Poland to US and
Canada

EU-107 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/236/EU of
24 April 2014 concerning a Union financial
contribution towards surveillance and other
emergency measures implemented in Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania and Poland against African swine
fever, OJ L125, p.86

EU-108 Standing Group of Experts on African swine fever in
the Baltic and Eastern Europe region under the GF-
TADs umbrella, First meeting (SGE1), Minsk,
Belarus, December 1- 2 2014

EU-109 EU Veterinary Emergency Team, Vilnius, 8 – 10
October 2014

EU-114 State Food and Veterinary Service, Lithuania,
Protective measures against ASF in Lithuania,
Brussels, 07.10.2013

EU-115 Sistemas de Circulación Ecológica (SICIREC),
definitions, corridors

EU-116 Eradication plan for African swine fever in wild boar
in Latvia

EU-117 Plan for the eradication of African swine fever from
feral pig population in Estonia

EU-118 Detailed account of the outbreaks in domestic pigs
and notification of cases in wild boar in the EU, as
notified to the OIE
ASF cases in the European Union notified to the
OIE
EU-119 Chronological maps of cases and outbreaks
EU-120 Map with the three clusters of outbreaks outside the
areas considered infected

EU-121 Non-exhaustive statistics of exports from non-
affected areas in Poland to other countries

EU-125 Better Training For Safer Food, contingency planning
EU-126 Audit of the Lithuanian contingency planning system
EU-129 Letter of 4 November 2014, Ref. Ares(2014)3660850
EU-130 Rosell, C., Navàs, F. & Romero, S., 2012.
Reproduction of wild boar in a cropland and coastal
wetland area: implications for management. Animal
Biodiversity and Conservation, 35.2: 209–217

EU-132 Communication of 24 January 2014: African swine
fever (ASF) in two wild boars in Lithuania, in
Salcininkai and Varena Regions, at the border with
Belarus

EU-133 Communication of 27 January 2014: African swine
fever (ASF) in Lithuania. Interim protective measures

No. Full Title Short Title (for frequently cited exhibits,
where applicable)
EU-134 Communication of 30 January 2014: African swine
fever (ASF) in Lithuania. Interim protective measures
(adoption of implementing decision)

EU-135 Communication of 6 February 2014: African swine
fever (ASF) in Lithuania. Commission Implementing
Decision concerning certain protective measures
relating to African swine fever in Lithuania
(Committee approval of implementing decision)

EU-136 Communication of 17 February 2014: African swine
fever (ASF) confirmed in Poland in a wild boar found
900 meters from the border with Belarus

EU-137 Communication of 18 February 2014: African swine
fever (ASF) in Lithuania (adoption of implementing
decision)

EU-138 Communication of 18 February 2014: African swine
fever (ASF) in Poland – Information on infected area

EU-139 Communication of 18 February 2014: African swine
fever (ASF) in Poland. Interim protective measures

EU-140 Communication of 18 February 2014: African swine
fever (ASF) in Poland. Adoption of Interim protective
measures

EU-141 Communication of 20 February 2014: African swine
fever (ASF) in Poland (adoption of implementing
decision)

EU-142 Communication of 26 February 2014: African swine
fever (ASF) in Poland. Measures put in place in the
infected area

EU-143 Communication of 5 March 2014: African swine fever
(ASF) in Lithuania and Poland – Presentations on the
situation

EU-144 Communication of 5 March 2014: African swine fever
(ASF) in Poland (Committee approval of
implementing decision)

EU-145 Communication of 17 March 2014: African swine
fever (ASF) in Poland (Publication of implementing
decision)

EU-146 Communication of 27 March 2014: Adoption of
control measures relating to African swine fever in
certain Member States

EU-147 Communication of 26 June 2014: African swine fever
(ASF) detection in Latvia

EU-148 Communication of 27 June 2014: African swine fever
(ASF) in Latvia – Adoption of interim protective
measures

EU-149 Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 of 25
February 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No
1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the
Council laying down health rules as regards animal
by-products and derived products not intended for
human consumption and implementing Council
Directive 97/78/EC as regards certain samples and
items exempt from veterinary checks at the border
under that Directive, OJ L 54, p.1

EU-150 Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009
laying down health rules as regards animal by-
products and derived products not intended for
human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC)
No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation), OJ
L 300, p.1

No. Full Title Short Title (for frequently cited exhibits,
where applicable)
EU-151 Maps with respect to domestic pigs in the EU
EU-152 Follow-up report No.6, Reference OIE: 15045, Report
Date: 31/03/2014, Country: Poland

EU-153 Follow-up report No.34, Reference OIE: 17579,
Report Date: 22/04/2015, Country: Latvia

EU-154 Follow-up report No.41, Reference OIE : 17590,
Report Date: 24/04/2015, Country : Lithuania

EU-155 Follow-up report No.43, Reference OIE : 17604,
Report Date: 28/04/2015, Country: Estonia

EU-156 Follow-up report No.48, Reference OIE : 17628,
Report Date: 29/04/2015, Country: Poland

EU-157 Veterinary certificate for the export of beef meat
with bones from the EU to the Russian Federation in
force in 2011

EU-
158.a.
a. (RU) Russian instruction FS-EN-2/11554 of 5
September 2011

EU-
158.b.
b. (EN) translation
EU-159 Certificate for the export of live poultry and hatching
eggs from Canada to the Russian Federation

EU-
160.a.
a. (RU) Russian instruction FS-EN-8/6139 of 15 April
2015

EU-
160.b.
b. (EN) translation
EU-
161.a.
a. (RU) Instructions of Rosselkhoznadzor Nº FS-SA-
7/1275, of 29 January 2014
Russia's instructions of 29 January 2014, FS-
SA-7/1275
EU-
161.b.
b. (EN) translation
EU-
162.a.
a. (RU) Letter of 5 February 2014 FS-EN-8/1642 Russia's letter to the European Union of
5 February 2014, FS-EN-8/1642
EU-
162.b.
b. (EN) translation
EU-165 Press release, Russian Federal Service for Veterinary
Supervision, 2 August 2012
(http://www.fsvps.ru/fsvps/news/5049.html)

EU-
167.a.
a. (RU) Letter of 18 February 2015 from Russia to
the EU

EU-
167.b.
b. (EN) translation
EU-
168.a.
a. (RU) Letter of the Russian Federal Service for
Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision No. FS-EN-
8/5081, of 2 April 2014
Russia's letter of instruction of 2 April 2014, FS-
EN-8/5081
EU-
168.b.
b. (EN) translation
EU-
169.a.
a. (RU) Letter of the Russian Federal Service for
Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision No. FS-NF-
8/11315, of 27 June 2014
Russia's letter of instruction of 27 June 2014,
FS-NF-8/11315
EU-
169.b.
b. (EN) translation
EU-
171.a.
a. (RU) Letter from the Russian Federation to the
European Union FS-EN-7/14507, of 6 August 2014
Russia's letter to the European Union of
6 August 2014, FS-EN-7/14507
EU-
171.b.
b. (EN) translation
EU-172 Letter of 27 January 2014 from DG SANCO to the
authorities of the Russian Federation, Ref.
Ares(2014)188318

No. Full Title Short Title (for frequently cited exhibits,
where applicable)
EU-173 Letter of DG SANCO of 10 March 2014 (ref
SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014)6591200)

EU-175 Letter of DG SANCO of 20 February 2014 (ref.
SANCO/G7/PD/mh (2014) 450287)

EU-177 Letter of DG SANCO of 26 September 2014, Ares
(2014) 3176148

EU-186 Communication of 7 July 2014: African swine fever
(ASF) in wild boar in Poland in the restricted area
listed in Part II of the Annex to Decision
2014/178/EU

EU-187 Communication of 22 July 2014: African Swine
Fever in Latvia

EU-203 ASF epidemiological situation in Estonia– update,
Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and
Feed, Brussels, 9-10 September 2015

EU-206 Communication of 1 July 2014: African Swine fever
(ASF) in domestic pigs and in wild boar in Latvia
Commission Implementing Decision 2014/417/EU of
27 June 2014

EU-207 Communication of 8 July 2014: Adoption of
Commission Implementing Decision amending
Decision 2014/178/EU as regards African swine fever
in Latvia

EU-208 Communication of 8 July 2014: African swine fever
(ASF) in wild boar in Poland in the restricted area
listed in Part II of the Annex to Decision
2014/178/EU

EU-209 Communication of 9 July 2014: Epidemiological
update and map displaying regionalisation set out in
Decision 2014/178/EU, as last amended, as regards
African swine fever

EU-210 Communication of 10 July 2014: Publication of
Decision amending Commission Implementing
Decision 2014/178/EU as regards African swine fever
regionalisation

EU-211 Communication of 11 July 2014: African swine fever
(ASF) in wild boar in Poland in the restricted area
listed in Part II of the Annex to Decision
2014/178/EU

EU-212 Communication of 14 July 2014: African swine fever
(ASF) in Latvia in the restricted area listed in Part II
of the Annex to Decision 2014/178/EU

EU-214 Annotated annex to the letter of 7 February 2014,
with references to the EU exhibit numbers
corresponding to each document

EU-215 Pigs statistics in the EU
EU-217 Summary of FVO webpages concerning audits in
Finland, Portugal, the Netherlands and Estonia

EU-218 Final report of an audit carried out in Finland, 3-7
September 2012

EU-219 Competent Authority Comments received on 17
January 2013 (Finland)

EU-220 Action plan received 17 January 2013 (Finland)
EU-221 Annex 2, Summary of legal requirements related to
contingency planning for epizootic disease (Finland)

EU-222 Final report of an audit carried out in Portugal, 24-
28 September 2012

EU- a. (PR) Competent Authority Comments received on

No. Full Title Short Title (for frequently cited exhibits,
where applicable)
223.a 16 January 2013 (Portugal)
EU-
223.b
b. (EN) Translation
EU-224 Action plan received on 16 January 2013 (Portugal)
EU-225 Annex 2 Summary of legal requirements to
contingency planning for epizootic disease (Portugal)

EU-226 Final report of an audit carried out in the
Netherlands, 28 January-6 February 2013

EU-227 Annex 2: Summary of Legal Requirements for
Contingency Plans for Epizootic Disease Control (the
Netherlands)

EU-228 Competent Authority comments received on 16 April
2013 (the Netherlands)

EU-229 Response of the competent authorities of the
Netherlands to the recommendations of draft report
(DG SANCO 2013-6775), Action plan received on 16
April 2013

EU-230 Corrigendum to the English version of the report
reference number: DG(SANCO)/
2013-6775 - FVO audit in the Netherlands carried
out from 28 January to 6 February
2013

EU-231 Final report of an audit carried out in Estonia, 15-19
April 2013

EU-
232.a
a. (EE) Competent Authority comments - Received
on 16 August 2013 (Estonia)

EU-
232.b
b. (EN) Translation
EU-
233a.
a. (EE) Annex, Response of the Competent
Authorities of Estonia to the recommendations of
Report ref. DG(SANCO)/2013-6781-MR of an audit
carried out from 15 to 19 April 2013

EU-
233.b
b. (EN) Translation
EU-234 Annex, Response of the Competent Authorities of
Lithuania to the recommendations of Report ref.
DG(SANCO)/2012-6386-MR of an audit carried out
from 27 February to 02 March 2012, Updated Action
plan received on 9 October 2012

EU-235 Response of the Competent Authorities of Lithuania
to the recommendations of Report ref.
DG(SANCO)/2012-6386-MR of an audit carried out
from 27 February to 02 March 2012, Action plan
received on 14 May 2012

EU-236 Workshop, FVO Audits on Contingency Planning, 25-
26 September 2013

EU-237 Veterinary Control Programme on African swine fever
Poland in 2014, 2013

EU-238 Veterinary Control Programme on African swine fever
early detection in Lithuania and Belarus in 2014,
2013

EU-239 Veterinary Programme on African swine fever early
detection in Latvia in 2014, 2013

EU-240 Program of additional veterinary supervision
measures in connection with the outbreaks of African
swine fever in Russia and Belorussia in 2014 in
Estonia, approved for 2013

No. Full Title Short Title (for frequently cited exhibits,
where applicable)
EU-241 Liste des ateliers de découpe de viandes d'animaux
de boucherie agréés CE / Meat of domestic ungulates
cutting plant, France

EU-242 Liste des abattoirs d'ongulés domestiques agréés CE
/ Meat of domestic ungulates slaughterhouse, France

EU-243 Presentation about swine, Committee for the
Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets, 23
January 2014

EU-244 EU Pig Population, 2014
EU-245 EU Pig Production, 2014
EU-
248.a
a. (LT) Lithuanian CA comments on Russia's
inspection report, 2014

EU-
248.b
b. (EN) Translation
EU-
249.a
a. (PL) Polish CA comments on Russia's inspection
report, 2014

EU-
249.b
b. (EN) Translation
EU-250 Council Directive 2008/71/EC of 15 July 2008 on the
identification and registration of pigs, OJ L 213, p. 31

EU-253 Communication of 31 July 2014: African swine fever
– modification of regionalisation through
amendment of the Annex to Commission
Implementing Decision 2014/178/EU

EU-254 Communication of 4 August 2014: African swine
fever – modification of regionalisation through
amendment of Annex of Commission Implementing
Decision 2014/178/EU – published in Official Journal

EU-255 Communication of 7 August 2014: Update on African
swine fever situation in Latvia - ASF FAX 047/2014

EU-256 Communication of 7 August 2014: New update on
African swine fever situation in Latvia - ASF FAX
048/2014

EU-257 Communication of 12 August 2014: African Swine
fever in wild boar in Latvia - Adoption of urgent
interim protective measures - ASF FAX 052/2014

EU-258 Communication of 13 August 2014: African swine
fever in wild boar in Latvia - Urgent interim
protective measures adopted - ASF FAX 055/2014

EU-259 Communication of 14 August 2014: African swine
fever in wild boar in Latvia - Urgent interim
protective measures published - ASF FAX 056/2014

EU-260 Communication of 22 August 2014: Commission
Implementing Decision amending Decision
2014/178/EU as regards African swine fever
regionalisation - ASF FAX 058/2014

EU-261 Communication of 28 August 2014: Correction on
date of publication - African swine fever –
modification of regionalisation through amendment
of Annex to Commission Implementing Decision
2014/178/EU - ASF FAX 060/2014

EU-262 Communication of 1 September 2014: African swine
fever (ASF) – Publication of revised regionalisation
through amendment of Annex to Commission
Implementing Decision 2014/178/EU - ASF FAX
062/2014

RUS-1 J.M. Sánchez-Vizcaíno et al., "An Update on the
Epidemiology and Pathology of African Swine Fever
", J. Comp. Path Vol. 152 (2015), 9-21

No. Full Title Short Title (for frequently cited exhibits,
where applicable)
RUS-3 FAO, "African swine fever in the Russian Federation:
risk factors for Europe and beyond", EMPRES Watch
Vol. 28 (May 2013)

RUS-4 OIE General Disease Information Sheets: African
Swine Fever

RUS-5 B.V. Boev et al., "The wild boar. Modelling and
prognosis for cylvatic African swine fever"

RUS-7 European Commission, "ASF: Biosecurity in the pig
breeding sector", presentation by Mary Louise
Penrith (30 October 2014)

RUS-8 The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, "Sus
Scrofa"

RUS-13 Plan of the measures to prevent spreading and
eradicate a virus of African swine fever (ASF) in the
territory of the Russian Federation, approved by the
Chairman of the Interdepartmental Commission,
Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation, 25
September 2012

RUS-
15.a
a. (RU) Russian Federal Law on Veterinary Medicine,
No. 4979-I, 14 May 1993

RUS-
15.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-
16.a
a. (RU) Russian Federal Decree on State Veterinary
Supervision, No. 476, 5 June 2013
Russian Federal Decree on State Veterinary
Supervision No. 476
RUS-
16.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-
17.a
a. (RU) Russian Federal Government Decree on State
Program for Agricultural Development and
Regulation of Agricultural Commodities Markets for
2013-2020 , No. 717, 14 July 2012.

RUS-
17.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-
18.a
a. (RU) Order by the Russian Federal Ministry of
Agriculture on the Confirmation of the List of
Contagious Animal Diseases That Require
Containment Measures, No. 476, 19 December 2011

RUS-
18.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-
19.a
a. (RU) Order by the Russian Federal Ministry of
Agriculture on the Confirmation of the Rules for
Veterinary Transport Certificates and the Order of
Issuance of Veterinary Transport Certificates, No.
281, 17 July 2014

RUS-
19.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-
19.a
(revised)
Order 281 of the Ministry of Agriculture of Russia, of
July 17, 2014 "On approval of the Regulations for
arrangement of work associated with electronic
drawing up of accompanying veterinary documents"
(registered at the RF Ministry of Justice on July 18,
2014, Reference 33161) (Exhibit RUS-19.a)

RUS-
20.a
a. (RU) Russian Federal Ministry of Natural
Resources, Plan regarding the organizational and
specific measures of monitoring, depopulation and
reduction of migration activities of wild boar in the
territory of the RF, including specially protected
natural areas of regional and federal importance, 21
November 2013.

RUS-
20.b
b. (EN) Translation

No. Full Title Short Title (for frequently cited exhibits,
where applicable)
RUS-
21.a
a. (RU) Russian Federal Government Decree on the
Seizure of Animals and Animal Products in case of
Eradication of Highly Dangerous Animal Disease
Outbreaks, No. 310, 26 May 2006
Russian Federal Decree on the Seizure of
Animals and Animal Products No. 310
RUS-
21.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-
22.a
a. (RU) Order by the Russian Federal Ministry of
Agriculture on Approval of Guidelines to Determine
Animal Health Status of Pig Holdings and
Organizations Involved in Pig Slaughter, Pork
Product Processing and Storage, No. 258, 23 July
2010
Russian Federal Ministry of Agriculture Order
No. 258
RUS-
22.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-
25.a
a. (RU) Decision by the Customs Union Commission
on the Use of Veterinary-Sanitary Measures in the
Customs Union, No. 317, 18 June 2010
Customs Union Decision No. 317
RUS-
25.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-27 OIE WAHIS Interface, Follow-up report No. 31 –
Report reference: 1, Reference OIE: 17147, Report
Date: 06/02/2015, Country: Lithuania

RUS-
28.a
a. (RU) Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to
DG SANCO, FS-EN-8/1023, 25 January 2014
Russia's letter to the European Union of
25 January 2014, FS-EN-8/1023
RUS-
28.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-
29.a
a. (RU) Letter from Russian Veterinary Service, FS-
NV-8/2972, 27 February 2014
Letter from Russian Veterinary Service, FS-NV-
8/2972, 27 February 2014
RUS-
29.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-
30.a
a. (RU) Letter from DG SANCO to the Russian
Veterinary Service, SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014)542957,
26 February 2014

RUS-
30.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-31 Assignment Report, S.A. Dankvert , Head of Russian
Veterinary Service, in the city of Madrid (Spain) from
13 to 16 March 2014

RUS-32 Glossary, OIE Terrestrial Code Terrestrial Code Glossary
RUS-33 OIE WAHIS Interface, Follow-up report No. 38 –
Reference OIE: 17218, Report Date: 18/02/2015,
Country: Poland

RUS-34 OIE WAHIS Interface, Follow-up report No. 27 –
Reference OIE: 17211, Report Date: 17/02/2015,
Country: Latvia

RUS-35 OIE WAHIS Interface, Follow-up report No. 33 –
Reference OIE: 17202, Report Date: 16/02/2015,
Country: Estonia

RUS-36 Commission Implementing Decision of 13 February
2015 (EU) 2015/251, OJ L 41, 17.2.2015, pp. 46-51

RUS-
37.a
a. (RU) Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to
DG SANCO, FS-NV-8/17431, 11 September 2014
Russia's letter to the European Union of
11 September 2014, FS-NV-8/17431
RUS-
37.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-
39.a
a. (RU) Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to
DG SANCO, FS-EN-8/19574, 13 October 2014

RUS-
39.b
b. (EN) Translation

No. Full Title Short Title (for frequently cited exhibits,
where applicable)
RUS-41 Declaration of Lebedev
RUS-42 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to
Belarusian Veterinary Service, FS-EN-8/1089, 27
January 2014

RUS-43 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to
Belarusian Veterinary Service, FS-EN-8/1093, 27
January 2014

RUS-
53.a
a. (RU) Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to
DG SANCO, FS-EN-8/5095, 2 April 2014
Russia's letter to the European Union of
2 April 2014, FS-EN-8/5095
RUS-
53.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-
54.a
a. (RU) Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to
DG SANCO, FS-EN-8/5084, 2 April 2014
Russia's letter to the European Union of
2 April 2014, FS-EN-8/5084
RUS-
54.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-55 Letter from DG SANCO to the Russian Veterinary
Service, SANCO/G&/PD/mh (2014) 1114118, 4 April
2014

RUS-
56.a
a. (RU) Letter from DG SANCO to the Russian
Veterinary Service, SANCO/G7/PD/mh (2014)
1055360, 4 April 2014

RUS.56.
b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-69 European Commission, Final Report of an Audit
Carried out in Lithuania from 14 to 16 April 2014 in
order to evaluate the implementation of animal
health controls in relation to African Swine Fever
(2014 EU Veterinary Audit Report for Lithuania, 14-
16 April 2014)

RUS-
71.a
a. (RU) Russian Veterinary Service, Report of Deputy
Director, E.A. Nepoklonov on the visit to the Republic
of Lithuania (Vilnius) on 10-12 February 2014

RUS-
71.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-73 OIE WAHIS Interface, ASF Poland, Follow-up report
No. 1 (24/02/2014)

RUS-78 OIE presentation on "The OIE International
standards on CSF and ASF – recent developments",
TAIEX Workshop on CSF and ASF, Vilnius, Lithuania,
3-4 September 2013

RUS-84 Chapter 3.1, Veterinary Services, OIE Terrestrial
Code

RUS-85 Rosselkhoznadzor News, "New Meat Product
Smuggling Channel from the EU Detected by
Rosselkhoznadzor", 16 January 2014

RUS-86 Pig Progress, "Russia: Measures needed to stop ‘pork
fraud", 5 December 2014

RUS-87 Rosselkhoznadzor News, "Working meeting between
Head of Rosselkhoznadzor Sergey Dankvert and
heads of national veterinary Services and Industrial
Associations from Denmark, France, the Netherlands
and Italy", 20 November 2014

RUS-88 The Pig Site, "European Vets Support Swill Feeding
Ban to Control African Swine Fever", 25 February
2014

RUS-89 European Commission, Working Document
SANCO/G2/SB (14.01.2014), "Guidelines on
surveillance and control of African swine fever in
feral pigs and preventative measures for pig

No. Full Title Short Title (for frequently cited exhibits,
where applicable)
holdings", 14 January 2014
RUS-99 Morelle et al., "Towards understanding wild boar Sus
scrofa movement: a synthetic movement ecology
approach", Mammal Review, (2014)

RUS-104 OIE WAHIS Interface, Estonia follow-up report No.
32 (9 February 2015)

RUS-105 OIE WAHIS Interface, Lithuania follow-up report No.
33 (20 February 2015)

RUS-106 OIE WAHIS Interface, Latvia follow-up report No. 26
(10 February 2015)

RUS-107 OIE WAHIS Interface, Poland follow-up report No. 2
(6 March 2014)

RUS-
108.a
a. (RU) Report by Voronezh Veterinary Service, No.
1418, 22 July 2014

RUS-
108.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-
109.a
a. (RU) Decree by the Governor of Voronezh region
of the Russian Federation on the Imposition of ASF-
related Quarantine on the Territory of Anninsky
municipal district of Voronezh region, No. 237-y, 17
July 2014

RUS-
109.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-
110.a
a. (RU) Report by Voronezh Veterinary Service, No.
1443, 25 July 2014

RUS-
110.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-
111.a
a. (RU) Order by the Governor of Voronezh Region
on Compensation, No. 236, 17 July 2014

RUS-
111.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-
112.a
a. (RU) Rosselkhoznadzor News, "To continue
controlling of ASF, Voronezh Administration of
Rosselkhoznadzor arrested a pork consignment from
Ukraine" 23 January 2015

RUS-
112.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-113 G. A. Dzhailidi, R.A. Krivonos, A.A. Shevchenko, O.
Yu. Chernykh, Measures for prevention and
eradication of African Swine Fever in Krasnodar
Territory

RUS-
114.a
a. (RU) Resolution of the Head of Krasnodar
Territory Administration (Governor), 16 August 2012

RUS-
114.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-115 Pig Progress, "Russian Vet service: More African
Swine Fever in Krasnodar region", 30 July 2012

RUS-
116.a
a. (RU) Declaration of Dzhailidi, 24 February 2015
RUS-
116.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-
117.a
a. (RU) Letter from Anisimov to Vlasov report
(Measures Belgorod), No. 06/1613, 10 June 2014

RUS-
117.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-118 Pig Progress, "New ASF outbreak in Belgorod Oblast,
Russia", 11 June 2014

No. Full Title Short Title (for frequently cited exhibits,
where applicable)
RUS-
119.a
a. (RU) Letter from Aleinik to Petrikov (Measures
Belgorod), 6/17-2502, 4 July 2014

RUS-
119.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-
120.a
a. (RU) Resolution of Governor of Belgorod Oblast to
Eliminate and Prevent Further Spread of African
Swine Fever within the Infected Area, i.e. Grafskiy
Les Stow of Agrotekhgarant "Alekseevsky" OOO
Hunting Farm in Alekseevksy District of Belgorod
Oblast, 4 June 2014, No. 56.

RUS-
120.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-
121.a
a. (RU) Resolution of the Government of Belgorod
Oblast on Implementing the "Preventing the
Introduction and Spread of the African Swine Fever
(ASF) virus in Belgorod Oblast for 2014-2016" long
term target program, 5 May 2014, No. 173-nn.

RUS-
121.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-
122.a
a. (RU) Letter from Anisimov to Vlasov (Measures in
Belgorod), 27 August 2014

RUS-
122.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-127 Russian Veterinary Service, Guidelines for prevention
of distribution of African swine fever among wild
boars

RUS-
130.a
a. (RU) Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to
DG SANCO, FS-SD-8/4168, 19 March 2014
Russia's letter to the European Union of
19 March 2014, FS-SD-8/4168
RUS-
130.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-
131.a
a. (RU) Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to
DG SANCO, No. FS-AS-8/23743, 1 December 2014

RUS-
131.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-132 Letter from DG SANCO to the Russian Veterinary
Service, SANCO/G7/PD/mh (2014) 4703183, 23
December 2014

RUS-133 Letter from DG SANCO to the Russian Veterinary
Service, Ref. Ares (2014)2495649, 28 July 2014

RUS-
135.a
a. (RU) Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to
DG SANCO, FS-SD-4/3620, 12 March 2014
Russia's letter to the European Union of
12 March 2014, FS-SD-4/3620
RUS-
135.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-
137.a
a. (RU) Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to
DG SANCO, FS-SD-8/3196, 3 March 2014

RUS-
137.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-
138.a
a. (RU) Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to
DG SANCO, FS-AS-8/6360, 18 April 2014

RUS-
138.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-
138.b
(revised)
Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to DG
SANCO, FS-AS-8/6360, 18 April 2014

RUS-140 Finnish veterinary authority (EVIRA) Research Report
on "Possible routes of entry into the country for
African swine fever – Risk profile", published on
September 2011

No. Full Title Short Title (for frequently cited exhibits,
where applicable)
RUS-144 OIE WAHIS Interface, Event summary Reports,
African swine fever, Russia (2007-2014)
OIE WAHIS Interface Reports, Russia (2007-
2014)
RUS-145 OIE WAHIS Interface, ASF Poland, Immediate
notification (17/02/2014)

RUS-148 Declaration by Vladimir Maslow on the ASF Outbreak
that occurred at One of the Enterprises of the
AGOECO group in the Voronezh Region of the
Russian Federation

RUS-149 The Polish plan of measures in order to eradicate
African Swine Fever in wild boar in infected area and
buffer zone developed on the basis of Article 16 of
the Council Directive 2002/60/EC. Ref. Areas (2015)
1284836 – 24/03/2015

RUS-151 Commission Implementing Decision of 1 April 2015
(EU) 2015/558, OJ L 92, 8.4.2015

RUS-152 Data from OIE WAHIS Interface – ASF Outbreaks
and Cases per Month for Lithuania, Poland, Latvia
and Estonia, January 2014 to March 2015

RUS-153 Letter from Russian Veterinary Service to the
European Union Veterinary Service, FS-EN-8/4220,
19 March 2015

RUS-154 Letter of 24 March 2015 from the EU to Russia, Ref.
Ares(2015)1284836

RUS-156 ASF Eradication plan for African swine Fever in wild
boars in the Southern part of Lithuania, June 2014

RUS-157 Letter from Russia to EU, EH-8/14006, 31 July 2014 Russia's letter to the European Union of
31 July 2014, EH-8/14006
RUS-159 Report of the Working Party on the Accession of the
Russian Federation, WT/ACC/RUS/70 &
WT/MIN(11)/2, circulated 17 November 2011, paras.
893 and 1450

RUS-160 Protocol of Accession of the Russian Federation,
WT/MIN(11)/24 & WT/L/839
Russia's Accession Protocol
RUS-164 Data from OIE WAHIS Interface – ASF Cases for
Lithuania, Poland, Latvia and Estonia, January 2014
to March 2015

RUS-167 Letter from DG SANTE to FSVPS
Ref. Ares(2015)1284836 – 24/03/2015; EU's replies
to the questionnaire sent by FSVPS with the letter
FS-AS-8/23743 dated 1 December 2014

RUS-168 OIE WAHIS interface OIE WAHIS interface
RUS-171 OIE Disease Information Sheet, African Swine Fever.
RUS-172 C. Gallardo et al, "Experimental Infection of
Domestic Pigs with African Swine Fever Virus
Lithuania 2014 Genotype II Field Isolate, in
Transboundary and Emerging Diseases (2015)

RUS-175 Mur L, Igolkin A, Varentsova A, Pershin A, Remyga
S, Shevchenko I, Zhukov I, Sánchez-Vizcaíno JM.
Detection of African Swine Fever Antibodies in
Experimental and Field Samples from the Russian
Federation: Implications for Control. Transbound
Emerg. Dis. 2014 Nov 30. Doi: 10.1111/tbed.12304

RUS-177 OIE-Listed diseases, infections and infestations in
force in 2015

RUS-
185.a
a. (RU) Letter from DG SANCO,
G7/PD/(2014)312766 dated February 6, 2014

RUS-
185.b
b. (EN) Translation

No. Full Title Short Title (for frequently cited exhibits,
where applicable)
RUS-186 OIE, ASF Technical Disease Card
RUS-191 Letter from the EU veterinary service to the Russian
veterinary service, Ref. Ares (2014) 3176148 –
26/09/2014, 26 September 2014

RUS-194 Data from OIE WAHIS Interface and EUR-Lex, as at
30 April 2015

RUS-205 OIE presentation on "The OIE International
standards on CSF and ASF – recent developments",
TAIEX Workshop on CSF and ASF, Vilnius, Lithuania,
3-4 September 2013

RUS-
209.a
a. (RU) Letter from Russian Veterinary Service, EC-
AC-8/3671, 13 March 2014

RUS-
209.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-217 Letter from DG SANCO to the Russian Veterinary
Service, SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014) 450287, 20
February 2014

RUS-218 Certificate chronology – negotiations between Russia
and the EU with respect to amending the language in
the veterinary certificate(s)

RUS-224 Letter from the EU Veterinary Service to the Russian
Veterinary Service, 27 January 2014, SANCO
G7/JP/mh(2014)197026

RUS-231 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to the
French Veterinary Service, 27 February 2014, ФС-
НВ-8/2964

RUS-234 Rosselkhoznadzor news, "Negotiations between
Sergey Dankvert, Head of Rosselkhoznadzor, and
Alex Van Meeuwen, Ambassador of the Kingdom of
Belgium," 4 March 2014

RUS-240 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to the
Polish Veterinary Service, 10 April 2014, FS-NV-
8/5827
Russia's letter to Poland of 10 April 2014, FS-
NV-8/5827
RUS-250 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to the EU
Veterinary Service, 30 June 2014, ФС-СД-8/11415

RUS-251 Rosselkhoznadzor news, "Negotiations between
Dankvert and DG SANCO," 6 July 2014

RUS-263 Letter from Russian Veterinary Service to the
European Union Veterinary Service, 29 July 2014,
Ref C-EH-8/13771
Russia's letter to the European Union of
29 July 2014, C-EH-8/13771
RUS-268 Commission Implementing Decision of 22 May 2015
(EU) 2015/820, OJ L 129, 27.5.2015

RUS-275 Data from OIE WAHIS Interface and EUR-Lex, as at
5 June 2015

RUS-277 D. Gavier-Widen et al., "African Swine Fever in Wild
Boar in Europe: a notable challenge," Veterinary
Record, 23 February 2015

RUS-291 Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, "Qualitative
Risikobewertung zur Einschleppung der Afrikanischen
Schweinepest nach Deutschland aus Osteuropa," 2
April 2014

RUS-
291.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-292 Society for Applied Microbiology (SfAM), "Restrictions
In Place As African Swine Fever Hits Lithuania," 31
January 2014

RUS-296 Data from OIE WAHIS Interface, as at 31 August

No. Full Title Short Title (for frequently cited exhibits,
where applicable)
RUS-296
(revised)
Data from OIE WAHIS Interface, as at 31 August
RUS-297
(revised)
Overview of updated outbreaks, zone changes, and
outbreaks out of zone, as of 31 August

RUS-298 Commission Implementing Decision of 14 July 2015
(EU) 2015/1169, OJ L 188, 16.7.2015, pp. 45–54

RUS-299 Commission Implementing Decision of 29 July 2015
(EU) 2015/1318, OJ L 203, 31.7.2015, pp. 14–24

RUS-300 Commission Implementing Decision (EU) of
7 August 2015 (EU) 2015/1372, OJ L 211, 8.8.2015,
pp. 34–44

RUS-301 Commission Implementing Decision (EU) of 18
August 2015 (EU) 2015/1405, OJ L 218, 19.9.2015,
pp. 16-26

RUS-302 Commission Implementing Decision (EU) of 25
August 2015 (EU) 2015/1432, OJ L 224, 27.08.2015,
pp. 39-49

RUS-
307.a
a. (RU) Declaration by Georgy Djailidi,
12 September 2015

RUS-
307.b
Declaration by Georgy Djailidi, 12 September 2015
RUS-
308.a
a. (RU) Declaration by Tatyana Ausheva,
12 September 2015

RUS-
308.b
b. (EN) Translation
RUS-309 Declaration by Konstantin Gruzdev,
12 September 2015.

RUS-319 Letter from the European Union Veterinary Service to
the Russian Federation Veterinary Service, Ref. Ares
(2015)2518258. 16 January 2015.

RUS-323 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to Heads
of Veterinary authorities in the RF'entities, FS-EN-
8/1644, 5 February 2014

RUS-324 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to Heads
of Rosselkhoznadzor’ Territorial administrations, FS-
AS-8/4443, 25 March 2014

RUS-325 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to Chief
Veterinary Inspector of the Republic of Belarus, FS-
EN-8/13779, 29 July 2014

RUS-326 Fax, SANCO/G2/FR/is (2014) 2721683, 24 July 2014
RUS-327 Fax, SANCO/G2/FB/is (2014) 2728623, 24 July 2014
RUS-328 Fax, SANCO/G2/FB/is (2014) 2729207, 24 July 2014
RUS-329 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service, FS-NV-
8/5906, 10 April 2015

RUS-330 Fax, SANCO/G2/MP/kh (2014) 2759647,
28 July 2014

RUS-331 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to
Director Bernard Van Goethem, FS-EN-8/2029, 12
February 2014

RUS-333 Table 41, Excerpts of list of goods subject to
veterinary control. Working Party Report

RUS-349 Commission Implementing Decision "On measures to
prevent the introduction into the Union of the African
swine fever virus from certain third countries or
parts of the territory of third countries in which the
presence of that disease is confirmed and repealing
Decision 2011/78/EU (2013/426/EU)

No. Full Title Short Title (for frequently cited exhibits,
where applicable)
RUS-351 Letter from Rosselkhoznadzor to Russia's regional
offices, 2 March 2012, FS-EN-7/2793

RUS-352 RF Government’s Decree 327 of June 30, 2004
"Approval of the Regulation of the Federal Service for
Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance
(Rosselkhoznadzor)", par. 1, Rossiyskaya Gazeta //
URL: http://www.rg.ru/2004/07/15/veterinar-
dok.html.
Russian Government Decree No. 327
RUS-355 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to the
Director of the State Food and Veterinary Service of
the republic of Lithuania, FS-NV-8/9668, 5 June
2014

RUS-359 Report on visit to Poland, Gruzdev, Pantuhov, 28
February 2014

RUS-379 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to the
Director of Veterinary and International Affairs,
European Commission, HB-8/25328, 19 December
2014

RUS-380 European Commission, ARES (2014) 2495649, 28
July 2014

RUS-386 Regulation on the Common Procedure of Veterinary
Control at the Customs Border of the Customs Union
and the Customs Territory of the Customs Union,
approved by the Decision of the Customs Union No.
317, 18 June 2010
Veterinary Control in Customs Union Decision
No. 317

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT
Abbreviation Description
ASF African swine fever
ASFV African swine fever virus
CU Customs Union
DSB Dispute Settlement Body
DSU Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FSVPS Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision
GATT 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
OIE World Organization for Animal Health
Vienna Convention Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Done at Vienna, 23 May 1969
Russia's accession protocol Protocol on the accession of the Russian Federation
SPS Agreement Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
Terrestrial Code OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code
WTO World Trade Organization

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Complaint by the European Union
1.1. On 8 April 2014, the European Un ion requested consultations with the Russian Federation
(Russia) pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article 11 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) and Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) with respect to the measures and claims set out below.1
1.2. Consultations were held on 30 April and 1 May 2014. Those consultations were unsuccessful
in resolving this dispute.2
1.2 Panel establishment and composition
1.3. On 27 June 2014, the European Union requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to
Article 6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU. 3 At its
meeting on 22 July 2014, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel pursuant to the
request of the European Union in document WT/DS475/2, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU.4
1.4. The Panel's terms of reference are the following:
To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by
the parties to the dispute, the matter referred to the DSB by the European Union in
document WT/DS475/2 and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making
the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.5
1.5. On 13 October 2014, the European Union requested the Director -General to determine the
composition of the panel pursuant to Article 8.7 of the DSU.
1.6. On 23 October 2014, the Director-General accordingly composed the Panel as follows6:
Chairperson: Mr Mohammad Saeed

Members: Mr Juan Antonio Dorantes
 Mr Ulrich Kihm

1.7. On 30 October 2014, Mr Ulrich Kihm resigned from the Panel. Pursuant to a request from the
European Union of 3 November 2014, the Directo r-General appointed Mr Steve Hathaway as Panel
member on 6 November 2014. 7 On 26 November 2014, Mr Steve Hathaway resigned from the
Panel. Pursuant to a request from the European Union of 28 November 2014, the Director -General
appointed Ms Delilah Cabb Aya la as Panel member on 4 December 2014. Accordingly, the
composition of the Panel is as follows:8
Chairperson: Mr Mohammad Saeed
Members: Ms Delilah Cabb Ayala
Mr Juan Antonio Dorantes

1.8. Australia, Brazil, China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Norwa y, South Africa,
Chinese Taipei, and the United States reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings
as third parties.

1 European Union's request for consultations (WT/DS475/1).
2 European Union's request for the establishment of a panel (WT/DS475/2).
3 European Union's request for the establishment of a panel.
4 See WT/DSB/M/348.
5 Constitution of the Panel, para. 2. (WT/DS475/3)
7 Replacement of a Member of the Panel (WT/DS475/4).
8 Replacement of a Member of the Panel (WT/DS475/5).

1.3 Panel proceedings
1.3.1 General
1.9. On 8 December 2014, after consultation with the parties, the Panel adopted its Working
Procedures9 and timetable. Following the Panel's decision to consult with the World Organ ization
for Animal Health (OIE) and individual scientific experts, and after consultation with the parties,
the Panel adopted its revised timetable and additional Working Pro cedures for the Panel's Expert
Consultation on 2 June 2015.10
1.10. The Panel held a first substantive meeting with the parties on 20 and 23 April 2015. A
session with the third parties took place on 21 April 2015. The Panel held a meeting with the
experts and th e parties on 14 and 15 September 2015. The Panel held a second substantive
meeting with the parties on 16 and 17 September 2015.
1.11. On 19 November 2015, the Panel issued the descriptive part of its Report to the parties. The
Panel issued its Interim Report t o the parties on 11 February 2016. The Panel issued its Final
Report to the parties on 7 April 2016.
1.3.2 Working procedures concerning Strictly Confidential Information (SCI)
1.12. At Russia's request and after consultation with both parties, the Panel adopted, on
8 December 2014, additional working procedures concerning SCI.11
1.3.3 Arrangements for language interpretation
1.13. On 16 April 2015, just before the first substantive meeting, Russia requested the Panel to
authorize simultaneous English -to-Russian and Russian -to-English interpretation during the first
substantive meeting. Following exchanges with the parties, and after listening to the parties' views
in the course of the first substantive meeting, the Panel informed the parties, that for the purposes
of the first sub stantive meeting with the parties (i) interpreters could be present at the meeting,
provided that Russia included their names in its delegation list and that the interpreters were
provided and financed by Russia; (ii) the interpreters could use the interpr etation booths to
provide only English-to-Russian simultaneous interpretation for the benefit of Russia's delegation;
(iii) Russia's delegation must make statements and submissions to the Panel and other parties
only in English; and (iv) for the purpose of the proceedings, only statements and submissions
made in English must form part of the record.
1.14. At the beginning of the third -party session, after listening to the third parties' views, the
Panel authorized simultaneous English -to-Russian interpretation f or the third-party session with
the same conditions as those for the first substantive meeting with the parties.
1.15. On 1 June 2015, well before the second substantive meeting with the parties, Russia
renewed its request for simultaneous English -to-Russian and Russian-to-English interpretation, in
particular, in respect of the Panel's meeting with the experts. On 13 August 2015, following
exchanges with the parties, and after consultation with the third parties 12, the Panel informed the
parties that it would authorize simultaneous English -to-Russian and simultaneous Russian -to-
English interpretation during the Panel's meeting with the experts, and simultaneous English -to-
Russian interpretation during the second substantive meeting with the parties (replicating t he
arrangements at the first substantive meeting with the parties). The Panel also confirmed that the

9 See the Panel's Working Procedures in Annex A-1.
10 See the Panel's additional Working Procedures for Panel's Expert Consultation in Annex A-3.
11 See the Panel's additional Working Procedures concerning Strictly Confidential Information in
Annex A-2.
12 The Panel did not receive any requests for enhanced third-party rights from any third party. However,
through a communication dated 19 June 2015, the European Union invited the Panel to seek, due to the
systemic interests involved, the third parties' views on Russia's request for interpretation during the second
substantive meeting and the meeting with the experts. After consulting with the parties and pursuant to
paragraph 12 of the Panel's Working Procedures, the Panel decided to ask the third parties to provide their
views on the use of interpretation in any subsequent meeting of the Panel.

interpreters could use the interpretation booths, as available, in the rooms booked for the meeting
with the experts and for the second substantive meeting with the parties.
1.16. Furthermore, the Panel emphasized that the arrangements for interpretation were
conditioned on the following: (i) the interpretation was conducted only by the interpreters included
in Russia's delegation; (ii) the cost of the interpret ation was covered exclusively by Russia;
(iii) only statements made in English would form part of the official record of the proceedings; and
(iv) the interpreters' statements, when interpreting what a member of Russia's delegation said in a
language other than English, would be considered the only statements forming part of the record.
1.17. The arrangements communicated to the parties by the Panel on 13 August 2015 were
followed in the course of the meeting with the experts and of the second substantive meeting.
1.3.4 Consultation with experts and relevant international organizations
1.3.4.1 Panel's decision to consult with experts
1.18. At the organizational meeting of the Panel with the parties held on 21 November 2014, the
European Union indicated that at that point in time, it did not see the need for the Panel to consult
with experts. Russia suggested that the Panel's decision on whether to consult with experts should
be made after the first substantive meeting. The Panel decided to postpone deciding on the matter
until after the first substantive meeting.
1.19. On 28 April 2015, after the first substantive meeting, the Panel asked the parties to identify
issues that the parties considered would benefit from inputs from experts and international
organizations, in the hypothetical eve nt the Panel were to consult experts and/or international
organizations pursuant to Article 11.2 of the SPS Agreement. The Panel also asked for the parties'
views on (i) the profiles of experts that would be most valuable for the Panel to consult in this
dispute; (ii) whether the Panel should conduct written consultations, oral consultations, or both;
(iii) whether the Panel should consult other relevant organizations – either international or
regional; and (iv) a revised timetable and additional working procedures.13
1.20. On 19 May 2015, the European Union and Russia expressed their views on these matters.
1.21. On 26 May 2015, the Panel informed the parties of its decision to consult the OIE as well as
individual experts. The Panel also requested the parties to submi t the following: (i) the parties'
agreed list of names of individual experts; (ii) a list of potential questions for the experts; and
(iii) comments on the revised timetable and additional working procedures incorporating the
expert consultation process. On 1 June 2015, the parties submitted their comments on the revised
timetable and additional working procedures.
1.22. On 2 June 2015, the Panel adopted the revised timetable and Additional Working Procedures
for the Panel's consultation with experts.
1.3.4.2 Expert selection
1.23. On 28 May 2015, the Panel requested the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) and the OIE to provide names and contact details of possible individual experts who
could assist the Panel in five areas related to African swine fever: epidemiology, virology, wild boar
behavioural ecology, monitoring and surveillance, and control and biosecurity. The Panel received
lists of names from the OIE and FAO on 8 and 11 June 2015, respectively.
1.24. On 12 June 2015, in accordance with the time table, the parties submitted their suggested
questions for the OIE and the individual experts. The parties did not submit any agreed list of
names of individual experts. Russia, however, sent its own list of suggested names of experts.
Except for one, the names submitted by Russia were already included in the lists of names
submitted by the OIE and the FAO on 8 and 11 June 2015, respectively.

13 Panel question No. 1 following the first substantive meeting.

1.25. On the same day, the Panel sent to the parties a communication noting the list of experts'
names suggested by Russia and requesting the European Union to comment on whether the Panel
should contact the expert suggested by Russia but not included in the lists submitted by the FAO
and the OIE.
1.26. On 15 June 2015, the European Union expressed its preference for the Panel to contact only
the persons on the list of potential experts who were suggested by the FAO and OIE. On the same
day, the Panel sent preliminary communications to the experts suggested by the FAO and OIE. On
17 June 2015, Russia sent additional comments.
1.27. On 1 8 June 2015, the Panel informed the parties that it had contacted the experts
suggested by the FAO and the OIE.
1.28. On 29 June 2015, the Panel sent to the parties a consolidated list of names of experts,
along with the available relevant accompanying documenta tion.14 In addition, the Panel requested
the parties to comment on whether the Panel should contact two additional experts whose names
were suggested by one of the experts from the list submitted by the OIE and the expert suggested
by Russia but not include d in the lists submitted by the FAO and the OIE. On 3 July 2015, the
parties provided their comments. The European Union considered that the experts already
contacted by the Panel provided sufficient basis for the next steps in the procedure. Russia
considered that it was not appropriate to contact either of the experts suggested by the expert
proposed by the OIE while supporting contacting the expert Russia had previously identified.
1.29. On 8 July 2015, following reception of the response from one of the exper ts recommended
by the OIE, the Panel sent to the Parties an updated consolidated list of names of experts and
requested the parties to comment on the list. On 15 July 2015, the parties submitted their
comments. The European Union welcomed the amount of exp ertise available in the experts
contacted by the Panel and requested the Panel not to consider retaining one of the potential
experts due to potential conflict of interests. Russia expressed its preference for the Panel to
choose as its experts Professor Penrith, Dr Thomson, and Dr Thiermann.
1.30. On 21 July 2015, the Panel informed the parties that it had selected the following experts to
assist the Panel: (i) Dr Gideon Brückner 15; (ii) Professor Mary Louise Penrith 16; (iii) Dr Alejandro
Thiermann17; and (iv) Dr Gavin Thomson.18
1.3.4.3 Panel's questions to the OIE and to the individual experts
1.31. On 24 July 2015, the Panel sent written questions to the individual experts and to the OIE.
On 13 August 2015, the Panel received written responses from Dr Thiermann. On 19 August 20 15,
the Panel received written responses from Professor Penrith. On 21 August 2015, the Panel
received written responses from Drs Brückner and Thomson.
1.32. In light of the responses submitted by the experts, on 24 August 2015, the Panel requested
the OIE to provide an official electronic copy of the 23rd edition of the Terrestrial Code.19 The Panel

14 This documentation included, where available for each candidate: (i) CV, (ii) list of publications,
(iii) declaration of potential conflicts of interest, and (iv) response received from the expert to the Panel's
communication requesting availability and interest to serve as expert to the Panel.
15 Dr Brückner is President of the OIE Scientific Commission for Animal Diseases and a former National
Director of Veterinary Services of South Africa, former Head of the OIE Scientific and Technical Department
and former Deputy Director General of the OIE.
16 Professor Penrith is a veterinary consultant and professor at the University of Pretoria in South Africa,
former Assistant Director, Onderstepoort Veterinary Institute and Vice Chairperson of the Education Committee
of the South African Veterinary Association.
17 Dr Thiermann is Senior International Organization Coordinator for the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Services of the US Department of Agriculture, based at the OIE, and former President of the
OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission.
18 Dr Thomson is Co-director of TAD Scientific CC, a registered consulting company in South Africa, and
formerly employed by the FAO as the principal Epidemiologist of the Pan-African Programme for the Control of
Epizootics, and former Director of the Onderstepoort Veterinary Institute.

further requested the OIE to clarify whether any changes were made to Chapter 15.1 (African
swine fever) of the 22nd edition of the Code that were reflected in the 23rd edition.
1.33. On 25 August 2015, the Panel received an electronic copy of the 23 rd edition of the
Terrestrial Code from the OIE. The OIE indicated that in its view, no material changes were made
to Chapter 15.1 (African swine fever) from the 22 nd to the 23rd editions of the Terrestrial Code. On
26 August 2015, the OIE further opined that any perceptible changes in the text of Chapter 15.1
as reflected in the 23rd edition of the Terrestrial Code were purely editorial. The Panel provided the
parties with a copy of the OIE correspondence.
1.34. On 24 August 2015, the Panel requested the experts to confirm whether and to what extent
their responses to the Panel's questions would materially differ in light of the changes in
Chapter 15.1 (African swine fever) from the 2 2nd to the 23rd editions of the Terrestrial Code. None
of the individual experts indicated that the editorial changes would have any material impact on
the responses they had submitted to the Panel's questions.
1.35. On 28 August 2015, the Panel received written responses from the OIE to its questions.
1.36. On 7 September 2015, the parties submitted comments on the responses provided by the
OIE and the individual experts.
1.37. On 23 September 2015, the Panel sent additional questions to the OIE. On
25 September 2015, the P anel received the OIE's written responses to the additional questions.
The Panel requested the parties to comment on OIE's responses. The European Union directed the
Panel to its response to Panel question No. 241; Russia did not submit any comments on the OIE's
responses.
1.3.4.4 Panel's meeting with the experts and the parties
1.38. In preparation for the Panel's meeting with the experts and the parties, on
7 September 2015, the parties submitted advance questions to the experts.
1.39. The Panel held a meeting with the experts and the parties on 14 and 15 September 2015.
1.40. On 1 October 2015, the Panel sent a transcript of the meeting to the individual experts and
to the parties, with a request for them to verify that the transcript accurately reflected their
interventions. Fol lowing receipt of comments on the transcript, and having made certain
corrections requested by the experts and the parties, the Panel sent a final version of the
transcript to the experts and the parties on 19 November 2015.20

19 One of the experts brought to the attention of the Panel the fact that Exhibit EU-3, entitled "Chapter
15.1 of the 23rd edition of the Terrestrial Code", appears to correspond to the 22nd edition of the Terrestrial
Code.
20 Pursuant to paragraph 1.13 of the additional Working Procedures for Panel's Expert Consultation, this
transcript will not be annexed to the Panel report. On 8 October 2015, the Panel received Russia's comments to
the transcript. Russia requested the Panel to change, among other things, a word in the intervention made by
Ms. Ausheva, a member of Russia's delegation during the meeting with the experts consulted by the Panel. The
Panel did not change that particular word in the final version of the transcript sent to the parties and to the
experts on 19 November 2015. On 3 December 2015, Russia, in its comments to the draft descriptive part,
requested the Panel to introduce the change of that word. The Panel does not accept this request. As we note
in para. 1.16 above, the Panel would authorise simultaneous English-to-Russian and simultaneous Russian-to-
English interpretation during the Panel's meeting with the experts, on the understanding that the interpreters'
statements, when interpreting what a member of Russia's delegation said in a language other than English,
would be considered the only statements forming part of the record. After listening again to the recording of
the meeting, it is clear that the word Russia requested to modify was clear in the recording of what was said by
the interpreter addressing the Panel in English. In light of these considerations, the Panel will not modify the
final transcript on record. Moreover we note that in the context of the evidence on record, the change
requested by Russia would not have materially affected our findings below.

2 FACTUAL ASPECTS
2.1 The relevant disease: African swine fever
2.1. African swine fever (ASF) is a highly contagious haemorrhagic disease of pigs, warthogs,
European wild boar , and American wild pigs, equally susceptible to both genders and all age
groups. The organism which causes ASF is the African swine fever virus (ASFV), a DNA virus in the
Asfarviridae family; genus Asfivirus. Virulence of ASFV isolates vary greatly.21 Severe cases of ASF
disease are characterized by high fever, loss of appetite, respiratory distress, diarrhoea,
haemorrhages in the skin and internal organs, and death in 2 -10 days on average. Mortality rates
may be as high as 100%.22
2.2. ASF is a disease covered by Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code and must be reported to the
OIE.23 Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code distinguishes between:
a. domestic pigs (including permanently captive and farmed free -range pigs) and wild pigs
(including feral pigs and wild boars); and
b. Sus scrofa and African pig species (e.g. warthogs).24
2.3. ASF occurs through transmission cycles involving domestic p igs, wild boars, wild African
swine, and soft ticks. African wild swine species, such as warthogs ( Phacochoerus aethiopicus),
bush pigs and giant forest hogs ( Hylochoerus meinertzhageni) are usually inapparently infected
and act as reservoir hosts of ASFV in Africa. However, domestic pigs ( Sus domestica), European
wild boar, American wild pigs, and Sus scrofa are hosts that manifest the disease. Ticks of the
genus Ornithodoros are considered the natural arthropod host and there is some speculation that
ASFV is a virus of arthropods, and that mammalian species, such as domestic swine, represent
"accidental hosts".25
2.4. Direct transmission of ASFV can occur through contact between sick and healthy animals. As
ASFV can remain infectious for 3 -6 months in uncooked pork products, indirect transmission can
occur through feeding on garbage containing infected meat. Other indirect means of transmission
include through biological vectors (soft ticks of the genus Ornithodoros), and fomites, such as
premises, vehicles, implements and clothes.26
2.5. The virus is found in blood, tissues, secretions and excretions of sick and dead animals, as
well as soft ticks of the genus Ornithodoros. Animals that have recovered from either acute or
chronic infections may become persistently in fected, acting as virus carriers, especially in African
wild swine, and in domestic pigs in enzootic areas. The incubation period of ASFV in nature is
usually 4 -19 days or 3 -4 days in acute form. For the purpose of the Terrestrial Code, the
incubation period in Sus scrofa is indicated as 15 days.27
2.6. According to the OIE, ASFV remains viable for long periods in blood, faeces and tissues,
especially infected uncooked or undercooked pork products. ASFV also has the ability to multiply in
vectors ( Ornithodoros sp .). The OIE's Technical Disease Card indicates that ASFV is highly
resistant to low temperatures but can be heat -inactivated at 56°C for 70 minutes or 60°C for 20

21 OIE General Disease Information Sheets: African Swine Fever (ASF Disease Information Sheet)
(Exhibits RUS-4 and RUS-171).
http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Media_Center/docs/pdf/Disease_cards/ASF-EN.pdf (last accessed
23 October 2015).
22 ASF Disease Information Sheet (Exhibits RUS-4 and RUS-171).
23 OIE website, Listed diseases, infections and infestations in force in 2015 (Exhibit RUS-177).
24 See Article 15.1.1 (first paragraph) of the 23rd edition of the Terrestrial Code. OIE, Terrestrial Animal
Health Code 23rd edn (2014), Vol. II, p. 649.
25 OIE Technical Disease Card: African Swine Fever (ASF Technical Disease Card)
http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Animal_Health_in_the_World/docs/pdf/Disease_cards/AFRICAN_SWIN
E_FEVER.pdf (last updated April 2013; last accessed 23 October 2015). See OIE ASF Technical Disease Card
(Exhibit RUS-186).
26 ASF Technical Disease Card (Exhibit RUS-186).
27 ASF Technical Disease Card (Exhibit RUS-186). See also Article 15.1.1 (General provisions) of the
Terrestrial Code. OIE, Terrestrial Animal Health Code 23rd edn (2014), Vol. II, p. 649.

minutes.28 The OIE's Technical Disease Card further indicates that ASFV is also inactivated at a pH
less than 3.9, or greater than 11.5 in a serum-free medium; it is also susceptible to chemicals and
disinfectants such as ether and chloroform.29
2.7. As indicated in the OIE's Technical Disease Card (last updated in April 2013), ASF is enzootic
in most countries of Sub-Saharan Africa including Madagascar. In Europe, it has been reported and
successfully eradicated from the Iberian Peninsula but continues to be found in Sardinia. In the
1970s, ASF was present in the Caribbean (Haiti and the Dominican Republ ic), and in one country
in South America (Brazil), but was successfully eradicated. Most recently, it has appeared in the
Caucasus (Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia) and Russia. 30 The situation as of the time of this
Panel proceeding will be further examined below.31
2.2 The measures at issue
2.8. 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".32
2.9. In its panel request, the European Union enumerates the specific measures at issue as
follows:
A ban on imports from Lithuania as described in the administrative notice from the
Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision of
25 January 2014 (FS -EN-8/1023). This notice announced a temporary restriction on
imports of "live pigs and its genetic material; pork products (which were not heat
treated no less than 72ºC for at least 30 minutes); products from slaughter of wild
boars; horn-hoofed and leather, intestinal materials; bristles; feed for pigs; hunting
trophies, which were not subjected to full taxidermy treatment; previously used
equipment for maintenance, transportation, slaughter and cutting of pigs" from
Lithuania as o f 25 January 2014. This measure was notified to the WTO on 10
February 2014 (G/SPS/N/RUS/48);
A ban on imports from Poland as described in the administrative notice from the
Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision of
27 February 2014 (FS-NV-8/2972) announcing a temporary restriction on imports of
"live pigs and its genetic material; pork products (which were not heat treated no less
than 80ºC for at least 30 minutes); products from slaughter of wild boars; horn -
hoofed and leathe r, intestinal materials; bristles; feed for pigs; hunting trophies,
which were not subjected to full taxidermy treatment; previously used equipment for
maintenance, transportation, slaughter and cutting of pigs" from Poland as of 27
February 2014. This mea sure was notified to the WTO on 4 March 2014
(G/SPS/N/RUS/49);
A ban on imports from Lithuania and Poland as described in the administrative notice
of the Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision of
2 April 2014 (FS -EN-8/5081). This notice announced the extension of the import
restrictions in force to processed products containing pork excluding ready-to-use feed
for cats and dogs which underwent thermal treatment (temperature not lower than
70ºC, duration of treatment not less t han 20 minutes), from Lithuania and Poland as
of 7 April 2014. These measures were notified to the WTO on 4 April 2014 as updates
to the original WTO notifications (G/SPS/N/RUS/48/Add.2 and
G/SPS/N/RUS/49/Add.1);
The refusal by Russia to accept imports of the products at issue from the entire EU,
amounting to an EU-wide ban. The EU identifies this specific measure at issue both as

28 ASF Technical Disease Card (Exhibit RUS-186).
29 ASF Technical Disease Card (Exhibit RUS-186).
30 ASF Technical Disease Card (Exhibit RUS-186).
31 See paras. 2.22. to 2.23 below. See also Appendix 1 and para. 7.208 below.
32 European Union's panel request, p. 1.

an action (an import ban or restriction) and, in the alternative, as an omission (failure
to accept imports from the EU). The E U seeks review of this specific measure at issue
as such and as applied, de jure and de facto (that is, based on all the relevant facts).
The EU also seeks review of this specific measure at issue both insofar as it is written,
and insofar as it is unwritt en. The EU notes the letter sent to the EU dated
29 January 2014 (FS-SA-8/1277) from the Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and
Phytosanitary Supervision referring to certain export certificates previously used for
certain exports from the EU to Russia, and notably the phrase "healthy animals grown
in farms and/or administrative territories officially free from contiguous animal
diseases, including African Swine Fever during 3 years in the whole territory of the EU
except Sardinia." In this respect, the Russian authorities made the following
statement: "veterinary doctors in the EU Member -States must stop certification of the
abovementioned products. Otherwise these products accompanied with these
veterinary certificates issued after 27.01.2014, cannot b e allowed into the territory of
the Member States of the Customs Union and are subject to returns."33
2.3 Products at issue
2.10. The products at issue comprise live pigs and their genetic material, pork and certain other
pig products.34
2.4 Relevant international standards, guidelines, and recommendations
2.4.1 The OIE and its mandate
2.11. The OIE is an intergovernmental organization created through an international agreement
signed on 25 January 1924 as a response to the need to fight animal diseases at a global level.
In May 2003, the OIE changed its name from Office International des Epizooties to World
Organization for Animal Health, but kept its historical acronym. 35 One of the OIE's stated
objectives is "sanitary safety" for "international trade in animals and animal products". 36 The OIE's
activities in this field focus on the development of normative documents relating to rules that
OIE members "can use to protect themselves from the introduction of diseases and pathogens,
without setting up unjustified sanitary barriers".37
2.12. As of September 2015, the OIE had 180 members 38 whose national delegates constitute a
World Assembly of Delegates.39 The European Union member States and Russia are OIE members,
as are the third parties to this dispute. 40 In addition to its headquarters in Paris, the OIE has
regional and sub-regional offices on every continent.41

33 European Union's panel request, pp. 1-2. In its first written submission, the European Union also
challenged the import restrictions that Russia imposed on Estonia and Latvia after the ASF outbreaks on their
territories (European Union's first written submission, paras. 86–87). The inclusion of this footnote in this
section is without prejudice to the Panel's ruling on whether the measures concerning Estonia and Latvia fall
within the Panel's terms of reference.
34 European Union's panel request, p. 1. See also Table 1 below.
35 OIE website, About us, http://www.oie.int/about-us/ (last accessed 21 September 2015).
36 OIE website, Objectives, http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=53#c201 (last accessed
21 September 2015).
37 OIE website, Objectives, http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=53#c201 (last accessed
21 September 2015).
38 OIE website, The 180 OIE Members, http://www.oie.int/about-us/our-members/member-countries/
(last accessed 21 September 2015).
39 OIE website, The World Assembly of Delegates, http://www.oie.int/about-us/wo/world-assembly/
(last accessed 21 September 2015).
40 OIE website http://www.oie.int/about-us/our-members/member-countries/ (last accessed
21 September 2015). In its response to Panel questions Nos. 27 and 28, the OIE clarified that EU member
States operate as individual countries within the OIE and have the same rights and obligations as all the other
members of the OIE. The European Union per se, is neither a member nor an observer of the OIE.
41 OIE website, OIE Regional Representations, http://www.oie.int/en/about-us/wo/regional-
representations/ (last accessed 21 September 2015).

2.4.2 The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (Terrestrial Code)
2.13. The SPS Agreement explicitly recognizes the standards, guidelines and recommendations
developed under the auspices of the OIE as i nternational standards, guidelines and
recommendations for animal health and zoonosis.42 The OIE has developed international standards
relating to international trade in terrestrial animals (mammals, birds and bees) and their products.
These standards are currently set out in the Terrestrial Code.43
2.14. The Terrestrial Code was first published in 1968 and is updated annually. The version
relevant for the purposes of this dispute is the one that was in force on the date of the
establishment of the Panel. 44 The Pan el was established on 22 July 2014 and therefore the
23rd edition of the Terrestrial Code, adopted at the 82 nd OIE General Session in May 2014, is the
relevant version for the purposes of this dispute.
2.15. The OIE has a voluntary procedure for the official re cognition of disease status, which is
currently applied to six diseases. ASF is not one of these diseases.45
2.4.2.1 Objectives and structure of the Terrestrial Code
2.16. The aim of the Terrestrial Code is to set international "standards for the improvement of
terrestrial animal health and welfare and veterinary public health worldwide, including through
standards for safe international trade in terrestrial animals (mammals, birds and bees) and their
products".46 According to the Terrestrial Code, these standards consist of health measures based
on the latest available scientific evidence and "should be used" by the veterinary authorities of
importing and exporting countries to, inter alia, prevent the transfer of agents pathogenic to
terrestrial animals and/or humans via international trade in terrestrial animals and terrestrial
animal products, while avoiding unjustified sanitary barriers to trade. 47 In sum, the
Terrestrial Code aspires to assure sanitary safety of international trade in terrestrial animals while
avoiding unjustified sanitary barriers to trade.48
2.17. The Terrestrial Code is divided into two volumes. Volume I, entitled "General provisions",
contains horizontal standards that apply to a wide range of species, production sectors and
diseases, organized into seven sections. For instance, this volume includes rules on animal disease
diagnosis, surveillance and notification ( section 1), risk analysis ( section 2), quality of veterinary
services ( section 3), disease prevention and control ( section 4), trade measures, im port/export
procedures and veterinary certification (section 5).
2.18. Volume II, entitled "Recommendations applicable to OIE listed diseases and other diseases
of importance to international trade", in turn, contains standards, guidelines and recommendations
applicable to specific diseases, including the recommendations regarding disease surveillance, risk
assessment, and zoning and compartmentalization. In the case of ASF, Chapter 15.1 specifically
outlines the factors to consider in the determination of the A SF status of a country, zone or
compartment. In addition, it provides for factors to consider for the recovery of ASF -free status
and recommendations for importation of specific products from ASF -free and ASF -infected
countries, zones or compartments.

42 Annex A(3)(b) of the SPS Agreement. The Terrestrial Code Glossary defines zoonosis as "any disease
or infection which is naturally transmissible from animals to humans". Terrestrial Code Glossary, p. x (Exhibit
RUS-32).
43 OIE website, Terrestrial Animal Health Code http://www.oie.int/international-standard-
setting/terrestrial-code/ (last accessed 21 September 2015).
44 In this respect, we follow the approach of previous panels (Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 2.24;
Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, paras. 7.211-7.213). Furthermore, we note that the parties agree
that the relevant version of the Terrestrial Code is its 23rd edition (European Union's first written submission,
para. 118; and Russia's first written submission, fn 119).
45 OIE website, Official Diseases Status http://www.oie.int/en/animal-health-in-the-world/official-
disease-status/ (last accessed 22 September 2015).
46 OIE, Terrestrial Animal Health Code 23rd edn (2014), Vol. I, p. v.
47 OIE, Terrestrial Animal Health Code 23rd edn (2014), Vol. I, p. v.
48 OIE, Terrestrial Animal Health Code 23rd edn (2014), Vol. I, p. v.

2.19. In the OIE context, the term "sanitary measure" means "a measure, such as those
described in various chapters of the Terrestrial Code, destined to protect animal or human health
or life within the territory of the Member Country from risks arising from the en try, establishment
and/or spread of a hazard". 49 According to the Terrestrial Code, "risk" refers to the likelihood of
the occurrence and the likely magnitude of the biological and economic consequences of an
adverse event or effect to animal or human healt h.50 "Risk analysis" means the process composed
of hazard identification, risk assessment, risk management , and risk communication, while "risk
assessment" means the scientific evaluation of the likelihood and the biological and economic
consequences of entry, establishment and spread of a hazard within the territory of an importing
country.51
2.4.3 Relevant standards, guidelines or recommendations invoked by the parties
2.20. According to the European Union, the relevant applicable standards for the respective
measures are mainly to be found in Chapter 15.1 (African swine fever) of the Terrestrial Code,
which deals with trade in the products at issue, in conjunction with Chapter 4.3, which deals with
regionalization.52 The European Union argues that Russia's measures are contrary to
Articles 15.1.5, 15.1.8, 15.1.10, 15.1.12, 15.1.13, 15.1.14, and 15.1.16 of the Terrestrial Code.53
2.21. According to Russia, the most pertinent provisions for ASF are set out in Terrestrial Code
Articles 1.4.6, 1.6.1, Chapters 3.1 and 3.2, Chapter 4.3 (especially Articles 4.3.3.1, 4.3.3.5 and
4.3.3.6), 5.3 (especially Articles 5.3.1 and 5.3.7), and 15.1. 54 Initially, Russia also identified
Chapter 4.4 as relevant.55
2.5 The parties' domestic ASF situations
2.5.1 The European Union
2.22. As of the beginning of 2014, ASF was not present in the European Union, with the exception
of the island of Sardinia. 56 This situation changed with the outbreak in Lithuania on
24 January 2014. In addition to Lithuania, ASF is currently present in Estonia, Latvia and Poland.57
2.5.2 Russia
2.23. ASF was introduced in Russia in November -December 2007, when five cases in wild boar
were reported to the OIE.58 ASF is currently present in certain areas of the territory of Russia.59
3 PARTIES' REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1. The European Union r equests the Panel to find that Russia's measures at issue are
inconsistent with Russia's obligations under Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5,
5.6, 5.7, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 7, 8, Annex B(1), (2), (5), (6), and Annex C(1)(a), (b), (c) of t he
SPS Agreement.60 In its panel request, the European Union included claims under Articles I:1,
III:4, and XI:1 of the GATT 1994. 61 However, in response to Panel questioning at the first

49 OIE, Terrestrial Animal Health Code 23rd edn (2014), Vol. I, p. xviii.
50 OIE, Terrestrial Animal Health Code 23rd edn (2014), Vol. I, p. xvii.
51 OIE, Terrestrial Animal Health Code 23rd edn (2014), Vol. I, p. xviii.
52 European Union's first written submission, para. 122.
53 European Union's first written submission, para. 139.
54 Russia's second written submission, para. 21; response to Panel question No. 101, para. 146.
55 Russia subsequently indicated that provisions relating to compartmentalization were not relevant in
light of the European Union's clarification that it had not sought to establish compartments. See, e.g. Russia's
response to Panel question No. 258 and Comments to Expert Responses to Panel question No. 31.
56 European Union's first written submission, para. 60 (referring to EFSA Scientific Opinion on ASF, EFSA
Journal 2010 8(3)1556 (2010 EFSA Scientific Opinion) (Exhibit EU-24), p. 9).
57 Russia's first written submission, para. 42.
58 European Union's first written submission, para. 47 (referring to African Swine Fever spread in the
Russian Federation and the risk for the region, FAO, December 2009 (Exhibit EU-23), p. 3).
59 See Russia's first written submission, para. 23.
60 European Union's first written submission, para. 358.
61 European Union's panel request, p. 6.

substantive meeting with the parties, the European Union confirmed tha t it was not pursuing the
claims under the GATT 1994.62
3.2. The European Union further requests the Panel to recommend that the DSB request Russia to
bring the contested measures into conformity with its obligations under the SPS Agreement.63
3.3. Russia requests t he Panel to find that the European Union has failed to sustain any of the
claims raised in these proceedings, and that Russia's measures are not inconsistent with the
obligations of Russia under the relevant WTO agreements.64
4 ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
4.1. The ar guments of the parties are reflected in their executive summaries, provided to the
Panel in accordance with paragraph 20 of the Working Procedures adopted by the Panel (see
Annexes B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4).65
5 ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES
5.1. The arguments of Australia, Brazil, India, Japan, Norway, and the United States are reflected
in their executive summaries, provided in accordance with paragraph 21 of the Working
Procedures adopted by the Panel (see Annexes C -1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, and C -6).66 China, the
Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Chinese Taipei, did not submit written or oral arguments to
the Panel.
6 INTERIM REVIEW
6.1 Introduction
6.1. On 11 February 2016, the Panel issued its Interim Report to the parties. On
25 February 2016, the European Union and Russi a each submitted written requests for review of
the Interim Report. Russia did not request an interim review meeting. However, the European
Union requested a meeting with the Panel where Russia would have full opportunity to further
comment on certain poin ts and documents served by the European Union, unless Russia and the
Panel considered that unnecessary.
6.2. In light of the parties' comments to the Interim Report, on 4 March 2016 the Panel informed
the parties that it had decided to have an interim review m eeting, which took place on
10 March 2016. The Panel Chairman, Mr Mohammad Saeed, presided the meeting, whilst Ms
Delilah Cabb Ayala and Mr Juan Antonio Dorantes participated by videoconference. The Panel
decided that the meeting would deal only with issues raised by the European Union with respect to
paragraphs 7.991 and 7.993 of the Interim Report. On 10 March 2016, the parties also submitted
comments on the other's request for review of other "precise aspects" of the Interim Report. On
15 March 2016, the parties submitted responses to questions from the Panel after the interim
review meeting. On 21 March 2016, the parties submitted comments to the other's responses to
questions from the Panel after the interim review meeting.

62 European Union's response to Panel question No. 80, para. 155; and second written submission, para.
194.
63 European Union's first written submission, para. 359; and second written submission, para. 194.
64 Russia's first written submission, para. 447; and second written submission , para. 195.
65 On 2 June 2015 the Panel received the parties' first executive summaries. Russia submitted an
executive summary of its first written submission, its opening statement and its closing statement, which in
total exceeded the 15 page limit set forth in paragraph 20 of the Working Procedures. On 1 July 2015, after
consulting with the parties, the Panel requested Russia to submit an integrated version of its first executive
summary that did not exceed 15 pages. On 30 July 2015, Russia submitted its integrated first executive
summary, which is attached hereto as Annex B-3.
66 The Panel recalls the importance of observing deadlines in the panel proceedings. In this respect, we
note that Australia and India did not provide their executive summaries within the time-frame indicated in the
timetable adopted by the Panel. Therefore, on 20 October 2015, the Panel requested both third parties to
clarify whether their written or oral statements should be considered as their executive summaries. On
21 October 2015, India confirmed that its oral statement would serve as the executive summary of its
arguments. On 30 October 2015, Australia provided its third-party executive summary.

6.3. In accordance with Article 15 .3 of the DSU, this section of the Report addresses the parties'
requests for review of precise aspects of the Report made at the interim review stage. We discuss
the parties' requests for substantive modifications below, generally in sequence according to the
paragraph or section to which the requests pertain. In addition to the requests discussed below,
corrections were made for typographical and other non -substantive aspects of the Report,
including those identified by the parties.
6.4. The numbering of some of the paragraphs and footnotes in the Final Report has changed
from the numbering in the Interim Report. The discussion below refers to the numbering in the
Interim Report and, where it differs, includes the corresponding numbering in the Final Report.
6.2 The purpose and scope of the interim review
6.5. Before addressing the parties' individual requests for the review of our Interim Report, the
Panel notes that a number of Russia's requests are addressed either at challenging the Panel's
assessment of the evidence on record or the Panel's assessment of the European Union's claims.
The European Union has individually challenged, on various grounds, some of these comments
made by Russia.
6.6. The Panel observes that Article 15.2 of the DSU, and paragraph 22 of the Panel's Working
Procedures, provide parties with an opportunity to request the Panel "to review precise aspects of
the interim report". Previous panels have declined to expand the scope of interim review beyond
that provided for in Article 15.2 and have according ly circumscribed their review to address only
those comments related to "precise aspects" of the interim report. 67 Previous panels have also
noted that it is not appropriate to re -open (re -argue), at the interim review sta ge, arguments
already put before a panel.68
6.7. Pursuant to our understanding of Article 15.2 of the DSU and consistent with the approach
adopted by previous panels, we will review our Interim Report only in light of the comments made
by the parties which relate to "precise aspects" of the Inter im Report. In addition, when we
identify a particular request as amounting to a party relitigating arguments already put before us,
we will reject such request.
6.3 Introduction of new evidence on the record at the interim review stage
6.8. In the context of its c omments to paragraph 7.991 and 7.993, the European Union requests
the Panel to accept ten new exhibits (EU -253 to EU-262). According to the European Union, these
communications support its request for the Panel to review precise aspects of paragraph 7.991 and
delete paragraph 7.993 to provide factual accuracy to the Panel Report. The European Union asked
for a meeting with the Panel, in which Russia would have full opportunity to further comment (in
addition to the written comments to the European Union's comments to the Interim Report) on the
points and documents served by the European Union, unless Russia and the Panel considered that
unnecessary.
6.9. As indicated in paragraph 6.2 above, the Panel decided to have an interim review meeting
limited to discussing the issues raised by the European Union in pages 5 and 6 of its
communication dated 25 February 2016, specifically pertaining to paragraphs 7.991 and 7.993 of
the Interim Report.
6.10. The European Union's main reason to request the Panel's acceptance of the new evidence is
that the European Union could not have anticipated, and the Panel did not indicate at any moment
during the proceedings, that the relevant date it would take into account with regard to Latvia
would be a date su bsequent to that of the Panel's establishment. The European Union considers
that the Panel should take into account relevant evidence not previously considered on due

67 Panel Reports, Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II, para. 5.2; Australia – Salmon, para. 7.3; Japan –
Suspension, paras. 6.16-6.17; US – Continued Suspension, paras. 6.17-6.18; and India - Agricultural
Products, para. 6.5.
68 Panel Reports, Japan – DRAMs (Korea), para. 6.2; US – Poultry (China), para. 6.32; and India –
Agricultural Products, para. 6.5.

process grounds. The European Union argues that accepting the new evidence would not go
against the previous case law, because of the particular circumstances in this dispute, including
Russia having had access to those exhibits before they were submitted to the Panel. 69 Moreover,
the European Union argues that its request amounts to requesting the Panel to review a "precise
aspect" of the Interim Report, falling within the realm of Article 15.2 of the DSU.70
6.11. Russia objects to the Panel accepting the new evidence submitted by the European Union.
Russia's main reason for this objection is that the re is a well -established principle in WTO dispute
settlement procedural jurisprudence according to which new evidence is not acceptable during the
interim review stage.71
6.12. The Panel is cognizant of the limited scope of the interim review stage, as described in
section 6.2 above. The Panel is also cognizant of the importance that due process has in the
context of WTO dispute settlement proceedings. 72 In this connection, we recall that the Appellate
Body has indicated that due proces s is "intrinsically connected to notions of fairness, impartiality,
and the rights of parties to be heard and to be afforded an adequate opportunity to pursue their
claims, make out their defences, and establish facts in the context of the proceedings conducted in
a balanced and orderly manner, according to the established rules."73
6.13. Previous panels and the Appellate Body have been faced with a similar question of whether
a Panel may accept new evidence submitted by a party at the interim review stage.
6.14. In EC – Sardines, the Appellate Body explained that the interim review stage is not an
appropriate time to introduce new evidence:
We also reject the European Communities' contention relating to the letters it
submitted at the interim review stage. The interim review stage is not an appropriate
time to introduce new evidence. We recall that Article 15 of the DSU governs the
interim review. Article 15 permits parties, during that stage of the proceedings, to
submit comments on the draft report issued by the pane l, and to make requests 'for
the panel to review precise aspects of the interim report'. At that time, the panel
process is all but completed; it is only —in the words of Article 15 —'precise aspects' of
the report that must be verified during the interim r eview. And this, in our view,
cannot properly include an assessment of new and unanswered evidence. Therefore,
we are of the view that the Panel acted properly in refusing to take into account the
new evidence during the interim review, and did not thereby act inconsistently with
Article 11 of the DSU. 74
6.15. In EC – Selected Customs Matters , the Panel considered that "the terms of Article 15.2
preclude us from taking into consideration evidence which is not reflected in the Interim Report",
and therefore declin ed to consider certain new evidence submitted by the European
Communities.75 On appeal, the Appellate Body found that the Panel did not err:
With respect to Exhibits EC-167, EC-168, and EC-169 (which relate to the adoption of
EC Regulation 2171/2005 and its consequences), we are of the view that the Panel did

69 European Union's opening statement at the interim review meeting of the Panel, paras. 3-5. See also
responses to Panel question No. 331.
70 European Union's opening statement at the interim review meeting of the Panel, paras. 2-3. See also
responses to Panel question No. 331
71 Russia's opening statement at the interim review meeting of the Panel, para. 5 (referring to Appellate
Body Reports, EC – Sardines, para. 301; EC – Selected Customs Matters, para. 6.6; and Panel Reports, EC –
Seal Products, paras. 6.53-6.55; EC – IT Products, paras. 6.47-6.48; EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 – US),
paras. 6.5-6.18; EC and certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft, para. 6.311; and EC – Approval and
Marketing of Biotech Products, paras. 6.134 and 6.162-6.164). See also responses to Panel question No. 331.
72 See Appellate Body Reports, EC – Hormones, fn 138 to para. 152; India – Patents (US), para. 95;
Australia – Salmon, paras. 272 and 278; US – Continued Suspension / Canada – Continued Suspension, para.
73 Appellate Body Report, Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines), para. 147.
74 Appellate Body Report, EC – Sardines, para. 301.
75 Panel Report, EC – Selected Customs Matters, para. 6.6 .

not err in declining to consider these pieces of evidence. 76 As the Appellate Body
stated in EC – Sardines, "[t]he interim review stage is not an appropriate time to
introduce new evidence." 77 The Panel's decision to decline to consider Exhibits EC -
167, EC -168, and EC -169 appears to us to be in line with the Appellate Body's
statement in EC – Sardines that "only ... 'precise aspects' of the [interim] report ...
must be verified during the interim rev iew ... [a]nd this ... cannot properly include an
assessment of new and unanswered evidence." 78 In any event, although Exhibits EC -
167, EC -168, and EC -169 might have arguably supported the view that uniform
administration had been achieved by the time the Panel Report was issued, we fail to
see how these exhibits showed uniform administration at the time of the
establishment of the Panel.79
6.16. Mindful of this guidance, the Panel considers that the interim review phase cannot (and
should not) be used to adduce "new and unanswered" evidence.80
6.17. In our view, contrary to what the European Union claims, the European Union had sufficient
opportunity to submit the evidence related to Latvia during the previous stages of the proceeding.
In fact, the European Union serve d exhibits which post-date the date of the Panel's establishment
from early on in these proceedings. For example, Exhibits EU -40 to EU -44 and EU -95 to EU -98,
which were submitted together with the European Union's first written submission, are all dated
after 22 July 2014.
6.18. In addition, the fact that the information served by the European Union to the Panel through
exhibits EU-253 to EU-262 was publicly available as of the second part of 2014 does not mean that
such information was brought to the Panel's at tention by the complainant. The European Union
argues that the Panel did not ask for this evidence, however it is the complainant who bears the
burden of making a prima facie case.81
6.19. Lastly, we do not see cogent reasons in the present dispute that would jus tify that we
depart from what previous panels have done in respect of rejecting new evidence submitted during
the interim review stage.
6.20. Based on the foregoing, we find that the exhibits served by the European Union together
with its comments to the Interim Report (Exhibits EU-253 and EU-262) are not admissible and we
shall not take them into account when examining the European Union's request for the Panel to
review paragraphs 7.991 and 7.993 of the Interim Report.
6.21. We now turn to the individual comments made by the parties to the Interim Report.
6.4 Whether the measures in respect of the imports from Latvia and Estonia fall within
the Panel's terms of reference
6.22. Regarding Table 1 below paragraph 7.144, the European Union suggests adding "pork" and
"raw pork products" under the description of the product coverage of the measures applied to the
imports of the products at issue from Lithuania and from Poland. Russia did not comment on this
request; however, Russia requests the Panel to add "pork" to the same table in the description of
the product coverage of the measures applied to the imports of the products at issue from both

76 (footnote original) See Panel Report, para. 6.6.
77 (footnote original) Appellate Body Report, EC – Sardines, para. 301.
78 (footnote original) Ibid.
79 Appellate Body Report, EC – Selected Customs Matters, para. 259.
80 Appellate Body Report, EC – Sardines, para. 301; Appellate Body Report, EC – Customs Matters,
para. 259. This approach was applied by the panels in EC – Biotech, EC – Bananas (Article 21.5 – US), and EC
– IT Products. See Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, paras. 6.162–6.164, EC –
Bananas (Article 21.5 – US), paras. 6.5–6.18; and Panel Report, EC – IT Products, paras. 6.47–6.48. In China
– Auto Parts, the Panel also applied this reasoning but noted that the evidence in question would have
nevertheless left the Panel's view unchanged. See Panel Report, China – Auto Parts, para. 6.24–6.37. It is also
noted that the Panel in Dominican Republic –Safeguards permitted new evidence after the interim report had
been issued, though it changed only a date that was recorded in the factual section of the report. See Panel
81 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Agricultural Products II, para. 122.

Lithuania and Poland. In respect of this request from Russia, the European Union considers that it
would be more accurate to refer to "raw pork products". In light of the parties' comments and the
evidence on record, the Panel has added "pork" and "raw pork products" to the description of the
product coverage of the measures at issue applied to the imports from Lithuania and Poland in
Table 1 below paragraph 7.144.
6.5 Temporal framework for the Panel's assessment
6.23. Regarding paragraph 7.173, Russia requests the Panel to also reflect its argumentation in
response to Panel question No. 311, where Russia requests the Panel to examine all evidence
submitted by the parties. In connection with Russia's comment to paragraph 7.173, the
European Union observed that it would suggest modifying the phrase "as of" for "as at" when the
Panel is making reference to a specific point in time, to avoid ambiguities w ith respect to the time-
frame referred to by the Panel. We find Russia's request acceptable and have included the
requested changes to paragraph 7.173. We also find acceptable the European Union's request to
replace "as of" with "as at" when the Panel is r eferring to a specific point in time. We have
introduced this change in the following paragraphs 7.430, 7.435, 7.444, 7.449, 7.451, 7.673,
7.935, 7.965, 7.974, 7.976, 7.977, 7.982, 7.985, 7.986, 7.995, 7.1001, 7.1003, 7.1004, 7.1015,
7.1016, 7.1017, 7.1018, 7.1030, 7.1151, 8.1.e.vii, and 8.1.e.viii.
6.24. In light of the parties' comments, especially to paragraphs 7.991 and 7.993, the Panel has
decided to make editorial changes to paragraph 7.176 to provide a clearer explanation of the
analytical time-frame used by the Panel. These changes are addressed so as to explain the Panel
having examined the measures in respect of Lithuania, Poland and Latvia up to the date of the
Panel's establishment (22 July 2014), and having reviewed the evidence up to
11 September 2014, in order to further support its analysis up to 22 July 2014. In that sense, in
our view, the European Union's comments with respect to the Panel's analytical time -frame in
connection with paragraphs 7.991 and 7.993 provided in the course of the interim review meeting
and in response to Panel questions following the interim review meeting misrepresent the Panel's
analytical time-frame. As just noted, the Panel examined the measures applied to the imports of
the products at issue from Lithuania, Poland, an d Latvia as existing up to 22 July 2014 and went
up to 11 September 2014 in light of the measure on the imports from Estonia being within the
Panel's terms of reference. In the Panel's view, this is acceptable based on the Panel's terms of
reference and th e Appellate Body's guidance as to a panel's discretion to examine and weigh all
the evidence on record that pre-dates and post-dates a panel's establishment.82
6.6 Claims under Articles 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 of the SPS Agreement (relating to the EU -
wide ban)
6.25. Regarding paragraph 7.410, Russia requests the Panel to make a number of factual findings
in respect of the efficacy and capacity of the veterinary services in each of the four affected
EU member States. The European Union considers that the Panel should reject Russia's request,
and that should the Panel decide to include references to exhibits such as RUS -359, the
European Union considers that the Panel should also include references to exhibits such as EU -248
and EU-249. In order to sufficiently reflect Russia' s arguments and views, the Panel has adjusted
paragraph 7.410; however, the Panel has not modified its factual findings as reflected in this
paragraph.
6.26. Regarding paragraph 7.432, Russia requests the Panel to add a sentence qualifying the
evidentiary value of Exhibits EU -237, EU-238 and EU-239 to which the Panel refers in that
paragraph. The European Union objects to Russia's request. In our view, Russia's comments in
respect of the evidence referred to by the Panel in paragraph 7.432 are unnecessary. The Pa nel
already observes the limited evidentiary value of those exhibits and the Panel clearly indicates
what it considers that those exhibits illustrate in terms of the control measures of the EU member
States referred to therein. Thus, we reject Russia's request.
6.27. Regarding paragraph 7.447, Russia requests the Panel to make factual findings in respect of
the evidentiary value of the letter of 13 June 2014, the scope of the additional information
contained in Poland's and Lithuania's ASF eradication plans, and the spread of ASF beyond the

82 See section 7.3.6 below.

originally established infection zones. The European Union rejects Russia's requests and refers to a
number of documents that the European Union provided to Russia in this respect. In our view,
Russia is attempting to reargue a nd challenge the manner in which the Panel assessed the
evidence on record. Moreover, Russia's challenge to the evidentiary value of the letter of 13 June
2014 is out of context, as the findings in paragraph 7.447 take into account the Panel's factual
findings in the previous paragraphs. The Panel rejects Russia's request and considers it
unnecessary to provide further references to the parties' submissions. Moreover, in our view, in
paragraph 7.967, we have described the spread of ASF occurring beyond the originally established
infected zones, thus making it unnecessary to also refer to that situation in this paragraph. As
explained in paragraph 6.35 below, we have added references to the parties' submissions and to
certain exhibits on record in paragraph 7.967.
6.7 Claims under Articles 2.2, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.7 of the SPS Agreement (relating to the
EU-wide ban)
6.28. Regarding paragraph 7.730, the European Union suggests reformulating the reference that
the Panel included to the European Un ion's description of the most probable vector for the spread
of ASF to the European Union in 2014, by including a reference that this occurred via Belarus. The
Panel finds this suggestion acceptable and has reflected it in paragraph 7.730. Moreover, the Panel
considers it appropriate to complement the reference in footnote 1015 to paragraph 7.730 in order
to better reflect the source of the European Union's views on this matter.
6.8 Claims under Articles 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 of the SPS Agreement (relating to the bans
on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland)
6.29. In light of the parties' comments, especially to paragraphs 7.991 and 7.993, the Panel has
decided to make editorial changes to paragraph 7.941 to provide a clearer e xplanation of the
analytical approach followed by the Panel in respect of the bans on the imports of the products at
issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
6.30. Regarding paragraph 7.945, Russia requests the Panel to include a number of factual
findings relative to the content and differences in the 2010, 2014 and 2015 EFSA scientific reports.
The European Union did not provide any specific comment to this request. In our view, Russia's
request seems off point in respect of the content of paragraph 7 .945, because that request does
not clarify the manner in which the 2010 EFSA report contains geographic information of the
presence of ASF in the region and potential spread of the disease, as referred to in the respective
paragraph. We therefore reject Russia's request.
6.31. Regarding paragraph 7.948, Russia requests the Panel to include a number of factual
findings pertaining to the alleged deficiencies of the information provided by the European Union in
respect of the scientific basis for the limits of the new zones. The European Union reminds the
Panel of the relevant communications and exhibits through which the European Union provided to
Russia explanations as to how the zones were being established. We consider that the alleged
deficiencies highlighted b y Russia, as well as the relevant communications from the European
Union to Russia, are referred to in Appendix 1 to the Panel Report. Moreover, in our view, Russia's
request to include certain factual findings is closer in nature to rearguing its claims, as it
challenges the manner in which the Panel assessed the evidence on record. As we have explained
in section 6.2 it is not acceptable for parties to reargue their case during the interim review stage.
Based on the foregoing, we reject Russia's requests in respect of paragraph 7.948.
6.32. Regarding paragraph 7.949, Russia requests the Panel to include certain factual findings
related to the Panel's assessment of the European Union's ASF monitoring and surveillance
measures. Russia also requests the Panel to identify and explain the additional information on
monitoring and investigations that was provided by the European Union through the letters of
6 March, 13 March, and 13 June 2014. The European Union considers that this request should be
dismissed because the Panel has made an objective assessment of the evidence before it and in
doing so the Panel enjoys a certain margin of appreciation. In our view, Russia's request to include
certain factual findings is closer in nature to rea rguing its claims, as it challenges the manner in
which the Panel assessed the evidence on record. As we have explained in section 6.2 it is not
acceptable for parties to reargue their case during the interim review stage. Base d on the
foregoing, we reject Russia's requests in respect of paragraph 7.949. Moreover, we have added

some references to Russia's arguments in paragraph 7.929 to further reflect some of the points
that Russia requests the Panel to introduce as factual findings.
6.33. Regarding paragraph 7.951, Russia requests the Panel to add references to its
argumentation reflecting the full extent of Russia's reservations about the ASF contingency plans.
The European Union did not provide specific comments with respect to thi s request. The Panel
considers that Russia's request is acceptable and has introduced the respective changes to
paragraph 7.951.
6.34. Regarding paragraph 7.952, Russia requests the Panel to provide a more comprehensive
summary of its arguments in respect of the inadequacy of the European Union's ASF control
measures. The European Union did not provide specific comments with respect to this request. The
Panel considers that Russia's request is acceptable and has introduced the respective changes to
paragraph 7.952.
6.35. In light of Russia's comments with respect to the need to include references indicating the
expansions of the infected and buffer zones initially established in January 2014 by the European
Union, we have added references to the relevant exhibits at the end of the first sentence in
paragraph 7.967, where we refer to the constantly shifting situation and expansion of the
protection and surveillance zones. Moreover, in paragraph 7.967 we have further explained that in
the EU legislation (Council Directive 2002/60/EC)83 infected zones are called protection zones, and
buffer zones are called surveillance zones. Throughout the report we refer to: infected zones, as
those areas where there have been ASF outbreaks and have been identified by the EU legislation
as protection zones; to buffer zones, as those areas referred to in the EU legislation as surveillance
zones; and to ASF -free areas, as those areas where ASF has not been reported, excluding both
infected and buffer zones.
6.36. Regarding paragraph 7.972, Russia r equests the Panel to include certain factual findings
regarding the type of information contained in Lithuania's ASF eradication plan. The European
Union did not provide specific comments with respect to this request. We consider that Russia's
request to i nclude certain factual findings is closer in nature to rearguing its claims, as it
challenges the manner in which the Panel assessed the evidence on record. As we have explained
in section 6.2 it is not acceptable for parties t o reargue their case during the interim review stage.
Based on the foregoing, we reject Russia's requests in respect of paragraph 7.972. Moreover, we
have added some references to Russia's arguments in paragraph 7.9 67 to further reflect some of
the points that Russia requests the Panel to introduce as factual findings.
6.37. Regarding paragraphs 7.975 and 7.976, Russia requests the Panel to include a number of
factual findings with respect to the ASF outbreaks that occurred in Lithuania in 2014 as well as to
the experts' responses regarding the consequences of outbreaks occurring outside infected zones.
The European Union did not provide specific comments with respect to these requests. In light of
Russia's requests we have adjusted the text of paragraphs 7.975 an d 7.976 and the references
provided therein. We have also introduced additional text in paragraph 7.411, explaining the
possible origin of discrepancies in the manner in which an OIE member reports the occurrence of
notifiable diseases.
6.38. Regarding paragraph 7.980, Russia requests the Panel to include certain factual findings
regarding the type of information contained in Poland's ASF eradication plan. The European Union
did not provide specific comments with respect to this request. We consider that Russia's request
to include certain factual findings is closer in nature to rearguing its claims, as it challenges the
manner in which the Panel assessed the evidence on record. As we have explained in section 6.2 it
is not acceptable for parties to reargue their case during the interim review stage. Based on the
foregoing, we reject Russia's requests in respect of paragraph 7.980. Moreover, we have added
some references to Russia's arguments in paragraph 7.9 67 to further reflect some o f the points
that Russia requests the Panel to introduce as factual findings.
6.39. Also regarding paragraph 7.984, Russia requests the Panel to introduce a factual finding
that Poland's infected zone underwent three expansions between January 2014 and
September 2014, each time reducing the ASF free-area. Russia refers to Exhibit RUS-297 (revised)

83 See Art. 9 of Council Directive 2002/60/EC (Exhibit EU-31). See also Appendix 2 below.

in support of this request. The European Union did not provide specific comments to this request.
In our view, in paragraph 7.967, we have described the factual situati on which Russia requests to
be included in paragraph 7.984, and thus we reject Russia's request. As indicated in paragraph
6.35 above, we have added references to certain exhibits on record in paragraph 7.967.
6.40. Regarding paragraphs 7.991 and 7.993, the European Union requests the Panel accepting
ten new exhibits (Exhibits EU -253 to EU -262), based on which the European Union requests the
Panel to provide factual accuracy in respect of the assertions made in those paragraphs. In
particular, the European Union requests the Panel to indicate in paragraph 7.991 that the
European Union promptly provided to Russia significant information on revised and updated control
measures in Latvia, following the first outbreak in that EU member Sta te, until September 2014.
Russia commented extensively with respect to this request in its statements at the interim review
meeting and in its responses to the questions from the Panel after the interim review meeting.
Russia's main contention is that new evidence cannot be presented at the interim review stage and
that as such the European Union's request for review of paragraphs 7.991 and 7.993, based on the
new evidence submitted as Exhibits EU-253 through EU-262, should be rejected. Russia's supports
its views on a number of previous panel and Appellate Body reports.84
6.41. In section 6.3 above, we have explained why, in our view, the ten new exhibits (exhibits
EU-253 to EU -262) are inadmissible at this stage of the proceedings. Ba sed on this finding, we
reject the European Union's request for review of paragraphs 7.991 and 7.993. However, we have
adjusted the wording of paragraphs 7.991 and 7.993 to more accurately reflect the Panel's
appraisal of the argumentation and evidence on record.
6.42. Also regarding paragraph 7.991, in connection with paragraph 7.1017, Russia requests the
Panel to introduce a factual finding that Latvia's infected zone underwent four expansions between
June 2014 and August 2014, each time reducing the ASF free -area. Russia refers to Exhibit
RUS-297 (revised) in support of this request. The European Union makes reference to its
comments to paragraph 7.991, as well as to the new exhibits indicating that Russia was
immediately and consistently, informed about the A SF situation in Latvia. In our view, in
paragraph 7.967, we have described the factual situation which Russia requests to be included in
paragraphs 7.991 or 7.1017, and thus we reject Russia's request. As indicated in paragraph 6.35
above, we have added references to certain exhibits on record in paragraph 7.967.
6.43. Also regarding paragraph 7.993, Russia requests the Panel to introduce factual findings that
there is some information in Latvia's ASF eradication plan that was not pre viously provided by the
European Union to Russia SPS officials and that Latvia's ASF eradication plan highlights the risk of
further spread of ASF through backyard farms. The European Union refers to its comments to
paragraph 7.993 as well as to the new ex hibits indicating that Russia was immediately, and
consistently, informed about the ASF situation in Latvia. The Panel has addressed Russia's views
on the new information provided through Latvia's ASF eradication plan by means of a footnote to
paragraph 7. 993. However, the Panel considers that Russia's requests to introduce these
comments as new factual findings amount to rearguing Russia's claims rather than requesting the
review of precise aspects of the Interim Report. Based on our explanation of the sco pe of the
interim review stage in section 6.2 above, we reject Russia's requests with respect to paragraph
7.993.
6.44. Regarding paragraphs 7.1015 and 7.1017, Russia asks the Panel to provide more detail s of
what is refer red to as the "most updated geographical information on the record". The European
Union did not provide comments to this request. At the end of the sentence of paragraph 7.1015
to which Russia refers, the Panel included a footnote that refers to Exhibits EU -119 and RUS-297
(revised). It is to the information contained in those exhibits that the Panel refers to as the most
updated geographical information on the record. The Panel has clarified this issue in the footnote
which appears in paragraph 7.1015. This referenc e also appears, and has been adjusted, in
paragraphs 7.1016, 7.1017 and 7.1018.
6.45. Regarding paragraph 7.1018, Russia requests the Panel to introduce a factual finding that
Estonia's infected zone underwent six expansions, each time reducing the ASF free -area, and as of
7 August 2015, all of mainland Estonia was considered and notified as ASF -infected. Russia refers

84 See Russia's opening statement at the interim review meeting of the Panel, para. 5.

to Exhibit RUS-297 (revised) in support of this request. Russia also requests the Panel to find that
up until 7 August 2015, three outbreaks took place within ASF -free areas and 18 occurred in the
buffer zones. The European Union did not provide specific comments to these requests. In our
view, in paragraph 7.967, we have described the first factual situation which Russia requests to be
included in paragraph 7.1018, and thus we reject Russia's request. As indicated in paragraph 6.35
above, we have added references to certain exhibits on record in paragraph 7.967. Regarding the
second request, in our view, Russia's request is closer in nature to rearguing its claims, as it
challenges the manner in which the Panel assessed the evidence on record. As we have explained
in section 6.2 it is not acceptable for parties to reargue their case during the interim review stage.
Based on the foregoing, we reject Russia's requests in respect of paragraph 7.1018.
6.9 Whether Russia's measures are inconsistent with Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement
6.46. Regarding paragraph 7.1279, Russia requests the Panel to include Rus sia's argumentation
that no arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination exists because measures that are structured or
operate differently can reflect the same ALOP. The European Union did not provide specific
comments with respect to this request. The Panel considers that Russia's request is acceptable and
has introduced the respective changes to paragraph 7.1279.
6.47. Regarding paragraph 7.1300, Russia requests the Panel to either refer explicitly to its
decision to dismiss the European Union's discrimination cl aim with respect to Belarus, or to refer
explicitly to the fact that the European Union has withdrawn such claim. The European Union
considers that the Panel does not need to make changes to paragraph 7.1300, and notes that the
Panel referred to the Europe an Union's arguments with respect to the discriminatory treatment,
vis-à-vis Belarus, in paragraph 7.1398. We observe that paragraph 7.1300 portrays the parties'
arguments in respect of the claims under the first sentence of Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreemen t,
whilst the European Union's arguments in respect of Belarus are only pertinent pursuant to the
second sentence of Article 2.3. As noted by the European Union, the Panel addresses the European
Union's arguments with respect to Belarus later in the report . Based on the foregoing, the Panel
rejects Russia's request.
6.48. Regarding paragraph 7.1353, Russia requests the Panel to include certain factual findings
with respect to the effectiveness of ASF control measures applied in certain regions of Russia. The
European Union did not provide comments in this respect. The Panel introduced additional
references in paragraph 7.1353 to reflect the evidence referred to by Russia.
6.49. Regarding paragraph 7.1383, in connection with paragraph 8.1.f.i, Russia requests the
Panel to make an explicit finding that the European Union failed to establish that Russia
discriminated vis -à-vis the Ukraine. The European Union disagrees that the Panel needs to
introduce any changes to paragraph 7.1383, because the Panel has made the necessar y findings
to secure a positive solution to the dispute before it. In the Panel's view, Russia's request is closer
in nature to rearguing its claims, as it challenges the manner in which the Panel exercised its
discretion in assessing the European Union's claims. As we have explained in section 6.2 it is not
acceptable for parties to reargue their case during the interim review stage. Based on the
foregoing, we reject Russia's requests in respect of paragraphs 7.1383 and 8.1.f.i.
6.10 Panel's conclusions and recommendations
6.50. Regarding paragraphs 8.1.d.viii, 8.1.e.xii and 8.6, Russia brings to the Panel's attention that
the Panel should amend the language in these paragraphs to reflect the Panel's findings in
paragraphs 7.783 and 7.1208. In our view, paragraphs 8.1.d.vii, 8.1.e.xii and 8.6 correctly reflect
the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.783 and 7.1208.
6.51. Regarding paragraphs 8.1.d.ix and 8.1.e.xiv, Russia refers to its argumentation in respect of
Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement and requests the Panel to delete the reference to Russia's lack of
arguments or evidence to rebut the presumption of inconsistency with Article 2.2 raised by a
finding of inconsistency with Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement. The European Union considers that
these two paragraphs are correct and that the Panel should not change them. The Panel has made
small changes to paragraphs 7.846, 7.1254, 8.1.d.ix, and 8.1.e.xiv.

6.11 Appendix 1 to the Panel Report
6.52. Regarding Appendix 1 to the Panel Report, Russia requests the Panel to include a number of
communications, press notes, reports and other documents on record. The European Union
considers that the chronology provided by Russia cannot serve in any way as evidence of Russia
acting in accordance with its WTO obligations . The purpose of Appendix 1 was to provide an
account of the communications sent by the European Union to Russia and by Russia to the
European Union in order to support the Panel's assessment of the evidence that the European
Union had submitted to Russia in connection with the ASF outbreaks in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
and Poland. Those documents are referred to chronologically. Appendix 1 excludes press releases,
unilateral reports of bilateral meetings or recollection of phone calls. Based on the objec tive of
Appendix 1, we have accepted a limited number of the documents that Russia requests the Panel
to include in Appendix 1.
7 FINDINGS
7.1 Procedural issues
7.1.1 Arrangements for simultaneous interpretation
7.1. As indicated in section 1.3.3 above, in response to requests from Russia, the Panel made
particular arrangements concerning the use of simultaneous interpretation during the first
substantive meeting with the parties, the meeting with the third parties, the meeting with the
experts, and the second substantive meeting. In this section, the Panel explains the underlying
rationale in support of the arrangements mentioned in paragraphs 1.13 to 1.16 above.
7.2. We recall that on 16 Apr il 2015 — shortly before the first substantive meeting with the
parties, scheduled for Monday 20 April 2015 — Russia requested the Panel to authorize the use of
simultaneous English -to-Russian and Russian -to-English interpretation. Russia explained that it
would provide the interpreters and bear all the associated costs. On 17 April 2015, in response to
the Panel's invitation, the European Union provided a communication regarding Russia's request.
The European Union indicated that it could not provide its final views on such short notice.
7.3. On 17 April 2015, Russia reiterated its request to which the European Union responded on
20 April 2015. Russia argued that its due process rights would not be ensured if the Panel were to
decline its request, whereas the European Union was of the view that such request raised systemic
considerations by inter alia opening the possibility for Russian to become a de facto working
language in WTO dispute settlement. At the beginning of the meeting on 20 April 2015, Russia and
the European Union exchanged oral comments, reiterating their divergent views.
7.4. As explained in paragraph 1.13 above, following exchanges with the parties, and after
listening to the parties' views in the course of the first substantive meeting, the Panel informed the
parties that, for the purposes of the first substantive meeting with the parties (i) interpreters could
be present at the meeting, provided that Russia included their names in its delegation list and that
the interpre ters were provided and financed by Russia; (ii) the interpreters could use the
interpretation booths to provide only English-to-Russian simultaneous interpretation for the benefit
of Russia's delegation; (iii) Russia's delegation must make statements and s ubmissions to the
Panel and other parties only in English; and (iv) for the purpose of the proceedings, only
statements and submissions made in English must form part of the record.
7.5. During the third-party session on 21 April 2015, several third parties pro vided their views on
the use of simultaneous interpretation in the proceedings. Japan, Norway and the United States
took the floor and noted that they did not have any objections to the arrangements the Panel had
made regarding Russia's request in the sess ion with the parties to the dispute. As indicated in
paragraph 1.14 above, the Panel authorized simultaneous English -to-Russian interpretation for the
third-party session on the same conditions as those for the first substantive meeting with the
parties.
7.6. On 1 June 2015, well before the second substantive meeting, Russia renewed its request for
simultaneous English -to-Russian and Russian -to-English interpretation. According to Russia, the
Panel's ruling at the first meeting with the parties to allow only si multaneous English-to-Russian

interpretation created a significant burden on Russia's ability to participate actively in the hearing.
In particular, Russia noted that during the first meeting, knowledgeable Russian SPS officials were
not able to easily res pond to comments made by the European Union or to respond to Panel
questions. In its communication of 12 June 2015, the European Union opposed Russia's renewed
request, elaborating on the views reflected in its communication of 20 April 2015.
7.7. On 19 June 20 15, Russia responded to the European Union's comments expressed in the
communication of 12 June 2015. Russia opined that "the right balance" not to violate the due
process right of either one of the disputing parties would be struck if its request for "sim ultaneous
interpretation during the Expert Panel" was accepted by the Panel.
7.8. On 2 and 3 July 2015 , in response to a question posed by the Panel, Brazil, Japan, Norway
and the United States communicated their views on th e use of language interpretation dur ing the
Panel's subsequent meetings.
7.9. On 15 July 2015, Russia clarified the scope of its second request for language interpretation.
Russia explained that its most recent request for simultaneous Russian -to-English interpretation
was limited to the Panel's meeting with the experts. Russia emphasized the importance of such
interpretation due to the scientific and technical nature of the Panel's meeting with the experts
while expressing its appreciation for the simultaneous English -to-Russian interpretation authorised
by the Panel at the first substantive meeting.
7.10. As indicated in paragraphs 1.15 and 1.16 above , on 13 August 2015 the Panel informed the
parties of the arrangements for simultaneous interpretation during the meeting with the experts
and the second substantive meeting. The Panel informed the parties that it would authorise
simultaneous English -to-Russian and simultaneous Russian -to-English interpretation during the
Panel's meeting with the experts, and simultaneous English -to-Russian interpretation during the
second substantive meeting with the parties (replicating the arrangements at the first substantive
meeting with the parties). The Panel also confirmed that the interpreters could use the
interpretation booths, as available, in the rooms booked f or the meeting with the experts and for
the second substantive meeting with the parties.
7.11. Furthermore, the Panel emphasized that the arrangements for interpretation were
conditioned on the following: (i) the interpretation was conducted only by the interpr eters included
in Russia's delegation; (ii) the cost of the interpretation was covered exclusively by Russia;
(iii) only statements made in English would form part of the official record of the proceedings; and
(iv) the interpreters' statements, when interpreting what a member of Russia's delegation said in a
language other than English, would be considered the only statements forming part of the record.
7.12. Turning to the rationale underlying the interpretation arrangements we made, the Panel first
notes that Article XVI of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization
provides that it was concluded in three authentic languages: English, French and Spanish. These
three languages are also the working languages of the WTO.85

85 The working languages of the WTO have been identified in the rules of procedure of most of the WTO
bodies. See: Rule 30 of the Rules of Procedure for Sessions of the Ministerial Conference and and Rule 35 of
the Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the General Council (WT/L/161); rule 1 of the Rules of Procedure for
Meetings of the Dispute Settlement Body (WT/DSB/9); para. 1 of the Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the
Council for TRIPS (IP/C/1); para. 1 of the Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the Council for Trade in Services
(S/L/15); rule 1 of the Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the Trade Policy Review Body (WT/TPR/6/Rev.3);
para. 1 of the Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the Committee on Trade and Development (WT/COMTD/6);
para. 1 of the Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (WT/REG/1);
rule 1 of the Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the Committee on Balance-of-Payments Restrictions
(WT/BOP/10); para. 1 of the Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the Committee on Market Access (G/L/148);
para. 1 of the Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the Committee on Agriculture (G/L/142); para. 1 of the Rules
of Procedure for Meetings of the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (G/L/170); rule 35 of the
Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (G/L/150); rule 35 of the
Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (G/L/143); para. 1 of the Rules of
Procedure for Meetings of the Committee on Rules of Origin (G/L/149); para. 1 of the Rules of Procedure for
Meetings of the Committee on Import Licensing (G/L/147); para. 1 of the Rules of Procedure for Meetings of
the Committee on Trade-Related Investment Measures (G/L/151); rule 35 of the Rules of Procedure for

7.13. Second, the Panel acknowledges that each WTO Member has an exclusive right to determine
the composition of its delegation in dispute settlement proceedings. 86 The Panel also notes that
parties to dispute settlement proceedings have the corresponding obligation to ensure that the
confidentiality of WTO dispute settlement proceedings is fully respected. 87 Russia's prerogative to
determine the composition of its delegation would allow them to include interpreters as part of
their delegation. Pursuant to paragraph 5 our Working Pro cedures, Russia must ensure that each
member of Russia's delegation acts in accordance with the DSU and the Panel's Working
Procedures, particularly with regard to the confidentiality of the proceedings. 88 From the moment
that Russia included the interprete rs within its delegation, Russia assumed this obligation in
respect of these interpreters. In our view, the interpretation arrangements adopted in these
proceedings ensured that the confidentiality of the proceedings was fully respected.
7.14. Third, we observe that the Appellate Body has noted that the DSU accords a panel "ample
and extensive authority to undertake and to control the process by which it informs itself both of
the relevant facts of the dispute and of the legal norms and principles applicable to s uch facts".89
This broad authority and discretion to undertake and control the conduct of panel proceedings may
be exercised within the limits of the DSU and due process. 90 We are also mindful of our obligation
under Article 11 of the DSU to assess objective ly the matter before us, including by making an
objective assessment of the facts of this case. Moreover, Article 12 of the DSU requires panels to
provide sufficient flexibility so as to ensure high quality panel reports while not unduly delaying the
process. The Panel is also cognisant of Article 13 of the DSU, which provides for the right of panels
to seek information, and Article 11.2 of the SPS Agreement, which deals with panels seeking
advice from experts in disputes involving scientific or technical i ssues and consulting with relevant
international organizations.
7.15. We are of the view that the interpretation arrangements adopted by the Panel did not
unduly delay the process nor undermine due process, and neither party has suggested anything to
the contrary.
7.16. In terms of avoiding potential delays, the interpretation arrangements allowed the Panel to
make the best use of the limited time that it had available with the experts and the parties during
the meeting with the experts. Moreover, allowing for Englis h to Russian interpretation for the
benefit of Russia's delegation allowed both the meetings with the parties and the third parties 91 to
run smoothly and avoided any potential delays in the Panel's timetable that might have been
required to provide time for translations in connection with the Panel's meetings.
7.17. In terms of due process, the Panel provided the parties and third parties an opportunity to
explain their concerns in respect of interpretation arrangements, so the Panel could accommodate
and take th em into account. Furthermore, keeping the official record of Panel proceedings in
English and ensuring that statements by the interpreters, when interpreting what a member of
Russia's delegation said in a language other than English, would be considered the only statements
forming part of the record, did not change or have a material detrimental impact on the way that
the complainant participated in the Panel proceedings.

Meetings of the Committee on Safeguards (G/L/145); para. 1 of the Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products (G/IT/3); para. 1 of
the Draft Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the Committee on Customs Valuation (G/VAL/W/2); rule 35 of the
Draft Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the Committee on Trade and Environment (WT/CTE/W/13/Rev.1).
86 Appellate Body Report, EC – Bananas III, paras. 10-12; and Panel Reports, Korea – Alcoholic
87 See Appellate Body Report, Canada – Aircraft, para. 145. This was acknowledged by the European
Union in its communications of 17 and 20 April 2015.
88 This rule in the Panel's Working Procedures is in line with the Appellate Body finding that Members
have an obligation to extend their obligation to maintain the confidentiality of appellate proceedings to
individuals whom they select to act as its representatives, counsel and consultants. Appellate Body Report,
Canada – Aircraft, para. 141.
89 Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp, para. 106.
90 Appellate Body Reports, India – Patents (US), para. 92; and, EC – Hormones, para. 154.
91 We note that in its communication of 17 April 2015, the European Union referred to the "quite normal
practice" of members of a delegation conferring with interpreters who are part of the delegation of that
Member.

7.18. We are confident that the interpretation arrangements enabled the Panel to receive, on a
timely basis, vital scientific and technical expertise, which assisted the Panel to meet its
obligations under Article 11 of the DSU to make an objective assessment of the facts of the case
and under Article 11.2 of the SPS Agreement to seek expert ad vice. We are presented in this
dispute with complex scientific and technical issues. We determined that we would benefit from the
input of relevant experts, including those relied upon by both parties. In our view, given the highly
technical nature of the issues before us and the limited ability of Russia's scientific experts to
contribute effectively in any language other than Russian, we determined that unless we made the
interpretation arrangements we did, it would not have been possible for Russia to re spond to the
Panel's questions in a timely fashion or to present relevant evidence and be in a position to defend
itself in this case. We are also persuaded that we would not have been in a position to properly
assess the arguments and evidence in this cas e in as timely and effective a manner and hence
would not have been able to carry out as effectively our obligations set forth in the DSU.
7.19. We are mindful of the limited resources and infrastructure available at the Panel's disposal,
which was consistently underlined also by the European Union and some of the third parties. We
note that the interpretation arrangements authorized by the Panel did not entail any costs to the
WTO. The Panel emphasizes that these arrangements were addressed in the context of these
Panel proceedings and, as such, take into account the particular nature of and circumstances
present in this dispute. Any similar request would need to be assessed on case -by-case basis
taking into account the feasibility of accepting arrangements fo r simultaneous interpretation. We
make no assessment of the potential relevance, utility or otherwise of similar arrangements for
other proceedings.
7.1.2 Industry representative in a Member's delegation
7.20. At our first substantive meeting with the parties, the European Union observed that Russia's
delegation included a representative of the Russian pig industry, who had been identified as
chairman of the Board of the AGROECO Group . In the European Union's view, it would be
inappropriate for that person to participa te in the part of the meeting where the Panel would pose
questions to the parties. Referring to paragraph 3 of the Panel's Working Procedures on Strictly
Confidential Information 92, the European Union noted that certain people, including the person
concerned from the Russian pig industry, should not have access to strictly confidential
information. In response, Russia noted that Russia considered it important for that person to
attend the session because he could be well suited to answer some of the Panel's questions. Russia
added that this person was included in their delegation and that Russia was responsible for
ensuring that the delegate respected the confidentiality of information disclosed in the course of
the meeting. Russia noted that the European Uni on had not labelled any information as "strictly
confidential" and that all the information that would be discussed came from publicly available
sources. The European Union replied that it would accept an arrangement by which that person
would leave the room in case the European Union considered it would disclose strictly confidential
information as part of an answer to a question from the Panel. Russia agreed to this arrangement.
7.21. Having listened to the parties' views, we decided not to grant the European U nion's request
to exclude the member of Russia's delegation. We observed that, as provided in paragraph 5 of
our Working Procedures, Russia was entitled to determine the composition of its delegation in
these proceedings. We also stated that, in accordance with Article 18.2 of the DSU and paragraph
5 of our Working Procedures 93, Russia assumed responsibility for its delegation, including respect

92 Paragraph 3 of our additional Working Procedures Concerning Strictly Confidential Information
provides:
As required by paragraph 3 of the Working Procedures of the Panel, the deliberations of the Panel
and the documents submitted to it shall be kept confidential. Further, as required by Article 18.2
of the DSU a party or third party having access to information designated as SCI submitted in
these Panel proceedings shall treat it as confidential and shall not disclose that information other
than to those persons authorized to receive it pursuant to these additional working procedures.
Each party and third party is responsible for ensuring that its employees, outside advisers and
experts comply with these additional Working Procedures to protect SCI. An outside advisor is
not permitted access to SCI if that advisor is an officer or employee of an enterprise engaged in
the production, export, or import of the products that are subject of this dispute.
93 Paragraph 5 of our Working Procedures provides:

for confidentiality of information exchanged in the course of the first substantive meeting. 94 We
also noted the pa rties' agreement that in case the European Union were to present information
designated as strictly confidential, the member of Russia's delegation in question would excuse
himself from the meeting.
7.22. We are cognisant of the need to protect sensitive inform ation in WTO dispute settlement
proceedings, and, in particular, of the importance of protecting information labelled by the parties
as strictly confidential when a panel has adopted working procedures for the protection of such
information. We note that at the time we made our decision on this issue, the European Union had
not identified any specific information for which it sought strictly confidential treatment. Rather,
the European Union sought to exclude a member of Russia's delegation from the part of the first
substantive meeting of the parties with the Panel devoted to the answers to questions from the
Panel, as well as from subsequent meetings. In the course of the first substantive meeting and in
the course of these proceedings, neither party ident ified any specific information as strictly
confidential. Moreover, Russia subsequently indicated that the person whose presence was
challenged by the European Union would not form part of their delegation for the rest of the first
substantive meeting, and was not included as part of Russia's delegation in any subsequent
meeting of the Panel with the parties, the third parties or the experts.
7.2 Order of analysis
7.23. Before addressing certain preliminary issues and commencing the analysis of the European
Union's claims, we first consider the order in which we will address such claims.
7.24. In this dispute, the European Union requests the Panel to find that Russia's measures at
issue are inconsistent with Russia's obligations under Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5 .3, 5.4,
5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 7 (and Annex B paragraphs 1, 2, 5 and 6) and 8 (and Annex C.1(a),
(b) and (c)) of the SPS Agreement. 95 Moreover, in responding to the European Union's claims
under the SPS Agreement, Russia invokes Articles 3.1, 3.2, 5.7 and 6.3 of that Agreement.
7.25. The Panel must decide the order in which it will examine the claims under the SPS
Agreement.
7.2.1 Main arguments of the parties
7.26. The European Union points out that the panel in India – Agricultural Products agreed with
the respondent on the order of analysis and started its assessment under the harmonization
provisions of the SPS Agreement, proceeding only afterwards with the analysis of the claims
related to the lack of a risk assessment. The European Union emphasizes that were that panel to
have found that India's avian influenza measures "conform to" international standards, then they
would have been presumed to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement.

Each party and third party has the right to determine the composition of its own delegation when
meeting with the Panel. Each party and third party shall have the responsibility for all members
of its own delegation and shall ensure that each member of such delegation acts in accordance
with the DSU and these Working Procedures, particularly with regard to the confidentiality of the
proceedings.
94 The panel in Korea – Certain Paper ruled on a similar request by Korea regarding the presence of
representatives of the Indonesian paper industry in the Indonesian delegation. See Panel Report, Korea –
Certain Paper, paras. 7.10-7.12. See also Appellate Body Report, Canada – Aircraft, para. 141 (regarding the
Members' obligation to extend their obligation to maintain the confidentiality of appellate proceedings to
individuals whom they select to act as its representatives, counsel and consultants); and Panel Reports,
Thailand – H Beams, para. 5.3 (referring to the importance of maintaining confidentiality of information and
the Members' obligation to do so pursuant to Article 18.2 of the DSU); Brazil – Aircraft (Article 21.5 – Canada
II), paras. 3.5-3.10 (regarding a request from Brazil that the panel consider that Canada breached the panel's
working procedures by disclosing confidential information to persons that were not part of Canada's
delegation); and Indonesia – Autos, para. 14.1 (regarding the participation of two private lawyers in
Indonesia's delegation during the first substantive meeting).
95 Although the European Union's panel request initially included claims under the GATT 1994 (Articles
I:1, XI:1 and III:4) in addition to its claims under the provisions of the SPS Agreement, the European Union
subsequently clarified that it would no longer pursue these claims. Accordingly, we proceed directly to an
examination of the European Union's claims under the SPS Agreement. See European Union's response to
Panel question No. 80, para. 155.

The European Union, referring to the foregoing reasoning, presents its claims starting with its
claims relating to Article 3 of the SPS Agreement.96
7.27. Russia does not argue on the particular order the Panel should examine the European
Union's claims.
7.2.2 Main arguments of the third parties
7.2.2.1 Australia
7.28. Australia highlights that the Panel needs to determine, as a matter of fact, whether Russia's
measures conform to, or are based on, the Terrestrial Code, noting that only measures which
conform to international standards enjoy the presumption of consistency with the SPS Ag reement.
Australia also notes that that presumption is rebuttable. Australia argues that in the context of the
foregoing, it would be appropriate for the Panel to commence its analysis with the claims under
Article 3, followed by a consideration, if necessary, of the subsequent claims under Articles 5 and 6
of the SPS Agreement.97
7.2.3 Analysis by the Panel
7.29. A panel is generally free to determine in which order it examines the claims brought by the
complaining party. Like the panel in US – Animals, we understand f rom the Appellate Body report
in US – Zeroing (EC) (Article 21.5 – EC) that, in fulfilling its duties under Article 11 of the DSU, a
panel may "depart from the sequential order suggested by the complaining party, in particular,
when this is required by the correct interpretation or application of the legal provisions at issue ".98
Indeed, the Appellate Body has stated that, as a general rule, panels are free to structure the
order of their analysis as they see fit 99, provided that their analysis is consistent with the
"structure and logic" of the provisions at issue in each dispute. 100 There may be situations where a
particular order is compelled by principles of valid interpretative methodology, which, if not
followed, might constitute errors of law.101 In addition, panels dealing with claims under provisions
of the SPS Agreement have considered the particular circumstances of the dispute and the
implications of their findings in the subsequent claims that they need to examine when deciding in
which order to examine the complainant's claims.102
7.30. Given the particular circumstances of this dispute and the nature of the parties'
argumentation before this Panel, the issue of whether Russia's measures "conform to" or are
"based on" the relevant international standards embodied in the Terrestrial Code under Articles 3.2
and 3.1 of the SPS Agreement is of central relevance. This is so, in particular, due to the eventual
impact of the Panel's findings under those provisions with respect to the European Union's other
claims, and their close relationship to other issues arising in this case, such as those pertaining to
regionalization arising under Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.
7.2.4 Conclusion
7.31. Accordingly, with respect to the order of analysis of the European Union's claims under t he
SPS Agreement, the Panel will begin by determining which measures fall within its terms of
reference to ensure that the Panel has the jurisdiction and mandate to examine them. In
addressing this issue, the Panel will examine Russia's arguments with resp ect to the attribution of
the alleged EU-wide ban to Russia and to limitations that Russia's terms of accession to the WTO
may create on the Panel's jurisdiction. Once we have confirmed the parameters of our terms of
reference, we will determine whether Ru ssia's measures at issue are SPS measures within the

96 European Union's first written submission, paras. 108-109.
97 Australia's third-party submission, paras. 8-9.
98 Appellate Body Report, US – Zeroing (EC) (Article 21.5 – EC), para. 277. See Panel Report, US –
Animals, para. 7.13.
99 Appellate Body Report, Canada – Wheat Exports and Grain Imports, paras. 126-129.
100 Appellate Body Reports, Canada – Autos, para. 151; and Canada – Wheat Exports and Grain
Imports, para. 109.
102 Panel Report, US – Animals, paras. 7.7-7.20.

scope of the SPS Agreement. If they are, we will proceed to examine the claims and arguments in
respect of the remaining provisions of the SPS Agreement invoked by the European Union. For the
purposes of clarity, the Panel will separately address the claims and arguments raised by the
parties in respect of the alleged EU-wide ban; and the bans on the imports of the products at issue
from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, in that particular order.
7.32. In addressing such claims and arguments, the Panel will begin with its examination of the
issue of harmonization under Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the SPS Agreement, addressing , as relevant,
the extent to which Russia's challenged measures "conform to" and/or ar e "based on" the relevant
international standards. In this particular case, we deem it appropriate to evaluate the parties'
claims pertaining to regionalization under Articles 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of the SPS Agreement in the
course of our assessment under Article 3.
7.33. Once we have concluded our analysis with respect to harmonization and regionalization the
Panel will turn to the parties' remaining claims in the following sequence:
a. Claims under Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement;
b. Claims under Articles 2.2, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.7 of the SPS Agreement;
c. Claims under Articles 5.3, 5.4 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement;
7.34. The Panel will then assess in respect of both sets of the challenged measures the parties'
arguments with respect to:
a. Claims under Articles 2.3 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement; and
b. Claims under Article 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement.
7.35. Before addressing each of European Union's claims, the Panel will address a number of
preliminary issues related to its terms of reference.
7.3 Preliminary issues
7.3.1 Introduction
7.36. As indicated in section 2.2 above, in its panel request, the European Union states that it
challenges "certain Russian measures adopting, maintaining or applying an import ban or import
restrictions, which prevent the importatio n of the products at issue [live pigs and their genetic
material, pork and certain other pig products] from the EU into Russia".103
7.37. The European Union identifies, as the specific measures at issue in this dispute, two sets of
measures:
 the "refusal by Russ ia to accept imports for the products at issue from the entire EU",
characterizing it as an "EU-wide ban"104; and

 individual import bans on live pigs and pig products from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Poland.105 The bans on imports of the products at issue from Lithuania and Poland are
explicitly referred to in the panel request. 106 Those in respect of imports from Estonia and
Latvia are not, because the former was adopted on the same date on which the European

103 European Union's panel request, p. 1.
104 Referred to in this Report as the "alleged EU-wide ban" or the "EU-wide ban".
105 European Union's panel request, pp. 1-2; first written submission, paras. 82-97; opening statement
at the first meeting of the Panel, paras. 24-27; and response to Panel question No. 57, para. 135. In its first
written submission, the European Union refers to the four EU member States subject to the specific import
bans, in the chronological order in which the measures were adopted with respect to each. However, for ease
of reference, we list these four EU member States in alphabetical order.
106 See para. 2.9 above.

Union submitted the panel request (27 June 2014) 107, whereas the latter was adopted on
11 September 2014.108 However, the European Union included these two measures among
the measures at issue challenged in its first written submission.109

7.38. Russia argues that the alleged EU-wide ban is not a measure attribut able to Russia. Rather,
it is a consequence of the European Union's veterinary officials' inability to certify compliance of
the products at issue for export with the conditions set out in the form of veterinary certificates
bilaterally agreed by Russia an d the European Union for trade of the products at issue. Hence,
Russia claims that the European Union has failed to demonstrate that the alleged EU -wide ban is a
measure within the definition of Article 1 and Annex A of the SPS Agreement.110
7.39. According to Ru ssia, the validity of the veterinary certificates is itself a term of Russia's
accession to the WTO. Thus, Russia's commitment to maintain the application of the bilateral
certificates negates the European Union's claims, derived directly or indirectly fro m the application
of the bilateral certificates, pursuant to the provisions of the SPS Agreement.111
7.40. The European Union rejects Russia's arguments regarding the consequences of the validity
of the veterinary certificates. In the European Union's view, the r eference to the veterinary
certificates in Russia's accession documents should be understood in the context of Russia's
continuing obligation to adapt its measures to regional SPS characteristics. 112 The European Union
adds that the terms of Russia's accessi on to the WTO cannot be construed as preventing the
adaptation of bilateral certificates to the ASF regionalization measures in the European Union.113
7.41. In addition, Russia has not raised any objection in respect of the country -wide measures
concerning Latvia and Estonia being within the Panel's terms of reference. Russia only commented
on this matter in response to Panel questions addressing the fact that those measures are not
mentioned explicitly in the panel request.114 Russia also added, "both Parties have agreed that it is
appropriate for the Panel to consider the European Union claims as including a challenge to the
Latvian and Estonian import bans … which were not included in the Panel request".115
7.42. The Panel first needs to determine whether the alleged EU -wide ban is a measure
susceptible to challenge under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Then, the Panel needs to
examine whether Russia's terms of accession, in respect of the validity of certain bilateral
veterinary export certificates, limits the Panel 's assessment of the European Union's claims in
respect of the alleged EU -wide ban. Then, independent of the parties' views on the matter, it is
incumbent upon the Panel to determine whether the measures regarding imports from Latvia and
Estonia are within its terms of reference. The Panel will address each of these issues in turn.

107 Russia's notification to the SPS Committee: G/SPS/N/RUS/64 (SPS notification on imports from
Latvia) (Exhibit EU-12); and Letter of the Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision
No. FS-NF-8/11315, of 27 June 2014 (Measure on imports from Latvia) (Exhibit EU-169).
108 Russia's notification to the SPS Committee: G/SPS/N/RUS/76 (SPS notification on imports from
Estonia) (Exhibit EU-13); and Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to DG SANCO, FS-NV-8/17431, 11
September 2014 (Measure on imports from Estonia) (Exhibit RUS-37).
109 European Union's first written submission, paras. 4 and 86-87.
110 Russia' response to Panel question No. 72, para. 108; second written submission, paras. 3 and 171-
174; opening statement at the second meeting of the Panel, paras. 50-60; and response to Panel question
No. 275, para. 111.
111 Russia's response to Panel question No. 274, paras. 104-110. See also response to Panel question
No. 75, paras. 110-118; and second written submission, paras. 177-184.
112 European Union's second written submission, para. 27 (referring to Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement
and Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.154).
113 European Union's comments on Russia's response to Panel question No. 254, para. 12.
114 Russia's response to Panel question No. 74, paras. 119-123. In para. 123, Russia noted that even if
the Panel were to find that the measures on imports from Estonia and Latvia do not fall within its terms of
reference they are nevertheless relevant to the dispute as evidence, even if these measures post-date the date
of the panel request.
115 Russia's response to Panel question No. 279, para. 122.

7.3.2 Whether the alleged EU-wide ban is a measure susceptible to challenge under the
WTO dispute settlement mechanism
7.3.2.1 Introduction
7.43. We begin our examination of the preliminary matters related to the measures at issue with
the question of whether the alleged EU -wide ban is a measure susceptible to challenge under the
WTO dispute settlement mechanism. As part of Russia's challenge in respect of the
characterization of the alleged EU -wide ban as an SPS measure, it posits that the alleged EU -wide
ban is not attributable to Russia.116 In order to provide a coherent and comprehensive assessment
of the preliminary questions before us related to the measures at issue, we will first focus on
Russia's argument that the alleged EU-wide ban is not a measure attributable to Russia.
7.44. In our view, Russia's argument that the alleged EU -wide ban is not attributable to Russia
touches upon the question of whether Russia has in fact put in place a measure and whether such
measure is susceptible to challenge under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Therefore,
after reviewing the parties' argument in this respect, the Panel will address that question.
7.3.2.2 Main arguments of the parties
7.45. Live pigs and their genetic material, pork and certain other pig products ("the products at
issue") from the European Union have been exported to Russia on the basis of bilaterally agreed
veterinary certificates which, among other things, attest to the ASF -status of the European
Union.117 Following the ASF outbreaks that were confirmed in Lithuania on 24 January 2014 118,
Russia stopped accepting the imports of the products at issue subject to those bilateral veterinary
certificates from all EU member States. This decision was adopted bec ause the epizootic situation
in the European Union regarding ASF did not match the requirements set out in those
certificates.119
7.46. While the European Union describes Russia's measure as an "EU -wide ban", Russia insists
that this measure is properly characteri zed as its "provisional compliance" with the current
bilateral veterinary certificates, reiterating that, in light of the ASF outbreaks, it is the European
Union that is unable to comply with the requirements in the certificates.120

116 The question of whether the EU-wide ban is an SPS measure is examined in section 7.4.4.2.1 below.
117 Russia's first written submission, paras. 343-344; and response to Panel question No. 69, para. 100;
see also European Union's first written submission, fn 82 (referring to the Veterinary certificate for piglets for
fattening, being exported from the EU into Russia, 11/08/2006) (Veterinary certificate for piglets for fattening)
(Exhibit EU-52); the Veterinary certificate for pigs for breeding, exported from the EU into Russia, 11/08/2006
(Veterinary certificate for pigs for breeding) (Exhibit EU-53); the Veterinary certificate for pork meat and raw
meat preparations, exported from the EU into Russia, 11/08/2006 (Veterinary certificate for pork meat and raw
meat preparations) (Exhibit EU-54); the Veterinary certificate for slaughter pigs, exported from the EU to
Russia, 16/12/2009 (Veterinary certificate for slaughter pigs)(Exhibit EU-55); the Veterinary certificate for
finished food products, containing raw material of animal origin, exported from the EU to Russia, 24/05/2011
(Veterinary certificate for finished food products) (Exhibit EU-56); the Veterinary certificate for canned meat,
salamis and other ready for consumption meat products, exported from the EU to Russia, 24/05/2011
(Veterinary certificate for canned meat, salamis and other ready for consumption meat products)(Exhibit EU-
57)).
118 OIE WAHIS Interface, Follow-up report No. 31 – Report reference: 1, Reference OIE: 17147, Report
Date: 06/02/2015, Country: Lithuania (Exhibit RUS-27).
119 Letter of the Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision to the European
Union dated 29 January 2014 Ref. FS-SA-8/1277 (Letter of FSVPS of 29 January 2014 – FS-SA-8/1277)
(Exhibit EU-14), para. 3; the announcement on the website of Rosselkhoznadzor of 6 February 2014
(announcement of FSVPS) (Exhibit EU-16); List of returned consignments of pig products (Exhibit EU-17); see
also European Union's first written submission, paras. 88-97; and Russia's first written submission, paras. 343-
344 and 346-347.
120 European Union's panel request, p. 2; first written submission, para. 88; opening statement at the
first meeting of the Panel, para. 24; response to Panel question No. 57, para. 135; and second written
submission, para. 21. Russia's first written submission, paras. 344 and 347; and opening statement at the first

7.3.2.2.1 European Union
7.47. In the pa nel request, the European Union identifies 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".121 The European Union refers to this alleged measure:
[A]s an action (an import ban or restriction) and, in the alternative, as an omission
(failure to accept imports from the EU). The EU seeks review of this specific measure
at issue as such and as applied, de jure and de facto (that is, based on all the relevant
facts). The EU also seeks review of this specific measure at issue both insofar as it is
written, and insofar as it is unwritten.122
7.48. In support of the existence of the alleged EU -wide ban the European Union explains in the
panel request as follows:
The EU notes the letter sent to the EU dated 29 January 2014 (FS -SA-8/1277) from
the Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision referring to
certain export certificates previously used for certain exports from the EU to Russia,
and notably the phr ase "healthy animals grown in farms and/or administrative
territories officially free from contiguous animal diseases, including African Swine
Fever during 3 years in the whole territory of the EU except Sardinia." In this respect,
the Russian authorities made the following statement: "veterinary doctors in the EU
Member-States must stop certification of the abovementioned products. Otherwise
these products accompanied with these veterinary certificates issued after
27.01.2014, cannot be allowed into the territory of the Member States of the Customs
Union and are subject to returns."123
7.49. In the panel request, the European Union also refers to the following statement from the
letter of 14 February 2014 (НF -12- 26/1650) from Russia's Ministry of Agriculture: "thi s incident
considerably changes the epizootic status not only of Lithuania, but of the whole EU". 124
Additionally, the European Union finds support for its contention of the alleged EU -wide ban in the
official announcement of Russia's Federal Service for Vet erinary and Phytosanitary Supervision
(FSVPS)125 from 6 February 2014, according to which the importation of pork products (frozen
heads and hearts) of Austrian and German origin was banned in the Tver and Pskov regions
because of alleged ASF risks in the wh ole European Union.126 Finally, the European Union refers to
the rejection by Russia of a frozen pork meat consignment because the export certificate would
not correctly certify the situation on ASF as regards ASF outbreaks in the territory of Lithuania.127
7.50. The European Union further explains that it understands that "following the instruction FS -
SA-7/1275 of 29 January 2014 128, Russia stopped issuing import permits for the products at issue
from the European Union. In addition, exporters were informed of the let ter of 29 January 2014
FS-SA-8/1277 according to which Russia stopped accepting imports. 129"130 As a result, there were
no more instances of rejected consignments, because "evidently, no operator was going to incur
the ruinous costs of consigning shipments to the Russian border in the knowledge that they would

121 European Union's panel request, p.2.
122 European Union's panel request, p. 2. See also first written submission, para. 88.
123 European Union's panel request, p. 2.
124 European Union's panel request, p. 2, referring to the letter of 14 February 2014 (Ref. HF -12-
26/1650) from Russia to the European Union (Letter of 14 February 2014 – HF-12-26/1650) (Exhibit EU-15).
125 FSVPS is also the English abbreviation of Rosselkhoznadzor (the Russian abbreviation).
126 European Union's panel request, p. 2 (referring to: http://fsvps.ru/fsvps/news/8935.html).
127 European Union's panel request, p. 2. See also first written submission, paras. 89-96.
128 (footnote original) Russia's instructions of 29 January 2014, FS-SA-7/1275 (Exhibit EU-161).
129 (footnote original) Russia's letter to the European Union of 14 January 2014, FS-SA-8/1277 (Exhibit
EU-14).
130 European Union's response to Panel question No. 56, para. 133 and second written submission,
para. 23.

be refused entry." 131 According to the European Union, it has provided sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that the alleged EU-wide ban is attributable to Russia.132
7.51. The European Union considers that " the Par ties in fact agree on the existence of the
measure at issue. What the EU calls the EU -wide ban is referred to by Russia as 'provisional
compliance with the terms of the veterinary certificates'.133"134
7.52. In addition, the European Union rejects Russia's argument that the alleged EU -wide ban is
not attributable to Russia because it may be somehow also attributable to the European Union.
The European Union posits that even if the current situation was somehow attributable to the
European Union that would not lead to the conclusion that it is not also attributable to Russia. The
European Union further adds that it has not relinquished its rights to challenge Russia's measures
under the DSU. 135
7.3.2.2.2 Russia
7.53. Russia disagrees with the European Union's characterization of the m easure at issue as the
alleged EU-wide ban. Rather, Russia considers the alleged EU -wide ban to be the consequence of
the European Union's failure to "meet the ASF -related requirements contained in the veterinary
certificates agreed to by the European Unio n and the Russian Federation".136 Russia further notes
that the alleged EU -wide ban "is actually the Russian Federation's continuing efforts to follow the
agreed European Union-Russian Federation ASF-related requirements of the veterinary certificates,
which do not permit the importation of uncertified pigs and pork products." 137 Therefore, the
inability of products to enter Russia "is not directly attributable to the Russian Federation".138
7.54. Russia explains that the veterinary certificates bilaterally agreed by t he European Union and
Russia require that the entire European Union has been free from ASF during the previous three
years in order for live pigs and pork products to be exported to Russia. 139 Russia thus maintains
that in its letters of 29 January 2014 and of 14 February 2014 to the European Union, Russia
simply acknowledges the fact that, due to the ASF outbreak in the European Union, the veterinary
officials of the EU member States are unable, pursuant to the terms of the veterinary certificates
and consis tent with Chapter 5.1 of the Terrestrial Code, to certify that the territory of the
European Union, excluding Sardinia, has been free from ASF during the previous three years.140
7.55. According to Russia, the European Union has not demonstrated that implementing the
conditions in the veterinary certificates, which is an act carried out by the European Union's
veterinary authorities, is an act attributable to Russia.141 Russia argues that "the inability to accept
imports from the European Union is not directly attrib utable to the Russian Federation. It is the
European Union's – not the Russian Federation's veterinary officials who are not able to certify

131 European Union's response to Panel question No. 56, para. 134 and second written submission,
para. 24.
132 European Union's second written submission, para. 22.
133 (footnote original) Russia's first written submission, section H.2.
134 European Union's second written submission, para. 23.
135 European Union's response to Panel question No. 21, para. 89. See also second written submission,
para, 25.
136 Russia's first written submission, para. 343.
137 Russia's first written submission, para. 345; and response to Panel question No. 78, para. 129. See
also response to Panel question No. 84, para. 138.
138 Russia's response to Panel question No. 72, para. 108. See also second written submission, para. 3.
139 Russia's first written submission, paras. 347, 351 and 343 (referring to Veterinary Certificates for
piglets for fattening (Exhibit EU-52), Veterinary Certificates for pigs for breeding (Exhibit EU-53), Veterinary
Certificates for pork meat and raw meat preparations (Exhibit EU-54)).
140 Russia's first written submission, para. 344. The reference to the letter of 29 January 2014 FS-SA-
8/1277 is understood as the reference to Letter of FSVPS of 29 January 2014 – FS-SA-8/1277 (Exhibit EU-14)
and the reference to the letter of 14 February 2014 is the reference to Letter of 14 February 2014 – HF-12-
26/1650 (Exhibit EU-15).
141 Russia's second written submission, para. 171.

compliance of the products at issue for exports based on the conditions set out in the form of
certificate that was agreed bilaterally by the Russian Federation and the European Union."142
7.3.2.3 Analysis by the Panel
7.56. The Appellate Body has stated, in respect of the scope of Article 3.3 of the DSU, 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."143
7.57. To determine whether the alleged EU -wide ban is susceptible to challenge under the WTO
Agreement, we need to examine whether the alleged EU -wide ban is an act or omission
attributable to Russia. In our view, this examination requires two steps. First, we need to
understand what act or omission the European Union is referring to, that is, what is the content
and extent of the alleged EU -wide ban. Second, we need to verify whether that act or omission is
attributable to Russia.
7.3.2.3.1 Whether the European Union has provided arguments and evidence of the
content and import of the alleged EU-wide ban
7.58. The Appellate Body has referred in different contexts to the burden a complainant must
meet in r espect of demonstrating the particular content of the measures it challenges. In US –
Gambling, when referring to the evidence and arguments underlying a prima facie case, the
Appellate Body stated that they include the identification of the challenged mea sure and its basic
import.144
7.59. In light of this guidance, we consider that in the present case the European Union has the
burden of demonstrating the content and the basic import of the alleged EU -wide ban. Therefore,
we need to examine the arguments and evid ence that the European Union has submitted in this
respect.
7.60. The European Union has provided the following evidence in support of the content and
import of the alleged EU-wide ban:
 letter dated 29 January 2014 (FS-SA-8/1277)145 from the FSVPS to DG SANCO146;

 instructions dated 29 January 2014 of FSVPS (FS-SA-7/1275)147 to its Heads of Territorial
Departments148;

 letter of 14 February 2014 (НF-12-26/1650)149 from the Ministry of Agriculture of Russia150;

142 Russia's second written submission, para. 173. See also response to Panel question No. 275,
para. 111.
143 Appellate Body Report, US – Corrosion- Resistant Steel Sunset Review, para. 81.
144 Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling, para. 141.
145 Letter of FSVPS of 29 January 2014 – FS-SA-8/1277 (Exhibit EU-14). In its first written submission,
the European Union notes that this letter refers to the following veterinary certificates: Veterinary certificate
for piglets for fattening (Exhibit EU-52); the Veterinary certificate for pigs for breeding (Exhibit EU-53); the
Veterinary certificate for pork meat and raw meat preparations (Exhibit EU-54); the Veterinary certificate for
slaughter pigs (Exhibit EU-55); the Veterinary certificate for finished food products (Exhibit EU-56); the
Veterinary certificate for canned meat, salamis and other ready for consumption meat products (Exhibit EU-57)
(European Union's first written submission, para. 89, fn 82).
146 European Union's first written submission, para. 89.
147 Letter of the Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision
(Rosselkhoznadzor) to the Heads of Territorial Departments of Rosselkhoznadzor FS-SA-7/1275 of 29 January
2014 (FSVPS instructions to its Territorial Departments of 29 January 2014) (Exhibit EU-161).
148 European Union's response to Panel question No. 56, para. 133; and second written submission,
para. 23.
149 Letter of 14 February 2014, HF-12-26/1650 (Exhibit EU-15).
150 European Union's first written submission, para. 91.

 announcement of the FSVPS from 6 February 2014 for the ban on the importation 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 whole EU151;

 instances of not allowing the importation into Russia of consignments of pork products from
the European Union member States after 25 January 2014 because the ASF epizootic
situation was not correctly represented in item 4.3 of the veterinary certificate or because of
problems related with the date of issuance of the veterinary certificate.152

7.61. We move on to examine in more detail each of these pieces of evidence referred to by the
European Union.
7.3.2.3.1.1 Letter of 29 January 2014 (FS-SA-8/1277) from the FSVPS to DG SANCO
7.62. The letter of 29 January 2014 FS-SA-8/1277, says:
Despite the mutual understan ding and close cooperation inherent in the relations
between Rosselkhoznador and DG SANCO, any approaches aimed at simplifying the
situation due to the detection of the African Swine Fever (ASF) in the EU territory,
seem unproductive.
Until now live pigs, pork and raw pork products from the EU to Russia have been
exported on the basis of the veterinary certificates of 11.08.2006 and presently, upon
mutual agreement, their validity covers the whole territory of the Customs Union of
Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ru ssia. In line with these certificates, these products must
originate from "healthy animals grown in farms and/or administrative territories
officially free from contiguous animal diseases, including the ASF during 3 years in the
whole territory of the EU e xcept Sardinia". In this regard and in line with the
requirements of Items 4.3 and 4.1 of the existing certificates, veterinary doctors in
the EU Member -States must stop certification of the above -mentioned products.
Otherwise these products accompanied wi th 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.153 (emphasis added)
7.63. This letter provides a clear reference to the fact that, as a consequence of the detection of
ASF in the European Union's territory, and in light of the unproductive results of approaches aimed
at simplifying that situation, products accompanied with veterinary certificates attesting to the
veterinary requirements provided in t he bilateral certificates agreed by Russia and the European
Union in 2006 would be returned upon arrival to Russia.
7.3.2.3.1.2 Instructions of 29 January 2014 of FSVPS (FS-SA-7/1275) to its Heads of
Territorial Departments
7.64. Through the instructions FS-SA-7/1275 of 29 January 2014, the FSVPS informed its Heads
of Territorial Departments that "due to the African swine fever (ASF) in the Republic of Lithuania it
is necessary to pay special attention to the fulfilment of the requirements in Item 4.3 of the
agreed veterinar y certificate for exports from the European Union to the Russian Federation of
pork and raw pork products, Item 4.1 of the agreed veterinary certificate for exports from the
European Union to the Russian Federation for breeding pigs. " 154 Those requirements are precisely
related to the absence of ASF, for the last three years, in the entire territory of the European
Union, with the exception of Sardinia.

151 European Union's first written submission, para. 93; and announcement of FSVPS (Exhibit EU-16).
152 List of returned consignments (Exhibit EU-17); and European Union's first written submission, paras.
94-96.
153 Letter of FSVPS of 29 January 2014- FS-SA-8/1277 (Exhibit EU-14), para 3. See also Russia's letter
to the European Union of 2 April 2014, FS-EN-8/5095 (Exhibit RUS-53), paras. 3-4.
154 FSVPS instructions to its Territorial Departments of 29 January 2014 (Exhibit EU-161). (emphasis
added)

7.65. Furthermore, through this letter, the FSVPS alerted its Heads of Territorial Departments that
"[w]hen taki ng a decision concerning the above mentioned products going from the other
countries of the European Union with the mentioned veterinary certificates issued after 27.01.2014
with violations of the requirements of Items 4.3 and 4.1, be governed by the legis lation of the
Customs Union and the Russian Federation in the veterinary field."155
7.66. As explained by Russia in response to a Panel question, the legislation to which the FSVPS
refers includes Customs Union Decision No. 317 (which authorizes refusal of consig nments of
products when not accompanied by veterinary certificates conforming to the content of Common
Veterinary requirements).156
7.3.2.3.1.3 Letter of 14 February 2014 from the Ministry of Agriculture of Russia
7.67. The letter of 14 February 2014 confirms Russia's view th at the two detected cases of ASF in
wild boar in Lithuania had an effect on the epizootic situation in the entire European Union. In
particular, Russia's Minister of Agriculture noted, through this letter, that the occurrence of the two
outbreaks of ASF "considerably changes the epizootic status not only of Lithuania, but of the whole
EU".157
7.68. This letter also confirmed that "in order to avoid a complete halt of trade in pork products
with the EU, Rosselkhoznadzor agreed upon the imports of safe finished deep heated products." 158
7.3.2.3.1.4 Announcement of the FSVPS from 6 February 2014
7.69. The instructions and communications from FSVPS led to instances where border agents in
Russia banned or rejected consignments of the products at issue. In particular, the European
Union adduces evidence in respect of an FSVPS announcement, dated 6 February 2014. Through a
press clipping in its webpage, FSVPS announced the ban on the importation 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.159
7.3.2.3.1.5 Instances of not allowing the importation into Russia of consignments of
pork products from the European Union Member States after 25 January 2014
7.70. Furthermore, the European Union has adduced evidence that 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. 160 Russia admits 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".161

155 FSVPS instructions to its Territorial Departments of 29 January 2014 (Exhibit EU-161).
156 Russia's response to Panel question No. 278, para. 116. See Articles 3.14 and 3.15 of Veterinary
Control in Customs Union Decision No. 317 (Exhibit RUS-386).
157 Letter of 14 February 2014 – HF-12-26/1650 (Exhibit EU-15).
158 Letter of 14 February 2014 – HF-12-26/1650 (Exhibit EU-15). See also para. 7.143 below, referring
to the product coverage of the alleged EU-wide ban.
159 European Union's first written submission, para. 93; and announcement of FSVPS (Exhibit EU-16).
160 List of returned consignments of pig products (Exhibit EU-17) attached as Annex 2 to the Letter from
FSVPS to the European Union (DG SANCO) Ref. FS-EN-7/14507 dated 6 August 2014 (Letter of FSVPS of 6
August 2014 - FS-EN-7/14507) (Exhibit EU-171). Besides the reasons stated in the right-hand side of the list
of the returned consignments, the text of the letter of FSVPS of 6 August 2014 - FS-EN-7/14507 (Exhibit EU-
171) confirms that one of the reasons for the rejection of the consignments was the "receipt of supervised
products with veterinary certificates not guaranteeing the fulfilment of veterinary and sanitary requirements
and norms of the Customs Union". See also announcement of FSVPS (Exhibit EU-16). The existence of the
facts mentioned in this announcement appears to be confirmed by Russia (Russia's response to Panel question
No.61, para. 88).
161 Russia's response to Panel question No. 25, para. 10. In its responses to Panel question Nos. 68 and
69 in relation to whether there was any possibility for entry of the products at issue other than by means of the
veterinary certificate, Russia indicated that generally, it requires, for the importation of pigs and pork products,
the procurement of a veterinary certificate agreed to by the European Union and Russia. The only products to

7.3.2.3.1.6 Other supporting evidence
7.71. The letter of FSVPS of 2 April 2014 to DG SANCO, recognizes the existence of the import
restrictions of the products at issue into Russia, by stating:
Rosselkhoznadzor has restricted imports of pigs and pork products from all parts of
Lithuania and Poland but has not r estricted imports from the entire EU. The imposed
restrictions have been specified in the EU -Russia pork product certificates initialed in
2006. The EU has requested the validity of these certificates be extended until an
agreement is reached on new veteri nary certificates that include requirements
different from those of the Customs Union.
The EU pork products cannot be de facto certified. However, the European
Commission has not yet initiated any discussion or drafting of veterinary certificates
for trade between the European Union and the Customs Union. 162
7.72. According to the European Union this also confirms "the existence of an EU -wide ban, under
the guise of an alleged administrative problem relating to supposed compliance with the wording
of the veterina ry certificates, in light of the change in the epidemiological situation regarding
ASF".163
7.73. The European Union further explains that the instruction FS -SA-7/1275 of 29 January and
the letter of 29 January 2014 FS -SA-8/1277 led to the practical absence of ne w attempts by
exporters to ship the products at issue to the Russian border due to the cost associated with
Russia's refusal of entry for these products.164
7.3.2.3.1.7 Preliminary conclusion
7.74. In our view, the evidence reviewed in this section — which comprises the letter from FSVPS
to DG SANCO, the instructions from FSVPS to its Heads of territorial Departments, the letter from
the Ministry of Agriculture, Russia's rejection of consignments of the products at issue from the
European Union, and the ensuing chilling effec t on exports from the European Union to Russia —
supports the European Union's assertion that certain actions undertaken by Russia amount to an
import ban applied to the importation of certain pig products from the entire European Union. We
now turn to the question of whether the actions that amount to this import ban are attributable to
Russia.
7.3.2.3.2 Whether the alleged EU-wide ban is a measure attributable to Russia
7.75. The Appellate Body, when considering the issue of which measures of a Member are subject
to WTO dispute settlement, stated that "[t]he acts or omissions that are so attributable are, in the
usual case, the acts or omissions of the organs of the state, including those of the executive
branch."165
7.76. According to the evidence examined in paragraphs 7.60 to7.70 above, the ban on the
importation of the products at issue from the European Union was triggered on 25 January 2014,
and effective from 29 January 2014, followin g three particular events: (i) an outbreak of ASF in
wild boar in Lithuania on 24 January 2014; (ii) the issuance of FSVPS instructions to its Heads of

enter after the triggering date were those "that were already in the process of being transported or
quarantined."
162 Letter of FSVPS of 2 April 2014 –FS-EN-8/5095 (Exhibit RUS-53).
163 European Union's opening statement at the first meeting of the Panel, para. 30.
164 European Union's Response to Panel Question No. 56, paras. 133-134; second written submission,
paras. 23 – 24. FSVPS instructions to its Territorial Departments of 29 January 2014 (Exhibit EU-161) and
Letter of FSVPS of 29 January 2014 – FS-SA-8/1277 (Exhibit EU-14).
165 Appellate Body Report, US – Corrosion- Resistant Steel Sunset Review, para. 81. See also Appellate
Body Reports, Australia – Apples, para. 171; US – Shrimp, para. 173; and Panel Reports, Canada – Renewable
Energy / Feed-In Tariff Program, fn 37; and Australia – Salmon (Article 21.5 – Canada), para. 7.12 and fn 146.

Territorial Departments on 29 January 2014 166; and (iii) a letter dated 29 January 2014 of FSVPS
to DG SANCO.167
7.77. As we observed in the previous section, the evidence submitted by the European Union
indicates that Russia was in fact undertaking specific actions that rendered it impossible to import
products at issue from the European Union into Russia. Those act ions consisted of (i) instructions
from the FSVPS dated 29 January 2014 to its Heads of Territorial Departments to pay special
attention to compliance with the veterinary requirements in items 4.1 and 4.3 of the agreed
veterinary certificates applicable to the products at issue 168; (ii) refusal of imports of the products
at issue between 25 January 2014 and 11 February 2014 169; and (iii) informing the European
Union that if veterinary doctors in the EU member States did not stop certification of the products
at issue these products would not be allowed into the territory of the member States of the
Customs Union and would be subject to returns.170
7.78. These actions are further complemented by Russia's confirmation through the Letter from
FSVPS to DG SANCO dated 6 Augu st 2014 that the FSVPS departments in the Tver and Pskov
regions, the St Petersburg and the Leningradskaya regions, the Bryansk and Smolensk regions,
Moscow, the Moscow and Tula regions, the Kaliningrad region, the Primorsky Krai and the Sakhalin
region detected violations in some consignments of pig products and issued return declarations. 171
The evidence we have examined, taken together, demonstrates the refusal of imports of certain
products at issue from the European Union by the territorial departments of FSVPS.
7.79. Paragraph 1 of Russia's Government Decree 327 provides that FSVPS "is the federal
executive authority exercising supervision and surveillance functions in the field of veterinary
medicine."172 Russia clarifies that, as set out in Decree 327, "diffe rent territorial departments are
obliged to follow the directions from the Federal Government". 173 Therefore we understand that
FSVPS and its territorial departments are organs of Russia's government. Consistent with the rule
of attribution outlined in parag raph 7.75 above, FSVPS's actions, and those of the heads of its
territorial departments, are attributable to Russia.174
7.80. It is true 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. Nevertheless, it is Russia, rather than the European Union, that takes the
action that gives effect to the import ban. We also note 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. In this respect, we recall that the SPS Agreement
acknowledges the role played b y veterinary certificates in international trade. This idea is
enshrined in recital 3 of the preamble of the SPS Agreement, according to which " sanitary and
phytosanitary measures are often applied on the basis of bilateral agreements or protocols".

166 FSVPS instructions to its Territorial Departments of 29 January 2014 (Exhibit EU-161).
167 Letter of FSVPS of 29 January 2014 – FS-SA-8/1277 (Exhibit EU-14).
168 FSVPS instructions to its Territorial Departments of 29 January 2014 (Exhibit EU-161). See also
Russia's response to Panel question 278, para. 116, where Russia refers to the scope of application of those
instructions.
169 Announcement of FSVPS (Exhibit EU-16); and List of returned consignments (Exhibit EU-17).
170 Letter of FSVPS of 29 January 2014 – FS-SA-8/1277 (Exhibit EU-14), para 3. See also Letter of
FSVPS of 2 April 2014 –FS-EN-8/5095 (Exhibit RUS-53), paras. 3-4.
171 Letter of FSVPS of 6 August 2014 - FS-EN-7/14507 (Exhibit EU-171); List of returned consignments
of pig products (EU-17) attached as Annex 2 to this letter.
172 RF Government's Decree 327 of June 30, 2004 "Approval of the Regulation of the Federal Service for
Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance (Rosselkhoznadzor)", para. 1 (Exhibit RUS-352). See also
Regulations on the State Veterinary Supervision Approved by Decree 476 of the Government of Russia of June
5, 2013 (rev. 24.03.2014) (Exhibit RUS-16), paras. 1 and 4(a); and Russia's response to Panel question No.
276, para. 112.
173 Russia's response to Panel question No. 276, para. 113, referring to RF Government's Decree 327 of
June 30, 2004 "Approval of the Regulation of the Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance
(Rosselkhoznadzor)", para. 4 (Exhibit RUS-352).
174 This rule has been applied in the following WTO disputes: Appellate Body Report, US – Corrosion-
Resistant Steel Sunset Review, para. 81; Panel Reports, US – 1916 Act (Japan), para. 5.10; and US –
Countervailing and Anti-dumping Duties (China), para. 7.250.

7.81. This i s further confirmed by the manner in which Russia more broadly regulates the
importation of the products at issue. Pursuant to sections 3.7, 6.1 and 6.3 of Customs Union
Decision No. 317, imports of the products at issue into Russia require a veterinary ce rtificate
issued by the authorities of the exporting country as well as an import permit issued by the
importing country.175 Similarly, pursuant to section 6.2 of the Customs Union Decision No. 317,
Russia also requires that imports of certain products at is sue come from enterprises including
abattoirs/processing plants registered in Russia's Third country Establishment Register. In the
process of approving registration of such enterprises, Russian officials may undertake inspection of
the premises of those enterprises, including the farms that supply them with raw materials.176
7.82. As described in section 6.3 of the Customs Union Decision No. 317, the requirements
mentioned in the previous paragraph, together with the presence of a valid veterinary certificate,
form the basis for the veterinary inspectors to decide to permit, suspend transportation, prohibit
import, or return the respective products at issue. 177 In our view, this means that imports of the
products at issue into Russia require not only the presentatio n of the veterinary certificates, but
also compliance with a number of requirements under the control of Russia's authorities.
7.83. Based on the evidence on the record, we find that following an outbreak of ASF in wild boar
in Lithuania on 24 January 2014, Russia refused to accept imports of the products at issue from
the entire European Union. This refusal is grounded on the inability of the European Union's
veterinarians to certify that those products meet the requirement set out in the bilaterally agreed
veterinary certificates. According to this requirement, the entire European Union, except for
Sardinia, has to be ASF-free for three years for the products at issue to be imported into Russia.
Russia's authorities actively enforce this requirement by rejecting consignments of the products at
issue that fail to satisfy this requirement. Th ese 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 at tributable to Russia. It is this measure that we will assess for its
conformity with the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement.
7.3.2.4 Preliminary conclusion
7.84. In our view, the European Union has demonstrated the existence of the alleged 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 general requirement contained
in the template veterinary certificates negotiated with the European Union. According to this
general requirement, the whole of the European Union's territory, except for Sardinia, has to be
ASF-free for three years in order for the products at issue to be imported into Russia. Following
the ASF outbreaks in Lithuania, the products from the European Union do not meet that general
requirement. Therefore, the actions by Russia to apply this general requirement to the current
situation in the European Union results in an EU -wide ban of the products at issue attributable to
Russia.
7.3.3 Whether Russia's terms of accession limit the Panel's assessment of the European
Union's claims in respect of the alleged EU-wide ban
7.3.3.1 Introduction
7.85. The parties disagree on the extent to which the EU -wide ban is part of Russia's terms of
accession; and, if it is part of Russia's terms of accession , on what the consequences of this would
be. In this section the Panel will examine the parties' arguments in this respect and determine
whether Russia's terms of accession limit in any way our assessment of the European Union's
claims in respect of the EU-wide ban.

175 Sections 3.7, 6.1 and 6.3 of Veterinary Control in Customs Union Decision No. 317 (Exhibit RUS-
386). See also Russia's response to Panel question No. 260, paras. 24-25.
176 Russia's response to Panel question No. 260, paras. 26-30. See also Table 41, Excerpts of list of
goods subject to veterinary control. Working Party Report (Exhibit RUS-333).
177 Pursuant to section 3.15 of the Customs Union Decision No. 317, those are the four decisions that a
control official may take in respect of the controlled goods. Veterinary Control in Customs Union Decision
No. 317 (Exhibit RUS-386).

7.3.3.2 Main arguments of the parties
7.3.3.2.1 European Union
7.86. The European Union points to the fact that several of the mentioned certificates contain a
footnote which provides that "administrative territories, zone s and time periods may be modified
with a mutual agreement on the basis of the Memorandum of 4 April 2006 on zoning and
regionalisation".178 Thus the European Union maintains that Russia "could have easily avoided
trade disruptions by applying the OIE principles with regard to zoning and regionalization".179
7.87. The European Union rejects Russia's arguments regarding the consequences of the validity
of the veterinary certificates. In the European Union's view, the reference to the veterinary
certificates in Russia' s accession documents should be understood in the context of Russia's
continuing obligation to adapt its measures to regional SPS characteristics. 180 The European Union
thus emphasizes that "[t]he fact that the veterinary certificates remain in use after Rus sia's
accession is a distinct element from the fact that the terms of such certificates should be
continuously adapted to the SPS characteristics of specific regions in particular cases".181
7.88. The European Union adds that paragraphs 892 and 893 of the Working Party Report on the
Accession of Russia "cannot by any means be construed as preventing the adaptation of the
bilateral certificates to the ASF regionalisation measures in the EU". 182 The European Union notes
that those paragraphs of the Working Party Report reflect the concern expressed by Members on
the mandatory requirement to use common Customs Union Veterinary Certificates for the imports
of certain products. In that context, those paragraphs reflect Russia's "commitment not to make
mandatory such CU Vet erinary Certificates, maintaining the existing bilateral certificates (such as
those between the EU and Russia), as well as their subsequent amendments".183
7.3.3.2.2 Russia
7.89. Russia states that the validity of the EU -Russian veterinary certificates is "a term" of
Russia's WTO membership.184 In Russia's view, "the recognition of the validity of these certificates
implies the consistency of such certificates with the Russian Federation's obligations under the
WTO Agreements, including the SPS Agreement." 185 According to Russ ia, the validity and WTO
consistency of such certificates, including their subsequent bilaterally agreed amendments, was a
"term" of Russia's WTO membership by the interplay of paragraph 893 and paragraph 1450 of the
Working Party Report on the Accession o f Russia, which refers to Protocol on the Accession of the
Russian Federation (Russia's Accession Protocol).186
7.90. Russia posits that, by adopting Russia's Accession Protocol and the commitments to which it
is referring (e.g., veterinary certificates), the Euro pean Union agreed that the form of veterinary
certificates concluded between the European Union and Russia shall remain valid until the new
certificates between the Customs Union and the European Union are agreed. Such validity also

178 European Union's second written submission, para. 28; and response to Panel question No. 79, para.
153.
179 European Union's second written submission, para. 28; and response to Panel question No. 79, para.
153.
180 European Union's second written submission, para. 27, (referring to Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement
and Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.154).
181 European Union's second written submission, para. 27.
182 European Union's comments on Russia's response to Panel question No. 254, para. 12.
183 European Union's comments on Russia's response to Panel question No. 254, para. 13.
184 Russia's opening statement at the first meeting of the Panel, para. 50; response to Panel questions
Nos. 72, 73 and 82, paras. 109, 112, 113 and 135; and second written submission, para. 178.
185 Russia's response to Panel question No. 73, para. 111
186 Russia's opening statement, para. 50; second written submission, paras. 177-178; Report of the
Working Party on the Accession of the Russian Federation, WT/ACC/RUS/70 & WT/MIN(11)/2, circulated 17
November 2011 (Exhibit RUS-159), para. 893; Report of the Working Party on the Accession of the Russian
Federation, WT/ACC/RUS/70 & WT/MIN(11)/2, circulated 17 November 2011, para. 1450, incorporated by
reference (Exhibit RUS-159), Protocol of Accession of the Russian Federation, WT/MIN(11)/24 & WT/L/839
(Exhibit RUS-160), para. 3; Russia refers to Appellate Body Reports, China – Rare Earths, para. 5.27
(interpreting Article XII:1 of the Marrakesh Agreement and noting that "the 'terms' of accession . . . are not
defined".)

implies that the rejection of consignments on the basis of these veterinary certificates is consistent
with the disciplines of the SPS Agreement.187
7.91. Russia argues that because up to the end of January 2014 there had been no agreement to
introduce veterinary certificates at the Cu stoms Union level, it was under the obligation, pursuant
to the terms of its WTO accession, to apply the certificates bilaterally agreed with the European
Union.188
7.92. In Russia's view, the Panel could follow the analytical framework developed by the Appellate
Body in China – Rare Earths to determine the relationship between Russia's Accession Protocol and
Russia's commitments under the SPS Agreement. Russia considers that the consequence of such
an analysis would be a finding that Russia's specific commitments to maintain the application of
the bilateral certificates, as a term of its WTO accession, "negates all the claims advanced by the
European Union"189 under the SPS Agreement in respect of the EU -wide ban. This is because all of
those claims are derived, dir ectly or indirectly, from the application of Russia's terms of
accession.190
7.93. Based on these arguments, Russia requests the Panel to find that the continued validity of
the certificates is a term of Russia's WTO membership, and that the European Union's clai ms
derived from them should fail. 191 Russia considers that if the Panel were to decide otherwise, its
recommendations and rulings on this matter would lack sufficient legal basis.192
7.3.3.3 Analysis by the Panel
7.94. The Panel is called upon to examine the relationship between the terms of Russia's
accession to the WTO and the European Union's claims in respect of the EU -wide ban. In order to
assess this relationship, we will first review any guidance available in prior panel and Appellate
Body findings in respect of the relationship between a Member's Accession Protocol and that
Member's rights and obligations under the Marrakesh Agreement and the Multilateral Trade
Agreements annexed thereto. We will then examine the terms of Russia's accession as they are
relevant to this dispute. Lastly, we will assess whether the terms of Russia's accession to the WTO
limit in any way our evaluation of the European Union's claims in respect of the EU-wide ban.
7.3.3.3.1 Relationship between a Member's Accession Protocol and its obligations und er
a particular covered agreement
7.95. Article XII of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization
(Marrakesh Agreement), titled "Accession", provides:
1. Any State or separate customs territory possessing full autonomy in the conduct of
its external commercial relations and of the other matters provided for in this
Agreement and the Multilateral Trade Agreements may accede to this Agreement, on
terms to be agreed between it and the WTO. Such accession shall apply to this
Agreement and the Multilateral Trade Agreements annexed thereto.
2. Decisions on accession shall be taken by the Ministerial Conference. The Ministerial
Conference shall approve the agreement on the terms of accession by a two -thirds
majority of the Members of the WTO.
3. Accession to a Plurilateral Trade Agreement shall be governed by the provisions of
that Agreement.

187 Russia's response to Panel question No. 73, para. 118; and second written submission, paras. 177
and 179.
188 Russia's response to Panel question No. 274, para. 102.
189 Russia's response to Panel question No. 274, para. 109.
190 Russia's response to Panel question No. 274, para. 109. See also, paras. 105-108.
191 Russia's response to Panel question No. 274, para. 110.See also second written submission, para.
183.
192 Russia's response to Panel question No. 274, para. 110.

7.96. Pursuant to this provision, on 16 December 2011 the Ministerial Conference decided that
"the Russian Federation may accede to the WTO Agreement on the terms an d conditions set out in
the Protocol annexed to this Decision" .193 Paragraph 1.2 of Russia's Accession Protocol, which is
analogous to the corresponding paragraph in the Accession Protocol of other Members 194, provides
that:
The WTO Agreement to which the Russ ian Federation accedes shall be the WTO
Agreement, including the Explanatory Notes to that Agreement, as rectified, amended
or otherwise modified by such legal instruments as may have entered into force
before the date of entry into force of this Protocol. This 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.
7.97. Previous panels and the Appellate Body have examined the relationship of a Member's
Accession Pr otocol with certain provisions of the Multilateral Trade Agreements annexed to the
Marrakesh Agreement. 195 The latest decision in this line of cases came in the Appellate Body
reports in China – Rare Earths. In that dispute, China appealed the panel's findin gs in respect of
the relationship between Paragraph 1.2 of China's Accession Protocol and the Marrakesh
Agreement and the Multilateral Trade Agreements. China argued that Paragraph 1.2 of its
Accession Protocol and Article XII:1 of the Marrakesh Agreement meant that a specific provision in
China's Accession Protocol is an integral part of the Marrakesh Agreement or one of the Multilateral
Trade Agreements to which it intrinsically relates. 196 The Appellate Body rejected China's
interpretation and stated that:
In our view, Paragraph 1.2 of China's Accession Protocol serves to build a bridge
between the package of Protocol provisions and the package of existing rights and
obligations under the WTO legal framework. Nonetheless, neither obligations nor
rights may be automatically transposed from one part of this legal framework into
another. The fact that Paragraph 1.2 builds such a bridge is only the starting point,
and does not in itself answer the questions of whether there is an objective link
between an individual provision in China's Accession Protocol and existing obligations
under the Marrakesh Agreements and the Multilateral Trade Agreements, and whether
China may rely on an exception provided for in those agreements to justify a breach
of such Protocol provision. Such questions must be answered through a thorough
analysis of the relevant provisions on the basis of the customary rules of treaty
interpretation and the circumstances of the dispute. The analysis must start with the
text of the relevant provisi on in China's Accession Protocol and take into account its
context, including that provided by the Protocol itself and by relevant provisions of the
Accession Working Party Report, and by the agreements in the WTO legal framework.
The analysis must also ta ke into account the overall architecture of the WTO system
as a single package of rights and obligations and any other relevant interpretative
elements, and must be applied to the circumstances of each dispute, including the
measure at issue and the nature of the alleged violation.197 (emphasis added)
7.98. The issue we are dealing with here is clearly not identical to the issue addressed in China –
Rare Earths: we are not addressing whether a Member may rely on an exception provided for in
the Marrakesh Agreement and the Multilateral Trade Agreements to justify a breach of an

193 Protocol of Accession of the Russian Federation, WT/MIN(11)/24 & WT/L/839 (Exhibit RUS-160). See
WT/MIN(11)/24-WT/L/839.
194 Appellate Body Reports, China – Rare Earths, para. 5.40. For instance, paragraph 1.2 of China's
Accession Protocol provides:
2. The WTO Agreement to which China accedes shall be the WTO Agreement as rectified,
amended or otherwise modified by such legal instruments as may have entered into force before
the date of accession. This Protocol, which shall include the commitments referred to in
paragraph 342 of the Working Party Report, shall be an integral part of the WTO Agreement.
195 Appellate Body Reports, China – Rare Earths, paras. 5.1-5.74; China – Raw Materials, paras. 270-
307; China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, paras. 205-233; Panel Reports, - US – Shrimp II (Viet
Nam), paras. 7.173-7.193; China – Rare Earths, paras. 7.73-7.99; China – Raw Materials, paras. 7.116-7.160;
China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, para. 7.281.
196 Appellate Body Reports, China – Rare Earths, para. 5.73.
197 Appellate Body Reports, China – Rare Earths, para. 5.74.

Accession Protocol provision. Rather, we are asked to examine 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. Nevertheless, taking into consideration the similarities in the text of
Paragraph 1.2 in China's Accession Protocol with the text of paragraph 1.2 of Russia's Accession
Protocol quoted above, we consider the Appellate Body's guidanc e appropriate in undertaking an
examination of Russia's Accession Protocol. In that respect, we first turn to review the terms of
Russia's Accession Protocol invoked by Russia in support of its argument that the application of the
bilateral veterinary export certificates is covered by the terms of its accession to the WTO.
7.99. After reviewing the text of the relevant provisions of Russia's Accession Protocol, we will
then examine the parties' views on their efforts to amend the bilaterally agreed veterinary ex port
certificates. With that context, we will move on to assess the merits of Russia's argument in
respect of the validity of the bilateral veterinary export certificates and whether our findings have
any implications for the European Union's claims in respect of the EU-wide ban.
7.3.3.3.2 Terms of Russia's accession to the WTO in respect of the application of
bilateral veterinary export certificates
7.100. In support of its argument, Russia refers to paragraphs 2 and 3 of its Accession Protocol,
as well as to paragraphs 893 and 1450 of the Working Party Report on the Accession of Russia. In
response to Russia's arguments, the European Union also refers to paragraph 892 of the Working
Party Report.198
7.101. The first three paragraphs of Russia's Accession Protocol199 provide:
PART I - GENERAL
1. Upon entry into force of this Protocol pursuant to paragraph 8, the Russian
Federation accedes to the WTO Agreement pursuant to Article XII of that Agreement
and thereby becomes a Member of the WTO.
2. The WTO Agreement to which the Russian F ederation accedes shall be the
WTO Agreement, including the Explanatory Notes to that Agreement, as rectified,
amended or otherwise modified by such legal instruments as may have entered into
force before the date of entry into force of this Protocol. This 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.
3. Except as otherwise provided for in paragraph 1450 of the Working Party Report,
those obligations i n the Multilateral Trade Agreements annexed to the
WTO Agreement that are to be implemented over a period of time starting with the
entry into force of that Agreement shall be implemented by the Russian Federation as
if it had accepted that Agreement on the date of its entry into force.
7.102. Paragraphs 892, 893 and 1450 of the Working Party Report on the Accession of Russia 200
provide:
892. Members expressed concern regarding a mandatory requirement to use a
common CU [Customs Union] Veterinary Certificate. They noted that currently, 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 condition s in the exporting 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 requireme nts that could differ
from the CU Common Requirements and that export certificates currently in effect

198 See paras. 7.88, 7.89, and 7.92 above.
199 Protocol of Accession of the Russian Federation, WT/MIN(11)/24 & WT/L/839 (Exhibit RUS-160).
200 Report of the Working Party on the Accession of the Russian Federation, WT/ACC/RUS/70 &
WT/MIN(11)/2, circulated 17 November 2011 (Exhibit RUS-159).

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 requirements that differed from the CU
Common Requirements.
893. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed t hat 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 wi th 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. Bilateral v eterinary 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 term s 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 provis ions 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.
…
1450. The Working Party took note of the explanations and statements o f the Russian
Federation concerning its foreign trade regime, as reflected in this Report. The
Working Party took note of the commitments by the Russian Federation in relation to
certain specific matters which are reproduced in paragraphs … 893 … The Working
Party took note that these commitments had been incorporated in paragraph 2 of the
Protocol of Accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO. (emphasis added)
7.103. We first note that according to the highlighted text of paragraph 893 of the Working Party
Report: "[b]ilateral 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
authorised body of such CU Party, would remain valid for exports from the re levant 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." (emphasis added)
7.104. Russia argues that according to this language, as informed by paragraph 892, "the Russian
Federation is not allowed to require veterinary certificates issued other than agreed bilaterally if
there is a bilaterally agreed certificate with any Member." 201 Russia also states that paragraph 893
"neither permits nor precludes the amendment of certificates while maintaining their validity".202
7.105. We recall the Appellate Body considered in China – Rare Earths that questions surrounding
the relationship between the rights and obligations in China's Accession Protocol and those arising
from the Mu ltilateral Trade Agreements "must be answered through a thorough analysis of the
relevant provisions on the basis of the customary rules of treaty interpretation and the
circumstances of the dispute."203 Bearing that in mind, in our view, Russia's interpretation does not
accord with the text of paragraph 893 of the Working Party Report. Although the text of paragraph
893, as read in conjunction with paragraph 892, refers to the validity of bilateral export certificates

201 Russia's response to Panel question No. 274, para. 105.
202 Russia's response to Panel question No. 274, para. 103.
203 Appellate Body Reports, China – Rare Earths, para. 5.74.

initialled before 1 July 2010, it also r efers to the validity of subsequent amendments to those
certificates. In addition, the expression "would remain valid" refers to a particular purpose, that is,
"for exports". This would seem to imply that Russia's commitment is to acknowledge the validity of
the bilateral veterinary export certificates or their amendments for those imports from Members
into Russia.
7.106. In EC – Bananas III, the Appellate Body examine d the scope of application of the Lomé
Waiver.204 Among the legal questions the Appellate Body addr essed was whether such a waiver
waived compliance with the obligations pursuant to Articles I:1 and XIII of the GATT 1994. When
answering this question, the Appellate Body noted that
The wording of the Lomé Waiver is clear and unambiguous. By its precise t erms, it
waives only "the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article I of the General Agreement … to
the extent necessary" to do what is "required" by the relevant provisions of the Lomé
Convention. The Lomé Waiver does not refer to, or mention in any way, any o ther
provision of the GATT 1994 or any other covered agreement. Neither the
circumstances surrounding the negotiation of the Lomé Waiver, nor the need to
interpret it so as to permit it to achieve its objectives, allow us to disregard this clear
and plain wording of the Lomé Waiver by extending its scope to include a waiver from
the obligations under Article XIII.205
7.107. In EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 – Ecuador II)/(Article 21.5 – US) the Appellate Body
further explained the nature and function of waivers within the context of the WTO:
In our view, the function of a waiver is to relieve a Member, for a specified period of
time, from a particular obligation provided for in the covered agreements, subject to
the terms, conditions, justifying exceptional circumst ances or policy objectives
described in the waiver decision. Its purpose is not to modify existing provisions in
the agreements, let alone create new law or add to or amend the obligations under a
covered agreement or Schedule. Therefore, waivers are exceptional in nature, subject
to strict disciplines and should be interpreted with great care.206
7.108. In our view, this Appellate Body reasoning is useful in informing our assessment of
Russia's arguments in respect of its Protocol of Accession. In particular, we consider that if a
Member claims that a provision within its Protocol of Accession allows that Member to depart from
other obligations enshrined in the Multilateral Trade Agreements, the text of such a provision
should at least have clear and unambiguous l anguage to that effect. We thus consider that for a
provision in Russia's Accession Protocol to serve as a basis to excuse Russia from complying with
any of its substantive obligations under the Multilateral Trade Agreements, it would at least be
necessary for such a provision to have clear and unambiguous language to this effect.
7.109. The text of paragraph 893 does not refer in any way to Russia's substantive obligations
under the SPS Agreement. Contrary to what Russia seems to imply, the text and context of
paragraph 893 do not provide that the direct or indirect application of the veterinary requirements
contained in the bilateral veterinary export certificates, in any situation, is automatically consistent
with Russia's rights and obligations under the SPS A greement. Furthermore, we do not find any
textual or contextual interpretative support for Russia's suggested interpretation of paragraph 893,
nor can this be inferred from the language used in that paragraph.
7.110. We recall that paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 of Rus sia's Accession Protocol each make explicit
reference to paragraph 1450 of the Working Party Report . By virtue of Paragraph 1.2, Russia's
Protocol of Accession, "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 1.3 points to
the exceptional nature of the contents of paragraph 1450, beginning with the phrase: "Except as
otherwise provided for in paragraph 1450 of the Working Party Report…". We note that paragraph
1450 contains an explicit reference to paragraph 893. We have found that paragraph 893 does
not contain any clear and unambiguous language that would have the effect of shielding the

204 Appellate Body Report, EC – Bananas III, paras. 164-166.
205 Appellate Body Report, EC – Bananas III, para. 183.
206 Appellate Body Report, EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 – Ecuador II)/(Article 21.5 – US), para. 382.

measure at issue from further scrutiny under the DSU and the SPS Agreement. Accordingly, the
explicit reference to paragraph 893 in paragraph 1450 does not lead us to consider that paragraph
1450 "provides otherwise" or has any exceptional effect in respect of the application of the
veterinary requirements contained in the bilateral veterinary export certificates.
7.111. We are therefore 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 certificates
consistent with its obligations under the SPS Agreement.
7.3.3.3.3 Parties' efforts to re-negotiate the content of the bilaterally agreed veterinary
certificates
7.112. The parties have extensively explained to the Panel the various efforts they have
undertaken to review the requirement of the b ilaterally agreed veterinary certificates.207 It is clear
to us that both parties have attempted to adjust the text of the bilateral veterinary export
certificates for the products at issue in light of the ASF situation in the European Union since
24 January 2014. The Panel welcomes those efforts and agrees with the sentiment Dr Thiermann
expressed during the expert hearing, regarding the importance of trust between trading partners
in order to find alternatives that would allow the resumption of safe trade.208 However, the Panel
considers that the parties' negotiating efforts to negotiate or their lack thereof are not dispositive
of its task to undertake an objective assessment of the matter before it, as required by Article 11
of the DSU.
7.3.3.3.4 Whether the terms of Russia's accession to the WTO limit the Panel's
assessment of the European Union's claims in respect of the EU-wide ban
7.113. In the light of Russia's argument regarding the validity of the bilateral veterinary export
certificates, we need to determine if our c onclusions in respect of the terms of Russia's accession
limits, in any way, our analysis of the European Union's claims in respect of the EU-wide ban.
7.114. In section 7.3.3.3.2 above we explained why we are not persuaded by Russia 's argument
that the continued validity of the bilateral veterinary export certificates is a term of Russia's WTO
membership, and that the European Union's claims derived from them should fail. 209 It is clear to
us that paragraph 893 of the Working Party Rep ort, read in conjunction with Russia's Accession
Protocol, does not refer to the consistency of measures adopted, directly or indirectly, in respect of
the bilateral veterinary export certificates with Russia's obligations under the SPS Agreement.
7.115. In addi tion, those provisions are silent in respect of any potential implications of the
continued validity of the veterinary certificates in WTO dispute settlement. We therefore find no
limit in Russia's terms of accession to assessing the merits of the European Union's claims brought
in respect of the EU-wide ban.
7.3.3.4 Conclusion
7.116. Based on the foregoing, the Panel finds, in Russia's terms of accession, no limitation to
assessing the merits of the European Union claims brought in respect of the EU-wide ban.

207 European Union's responses to Panel question Nos. 21, 54, 184, 185, 186, and 231; and Russia's
responses to Panel question Nos. 39, 40, 54, 73, 184, 185 and 186; and comments to the European Union's
response to Panel question No. 231. See also EU-Russian Certificate Negotiations Chronology (Exhibit RUS-
218).
208 Dr Thiermann, Transcript, paras. 1.275, 1.368 and 1.454.
209 Russia's response to Panel question No. 274, para. 110. See also second written submission,
para. 183.

7.3.4 Whether t he measures in respect of the imports from Latvia and Estonia fall
within the Panel's terms of reference
7.3.4.1 Introduction
7.117. As mentioned in section 2.2 above, in its panel request (dated 27 June 2014 and circulated
30 June 2014), the European Union refers to res trictions on imports from Lithuania and from
Poland.210 The European Union's first written submission also refers to restrictions on imports from
Latvia (adopted on 27 June 2014) and from Estonia (adopted on 11 September 2014), neither of
which were mentioned in the European Union's panel request.
7.118. Russia does not challenge the restrictions on imports from Latvia and from Estonia being
within the Panel's terms of reference. On the contrary, Russia stated that "both Parties have
agreed that it is appropriate f or the Panel to consider the European Union claims as including a
challenge to the Latvian and Estonian import bans …, which were not included in the Panel
request".211
7.119. Despite the parties' agreement, it is incumbent on the Panel to determine whether the
restrictions on imports from Latvia and Estonia are properly within its terms of reference. The
Panel's terms of reference, as set out in the panel request, delimit the Panel's jurisdiction. 212 As
established by the Appellate Body, it is a panel's own responsib ility, even if not raised by the
parties, to examine issues that go to the root of its jurisdiction. 213 Thus, even though Russia has
not raised any direct objection to the measures regarding Estonia and Latvia being within the
Panel's terms of reference, the Panel will consider this question on its own initiative.
7.3.4.2 Main arguments of the parties
7.3.4.2.1 European Union
7.120. The European Union explains that the measures in respect of the imports of products from
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are "distinct but closel y linked". 214 According to the
European Union, the individual import bans with respect to Estonia and Latvia extend the product
coverage of the EU -wide ban and are thus an extension that falls within the scope of the panel
request, when read in its totality.215
7.121. In response to Panel questioning concerning the lack of explicit reference in the panel
request to the measures pertaining to Estonia and Latvia, the European Union maintains that the
measures regarding Estonia and Latvia fall within the category of "ame ndments, supplements,
extensions and implementing measures" referred to in its panel request. 216 According to the
European Union, these measures constitute an extension of the product coverage of the EU -wide
ban217 and are therefore within the Panel's terms of reference.218

210 European Union's panel request, pp. 1-2. See para. 2.9 above.
211 Russia's response to Panel question No. 279, para. 122.
212 Appellate Body Reports, China – HP-SSST (Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU), para. 5.12.
213 Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Corn Syrup (Article 21.5 – US), paras. 36 and 53.
214 European Union's opening statement at the first meeting of the Panel, para. 24; and response to
Panel question No. 57, para. 135.
215 European Union's opening statement at the first meeting of the Panel, paras. 26-27; and second
written submission, paras. 17-20.
216 European Union's opening statement at the first meeting of the Panel, para. 26-27; response to
Panel question No. 55, para. 129; and second written submission, paras. 17-18.
217 European Union's opening statement at the first meeting of the Panel, para. 26; response to Panel
question No. 55, para. 128; and second written submission, paras. 17.
218 European Union's opening statement at the first meeting of the Panel, para. 27; response to Panel
question No. 55, para. 131; and second written submission, paras. 18.

7.3.4.2.2 Russia
7.122. Russia has not explicitly challenged the European Union's argument that the measures
regarding Estonia and Latvia are within the Panel's terms of reference. 219 Russia stated that "both
Parties have agreed that it is appropriate for the P anel to consider the European Union claims as
including a challenge to the Latvian and Estonian import bans … which were not included in the
Panel request".220
7.3.4.3 Analysis by the Panel
7.123. Pursuant to Article 7 of the DSU, a panel's terms of reference are governed by the panel
request, unless the parties agree otherwise.221 As the Appellate Body has found "Under Article 6.2,
the request for the establishment of a panel must identify the 'specific measure at issue', which
together with the 'legal basis of the complain t', constitutes the 'matter referred to the DSB' that
forms the basis of the panel's terms of reference."222 In other words, a panel request, including the
measures identified therein, will determine the scope of the Panel's jurisdiction. 223
7.124. Article 6.2 of th e DSU requires that the panel request (i) is made in writing; (ii) indicates
whether consultations were held; (iii) identifies the specific measures at issue; and (iv) provides a
brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly.224
7.125. The European Union's panel request, which was made in writing, indicated that on 30 April
and 1 May 2014 consultations were held between the European Union and Russia.225 Thus, the first
two requirements under Article 6.2 are satisfied by the European Union's panel request.
7.126. In respect of the third requirement under Article 6.2, the identification of the specific
measures at issue, the Panel recalls that the European Union's panel request clearly identifies the
import restrictions on the products at issue from Lithuania and Poland. The European Union's panel
request refers to the measure regarding Lithuania as "[a] ban on imports from Lithuania as
described in the administrative notice from the Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and
Phytosanitary Supervision of 25 January 2014 (FS -EN-8/1023)", while it refers to the measure
regarding Poland as "[a] ban on imports from Poland as described in the administrative notice
from the Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervis ion of
27 February 2014 (FS-NV-8/2972)". The European Union also refers to an amendment of these
import restrictions through administrative notice from the Russian Service for Veterinary and
Phytosanitary Supervision of 2 April 2014 (FS-EN-8/5081).226
7.127. In respect of the fourth requirement under Article 6.2, the European Union's panel request
connects the EU-wide ban and the measures on the imports of the products at issue from Lithuania
and Poland with the provisions of the covered agreements it claims to ha ve been violated. The
European Union expressly mentions the provisions of the SPS Agreement that in its view are
infringed by the measures at issue. Although this part of the panel request does not refer to each
of the measures separately (with the excepti on of the measures alleged to violate Article 7 and
Annex B), the explanation included by the European Union in respect of each of its claims indicates
why and how, in its view, the measures at issue, including the EU -wide ban, breach certain

219 However, it set out the conditions under which a measure that post-dates the panel request could be
deemed within the Panel's terms of reference. Russia's response to Panel question No. 74, paras. 119-123.
220 Russia's response to Panel question No. 279, para. 122.
221 Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel, paras. 124. See also, Appellate Body Reports, Argentina –
Import Measures, para. 5.11.
222 Appellate Body Reports, Argentina – Import Measures, para. 5.11.
223 Appellate Body Reports, China – HP-SSST (Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU), para. 5.12. See also
Appellate Body Report, Guatemala – Cement I, para. 72.
224 Appellate Body Report, Korea – Dairy, para. 120. See also Panel Report, China – Intellectual Property
Rights, para. 7.4. For an appraisal of how a Panel should examine the satisfaction of these requirements in any
given case, see Appellate Body Reports, US – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Measures (China), paras. 4.8-
4.9; Argentina – Import Measures, paras. 5.40-5.42; and China – Raw Materials, para. 220.
225 European Union's panel request, p. 1.
226 European Union's panel request, pp. 1-2.

provisions of the SPS Agreement. 227 In our view, this summary complies with the fourth
requirement under Article 6.2.
7.128. The main issue before us here flows from the third requirement of Article 6.2 in respect of
the import restrictions of the products at issue from Latvia and Estonia. We consider this now.
7.129. With regard to the identification of the specific measures at issue (the third requirement
under Article 6.2), the Appellate Body has observed that "the determination of whether a panel
request is 'sufficiently precise' requires scrutiny of the panel request 'as a whole, and on the basis
of the language used'." 228 Such a determination, which is done on a case -by-case basis, may
depend "on the particular context in which those measures exist and operate, and may require
examining the extent to which those measures are capable of being precisely identified".229
7.130. In previous cases, panels and the Appellate Body have examined whether a measure not
explicitly mentioned in a panel request can still constitute a measure at issue in a particular
dispute.230 The Appellate Body has clarified that, generally, "measures included in a panel's terms
of reference must be measures that are in existence at the time of the establishment of the
panel."231 The Appellate Body has also found that, except ionally, "a panel has the authority to
examine a legal instrument enacted after the establishment of the panel that amends a measure
identified in the panel request, provided that the amendment does not change the essence of the
identified measure."232 For this exception to apply, the panel request should be broad enough to
include amendments to a measure.233
7.131. Previous panels have also stated that a measure not expressly identified in a panel request
may satisfy the requirements of Article 6.2 when it has a clea r and close relationship to a measure
described in the panel request so that the responding party can reasonably be found to have
received adequate notice of the claims asserted by the complaining party. 234 The panel in Japan –
Film noted that: "only if a 'm easure' is subsidiary or closely related to a specifically identified
'measure' will notice be adequate".235
7.132. Further guidance concerning a panel's review of closely linked measures that postdate a
panel request can be found in EC – Fasteners (China). In that case, the panel examined whether
an EC Council Regulation repealing and replacing the earlier EC Council Regulation identified by
China in its panel request fell within its terms of reference. China's panel request did not include
any broad reference to m easures amending or subsequent to those identified therein. Also, the
subsequent EC Council Regulation contained – in almost identical terms and in identical substance
– the same provision as the Council Regulation identified in China's panel request. The EC –
Fasteners (China) panel found that even though China's panel request did not refer to amending or

227 European Union's panel request, pp. 2-6.
228 Appellate Body Reports, Argentina – Import Measures, para. 5.41 (quoting Appellate Body Report,
EC and certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft, para. 641). See also Appellate Body Report, China – HP-
SSST (Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU), para. 5.13 (quoting Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners (China),
para. 562).
229 Appellate Body Reports, Argentina – Import Measures, para. 5.41 (quoting Appellate Body Reports,
China – Raw Materials, para. 220).
230 See Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System, paras. 143-144. See also Panel Reports,
Argentina – Financial Services, paras. 7.26-7.33; India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.77, EC – IT Products,
para. 7.140; and Japan – Film, para. 10.8; and Panel Preliminary Ruling, Australia – Tobacco Plain Packaging
231 Appellate Body Report, EC – Selected Customs Matters, para. 184 (quoting Appellate Body Report,
EC – Chicken Cuts, para. 156).
232 Appellate Body Report, EC – Selected Customs Matters, para. 184 (quoting Appellate Body Report,
233 Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System, para. 144. See also Panel Report, EC – IT
Products, para. 7.140.
234 See Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.78-7.80, Panel Report, Japan-Film, paras.
10.8-10.9; Panel Report, US-Carbon Steel, para. 8.11; Panel Report, Australia-Salmon (Article 21.5-Canada),
para. 7.10, subpara. 27.

subsequent measures the new Council Regulation was within its terms of reference as it was
"substantively identical" to the Council Regulation identified in China's panel request.236
7.133. Like other prior panels, the panel in EC – Fasteners (China) also underlined the importance
of a "close relationship" and "adequate notice", observing:
It is now well established that a measure which is not identified in the c omplainant's
panel request may nonetheless fall within a panel's terms of reference if it is
sufficiently closely related to the measure identified in the panel request, such that
the respondent can be found to have had adequate notice of the nature of the claims
that the complainant might raise during the panel proceedings.237
7.134. While the panel recognised the importance of a panel request's meeting the requirements
of Article 6.2 by informing the respondent of the measure at issue and the nature of the claims
raised, it held that "[t]o require China in such circumstances to restart the dispute settlement
process, potentially requiring a new request for consultations, would defeat the purpose of the
DSU to provide for the 'prompt settlement of situations in whic h a Member considers that benefits
accruing to it' under a covered Agreement are being impaired by another Member's measure, as
provided for in Article 3.3 of the DSU." 238 The panel thus balanced the respondent's ability to
defend itself, as derived from the complainant's obligations under Article 6.2 of the DSU, and the
objective of prompt dispute settlement pursuant to Article 3.3 of the DSU.
7.135. Similarly, in the present dispute the Panel is called upon to determine whether despite not
being referred to specifically in the European Union's panel request, the restrictions on the imports
of the products at issue from Latvia and Estonia fall within its terms of reference. In order to
address this question, the Panel will first examine the European Union's argument that the
measures on the imports from Estonia and Latvia constitute an amendment (or supplement, or
extension) of a measure referred to specifically in the European Union's panel request (i.e. the EU -
wide ban or the measures regarding Lithuania and Poland ) in a manner that does not modify its
essence.
7.3.4.3.1 Whether the import restrictions on the products at issue from Estonia and
Latvia constitute amendments, supplements, extensions, replacement measures,
renewal measures or implementing measures that do not mo dify the essence of those
identified in the European Union's panel request
7.136. The European Union argues that the measures regarding Estonia and Latvia are within the
Panel's terms of reference because the two individual measures had the practical effect of
extending the product coverage of the EU -wide ban to heat -treated and matured pig products .239
The European Union's link between these measures and the panel request is based on the
following statement in its panel request:
This request relates to the measure s at issue and to any amendments, supplements,
extensions, replacement measures, renewal measures and implementing measures.240
7.137. According to the European Union, although at the time of the panel request there were no
individual bans on Estonia and Latvia, mo st of the products at issue "were already covered by the
EU-wide ban imposed by Russia since the first case in Lithuania". 241 The European Union adds that
"[i]n practice, the two individual measures extended the ban to heat treated and matured pig
products: 'ready to eat products, containing pork, except for cats and dog feed (which were heat

236 Panel Report, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 7.38 (referring to Appellate Body Reports: Chile – Price
Band System, para. 135; and US – Zeroing (Japan) (Article 21.5 – Japan), para. 113; and Panel Report, Japan
– Film, para. 10.8).
237 Panel Report, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 7.38 (referring to Appellate Body Reports: Chile – Price
Band System, para. 135; and US – Zeroing (Japan) (Article 21.5 – Japan), para. 113; and Panel Report, Japan
– Film, para. 10.8).
238 Panel Report, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 7.34 (footnotes omitted).
239 European Union's response to Panel question No. 55, para. 128.
240 European Union's panel request, p. 6.
241 European Union's opening statement at the first meeting of the Panel, para. 26; response to Panel

treated no less than 70ºC for at least 20 minutes)' and 'sausages and similar products of meat,
canned meat'."242 The European Union maintains that these measures constitu te an extension of
the product coverage of the EU -wide ban.243 On this basis, the European Union claims that "[t]he
individual Russian bans with respect to Latvia and Estonia fall within the category of amendments,
supplements, extensions and implementing me asures and are thus clearly covered by the panel
request."244 The European Union further asserts that the measures regarding Estonia and Latvia
"do not change the essence of the identified measures".245
7.138. Russia emphasizes that the European Union must demonstrat e to the Panel that Russia's
measures post -dating the date of the Panel request, particularly the import restrictions on live
pigs, pig and pork products from Latvia and Estonia, can be considered "amendments" . Russia
considers that this depends on whether these later measures reflect different legal implications
than the measures for Lithuania and Poland, and whether the consideration of those measures is
necessary to secure a positive resolution to the dispute.246
7.139. The Panel first notes that the European Uni on's panel request is formulated broadly. In
order to determine whether the measures regarding Estonia and Latvia are covered by the broad
formulation of the panel request, as argued by the European Union, the Panel will assess
(i) whether the measures reg arding Estonia and Latvia constitute amendments, supplements,
extensions, replacement measures, renewal measures and implementing measures; and
(ii) whether the measures regarding Estonia and Latvia change the essence of the measures
identified explicitly in the panel request.
7.140. To address these matters, the Panel has prepared Table 1 below, which shows the product
coverage of the import restrictions on Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland as well as of the EU -
wide ban. Table 1 below also indicates which products are excluded from the product coverage of
the measures at issue.247
7.141. According to the European Union, the EU -wide ban applies to the following products
exported from the European Union to Russia which are subject to the veterinary certificates
bilaterally agreed: piglets for fattening; pigs for breeding; slaughter pigs; pork meat and raw meat
preparations.248

242 European Union's opening statement at the first meeting of the Panel, para. 26; response to Panel
243 European Union's opening statement at the first meeting of the Panel, para. 26; response to Panel
244 European Union's second written submission, para. 18.
245 European Union's second written submission, para. 20.
246 Russia's response to Panel question No. 74, para. 120.
247 The parties have referred in their arguments to a distinction between heat-treated and non-heat
treated products. We recall that pursuant to Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to Heads of Veterinary
authorities in Russia, FS-EN-8/1644, 5 February 2014 (Exhibit RUS-323), three categories of treated products
are not subject to the EU-wide ban and were not subject to the bans on imports from Lithuania and Poland
from 6 February 2014 until 7 April 2014. Those categories include products subject to: thermal treatment,
fermentation and maturation. We therefore refer to these as "treated products".
248 European Union's response to Panel question No. 77, para. 147 (referring to Exhibits Veterinary
certificate for piglets for fattening (EU-52), Veterinary certificate for pigs for breeding (EU-53), Veterinary
certificate for pork meat and raw meat preparations (EU-54) and Veterinary certificate for slaughter pigs (EU-
55). In fn 82 of the European Union's first written submission, there is additional reference to the Veterinary
certificate for finished food products (Exhibit EU-56); the Veterinary certificate for canned meat, salamis and
other ready for consumption meat products (Exhibit EU-57) ((European Union's first written submission, para.
89, fn 82). This conclusion also appears to be confirmed by announcement of FSVPS (Exhibit EU-16) and List of
returned consignments of pig products (Exhibit EU-17) detailing the products the entry of which was denied by
Russia: pork head meat frozen; frozen pig hearts; frozen pork; frozen pork skin; fat bacon; pork offal products
(heart), frozen; Pork meat (from heads), frozen; pork meat. The European Union explains that the certified
heat treated products covered by the veterinary certificates, the copies of which were provided by the
European Union as Exhibit EU-56 and EU-57, are not subject to the EU-wide ban. European Union's response to
Panel question No. 77, paras. 148 – 151. The products covered by the veterinary certificate provided by the
European Union as Exhibit EU-56 are finished food products, containing raw material of animal origin; the
products covered by the veterinary certificate provided by the European Union as Exhibit EU-57 are canned
meat, salamis and other ready for consumption meat products.

7.142. Russia does not contest the European Union's identification of the products at issue
covered by the EU -wide ban, clarifying that the Russia -European Union veterinary certificates on
which its provisional compliance is based "concern piglets for fattening,249 pigs for breeding,250 and
pork meat and raw meat preparation 251."252 It is clear from the evidence submitted by the parties
that the EU -wide ban applies to the following products, which are subject to the veterinary
certificates bilaterally agreed on 11 August 2006: piglets for fattening and pigs for breeding (live
pigs), and pork meat and raw meat preparations. 253 Russia acknowledges that the terms of the
veterinary certificates are enforced in respect of pigs for slaughter; however, Russia clarifies that
pigs for slaughter have not been allowed into its territory because of measures applied in respect
of classical swine fever.254
7.143. In addition, both parties ag ree that products subject to thermal treatment, fermentation
and maturation are not subject to the EU-wide ban.255
7.144. As indicated in Table 1, the EU -wide ban does not apply to certain finished goods
containing pork that have been subject to particular forms o f treatment. Nonetheless, the
restrictions on imports from Estonia and Latvia cover most products in the category of heat -
treated finished pork products and the category of heat treated canned pork meat, sausages and
other ready for consumption meat produ cts, except for certain feedstuffs and feed additives for
animals.

249 (footnote original) Veterinary certificate for piglets for fattening, being exported from the EU into
Russia, 11/08/2006 (Exhibit EU-52)
250 (footnote original) Veterinary certificate for pigs for breeding, exported from the EU into Russia,
11/08/2006 (Exhibit EU-53)
251 (footnote original) Veterinary certificate for pork meat and raw meat preparations, exported from the
EU into Russia, 11/08/2006 (Exhibit EU-54).
252 Russia's response to Panel question No. 77, para. 127.
253 Letter of FSVPS of 29 January 2014 – FS-SA-8/1277 (Exhibit EU-14), para. 3; Letter of 14 February
2014 – HF-12-26/1650 (Exhibit EU-15), p. 2; FSVPS instructions to its Territorial Departments of 29 January
2014 (Exhibit-EU-161), para. 1; Letter Ref. FS-EN-8/5095 from the Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and
Phytosanitary Supervision to the European Union dated 2 April 2014 (Letter of FSVPS of 2 April 2014 –FS-EN-
8/5095 )(Exhibit RUS-53), para. 3. This conclusion also appears to be confirmed by announcement of FSVPS
(Exhibit EU-16) and List of returned consignments of pig products (EU-17) detailing the products the entry of
which was denied by Russia: pork head meat frozen; frozen pig hearts; frozen pork; frozen pork skin; fat
bacon; pork offal products (heart), frozen; Pork meat (from heads), frozen; pork meat.
254 Russia's response to Panel question No. 267, paras. 57-60. See also Letter from Rosselkhoznadzor to
Russia’s regional offices, 2 March 2012, FS-EN-7/2793 (Exhibit RUS-351).
255 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to Heads of Veterinary authorities in Russia, FS-EN-
8/1644, 5 February 2014 (Exhibit RUS-323); and Russia's letter to the European Union of 5 February 2014, FS-
EN-8/1642 (Exhibit EU-162). See also European Union's comments to Russia's response to Panel question
No. 256, paras. 21-25; and Russia's response to Panel question No. 256, paras. 14-16.

Table 1 Product coverage of the measures at issue256
EU-wide257 Lithuania258 Poland259 Latvia260 Estonia261
live pigs

live pigs
its genetic
material
live pigs
its genetic
material
live pigs live pigs
pig genetic material
 finished products
containing pork
finished products
containing pork
finished
products
containing pork
end products containing
pork
 products from
slaughter of wild
boar
products from
slaughter of wild
boar
 meat of wild boar
pork meat pork pork pork pork
raw meat preparations raw pork products raw pork products raw pork
products
raw pork products
 horn-hoofed
materials
leather
intestinal
materials
horn-hoofed
materials
leather
intestinal
materials
 horn-hoofed materials
leather
intestinal materials
 bristles bristles hair coat
 feed for pigs feed for pigs

 all types of feed stuffs
and feed additives for
pigs
 hunting trophies
not subjected to
full taxidermy
treatment
hunting trophies
not subjected to
full taxidermy
treatment
 hunter's trophies derived
from sensible animal
species without full
taxidermy treatment
 equipment
previously used
for keeping,
transportation,
slaughter and
cutting of pigs
equipment
previously used
for keeping,
transportation,
slaughter and
cutting of pigs
 equipment previously
used for keeping,
slaughter and cutting of
pigs
Excluded: treated
(either through
thermal treatment,
fermentation or
maturation): finished
products, containing
raw materials of
animal origin (pork)
and canned meat;
sausages and other
ready-to-eat meat
products (made of
pork) intended for the
production of pet food
and food for fur
animals.
Excluded: cats and dogs' feeds which
are thermally treated (temperature not
lower than 70ºC for not less than 20
minutes).

Note: This exclusion was introduced as
of 7 April 2014. Before that time, these
import restrictions were not applied to
the categories of products excluded
from the EU-wide ban, as described in
this table.

Excluded: cats'
and dogs'
feeds which
are thermally
treated
(temperature
not lower than
70ºC for not
less than 20
minutes).
Excluded: feed additives
resulted from chemical
or microbiological
synthesis and heat-
treated ready-made
feedstuffs (minimum
temperature: 70 degrees
in Celsius, minimum
treatment time: 20
minutes).

256 The Panel prepared this table on the basis of the following exhibits: Exhibits EU-7, EU-8, EU-10, EU-
11, EU-168 and RUS-28 (regarding the measures in respect of Lithuania); Exhibits EU-9, EU-10, EU-11, EU-
168 and RUS-29 (regarding the measures in respect of Poland); Exhibits EU-12 and EU-169 (regarding the
measures in respect of Latvia); and Exhibits EU-13 and RUS-37 (regarding the measures in respect of Estonia).
The parties provided comments on this Table in response to Panel question No. 271. See European Union's
response to Panel question No. 271, paras. 83-89; and Russia's response to Panel question No. 271, paras. 95-
98.
257 European Union's response to Panel question No. 77, paras. 148 – 151 and response to Panel
question No. 271, paras. 85-86. See also Russia's response to Panel question No. 77, para. 127 and response
to Panel question No. 271, para. 97. See also Russia's letter to the European Union of 5 February 2014, FS-EN-
8/1642 (Exhibit EU-162).
258 See Exhibits EU-7, EU-8, EU-10, EU-11, EU-168, and RUS-28.
259 See Exhibits EU-9, EU-10, EU-11, EU-168, and RUS-29.
260 See Exhibits EU-12 and EU-169.
261 See Exhibits EU-13 and RUS-37.

7.145. It thus follows that the European Union's assertion that the measures regarding Estonia
and Latvia extend the product coverage of the EU -wide ban is supported by the evidence on the
record. However, if the EU -wide ban c oexists with the measures regarding Latvia and Estonia, it
seems as if the extension of the product coverage would only be applicable to the imports of the
products at issue from those two countries, and not the imports from the rest of the EU member
States. Furthermore, such an extension would apply to Estonia and Latvia on the specific terms of
the bans for each country.
7.146. At the same time, the European Union's conclusion only refers to the overlap between the
product coverage of the EU -wide ban and the me asures regarding Estonia and Latvia. By doing
this, the European Union's rationale leaves unaddressed the link between the aspects of the
measures on imports from Latvia and Estonia unrelated to the product coverage.
7.147. This circumstance would have a signific ant impact on the Panel's further assessment of
whether or not such extension of product coverage changes the essence of the EU -wide ban,
regardless of its classification as an amendment, supplement, extension, replacement measure,
renewal measure or implementing measure. Following the European Union's argument would entail
considering the EU-wide ban as a measure modified by the measures regarding Estonia and Latvia
to the extent its product coverage is broadened. However, the measures regarding those two EU
member States contain other elements that would not be included into an amended version of the
EU-wide ban.
7.148. If, on the other hand, all other aspects of the measures regarding Estonia and Latvia were
included in such modification, they could change the essence of the EU -wide ban. As indicated by
the evidence on the record, the EU -wide ban and the bans on imports of the products at issue
from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are distinct, even though related, sets of measures.
These measures exist i n parallel. The adoption or revocation of the bans applied to imports from
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, or Poland does not affect the existence of the EU -wide ban and vice
versa.
7.149. The application of the EU -wide ban and the measures regarding Estonia and Latv ia may
overlap, for instance when both the EU -wide ban and the measures regarding Estonia and Latvia
apply to the products at issue originating from Estonia and Latvia. It is in this context that the
European Union argues that the measures regarding Estoni a and Latvia extend the product
coverage of the EU -wide ban. However, the fact that such de facto extension may take place as
the result of the concurrent application of the measures regarding Estonia and Latvia and the EU -
wide ban, does not bring all aspe cts of these measures regarding Estonia and Latvia under the
umbrella of the EU-wide ban. The two continue to exist separately.
7.150. For these reasons, the European Union's argument on how to bring all aspects of the
measures regarding Estonia and Latvia within the panel's terms of reference by pointing to their de
facto extension of the product coverage of the EU-wide ban does not seem persuasive.
7.151. In addition, the consequence of accepting the European Union's argument is that the Panel
would be barred from ma king separate findings on the measures regarding the imports from
Estonia and Latvia. This is because the Panel would only be able to consider under its jurisdiction
the amended EU-wide ban, including the modifications inserted through the import restricti ons on
the products at issue from Estonia and Latvia, rather than each of those measures (i.e. the EU -
wide ban and the bans on Estonia and Latvia) considered individually. This would not allow us to
make findings in such a manner that would satisfy the obj ective of prompt dispute settlement
pursuant to Article 3.3 of the DSU and the aim of the dispute settlement mechanism to secure a
positive solution to this dispute, as indicated in Article 3.7 of the DSU.
7.152. Because we are not persuaded by the European Unio n's argument that the import
restrictions on the products at issue from Estonia and Latvia constitute amendments, supplements,

extensions, replacement measures, renewal measures and implementing measures of the EU -wide
ban, the Panel will examine below this matter pursuant to its own reasoning.262
7.153. In order for the Panel to be able to fulfil its obligation to make an objective assessment of
the matter before it and prevent the possibility that the procedural requirements of WTO dispute
settlement result in a s ituation where measures could completely evade a review, we will pursue
our own reasoning on the basis of the evidence submitted by the parties. 263 This reasoning entails
examining whether the measures regarding Estonia and Latvia satisfy the legal standard for close
link and adequate notice, as explained in paragraph 7.131 above.
7.3.4.3.2 Whether the import restrictions on the products at issue from Estonia and
Latvia are closely linked to the measures explicitly identified in the Europe an Union's
panel request
7.154. As indicated in paragraph 7.123 above, for a measure to fall within a panel's terms of
reference it has to satisfy the requirements of Article 7 of the DSU as informed by Article 6.2 of
the DSU.264 When analysing those requirements, panels and the Appellate Body have found that
there can be circumstances where a measure not explicitly included in the panel request could still
fall within a panel's terms of reference. In this vein, the Appellate Body has s tated that compliance
with the Article 6.2 requirements must be determined on the merits of each case, having
considered the panel request as a whole, and in light of the attendant circumstances. 265 In this
regard, the Panel notes that the European Union ref ers to the EU -wide ban and the import
restrictions on the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland as "distinct but
closely linked".266
7.155. Based on the existing guidance in the jurisprudence, as described in paragraphs 7.130 to
7.134 above, the Panel will examine whether the measures regarding Estonia and Latvia are
closely related to the measures mentioned explicitly in the European Union's panel request, in such
a manner that Russia has had adequate notice of the nature of the claims that the European Union
might have raised during the Panel proceedings. In assessing this matter, we will take into account
the rationale of the DSU to provide for the "prompt settlement of situations in which a Member
considers that benefits accruing to it" under a covered Agreement are being impaired by another
Member's measure, as provided for in Article 3.3 of the DSU, and the objective of securing a
positive solution to the dispute as provided in Article 3.7 of the DSU.
7.156. On this basis, the central question we will address is whether the import restrictions on the
products at issue from Estonia and Latvia are closely related to the EU -wide ban and/or to the
import restrictions on the products at issue f rom Lithuania and Poland. The Panel notes that both
the measures on imports from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland and the EU-wide ban appear
to be adopted in pursuit of the same regulatory purpose: protecting Russia's territory from entry
and further spread of ASF. 267 Those import restrictions also appear similar in their design
(including their product coverage as described in Table 1 above), structure (including the legal
instruments through which they are applied) and impact, leading to the applicati on of restrictions
on the importation of the products at issue from the European Union or its member States.
7.157. The two sets of measures are implemented by means of similar legal instruments. Russia
explained that temporary restrictions on the products at is sue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and

262 See e.g. Appellate Body Report, Canada – Renewable Energy / Canada – Feed-in Tariff Program,
para. 5.215 ("While a panel cannot make the case for a complainant, it has the competence 'freely to use
arguments submitted by any of the parties – or to develop its own legal reasoning – to support its own findings
and conclusions on the matter under its consideration.") (quoting Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones,
para. 156).
263 See Panel Report, US – Animals, paras. 7.444-7.447.
264 Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel, paras. 124. See also, Appellate Body Reports, Argentina –
Import Measures, para. 5.11.
265 Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel, para. 127.
266 European Union's opening statement at the first meeting of the Panel, para. 24.
267 See Exhibits EU-13 and RUS-37 (regarding Estonia); EU-12 and EU-169 (regarding Latvia); EU-9,
EU-10, EU-11, EU-168 and RUS-29 (regarding Poland); EU-7, EU-8, EU-10, EU-11, EU-168 and RUS-28
(regarding Lithuania); and EU-14 and EU-161 (regarding the EU-wide ban). See also Russia's second written

Poland were imposed based on FSVPS's "Directions which constitute the departmental enactments
applicable throughout the Russian Federation". 268 In addition, Russia explains that as set out in
Decree 327, "different territorial departments are obliged to follow the directions from the Federal
Government, including instructions with respect to import restrictions from the four ASF -infected
EU Member States". 269 Similarly, as described in paras. 7.77 to 7.79 above, the EU -wide ban is
enforced through actions of Russia's federal and territorial departments.
7.158. Moreover, there is a geographic overlap between the EU -wide measure and the measures
in respect of imports from Latvia and Estonia. As the European Union has explained, since the end
of January 2014 imports of the products at issue (with the exception of heat treated, fermented or
matured finished products) are no longer accepted from any EU member States, including Estonia
and Latvia. 270 Months later, when the measures in respect of imports from Latvia
(27 June 2014)271 and Estonia (11 September 2014) 272 were put in place, geographical areas
covered by the EU -wide ban were subject to import restrictions on the products at issue from
those two specific EU member States.
7.159. In addition, the measures are proximate in time, in both absolute and relative terms, to
the measures identified in the panel request, to the panel request itself and to the date of
establishment of the Panel. We note that the measures regarding Estonia and Latvia were adopted
at an early stage of the proceedings. The ban on Latvia was adopted the same day on which the
panel request was presented (27 June 2014), while the measure on Estonia was adopted on
11 September 2014. Both these measures were adopted prior to the composition of the panel
(which took place on 23 October 2014), the organizational meeting (which took place on
21 November 2014) and the parties' deadline for the presentation of their first wr itten submission
(14 January 2015 for the European Union and 25 February 2015 for Russia).273
7.160. Based on the foregoing, the Panel finds that there is (i) an identity of the regulatory
purpose; (ii) proximity of design, structure and impact; and (iii) close geo graphic and temporal
relation of the import restrictions on the products at issue from Estonia and Latvia with those of
the import restrictions of the products at issue from Lithuania and Poland as well as from the rest
of the European Union. We consider t hese factual findings to strongly support the preliminary
conclusion that the import restrictions on the products at issue from Estonia and Latvia are closely
related to the measures explicitly described in the European Union's panel request.
7.161. We move on to address whether Russia has had adequate notice of the nature of the
claims that the European Union might have raised during the Panel proceedings. This enquiry is
necessary to ensure that the due process rights of Russia are not violated. The Panel recall s that
our examination of adequate notice flows from the close relationship between the unnamed
measures and those included in the panel request. 274 To determine whether Russia's ability to
defend itself would be prejudiced if the import restrictions on the products at issue from Estonia
and Latvia were found to be within the Panel's terms of reference, we need to determine whether
the measures regarding Estonia and Latvia are sufficiently closely related to the measures
explicitly identified in the panel req uest, such that Russia could reasonably anticipate these
measures to be challenged in these Panel proceedings.
7.162. We also consider it relevant to underscore the factual circumstances of the present
dispute. ASF outbreaks began at the end of January 2014 in Li thuania. As the evidence on record

268 Russia's response to Panel question No. 276, para. 112.
269 Russia's response to Panel question No. 276, para. 113, referring to RF Government's Decree 327 of
June 30, 2004 "Approval of the Regulation of the Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance
(Rosselkhoznadzor)", para. 4 (Exhibit RUS-352).
270 European Union's first written submission, para. 92.
271 G/SPS/N/RUS/64 (Exhibit EU-12) and Russia's letter of instruction of 27 June 2014, FS-NF-8/11315
(Exhibit EU-169).
272 G/SPS/N/RUS/76 (Exhibit EU-13) and Russia's letter to the European Union of 11 September 2014,
FS-NV-8/17431 (Exhibit RUS-37).
273 See para. 1.6 above.

demonstrates275, the situation of the spread of the disease has shifted in the months following the
initial outbreaks and continues to evolve. This led to new outbreaks in Poland, Latvia and Estonia
during the course of 201 4. These particular circumstances further confirm the close relationship
between the measures imposed on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia and Latvia
with those imposed on imports from Lithuania and Poland as well from the rest of the Europ ean
Union. In this context, this statement from Russia comes as no surprise: "both Parties have agreed
that it is appropriate for the Panel to consider the European Union claims as including a challenge
to the Latvian and Estonian import bans …, which were not included in the Panel request".276
7.163. It also seems clear from the European Union's arguments in the course of the proceedings,
that the European Union would have provided the same arguments for the inconsistency of the
measures regarding Estonia and Latv ia with the covered agreements as those of the measures
regarding Lithuania and Poland. This also means that Russia's defence of the measures regarding
Estonia and Latvia would have likely been the same as that for the measures regarding Lithuania
and Poland. This is, in fact, confirmed by Russia's arguments as provided in its submissions.
7.164. Based on the foregoing, the Panel finds that Russia could reasonably anticipate that the
European Union would challenge the measures regarding Estonia and Latvia.
7.165. The Pan el's review of the measures at issue regarding Estonia and Latvia as distinct
measures would be in line with the objectives of prompt dispute settlement and securing the
positive resolution of the dispute. The Panel would be able to make individual finding s concerning
the conformity of these measures with the covered agreements, thus examining and making
findings in respect of all the measures, and their particular features, related to the way in which
Russia is handling the importation of the products at i ssue from the European Union. The Panel
considers that not making a finding with respect to the import restrictions on the products at issue
from Estonia and Latvia would neither be in line with the objective of prompt settlement of
disputes nor that of s ecuring a positive solution to a dispute within the meaning of the DSU, in as
much as the European Union would have to challenge these measures in separate proceedings.
7.166. We consider that, given the particular facts and circumstances of this dispute, and in light
of our findings in para graph 7.126 above, our findings concerning the measures regarding Estonia
and Latvia also establish the required connection between the challenged measures and the
provisions of the covered agreemen ts claimed to have been violated for the purposes of providing
a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly in
satisfaction of the fourth requirement of Article 6.2.
7.3.4.4 Conclusion
7.167. Based on the foregoing and in light of the particular circumstances of the present dispute,
the Panel finds that the import restrictions on the products at issue from Estonia and Latvia are
within its terms of reference.
7.3.5 Summary of the measures at issue in this dispute
7.168. As indicated in paragraph 7.84 above, we find that the EU -wide ban is a measure
attributable to Russia. In addition, as indicated in paragraph 7.116 above, we find that the terms
of Russia's accession to the WTO d oes not impose any limit to our assessment of the European
Union's claims in respect of the EU-wide ban.
7.169. As indicated in paragraph 7.167 above, we find that the import restrictions on the products
at issue from Estonia and Latvia are within our terms of reference.
7.170. Based on our previous findings, Table 2 below summarizes the measures at issue in this
dispute, with an indication of the product coverage of each of the measures under examination.

275 Detailed account of the outbreaks in domestic pigs and notification of cases in wild boar in the EU, as
notified to the OIE (Exhibit EU-118). See also Data from OIE WAHIS Interface, as of 31 August (RUS-296
revised).
276 Russia's response to Panel question No. 279, para. 122.

Table 2 Measures at issue
Measure Legal Instrument Date of
imposition
Date of
Application
WTO Notification Date of
notification
Restrictions on
imports from
Lithuania of
certain non-heat
treated pig
products.277

Letter from FSVPS
of 25 January 2014
(FS-EN-8/1023).
25 January
2014
25 January
2014

10 February
2014
EU-wide ban of
certain non-
treated pig
products.
Constructed278 N/A 29 January
2014279
Unnotified N/A
Restrictions on
imports from
Poland of
certain non-heat
treated pig
products.280

Letter from FSVPS
of 27 February 2014
(FS-NV-8/2972)
27
February
2014
27 February
2014
G/SPS/N/RUS/49 4 March
2014
Extension of the
coverage of
import
restrictions from
Lithuania and
Poland to
certain heat
treated pig
products.281

Letter from FSVPS
of 2 April 2014 (FS-
EN-8/5081).
2 April
2014
7 April 2014 G/SPS/N/RUS/48/Add.2

4 April 2014
Restrictions on
imports from
Latvia of
certain heated
treated and
non-heat
treated pig
products.282

Letter from the
FSVPS of 27 June
2014 (FS-NF-
8/11315).
27 June
2014
28 June
2014
G/SPS/N/RUS/64 16 July
2014
Restrictions on
imports from
Estonia of
certain heat
treated and
non-heat
treated pig
products. 283

Letter from FSVPS
of 11 September
2014 (FS-NV-
8/17431).
11
September
2014
11
September
2014
G/SPS/N/RUS/76 16
September
2014

7.3.6 Temporal framework for the Panel's assessment
7.3.6.1 Introduction
7.171. In light of the ongoing nature of the ASF outbreaks associated with the imposition of the
measures at issue, the Panel asked the parties to express their views on the appropr iate time-

277 See G/SPS/N/RUS/48 (Exhibit EU-7), G/SPS/N/RUS/48/Add.1 (Exhibit EU-8) and Russia's letter to
the European Union of 25 January 2014, FS-EN-8/1023 (Exhibit RUS-28).
278 See section 7.3.2.3.1 above.
279 European Union's first written submission, paras. 94–95 (referring to the List of returned
consignments of pig products (Exhibit EU-17), Items 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15 and 16).
280 See Exhibits EU-9 and RUS-29.
281 See Exhibits EU-10, EU-11 and EU-168.
282 See Exhibits EU-12 and EU-169.
283 See Exhibit EU-13 and RUS-37.

frame for the Panel's assessment of the European Union's claims. 284 Without prejudice to
additional considerations regarding our substantive assessment, this section reflects our views
regarding the temporal dimension of the evidence and events tha t we will consider in our
assessment of the European Union's claims.
7.3.6.2 Main arguments of the Parties
7.3.6.2.1 European Union
7.172. The European Union considers the relevant moment in time for assessing Russia's
compliance with the provisions of the SPS Agreement to be the date of the panel establishment
(22 July 2014). For the European Union, symmetrically, the same moment in time should apply
with respect to the evidence the European Union submitted to Russia in order to allow it to
perform a risk assessment. 285 However, the European Union also made clear that at any point in
time the European Union's ASF regionalization measures were properly adapted to the evolution of
the disease. Subsequent developments, after the date of the panel establishment, can only
confirm the rob ustness of the European Union's regionalization measures and, at the same time,
the unnecessary and arbitrary character of Russia's measures at issue. The European Union
asserts that more than 20 months after the first ASF cases in January 2014, Russia sti ll has not
provided to the Panel and to the European Union any risk assessment.286
7.3.6.2.2 Russia
7.173. Russia submits that it would be appropriate for the Panel to assess the compliance of the
measures at issue with the cited provisions of the SPS Agreement at the time o f panel
establishment, as well as after the date of panel establishment, up to and including developments
until August 2015. According to Russia, this would enable the Panel to take into account the
evolution of ASF infections and ASF -free and infected zon es in the four affected EU member
States.287 Russia asserts that the relevant jurisprudence supports a choice of the end of
August 2015 as the proper temporal benchmark. 288 Russia's allegations differ according to the
time-frame that the Panel selects in its examination of the European Union's claims in this dispute.
For example, Russia submits that if the Panel determines that the date of panel establishment is
the relevant date for its enquiry, it would invoke Article 5.7 with respect to the bans on the
imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.289 Moreover, Russia
submits that, based on relevant jurisprudence, the Panel should consider all of the evidence before
it, including that dated after the establishment of the Panel.290
7.3.6.3 Analysis by the Panel
7.174. The Appellate Body in EC – Selected Customs Matters addressed the distinction between
measures at issue and the evidence in support of the manner in which those measures are
administered, for the purposes of Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994. The Appellate Body reasoned
that it is important to distinguish between measures and pieces of evidence; and added that
While there are temporal limitations on the measures that may be within a panel's
terms of reference, such limitations do not app ly in the same way to evidence.
Evidence in support of a claim challenging measures that are within a panel's terms of
reference may pre -date or post -date the establishment of the panel. A panel is not
precluded from assessing a piece of evidence for the m ere reason that it pre -dates or

284 European Union's responses to Panel question Nos. 279, 309, and 311; and Russia's responses to
Panel questions No. 279, 309, and 311; and comments to European Union's responses to Panel question No.
236.
285 European Union's response to Panel question No. 311, paras. 171-173.
286 European Union's opening statement at the second meeting of the Panel, para. 60.
287 Russia also points out the appropriateness of considering developments in the first and second
quarters of 2015, taking into account the European Union's submission of the eradication plans for the four
affected EU member States. Russia's response to Panel question No. 279, paras. 117-139.
288 Russia's response to Panel question No. 279, para. 131.
289 See Russia's response to Panel question no. 279, paras. 133-134; response to Panel question No.
290 Russia's response to Panel question No. 311, paras. 269-272.

post-dates its establishment. … A panel enjoys a certain discretion to determine the
relevance and probative value of a piece of evidence that pre -dates or post -dates its
establishment."291
7.175. We are mindful of our mandate and d uty under the DSU to make an objective assessment
of the matter referred to us by the DSB in accordance with our terms of reference, by virtue of
Articles 6.2, 7 and 11 of the DSU. As explained above, it is well established that the Panel request
frames a panel's terms of reference. However, as observed by the Appellate Body, there is a
difference in the temporal limitations applicable to the measures at issue and those to the
evidence considered in support of claims assessed by a panel. We are also mindful of the aim of
the WTO dispute settlement mechanism to secure a positive solution to a dispute, as enshr ined in
Article 3.7 of the DSU.
7.3.6.4 Conclusion
7.176. We recall our finding in paragraph 7.167 above that the bans on imports of the products at
issue from Latvia and Estonia fall within our terms of reference although they correspond with, or
post-date, the date of the panel request. We recall that this finding takes into account , and is in
line with, the agreed view of the parties that these measures fall within the Panel's terms of
reference. In our view, our terms of reference, together with the date of the Panel's establishment,
shed light on the appropriate time frame for our examination of the matter before us. Given the
particular facts and circumstances of this case, we consider it appropriate to examine the matter
referred to us up to and including the date of Russia's adoption of the measure in respect of
Estonia, that is, up to and including 11 September 2014. At the same time, we note that our
identification of this particular time frame for this purpose would not materially affect our findings
in respect of the bans on imports of the products at issue from Lithuania, Poland, and Latvia,
except to the extent that they would fur ther support our findings in respect of these measures, as
well as in respect of the EU -wide ban, and the situation in existence at the date of panel
establishment. In summary, the Panel has examined the evidence on record pre -dating and post-
dating the Pa nel's establishment, with a special focus on the factual situation as at 22 July 2014,
for the measures in existence at that date, and as at 11 September 2014, for the measures at
issue.
7.177. The Appellate Body has found that a panel may weigh and determine the probative value
of evidence that pre -dates or post -dates its establishment. 292 Following this guidance, we will
weigh and consider any relevant evidence on record that pre -dates and post -dates the Panel
establishment. This includes evidence and argumentatio n that post -dates the European Union's
panel request.
7.178. Temporal considerations play a role in the assessment of many of the European Union's
claims under the SPS Agreement, given the need to examine the state of sufficiency of scientific
evidence, availabl e pertinent information, the adaptation of measures on an "ongoing basis" in
cases involving regionalization under Article 6 and the existence of a "reasonable period of time" or
any undue delays in respect of certain procedures. Each of these inquiries im poses particular
demands.293 In respect of the assessment of the measures at issue before this Panel regarding
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland and the EU -wide ban, we have adopted a case and
provision-specific approach, taking into account the particu lar facts and circumstances of this
dispute in light of the argumentation and evidence submitted by the parties.
7.4 Whether Russia's measures are within the scope of the SPS Agreement
7.4.1 Introduction
7.179. As we detailed in section 2.2 above, the European Union raises claims, in respect of the
measures at issue, under the SPS Agreement. A threshold issue in our examination of these claims

291 Appellate Body Report, EC – Selected Customs Matters, para. 188.
292 Appellate Body Report, EC – Selected Customs Matters, para. 188.
293 For example, a general rule for the purposes of the Panel's determination of the timeline for
assessment of "sufficiency" of relevant scientific evidence is the date of the adoption of the SPS measure in
question. Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.3253.

is whether Russia's measures are SPS measures subject to the disciplines of the SPS
Agreement.294
7.180. At the outset we note that neither party has challenged that the restrictions on imports
from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are SPS measures subject to the disciplines set out in
the SPS Agreement. 295 However, they disagree on whether the EU -wide ban is a n SPS measure.
Given our duty, pursuant to Article 11 of the DSU, to make an objective assessment of the
applicability of the relevant covered agreements 296, we will examine the parties' argument s in
respect of this threshold issue.
7.4.2 Main arguments of the parties
7.4.2.1 European Union
7.181. The European Union argues that "[t]he Russian ban is enacted through 'relevant laws,
decrees, regulations, requirements and procedures', consisting of the four administrative notices
concerning the individual EU Member States and the r equirements and procedures related to the
EU-wide ban."297 The European Union thus claims that the EU -wide ban and the ban on imports of
the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland constitute SPS measures that fall
within the definitions of Annex A(1)(a) and (b) of the SPS Agreement, ASF being a disease in the
context of Annex A(1)(a) and the ASF virus being a disease -causing organism within the scope of
Annex A(1)(b).298 According to the European Union, these measures also directly affect
international trade within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the SPS Agreement.299 Therefore, according
to the European Union, the SPS Agreement applies to the measures at issue.300
7.182. The European Union adds that the parties do not dispute that the "four individual bans with
respect to Lithuania, Poland, Latvia, and Estonia are SPS measures within the meaning of Annex
1(a) of the SPS Agreement."301
7.4.2.2 Russia
7.183. Russia claims that the European Union has failed to demonstrate that the EU -wide ban is a
measure attributable to it. Thus, such measure is not subject to the provisions of the
SPS Agreement.302
7.184. In addition, Russia argues that the EU -wide ban is not a requirement or procedure within
the meaning of Annex A(1) of the SPS Agreement and therefore does not constitute an
SPS measure.303 In this context, Russia posits that the present case is similar to EC – Approval
and Marketing of Biotech Products insofar as the EU -wide ban is not a requirement or procedure
itself, i.e. not the veterinary certificate, but the application of the requirements or procedures

294 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.132. See also Panel Report, US – Animals,
para. 7.30.
295 The Panel notes that Russia has not raised any challenge to the import restrictions on the products at
issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland being SPS measures. See Russia's response to Panel question
No. 84, para. 138. In addition, Russia grounds its defence of the import restrictions on the products at issue
from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland on the assumption that they are subject to the application of the
SPS Agreement. See Russia's first written submission, para. 7. See also European Union's second written
submission, para. 15.
297 European Union's first written submission, para 103.
298 European Union's first written submission, paras. 101 and 106.
299 European Union's first written submission, paras. 104 -106.
300 European Union's first written submission, para.106.
301 European Union's second written submission, para. 15.
302 Russia's opening statement at the second substantive meeting, para. 50; and response to Panel
question No. 275, para. 111. See also Russia's arguments in section 7.3.2.2.2 above claiming non-attribution
of the alleged EU wide ban to Russia.
303 Russia's opening statement at the first meeting of the Panel, para. 49; and second written
submission, para. 172 (referring to European Union's first written submission, para. 103).

which are set out in such veterinary certificates. 304 On the basis of the refusal of the panel in EC –
Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products to hold that a general moratorium on approving the
marketing of genetically modif ied organisms was an SPS measure, because that moratorium
concerned only the application or operation of such procedures and not the procedures
themselves, Russia claims that the EU -wide ban is not an SPS measure within the meaning of
Annex A(1) of the SPS Agreement.305
7.185. Russia further suggests that because the European Union did not allege in its panel request
or its submissions to the Panel that the underlying bilaterally negotiated EU -Russian veterinary
certificates are WTO -inconsistent, "the Panel should n ot make any findings with respect to the
consistency of these certificates with the SPS Agreement".306
7.186. As mentioned above 307, Russia has not challeng ed the restrictions on imports of the
products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland constituting SPS measures.308
7.4.3 Main arguments of the third parties
7.4.3.1 Brazil
7.187. In its responses to Panel questions Brazil referred to the scope of Annex A(1) of the
SPS Agreement and the finding of the panel in EC - Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products
that the de facto moratorium challenged in that case did not take the form of an SPS measure.
Brazil then concluded that in the present case, the characterization of the measures as an
SPS measure in the context of Annex A(1) seems to be undisputable.309
7.4.3.2 United States
7.188. In its responses to Panel questions the United States referred to the purported objectives
of the challenged measures and the text of Annex A(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement, and noted that
in its view the measures at issue constitute SPS measures.310
7.4.4 Analysis by the Panel
7.4.4.1 Relevant legal provisions
7.189. Article 1 of the SPS Agreement provides in its relevant part:
1. This Agreement applies to all sanitary and phytosanitary measures which may,
directly or indirectly, affect international trade. Such measures shall be de veloped and
applied in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.
2. For the purposes of this Agreement, the definitions provided in Annex A shall apply.
7.190. Annex A(1) provides as follows:
1. Sanitary or phytosanitary measure - Any measure applied:
(a) to protect animal or plant life or health within the territory of the
Member from risks arising from the entry, establishment or spread of

304 Russia's opening statement at the first meeting of the Panel, para. 49; and second written
submission, para. 172 (referring to Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products,
paras. 7.1395, 7.1407, 7.1421, 7.1441, 7.1448 and 7.1465).
305 Russia's opening statement at the first meeting of the Panel, paras. 48-49; second written
submission, paras. 172 and 174; and response to Panel question No. 72, para. 107.
306 Russia's response to Panel question No. 72, para 109.
308 See also Russia's response to Panel question No. 84, para. 138.
309 Brazil' third-party response to Panel question No. 5.
310 United States' third-party response to Panel question No. 5.

pests, diseases, disease -carrying organisms or disease -causing
organisms;
(b) to protect human or animal life or health within the territory of the
Member from risks arising from additives, contaminants, toxins or
disease-causing organisms in foods, beverages or feedstuffs;
(c) to protect human life or health within the territory of the Member
from risks arising from diseases carried by animals, plants or products
thereof, or from the entry, establishment or spread of pests; or
(d) to prevent or limit other damage within the territory of the
Member from the entry, establishment or spread of pests.
Sanitary or phytosanitary measures include all relevant laws, decrees, regulations,
requirements and procedures including, inter alia, end product criteria; processes and
production methods; testing, inspection, certification and approval procedures;
quarantine treatments including relevant requirements associated with the transport
of animals or plants, or with the materials necessary for their survival during
transport; provisions on relevant statistical methods, sampling procedures and
methods of risk assessment; and packaging and labelling requirements directly related
to food safety.
7.191. We agree with previous panels that based on these provisions, for the SPS Agreement to
apply, the measures at issue must (i) be an SPS measure within the meaning of Article 1 and
Annex A(1) of the SPS Agreement that (ii) may, directly or indirectly, affect international trade. 311
We therefore move to examine each of these requirements.
7.4.4.2 Whether Russia's measures are SPS measures within the meaning of
Annex A(1)
7.192. Pursuant to Article 1.1 and Annex A(1) of the SPS Agreement, SPS measures are those
falling within one or more of the definitions provided in letters (a) through (d) of Annex A(1) of the
SPS Agreement. A measure will fall within one or more definitions provided in Annex A(1) if it i s
applied to protect at least one of the listed interests or to prevent or limit specified damage. 312 In
addition, "the determination of whether a measure is an SPS measure requires an inquiry into
whether the measure is of the type that may fall within the definition of an SPS measure and
whether it exhibits an appropriate nexus to one of the specified purposes in
subparagraphs (a) through (d)".313
7.193. The Appellate Body in Australia – Apples considered that a fundamental element for
determining the applicability of the SPS Agreement to the measures at issue is their purpose, that
is, their application to protect the interest(s) listed in Annex A(1) or to prevent or limit the damage
specified therein.314 With respect to this element, the Appellate Body has observed that the "word
'to' in adverbial relation with the infinitive verb 'protect' indicates a purpose or intention.315 Thus, it
establishes a required link between the measure and the protected interest".316 The Appellate Body
added that the "word 'applied' points to the application of the measure and, thus, suggests that
the relationship of the measure and one of the objectives listed in Annex A(1) must be manifest in
the measure itself or otherwise evident from the circumstances related to the application of the

311 Panel Reports, US – Animals, para. 7.30 (referring to Panel Reports, EC – Hormones (Canada),
Panel Reports, EC – Hormones (Canada), para. 8.39; EC – Hormones (US), para. 8.36; EC – Approval and
312 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 172.
314 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 172.
315 (footnote original) Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edn, A. Stevenson (ed.) (Oxford University
Press, 2007), Vol. 2, p. 3280.
316 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 172.

measure. This suggests that the purpose of a measure is to be ascertained on the basis of
objective considerations317".318
7.194. Following the Appellate Body's guidance, a determination whether a measure is applied to
protect one of the interests listed in Annex A(1), or to prevent or limit the damage specified
therein, must be ascertained not only from the objectives of the measure as expressed by the
responding party. It must also be derived from the text and structure of the relevant measure, its
surrounding regulatory context, and the way in which it is designed and applied. For any given
measure to fall within the scope of one of the subparagraphs of Annex A(1), scrutiny of such
circumstances must reveal "a clear and objective relationship" between that measure an d the
specific purpose enumerated in one of the subparagraphs of Annex A(1). 319
7.195. The Appellate Body has explained that the first part of the second paragraph of Annex A(1)
of the SPS Agreement provides an illustrative and expansive list of legal instruments through
which SPS measures may be adopted ( relevant laws, decrees, regulations, requirements and
procedures).320 On this basis, the panel in US – Animals understood its task in respect of this
requirement as an inquiry into whether the measure is of the type that may fall within the
definition of an SPS measure, rather than being a measure that perfectly fits within one of the
categories explicitly listed.321
7.196. In this respect, we agree with the panel in US – Poultry (China) that the distinction drawn
by the panel in EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products between the legal form and the
nature of an SPS measure is not the most appropriate approach to examine the second paragraph
of Annex A(1).322 We agree that legal form may intrinsically determine the nature of a measure for
the purposes of determining whether a measure is of the type listed in the second paragraph of
Annex A(1).323
7.197. Following this guidance, we will examine first whether the EU -wide ban is an SPS measure
within the meaning of Annex A(1). We wi ll then move on to assess whether each of the import
restrictions on the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are SPS measures
within the meaning of Annex A(1).
7.4.4.2.1 Whether the EU -wide ban is an SPS measure within the meaning of
Annex A(1)
7.4.4.2.1.1 Whether the EU -wide ban falls within subparagraphs (a) through d) of
Annex A(1) of the SPS Agreement
7.198. We begin our examination by addressing the question of whether the EU -wide ban falls
within subparagraphs (a) to (d) of Annex A(1) of the SPS Agreement.
7.199. We have referred to the FSVPS letter to DG SANCO of 29 January 2014 and to the
instructions of FSVPS to its heads of territorial departments of the same date as evidence of the
EU-wide ban. In our view, those documents, together with certain elements o f the regulatory
framework on veterinary health applicable in Russia 324, set out the normative context which we
need to examine in order to assess the objectives of the EU-wide ban.

317 (footnote original) See, to similar effect, Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech
Products, para. 7.2558.
318 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 172.
319 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 173.
320 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 175.
321 Panel Report, US – Animals, paras. 7.32-7.33.
322 Panel Report, US – Poultry (China), paras. 7.85-7.86 and 7.100-7.101. See also Panel Report,
Australia – Apples, paras. 7.150-7.153 (referring to the close connection between the elements that determine
legal form and nature in the second paragraph of Annex A(1) of the SPS Agreement).
323 Panel Report, US – Poultry (China), para. 7.118.
324 See Veterinary Control in Customs Union Decision No. 317 (Exhibit RUS-386); RF Government's
Decree 327 of June 30, 2004 "Approval of the Regulation of the Federal Service for Veterinary and
Phytosanitary Surveillance (Rosselkhoznadzor)", para. 1, Rossiyskaya Gazeta // URL:
http://www.rg.ru/2004/07/15/veterinar-dok.html. (Exhibit RUS-352). See also Regulations on the State

7.200. We note that both the letter from FSVPS to DG SANCO and the FSVPS instructi ons to its
heads of territorial departments of 29 January 2014 refer to the ASF situation in the European
Union, particularly in Lithuania. In addition, both documents refer to sections 4.1 and 4.3 of the
agreed veterinary certificates for exports from the European Union to Russia for a number of the
products at issue (see Table 1 above for a list of the products subject to the EU -wide ban).325 The
relevant sections of the veterinary certificates generally refer to the veterinary requirement for the
exported products to originate "from premises and/or administrative territory of the EU Member
State that are officially free from the following contagious diseases:326 African swine fever – during
the last 3 years in the territory of the EU excluding Sardinia".327
7.201. In addition, the rest of the evidence adduced by the European Union in support of the
existence and content of the EU -wide ban328 refers to the rejection of imports of products at issue
on grounds related to the ASF situation in the European Union. In particula r, certain evidence
refers to the lack of reliability in the representation of the ASF situation in the European Union, as
described in certain veterinary certificates attached to products at issue.329
7.202. We consider that the EU-wide ban was adopted in light of the ASF situation in the territory
of the European Union. As noted in section 7.3.2.3.1 above, it was adopted as a response to an
ASF outbreak in wild boar in Lithuania at the end of January 2014.
7.203. Certain elements of Russia's legal framework on veterinary health further clarify the
objectives of the EU -wide ban in respect of ASF. Paragraph 1 of Russia's Government Decree 327
provides that FSVPS "is the federal executive authority exercising supervision and surveillance
functions in the field of veterinary medicine" .330 Such surveillance functions include oversight of
compliance with veterinary requirements.331
7.204. Customs Union Decision No. 317 states that one of its objectives is "to ensure protection of
the customs territory of the Customs Union against the import and spread of contagious animal
disease pathogens, including diseases common to both animals and humans, and goods which do
not comply with the Common Veterinary Requirements".332 This Customs Union Decision comprises
chapters containing veterinary requirements applicable to imports of a number of goods into the
Customs Union territory. Those goods include the following, which are part of the products at
issue: breeding and utility pigs (Chapter 7); semen from boars (Chapter 8 ); pigs for slaughter
(Chapter 9); meat and other edible meat raw materials (Chapter 22); meat of wild animals
(Chapter 28); raw materials consisting of leather, horns and hooves, intestinal raw materials, fur,
hair and bristle (Chapter 33); feed and feed additives of animal origin (Chapter 35); feed additives
for cats and dogs, and prepared feed for cats and dogs which has been subjected to thermal

Veterinary Supervision Approved by Decree 476 of the Government of Russia of June 5, 2013 (rev.
24.03.2014) (Exhibit RUS-16), paras. 1 and 4(a); and Russia's response to Panel question No. 276, para. 112.
325 Letter of FSVPS of 29 January 2014 – FS-SA-8/1277 (Exhibit EU-14) and FSVPS instructions to its
Territorial Departments of 29 January 2014 (Exhibit EU-161).
326 (footnote original) Administrative territories, zones and time periods may be modified by mutual
agreement on the basis of the Memorandum of 4 April 2006 on zoning and regionalization.
327 This is the sample text of the Veterinary certificate for piglets for fattening (Exhibit EU-52). In its
first written submission, the European Union notes that the letter from FSVPS to DG SANCO of 29 January
2014 (Exhibit EU-14) refers to the following veterinary certificates: Veterinary certificate for piglets for
fattening (Exhibit EU-52); the Veterinary certificate for pigs for breeding (Exhibit EU-53); the Veterinary
certificate for pork meat and raw meat preparations (Exhibit EU-54); the Veterinary certificate for slaughter
pigs (Exhibit EU-55); the Veterinary certificate for finished food products (Exhibit EU-56); the Veterinary
certificate for canned meat, salamis and other ready for consumption meat products (Exhibit EU-57) (European
Union's first written submission, para. 89, fn 82). The instructions from FSVPS to its heads of territorial
departments of 29 January 2014 refers to item 4.3 of the veterinary certificates for exports of pork and raw
pork products, and to item 4.1 of the Veterinary certificate for pigs for breeding (Exhibit EU-53).
328 See para. 7.60 above.
329 List of returned consignments (Exhibit EU-17). See also European Union's first written submission,
paras. 94-96.
330 RF Government's Decree 327 of June 30, 2004 "Approval of the Regulation of the Federal Service for
Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance (Rosselkhoznadzor)", para. 1 (Exhibit RUS-352). See also
Regulations on the State Veterinary Supervision Approved by Decree 476 of the Government of Russia of June
5, 2013 (rev. 24.03.2014) (Exhibit RUS-16), paras. 1 and 4(a).
331 Russian Government's Decree 327 of June 30, 2004 "Approval of the Regulation of the Federal
Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance (Rosselkhoznadzor)", para. 5 (Exhibit RUS-352).
332 Preamble to Customs Union Decision No. 317 (Exhibit RUS-25).

treatment (Chapter 37); and hunting trophies (Chapter 38). All the chapters referring to these
goods include reference to the ASF situation necessary for accepting imports of the respective
products.333 The formulation of this requirement differs for each good as portrayed in Table 3
below.
Table 3 ASF veterinary requirements of Customs Union Decision No. 317334
Products ASF veterinary requirement relative to the place of origin of the
animals or processing facilities from which the product comes
breeding and utility pigs; semen
from boars; wild, zoo and circus
animals; meat and other edible
meat raw materials; raw materials
consisting of leather, horns and
hooves, intestinal raw materials,
fur, hair and bristle; and hunting
trophies

during the last 36 months in the territory of the country or
administrative territory in accordance with regionalization
pigs for slaughter during the last 36 months in the territory of the country or
administrative territory in accordance with regionalization or during the
last 12 months subject to confirmation of certain epizootic and
entomological monitoring

meat of wild animals in the territory of the country or administrative territory in accordance
with recommendations of the Terrestrial Code

feed and feed additives of animal
origin
in the territory of the country or administrative territory in accordan ce
with regionalization during a three-year period

feed additives for cats and dogs,
and prepared feed for cats and
dogs which has been subjected to
thermal treatment

during the last 12 months in the administrative territory in accordance
with regionalization

7.205. As shown in Table 3, the veterinary requirements for imports of the products at issue into
Russia are similar to those used in the text of the veterinary certificates which serve as a basis for
Russia's refusal of the imports of the products at issue. Both the provisions of Customs Union
Decision No. 317 and the veterinary certificates refer to the ASF situation in the place of origin of
the products at issue being imported to Russia.
7.206. In addition, pursuant to paragraph 4 of the Final and Transit ional Provisions of the
Customs Union Decision No. 317, Russia continues to apply the veterinary certificates for the
exportation of live pigs and pig products bilaterally agreed with the European Union.335
7.207. Measures taken pursuant to Annex A(1)(a) are taken with the objective of addressing risks
to animal life or health "arising from the entry, establishment or spread" of pests, diseases,

333 Customs Union Decision No. 317 (Exhibit RUS-25). We note that Customs Union Decision No. 317
also refers to wild, zoo and circus animals (Chapter 16).
334 Table prepared by the Panel based on the information available in Customs Union Decision No. 317
(Exhibit RUS-25).
335 Para. 4 of Customs Union Decision No. 317 reads as follows:

Until 1 January 2013, in mutual trade between the Parties and third countries, the import of
goods subject to inspection shall be permitted using veterinary certificates valid as of 1 July 2010
initialled by one of the Parties with the exporting countries, as well as any subsequent
amendments thereto, agreed by the Party and the exporting country on the basis of a position
agreed with other Parties. In the absence of initialled veterinary certificates, goods subject to
inspection must be accompanied by veterinary certificates ensuring compliance with the common
veterinary (veterinary and health) requirements of the Customs Union (as amended by Decisions
of the Customs Union Commission No 455 of 18 November 2010 and No 726 of 15 July 2011).

Russia explained that by subsequent agreement between the European Union and Federation prolonged
the validity of bilateral veterinary certificates beyond 1 January 2013 (Russia's response to Panel question
No. 177, para. 314).

disease-carrying organisms or disease -causing organisms. ASF is a highly contagious
haemorrhagic disease of pigs and Europ ean wild boar. The organism which causes ASF is the
African swine fever virus (ASFV), a DNA virus in the Asfarviridae family; genus Asfivirus336, and as
confirmed by the experts and the OIE, the ASF V is a disease -causing organism that can be
transmitted eith er directly animal -to-animal or via the consumption of ASFV -contaminated food
consumed by pigs. The risk to animal health resulting from the presence of a disease -causing
organism in a food or feedstuff falls within the scope of Annex A(1)(b).
7.208. With respect to risks arising from the "entry, establishment or spread" of ASF, we are
aware that ASF was already present in certain areas of Russia at the time it adopted the EU -wide
ban337 and that the movement of infected wild boar from Russia (and Belarus) into the territory of
the European Union was the likely means of introduction of the virus into the European Union. The
risks associated with the "entry, spread or establishment" of a disease within a country where the
disease already exists are often considerably different than the comparable risks to a country with
no history of the disease and with no regulatory structure and experience in dealing with the
disease.338
7.209. At the same time, we recognize that Russia has put in place a number of measures
directed to achieve control and eradication of ASF within its territory. 339 Based on the evidence on
record, we find that ASF has been present in some areas of Russia's territory since the initial
outbreaks of ASF in wild boar in Lithuania. However, there have been areas of Russia that remain
free of ASF, areas where ASF has been eradicated, and still other areas where the level of
prevalence of ASF has decreased in terms of fewer outbreaks taking place in the most recent
months.340 We recall that the preamble of the SPS Agree ment states "Desiring to improve the
…animal health … situation in all Members". We therefore do not believe it would be reasonable to
expect a Member to accept risks that could worsen its current SPS status, especially when they are
taking measures to control a particular disease.
7.210. Bearing this situation in mind, as part of its responses to Panel questions, Russia notes
that "[g]iven that the European Union has failed to demonstrate that its alleged ASF-free areas are
and will remain ASF -free, there exists a non-negligible risk that presently uninfected areas of the
Russian Federation will become infected through unsafe imports from the European Union and that
the ASF disease situation will aggravate within those areas of the Russian Federation that are
currently battling ASF."341

336 OIE General Disease Information Sheets: African swine fever (ASF Disease Information Sheet)
(Exhibits RUS-4 and RUS-171).
http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Media_Center/docs/pdf/Disease_cards/ASF-EN.pdf (last accessed 15
December 2015).
337 Russia's first written submission, para. 23 (referring to OIE WAHIS Interface, Event summary
Reports, African swine fever, Russia (2007-2014). (Exhibit RUS-144)); second written submission, paras. 146-
147.
339 Russia's first written submission, paras. 26-35 (where Russia refers to the following exhibits: ASF
Instructions (Exhibit EU-18); Russian Federal Law on Veterinary Medicine, No. 4979-I, 14 May 1993 (Exhibit
RUS-15); 2012 Plan (Exhibit RUS-13); Russian Federal Decree on State Veterinary Supervision, No. 476, 5
June 2013 (Exhibit RUS-16); Russian Federal Government Decree on State Program for Agricultural
Development and Regulation of Agricultural Commodities Markets for 2013-2020 , No. 717, 14 July 2012
(Exhibit RUS-17); Order by the Russian Federal Ministry of Agriculture on the Confirmation of the List of
Contagious Animal Diseases That Require Containment Measures, No. 476, 19 December 2011 (Exhibit RUS-
18); Order by the Russian Federal Ministry of Agriculture on the Confirmation of the Rules for Veterinary
Transport Certificates and the Order of Issuance of Veterinary Transport Certificates, No. 281, 17 July 2014
(Exhibit RUS-19); Russian Federal Ministry of Natural Resources, Plan regarding the organizational and specific
measures of monitoring, depopulation and reduction of migration activities of wild boar in the territory of the
RF, including specially protected natural areas of regional and federal importance, 21 November 2013 (Exhibit
RUS-20); Russian Federal Government Decree on the Seizure of Animals and Animal Products in case of
Eradication of Highly Dangerous Animal Disease Outbreaks, No. 310, 26 May 2006 (Exhibit RUS-21); and Order
by the Russian Federal Ministry of Agriculture on Approval of Guidelines to Determine Animal Health Status of
Pig Holdings and Organizations Involved in Pig Slaughter, Pork Product Processing and Storage, No. 258, 23
July 2010 (Exhibit RUS-22)) and paras. 251-273 (and exhibits cited therein); responses to Panel questions No.
29 and 30 (and exhibits cited therein).
340 Russia's response to Panel question No. 143, paras. 263-264.
341 Russia's response to Panel question No. 143, para. 264.

7.211. This confirms that one of the objectives of the EU -wide ban is the protection of animal life
or health within Russia's territory from risks arising from the entry (or re-entry) and further spread
of a disease and a disease -causing organism already present in parts of Russia's territory; and a
disease-causing organism in feedstuffs, already present in parts of Russia's territory. Thus, the EU-
wide ban, read in the context of Russia's legal framework on veterinary surveillance and the
situation in respect of the presence of ASF in Russia's territory, evidences a clear and objective
relationship with the purposes set forth in Annex A(1) (a) and (b) of the SPS Agreement.
7.4.4.2.1.2 Whether the EU-wide ban is of the type mentioned in part one of the s econd
paragraph of Annex A(1) of the SPS Agreement
7.212. Russia alleges that the EU -wide ban cannot be considered an SPS measure because it is
not a measure attributable to it. 342 We found in paragraph 7.84 above that the European Unio n
demonstrated the existence of the 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, and that the
EU-wide ban is a measure attributable to Russia. Based on that f inding, we now turn to examine
whether such measure, as described in paragraph 7.84 above, is of the type mentioned in part one
of the second paragraph of Annex A(1).
7.213. Russia also argues that the EU -wide ban is not a requiremen t or procedure within the
meaning of Annex A(1) of the SPS Agreement and therefore does not constitute an SPS
measure.343 Russia relies on the fact that the European Union did not challenge the WTO -
consistency of the bilaterally negotiated EU-Russian veterinary certificates, focusing instead on the
application of the requirements or procedures which are set out in such veterinary certificates. 344
Distinguishing between the requirement or procedure itself and the application of such
requirement or procedure, Rus sia concludes that the EU -wide ban does not fall within Annex A(1)
of the SPS Agreement.345
7.214. In Australia – Apples, the Appellate Body unequivocally stated that the list of legal
instruments in part one of paragraph 2 of Annex A(1) of the SPS Agreement is both illustrative and
expansive.346 The panel in US – Animals elaborated on this interpretation, stating that measures of
a type not expressly listed in part one of paragraph 2 of Annex A(1) may nevertheless constitute
SPS measures when they are relevant, that is, when they are applied for a purpose that
corresponds to one of those listed in subparagraphs (a) through (d).347
7.215. We note that the text of Annex A(1) limits the scope of "laws, decrees, regulations,
requirements and procedures" only by qualifying that th ey should be "relevant", which was
interpreted by the Appellate Body to mean that they are "applied" for a purpose that corresponds
to one of those listed in subparagraphs (a) through (d).348
7.216. We recall that the EU-wide ban is a composite measure, applied on the basis of mandatory
instructions issued by FSVPS and enforced through the actions of veterinary control officers at
Russia's borders.349 The result of that measure is the effective ban on some of the products at
issue from the European Union. Pursuant to the terms of the ban, the products at issue subject to
the ban would only be accepted into Russia's territory when they originate from areas that have
been free from ASF during the three years prior to their importation.

342 Russia's second written submission paras. 171 and 173.
343 Russia's opening statement at the first meeting of the Panel, para. 49; and second written
submission, para. 172 (referring to European Union's first written submission, para. 103).
344 Russia's response to Panel question No. 72, para 109.
345 Russia's opening statement at the first meeting of the Panel, para. 49; and second written
submission, para. 172 (referring to Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products,
paras. 7.1395, 7.1407, 7.1421, 7.1441, 7.1448 and 7.1465).
346 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 175.
347 Panel Report, US – Animals, para.7.32. See also Panel Report, Australia – Apples, para. 7.169.
348 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, paras. 175-176.
349 See section 7.84 above.

7.217. The EU -wide ban can be understood as a requirement 350 formulated in the negative
form.351 Such negative requirement consists of Russia's refusal to accept imports of the products
at issue from the European Union that do not meet the current wording of the veterinary
certificates agreed between them in 2006. While the general substantive conditions of entry for the
products at issue from the European Union into Russia are described in the veterinary certificates
agreed by the parties, it is Russia's enforcement of the current wording of these c ertificates that
constitutes a requirement within the meaning of the second paragraph of Annex A(1) of the
SPS Agreement.
7.218. Furthermore, the EU -wide ban could be construed as a procedure. The panel in EC –
Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products considered that although an approval procedure is not
defined in Annex A(1), it is a concept further developed in Annex C(1). After examining the
wording of both provisions, that panel concluded: "[o]n the basis of these elements, the term
'approval procedures' can be understood as encompassing procedures applied to check and ensure
the fulfilment of one or more substantive SPS requirements the satisfaction of which is a
prerequisite for the approval to place a product on the market." 352 Following this definition, we
consider that Russia's enforcement of the current wording of the veterinary certificates is the part
of the procedure applied to check and ensure the fulfilment of the substantive SPS requirements
set out in these veterinary certificates. Thus, we consider the EU-wide ban to fall within the scope
of an approval procedure within the meaning of the second paragraph of Annex A(1) of the SPS
Agreement.
7.219. In light of these considerations, we conclude that the EU -wide ban falls under the
indicative list of measures, "laws, decrees, regulations, requirements and procedures", provided in
paragraph 2 of Annex A(1).
7.4.4.2.1.3 Preliminary conclusion
7.220. Based on the foregoing we find that the EU -wide ban is an SPS measure within the
meaning of Annex A(1) of the SPS Agreement.
7.221. We move on to examine whether the bans on the imports of the products at issue from
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are also SPS measures within the meaning of Annex A(1) of
the SPS Agreement.
7.4.4.2.2 Whether the bans on imports from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are
SPS measures within the meaning of Annex A(1) of the SPS Agreement
7.4.4.2.2.1 Whether the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland fall within subparagraphs (a) through (d) of Annex A(1) of
the SPS Agreement
7.222. We begin our examination by addressing the question of whether the bans on the imports
of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland fall within subparagraphs (a) -
(d) of Annex A(1) of the SPS Agreement . The measures regarding Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Poland constitute restrictions on the importation of the products at issue from these countries to
Russia. These restrictions were imposed by instructions of FSVPS with the purpose of addressing
the ASF outbreaks taking place in the territory of each of those EU member States. In our view,
those documents, together with certain elements of the regulatory framework on sanitary health
applicable in Russia 353, set out the normative context which we need to examine to assess the

350 As the panel in Australia – Apples noted: "the dictionary definition of the word 'requirements' is
'something called for or demanded; a condition which must be complied with'." Panel Report, Australia –
Apples, para. 7.160 (referring to The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Ed. Brown, L., Clarendon Press,
Oxford, Vol. 2, p. 2557).
351 The panel in EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, when referring to the ban of the
marketing of a particular product, stated that, as the reference to requirements in Annex A(1) is broad and
unqualified, such a ban could "constitute a negative requirement". Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing
of Biotech Products, para. 7.2597.
352 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.424.
353 See para. 7.733 below.

objectives of the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Poland. As we have already noted in our analysis of the objectives pursued by the EU -wide ban,
we consider that the presence of ASF in certain areas of Russia a t the time it adopted the EU-wide
ban354 can inform our understanding of the risks that Russia was seeking to address through the
bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
7.223. As explained in paragraph 7.79 above, FSVPS is the federal authority in charge of
supervision and surveillance in the field of veterinary medicine. In exercise of its authority, FSVPS
issued instructions to the heads of its territorial departments imposing the spe cified import
restrictions which explicitly refer to the ASF outbreaks in the respective EU member States. 355 One
of the instructions also expressly refers to the purpose of preventing the introduction of ASF into
Russia from the respective EU member State.356 All instructions refer to the specific heat treatment
of pig products, while some explicitly state that such treatment is necessary for the destruction of
ASFV.357
7.224. In addition, as mentioned in the context of our examination of the objectives pursued by
the EU-wide ban, we consider that Russia's legal framework in the field of veterinary health further
confirms that the instructions issued by FSVPS are related to the protection of animal health from
ASF.
7.225. Another element in support of this view are Russia's n otifications of the bans on imports of
the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland to the SPS Committee. In each of
those notifications, Russia declared food safety and animal health as the objectives of each of the
measures.358
7.226. Based on the foregoing we consider that one of the objectives of each of the measures in
respect of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland is to ensure protection of Russia's territory from
the (re-)entry and further spread of ASF and ASFV.
7.227. As mentioned in paragr aph 7.207 above, according to the OIE ASF is a disease affecting
pigs, and ASFV is the viral organism which causes ASF.
7.228. Considering the factors mentioned above, we find that the import restrictions on the
products at issue fro m Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are applied by Russia with the
purpose of protecting animal life or health within its territory from risks arising from the re -entry
and further spread of a disease and a disease -causing organism already present in parts of
Russia's territory; and of protecting animal life or health from a disease -causing organism in foods
and feedstuffs. We therefore conclude that each of the bans on imports of the products at issue
from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, read in the context of Russia's legal framework on
veterinary surveillance and the situation in respect of the presence of ASF in Russia's territory,
pursue the objectives laid out in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Annex A(1) of the SPS Agreement.

354 See paras. 7.207- 7.209 above.
355 See Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to DG SANCO, FS-EN-8/1023, 25 January 2015
(Exhibit RUS-28), Letter from Russian Veterinary Service, FS-NV-8/2972, 27 February 2014 (Exhibit RUS-29),
Russia's letter of instruction of 2 April 2014, FS-EN-8/5081 (Exhibit EU-168), and Russia's letter of instruction
of 27 June 2014, FS-NF-8/11315 (Exhibit EU-169) and Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to DG
SANCO, FS-NV-8/17431, 11 September 2014 (Exhibit RUS-37).
356 Instructions of FSVPS to the heads of its territorial departments as of 25 January 2014 Ref. FS-EN-
8/1023 (Exhibit RUS-28), para. 2.
357 Instructions of FSVPS to the heads of its territorial departments as of 25 January 2014 Ref. FS-EN-
8/1023 (Exhibit RUS-28), para. 1; Instructions of FSVPS to the heads of its territorial departments as of
27 February 2014 Ref. FS-NV-8/2972 (Exhibit RUS-29), para. 1.
358 Exhibits EU-7, EU-8, EU-9, EU-10, EU-12, EU-13. We note that in its notifications of the measures
regarding Estonia and Latvia Russia stated, as their objective, human health. However, both parties in the
proceedings confirmed that ASF does not pose risk to human health (European Union's first written submission,
para. 100; Russia's response to Panel question No. 24, para. 9). This was further confirmed by the OIE (see
OIE's response to Panel question No. 10).

7.4.4.2.2.2 Whether the bans on imports from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are
of the type mentioned in part one of paragraph 2 of Annex A(1)
7.229. The import restrictions on the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
are applied by Russia pursuant to the instructions of FSVPS to the heads of its territorial
departments.359 As clarified by Russia, pursuant to Decree 327 "different territorial departments
are obliged to follow the directions from the Federal Government".360
7.230. Based on Russia's explanation of the mandatory nature of directions provided by FSVPS to
the heads of its territorial departments, we consider those instructions to fall under the indicative
list of measures, "laws, decrees, regulations, requirements and procedures", provided in paragraph
2 of Annex A(1) of the SPS Agreement.
7.4.4.2.2.3 Preliminary conclusion
7.231. Based on the foregoing we find that the import restrictions on the products at issue from
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are SPS measures within the meaning of Annex A(1) of the
SPS Agreement.
7.232. We turn to examine the second requirement for a measure to be deemed an SPS measure
for the purposes of Article 1 of the SPS Agreement. This is, whether the measures at issue may,
directly or indirectly, affect international trade.
7.4.4.2.3 Whether the measures at issue may, directly or indirectly, affect international
trade
7.233. As noted by previous panels, even if a measure falls within the definition of an
SPS measure in Annex A(1) of the SPS Agreement, further to Article 1.1 of the SPS Agreement,
such measure still needs to be a measure that directly or indirectly affect[s] international trade to
be covered by the disciplines of the SPS Agreement.361 We agree with a previous panel that it is
not necessary to demonstrate that an SPS measure has an actual effect on tra de. Article 1.1
merely requires that an SPS measure "may, directly or indirectly, affect international trade".362
7.234. The panels in US – Animals, India – Agricultural Products, and EC – Hormones considered
that an import ban affects international trade. 363 In the words of the panel in India – Agricultural
Products: "[i]ndeed, an import ban is, by its very nature, intended to affect international trade."364
7.235. As we have explained above, the EU -wide ban prohibits the importation of the products at
issue from the European Union, whereas each of the bans on imports of the products at issue from
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland prohibits the importation of the products at issue from each
of those EU member States.
7.236. Thus, consistent with the understanding of previous p anels, we conclude that the
measures at issue directly or indirectly affect international trade.
7.4.5 Conclusion
7.237. Based on the foregoing we find that the measures at issue are SPS measures pursuant to
Article 1 and Annex A(1) of the SPS Agreement . Therefore, the measures at issue in this dispute
are subject to the provisions of the SPS Agreement.

359 Exhibits RUS-28, RUS-29, EU-168, EU-169 and RUS-37.
360 Russia's response to Panel question No. 276, para. 113, referring to RF Government's Decree 327 of
June 30, 2004 "Approval of the Regulation of the Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance
(Rosselkhoznadzor)", para. 4 (Exhibit RUS-352).
361 Panel Report, US – Poultry (China), para. 7.87.
362 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, paras. 7.434-7.435.
363 Panel Reports, US – Animals, para. 7.44; India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.157; EC – Hormones
364 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.157.

7.238. As we explained in paragraph 7.31 above, we will now undertake an examination of the
European Union's claims in respect of the EU -wide ban a nd the bans on the imports of the
products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
7.5 Claims relating to the EU-wide ban
7.5.1 Whether the EU -wide ban is "based on" relevant international standards (Claims
under Articles 3.1 of the SPS Agreement)
7.5.1.1 Main arguments of the parties
7.5.1.1.1 European Union
7.239. The European Union asserts that the EU -wide ban does not "conform to" and is not "based
on" any relevant international standards within the meaning of Articles 3.2 and 3.1 of the
SPS Agreement, respectively. According to the European Union, the EU -wide ban rather goes
against the relevant international standards.365
7.240. The European Union posits that a measure that actually contradicts the international
standards cannot be said to be based on the respective standards.366
7.241. The European Union argues that while the relevant international standards recommend
trade from ASF -free areas in several products at issue, or trade in products which have been
treated so as to ensure the destruction of the ASFV, Russia does exactly the contr ary and bans
trade from ASF-free areas in the EU.367
7.5.1.1.2 Russia
7.242. Russia argues that the European Union has failed to make a prima facie case with respect
to the existence of an EU -wide ban because it has not provided evidence and arguments sufficient
to identify an EU-wide ban.368 Russia argues that "what the European Union claims to be an 'EU-
wide ban' is actually the Russian Federation 's continuing efforts to follow the agreed European
Union-Russian Federation ASF -related requirements of the veterinary certificate s, which do not
permit the importation of uncertified pigs and pork products".369
7.243. Russia further stresses that the European Union "has not met its burden to make a prima
facie case that the so-called 'EU-Wide Ban' is a measure under the SPS Agreement".370
7.244. As an alternative to its argument that the EU -wide ban does not exist, Russia asserts that
the EU-wide ban is "based on the OIE standard to the extent possible".371
7.5.1.2 Main arguments of the third parties
7.5.1.2.1 Australia
7.245. Australia argues that in light of Article 3.2 of the SPS Agreement, the Panel will have to
determine, as a matter of fact, whether Russia's measures conform to, or are based on, the
Terrestrial Code, noting that only measures which conform to international standards enjoy the
presumption of consistency with the SPS Agreement.372

365 European Union's first written submission, paras. 113 and 122.
366 European Union's oral statement at the second substantive meeting, para. 56.
367 European Union's oral statement at the second substantive meeting, para. 57.
368 Russia's first written submission, para. 339.
369 Russia's first written submission, para. 345.
370 Russia's second written submission, para. 171.
371 Russia's first written submission, para. 385.
372 Australia's third-party submission, para. 7.

7.246. Australia asserts that with the foregoing supposition in mind, it would be appropriate for
the Panel to commence its analysis with the claims under Article 3, followed by consideration, if
necessary, of the subsequent claims under Articles 5 and 6 of the SPS Agreement.373
7.5.1.2.2 Brazil
7.247. Brazil emphasizes that while Members are allowed to deviate from the use of international
standards and to adopt a higher level of protection than those recognized by the OIE, Articles 3.2
and 3.3, together with Articles 5.1 and 6 of the SPS Agreement, require that such a higher level of
protection in the context of the principle of regionalization should only be adopted based upon a
risk assessment.
7.248. Brazil stresses that the Terrestrial Code also establishes recommendations for importation
from countries or zones considered infected with ASF and that consequently, if a Member decides
to deviate from these standards and/or recommendations, then such decision should be based on
scientific evidence, consubstantiated in a risk assessment.374
7.5.1.3 Analysis by the Panel
7.5.1.3.1 Introduction
7.249. We recall that the Panel has already found that the alleged EU -wide ban exists and that it
is an SPS measure that the Panel may properly look into.375
7.250. We thus begin our analysis by examining the legal provisions at issue in order to ascertain
the applicable legal test.
7.5.1.3.2 Relevant legal provisions
7.251. Article 3 of the SPS Agreement is entitled "Harmonization". It states, in relevant part:
Article 3
Harmonization
1. To harmonize sanitary and phytosanitar y measures on as wide a basis as
possible, Members shall base their sanitary or phytosanitary measures on
international standards, guidelines or recommendations, where they exist, except as
otherwise provided for in this Agreement, and in particular in paragraph 3.
2. Sanitary or phytosanitary measures which conform to international standards,
guidelines or recommendations shall be deemed to be necessary to protect human,
animal or plant life or health, and presumed to be consistent with the relevant
provisions of this Agreement and of GATT 1994.
3. Members may introduce or maintain sanitary or phytosanitary measures which
result in a higher level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection than would be achieved
by measures based on the relevant international s tandards, guidelines or
recommendations, if there is a scientific justification, or as a consequence of the level
of sanitary or phytosanitary protection a Member determines to be appropriate in
accordance with the relevant provisions of paragraphs 1 throu gh 8 of Article 5. 1
Notwithstanding the above, all measures which result in a level of sanitary or
phytosanitary protection different from that which would be achieved by measures
based on international standards, guidelines or recommendations shall not be
inconsistent with any other provision of this Agreement.

373 Australia's third-party submission, para. 9.
374 Brazil's third-party submission, paras. 12 and 14.
375 See paras. 7.84, 7.220, and 7.237 above.

Members, on the basis of internatio nal standards, guidelines and recommendations developed by
the relevant international organizations, including … the International Office of Epizootics'".377
7.253. The first three paragraphs of Article 3 of the SPS Agreement set out the obligation of
Members to h armonize378 their SPS measures by either basing them on or conforming them to
international standards, while leaving open some margin, or leeway, 379 for departing from those
standards, subject to consistency with the remainder of the SPS Agreement. The parties' evidence
and argumentation have focused on the issue of whether the EU -wide ban is "based on" the
relevant international standard within the meaning of Articles 3.1 of the SPS Agreement, and we
focus our analysis on that provision.
7.254. We note that Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement establishes that Members shall base their
SPS measures on international standards, guidelines, or recommendations, where they exist. In
EC – Hormones, the Appellate Body stated that "[a] thing is commonly said to be 'based on'
another thing when the former 'stands' or is 'founded' or 'built' upon or 'is supported by' the
latter".380 The Appellate Body considered that, to be "based on" an international standard, a
measure "may adopt some, not necessarily all, of the elements of the int ernational standard".381
The Member imposing this measure does not benefit from the presumption of consistency set up in
Article 3.2. At the same time, however, the Member is not penalized by exemption of a
complaining Member from the normal burden of showin g a prima facie case of inconsistency with
Article 3.1 or any other relevant Article of the SPS Agreement or of the GATT 1994. That is, the
burden of proof would still lie on a complainant to make a prima facie case of violation of
Article 3.1.382 In EC – Sardines, the Appellate Body remarked that "there must be a very strong
and very close relationship between two things in order to be able to say that one is 'the basis for'
the other".383 The Appellate Body thus stated that, where a technical regulation and t he relevant
international standard contradict each other, it cannot properly be concluded that the international

376 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.76.
377 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, footnote 396 to para. 5.76.
378 In EC – Hormones, the Appellate Body explained that:
In generalized terms, the object and purpose of Article 3 is to promote the harmonization of the
SPS measures of Members on as wide a basis as possible, while recognizing and safeguarding, at
the same time, the right and duty of Members to protect the life and health of their people. The
ultimate goal of the harmonization of SPS measures is to prevent the use of such measures for
arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between Members or as a disguised restriction on
international trade, without preventing Members from adopting or enforcing measures which are
both 'necessary to protect' human life or health and 'based on scientific principles', and without
requiring them to change their appropriate level of protection.
Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 177.
379 See Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.196.
380 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 163.
381 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 171.
382 The Appellate Body has clarified that there is no "general rule – exception" relationship between the
three relevant paragraphs of Article 3. Accordingly, these three alternative scenarios are equally available to
WTO Members. The Appellate Body explained that "this right of a Member to establish its own level of sanitary
protection under Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement is an autonomous right and not an 'exception' from a
'general obligation' under Article 3.1". (emphasis original) Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 172.
383 Appellate Body Report, EC – Sardines, para. 245.

standard has been used "as a basis for" the technical regulation. 384 As the Appellate Body
recognized in EC – Sardines, the term "as a basis for" in Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement is
similar to the language used in Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement. 385 Furthermore, the panel in
India – Agricultural Products concluded that a fundamental departure from the relevant
international standard amounts to a contradiction of such a standard.386
7.255. In EC – Hormones, the Appellate Body defined the terms "based on" and "conform to" as
forming concentric circles. It found that "[a] measure that 'conforms to' and incorporates
a … standard is, of course, 'based on' that standard".387 A measure that is "based on" a standard
may not necessarily "conform to" that same standard, as some elements of the standard may not
be present in the measure at issue. Indeed, while it may be sufficient to adopt only some of the
elements of an international standard for the measure to be "based on" such standard, Article 3.2
requires that an SPS measure embodies the standard completely to be said to "conform to" it.
Hence, the language in Article 3.1 whereby an SPS measure may be "based on" a n international
standard establishes a less rigorous threshold than that contemplated in Article 3.2 ("conform
to").388
7.256. This guidance is constructive in our consideration of the issues before us in the present
case, and we understand that the Appellate Body 's guidance, in particular, should be read in light
of the specific facts and circumstances of a given dispute. We consider that there may be
situations where a departure or deviation of one element of a measure from a certain aspect of a
standard may not necessarily constitute an outright contradiction of that aspect of the standard.
Moreover, even if the deviation amounts to a contradiction, this may not necessarily lead to the
conclusion that other elements of the measure cannot possibly be "based on" ot her aspects of that
standard. For example, in cases where a standard applies for a particular set or subset of
products, part of a measure pertaining to one product may be based on the international standard
while another part of the measure pertaining to a different product, may not be based on the
international standard. Furthermore, distinctions may exist between standards. There may be
standards that are conditional on the exporting Member undertaking particular actions, whether on
a one-off basis or as part of an ongoing, continuous and dynamic SPS situation that may introduce
temporal considerations or may require additional action.
7.257. In this case, the parties have agreed that the products that are subject to the EU -wide ban
include: live pigs (piglets for fattening and pigs for breeding), pork meat, and raw meat
preparations. Both parties have confirmed that the EU -wide ban does not apply to finished
products that have been subject to a treatment that ensures destruction of ASFV and have
remained silent on whether it applies to pig genetic material.389
7.258. In the light of its product coverage, the EU -wide ban triggers different Terrestrial Code
Chapter 15.1 recommendations for the import of the following: live pigs (both domestic and wild);
fresh meat (of dom estic and wild pigs); meat products of pigs (either domestic or wild); and
products of animal origin (from fresh meat of pigs) intended for use in animal feeding, for
agricultural or industrial use, or for pharmaceutical or surgical use; all of which have not been
subject to treatment. Each of the different Articles (15.1.5 – 15.1.17) of Chapter 15.1 are tailored
to a particular subset of the relevant products. Some of those recommendations refer to imports
from ASF-free countries, zones or compartments, a nd others from countries or zones considered
infected with ASF. Some of the mentioned Articles also provide for trade of products that have
been processed so as to ensure destruction of the ASFV, if the necessary protections were taken
after processing 390 to avoid contact of the product with any source of ASFV. Likewise, as the
experts confirmed, numerous horizontal Terrestrial Code provisions including, but not limited to,

384 Appellate Body Report, EC – Sardines, para. 248.
385 Appellate Body Report, EC – Sardines, para. 242. The panel in India – Agricultural Products referred
to this Appellate Body jurisprudence at paragraphs 7.265-7.269 of its report when determining when an SPS
measures could be "based on" an international standard.
386 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.271.
387 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 163.
388 Panel report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.202.
389 See paras. 7.142 - 7.143 , and Table 1 above.
390 As indicated in fn 247 above, we refer to products that are processed so as to ensure destruction of
the ASFV as "treated products".

Chapter 4.3 and Article 5.3.7, are relevant in determining whether the exporting count ry has
established an OIE-consistent ASF-free zone.391
7.259. The parties do not disagree that one element of a measure may be based on the
international standard even if a different element of the measure is not.392 Given the range of
standards and recommendations involved, we are mindful in our examination that a challenged
measure may be "based on" the international standard with respect to one element, but not with
respect to another element.
7.260. We note that , on the one hand, certain provisions of the Terrestrial Co de contain clear
proscriptive standards, which are more conducive to a clear -cut determination of what is "based
on" those standards. On the other hand, other Terrestrial Code provisions contain standards that
provide for options and allow considerable flexibility as to the means by which Members may base
their measures on those standards. These more flexible standards recognize the inherent
discretion of Members to exercise judgment in a particular set of circumstances, and a panel's
review must take into account the particular nature of the provision of the relevant international
standard at issue, in light of the specific facts and circumstances of the dispute. 393 Moreover,
standards calling for interactive processes, where certain steps may be contingent u pon the
satisfaction of other steps, may require a Panel to examine the actions of both the importing and
exporting Members. The extent to which an importing Member's obligation to adhere to the
international standard, guideline, or recommendation is excus ed or limited by the exporting
Member's actions or inactions must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
7.261. With this approach in mind, we proceed to examine whether the EU-wide ban is "based on"
the relevant international standards in the Terrestrial Code. In this examination, the normal WTO
burden of proof applies in respect of the complainant's establishment of a prima facie case. In EC
— Hormones, the Appellate Body opined that if a measure enacted by a Member is based on (but
does not conform to) an inte rnational standard, the complaining Member is not exempted from
"the normal burden of showing a prima facie case of inconsistency with Article 3.1 or any other
relevant Article of the SPS Agreement or of the GATT 1994".394
7.262. Having ascertained the precise mea sure at issue and the applicable legal test, in our
analysis under Article 3 of the SPS Agreement we will proceed as follows: (i) identifying the
relevant international standards; (ii) discerning the meaning of such international standards; and
(iii) assessing the measures at issue in light of these international standards in order to determine
whether the measures are "based on" the standards.
7.5.1.3.3 Identifying the relevant international standards
7.263. The panels in EC – Hormones and India – Agricultural Products observed that in examining
whether a Member bases its SPS measure on international standards in accordance with
Article 3.1, a panel need only determine whether such standard exists. Therefore, a panel would
not need to consider the levels of protection or t ypes of SPS measures recommended by the
standard, the consensus behind it, or its adoption process. 395 We concur with such an approach,
which we will follow in our examination.
7.264. In India – Agricultural Products , the Appellate Body observed that "the relevant
international standards, guidelines or recommendations referred to in Article 3 are those
established by or developed under the auspices of the international organizations referred to in

391 See experts' responses to Panel questions Nos. 33, 34, and 35.
392 See European Union's response to Panel question No. 306, paras. 149-152; and Russia's response
to Panel question No. 306, paras. 227-259.
393 For example, Article 5.1.1 of the Terrestrial Code provides that "[b]ecause of differences between
countries in their animal health situations, various options are offered by the Terrestrial Code." (OIE,
Terrestrial Animal Health Code 23rd edn (2014), Vol. I, p. 171) Article 4.3.1 of the Terrestrial Code provides
that "[i]n most cases, the import regulations developed will rely in part on judgments made about the
effectiveness of sanitary procedures undertaken by the exporting country, both at its borders and within its
territory." (OIE, Terrestrial Animal Health Code 23rd edn (2014), Vol. I, p. 116)
394 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 171.
395 Panel Reports, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.205; EC – Hormones (Canada), para. 8.72; and
EC – Hormones (US), para. 8.69.

Annex A(3) to the SPS Agreement". 396 This Annex includes the OIE as the relevant standard -
setting organization for matters of animal health and zoonosis.397 The OIE is, therefore, the
relevant standard-setting organization for matters of animal health. 398 One such set of standards,
which includes recommendations relating to ASF ( a highly contagious haemorrhagic disease which
affects animal health)399, is embodied in the Terrestrial Code. The parties agree that the relevant
international standard for the purposes of this dispute is the Terrestrial Code. 400 We endorse the
parties' shared view that the relevant international standards for the purpose of this dispute are
articulated in the Terrestrial Code.
7.265. Furthermore, the parties agree that the relevant version of the Terrestrial Code for the
present dispute is the version in force at th e date of establishment of this Panel, i.e. the 23 rd
edition, adopted in May 2014. 401 We recall that the establishment of this Panel took place on
22 July 2014. We concur with the agreed view of the parties that the relevant version of the
Terrestrial Code i s the one in force on the date of establishment of the Panel: the 23 rd edition of
the Terrestrial Code. We note that the identification of the version of the Terrestrial Code in force
on the date of establishment of the Panel concords with the approach of the India – Agricultural
Products and US – Animals panels.402 Keeping in mind the importance of reviewing SPS measures
in light of the latest available scientific evidence, we must also bear in mind that the most
appropriate prism through which the defendant 's measures should be assessed cannot possibly be
a moving target. Rather, the dictates of due process demand certainty and predictability with
regard to the standard against which the measures at issue will be assessed in this Panel
proceeding. We consider that the version of the Terrestrial Code in force at the date of the panel
establishment fulfils the due process requirement, noting that was also the version in force at the
time of Russia's adoption of the measures in respect of Latvia and Estonia, and did not contain

396 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.78. Annex A(3) to the SPS Agreement
provides:
3. International standards, guidelines and recommendations
(a) for food safety, the standards, guidelines and recommendations established by the Codex
Alimentarius Commission relating to food additives, veterinary drug and pesticide residues,
contaminants, methods of analysis and sampling, and codes and guidelines of hygienic practice;
(b) for animal health and zoonoses, the standards, guidelines and recommendations
developed under the auspices of the International Office of Epizootics;
(c) for plant health, the international standards, guidelines and recommendations developed
under the auspices of the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention in
cooperation with regional organizations operating within the framework of the International Plant
Protection Convention; and
(d) for matters not covered by the above organizations, appropriate standards, guidelines and
recommendations promulgated by other relevant international organizations open for
membership to all Members, as identified by the Committee.
397 Annex A(3)(b) of the SPS Agreement. The Terrestrial Code Glossary defines zoonosis as "any disease
or infection which is naturally transmissible from animals to humans". Terrestrial Code Glossary, p. x (Exhibit
RUS-32).
398 The parties agree that ASF does not pose a risk to human health. European Union's first written
submission, para. 100; Russia's response to Panel question No. 24, para. 9. The OIE does not consider ASF to
be a zoonosis. Chapter 2.8.1 of the OIE Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals states:
"ASF is not a zoonotic disease and does not affect public health". Chapter 2.8.1., African Swine Fever,
OIE Terrestrial Manual (Exhibit EU-5). See OIE response to Panel Question 10 to the OIE. The experts
concurred, in response to Panel Question 11: Dr Brückner: "All available literature on ASF categorically state
that the disease is not infective to humans"; Professor Penrith: "No case of human infection with ASFV has
ever been reported. The question of whether this can be scientifically confirmed is that it might be possible to
provide strong evidence for inability to infect people by serological testing of people who have worked with pigs
during outbreaks, but to the best of my knowledge nobody has considered this worthwhile because no sign of
illness among them has been reported…."; Dr Thomson: "There is no scientific or credible circumstantial
evidence I am aware of to indicate that ASF virus can either infect or cause disease in humans. The risk to
humans is consequently negligible."
399 See para. 7.207 above.
400 European Union's first written submission, para. 115; and Russia's response to Panel question
No. 105, para. 170.
401 European Union's first written submission, paras. 116-118. Russia's first written submission, fn 110.
402 Panel Reports, India – Agricultural Products, paras. 7.211-7.213; and US – Animals, para. 7.225,
fn 681.

material changes403 from the version in force at the time of Russia's adoption of the measures in
respect of Lithuania and Poland.
7.266. While the parties agree that the Terrestrial Code contains the relevant international
standard, the parties have differing views on the precise provisions of the Terrestrial Code that are
relevant in this dispute, and in particular the hierarchy and interrelationships between and among
the Terrestrial Code's zoning and regionalization (Chapters 4.3, 4.4 and 5.4) provisions and its
ASF-specific provisions (Chapter 15.1).
7.267. According to the European Union, the "correct" applicable standards for the respective
measures are mainly to be found in Chapter 15.1 (African swine fever) of the Terrestrial Code,
which deals with trade in the products at issue, in conjunction with Chapter 4.3, which deals with
regionalization.404 The European Union posits that it has established neither containment zones nor
compartments as these terms are referred to in the Terrestrial Code; rath er, it has established
areas considered to be infected with ASF and ASF -free zones. According to the European Union,
such an approach is an option permitted under Article 4.3.3.3 (zoning and
compartmentalization).405 The European Union alleges that the EU -wide ban and the bans on
imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are inconsistent with
the product-specific provisions of Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code.406
7.268. In the course of these proceedings Russia has shifted its v iew as to which provisions in the
Terrestrial Code are the most pertinent . At the outset, Russia identified as the most pertinent
provisions for ASF those set out in Terrestrial Code Chapters 4.3 (zoning and
compartmentalization), 4.4 (compartmentalization), 5.3 (procedures relevant for the application of
the SPS Agreement) , and 15.1 (African swine fever). Russia also indicated that the
interrelationship between these chapters is sequential rather than linear. 407 At a later stage in the
proceedings, Russia dr opped its references to Chapter 4.4 and focused on the provisions of
Chapter 4.3 pertaining to regionalization (especially Articles 4.3.3.1, 4.3.3.5, and 4.3.3.6), focused
its references to particular provisions in Chapter 5.3 (specially Articles 5.3.1 and 5.3.7), and added
references to Articles 1.4.6 (surveillance to demonstrate freedom from disease or infection), 1.6.1
(self-declaration of disease -free country, zones or compartments), Chapters 3.1 (veterinary
services) and 3.2 (evaluation of veterinary services).
7.269. In particular, Russia asserts that the ASF -specific provisions on non-treated products in
Chapter 15.1 are triggered only when the exporting country has objectively demonstrated its
establishment of OIE -consistent zones – corresponding to the pri nciples for defining and
establishing zones or compartments in Article 4.3.3 – to the importing country. 408 Chapter 5.3 of
the Terrestrial Code sets out guidelines to follow for a zone or compartment to be recognized for
international trade purposes. Russia maintains that an exporting country's failure to properly
establish zones allows the importing country to apply country -wide import restrictions on non-heat
treated products.409 Russia asserts that it is willing and able to accept products from ASF -affected
countries that meet OIE -consistent regionalization, compartmentalization and/or heat -treated
standards.410
7.270. The Terrestrial Code comprises a number of chapters. Those in "Volume I" relate to
general (so -called "horizontal") matters, while those in "Volume II" relate to recommendations
applicable to specific diseases (OIE -listed diseases and other diseases important to international
trade) and the adoption of measures relating to them. Chapter 15.1 specifically relates to ASF. We
focus on the ASF -relevant inter national standards set out in the Terrestrial Code, in particular,
Chapter 15.1. We observe that each of the different Articles (15.1.5–15.1.17) of Chapter 15.1 are
tailored to a particular subset of products. Some of those recommendations refer to imports from

403 Following a question from the Panel, the OIE confirmed that there had been no material changes in
Chapter 15.1 (African swine fever) from the 22nd to the 23rd edition of the Terrestrial Code. See para. 1.33
above.
404 European Union's first written submission, para. 122.
405 European Union's second written submission, paras. 37 - 40.
406 European Union's first written submission, para. 139.
407 Russia's second written submission, para. 21; and response to Panel question No. 101, para. 146.
408 Russia's second written submission, para. 33.
409 Russia's opening statement at the first meeting of the Panel, para. 17.
410 Russia's response to Panel question No. 115, para. 206.

ASF-free countries, zones or compartments, and from countries or zones considered infected with
ASF. These Articles in turn refer to and should be analysed in respect of numerous horizontal
Terrestrial Code provisions including Chapter 4.3 and Article 5.3.7.411 Some of the mentioned
Articles of Chapter 15.1 also provide for trade of products that have been processed so as to
ensure destruction of the ASFV, and that the necessary protections were taken after processing to
avoid contact of the product with any source of ASFV.
7.271. In our view, the difference in the situations covered by the provisions of Chapter 15.1 (i.e.
those related to goods originating in ASF-free countries zones or compartments and processed
products to ensure destruction of ASFV) warran ts an independent examination of the standards
applicable to the categories of products subject to each situation. In other words, we consider that
the structure of Chapter 15.1 provides a clear identification of two sets of standards on which a
measure co uld be based on. Those categories include standards for: (i) trade in pig products
originating from ASF-free countries, zones or compartments; and (ii) trade in pig products subject
to processing to ensure destruction of ASFV.
7.272. In light of the parties' com ments and the structure of the recommendations in
Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code, we will focus our analysis of what is the meaning of the
relevant international standards for the trade in the products subject to the EU -wide ban. That is,
in this sec tion we will only examine the meaning of those provisions in the Terrestrial Code that
refer to trade in non-treated products. We now turn to that examination.
7.5.1.3.4 Discerning the meaning of the relevant international standards
7.273. The Panel's identification of th e relevant international standards for the purposes of
Article 3 of the SPS Agreement is intrinsically interlinked with the meaning of the Terrestrial Code
provisions identified by the parties in this dispute. Before embarking upon our examination to
discern the meaning of the identified provisions, we recall certain guiding considerations.
7.5.1.3.4.1 Preliminary observations
7.274. In India – Agricultural Products, the Appellate Body upheld the panel's finding that India's
measures were not "based on" the relevant internati onal standards within the meaning of
Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement , and did not "conform to" the relevant international standards
within the meaning of Article 3.2 of the SPS Agreement. In so doing, the Appellate Body offered an
"overview" of Article 3, which sheds light on how a panel may go about discerning the meaning of
the relevant international standard. In relation to a panel's examination of a Member's measure
under Article 3 and in light of the relevant international standard, in India – Agricultural Products,
the Appellate Body observed:
The provisions of Article 3 establish a Member's obligations concerning harmonization
with relevant international standards. 412 In determining whether a particular SPS
measure is based on, conforms to, or results in a higher level of protection than a
relevant international standard, a panel must engage in a comparative assessment
between the challenged measure and that international standard. In this respect,
because the international standard serves as the benchm ark against which a
Member's compliance under Article 3 is to be assessed, it is incumbent on a panel to
discern the meaning of that standard. In conducting such an assessment, panels have
various means available to them. A panel may be guided by any relev ant
interpretative principles, including relevant customary rules of interpretation of public
international law. In addition, a panel may find additional sources to be useful in
discerning the meaning of the international standard. For example, panels may wish
to have recourse to the views of the relevant standard -setting body, as referred to in
Annex A(3) to the SPS Agreement, through evidence on the panel record or through

411 See paras. 2.17-2.18 above.
412 (footnote original) Although the provisions of Article 3 and Annex A refer to "international standards,
guidelines or recommendations", we will, for ease of reference, hereinafter use the terms "international
standard" or "international standards".

direct consultation with that body, or with other experts in the relevant fields ,
pursuant to Article 11.2 of the SPS Agreement and Article 13 of the DSU.413
7.275. In conducting our comparative assessment between the challenged measures and the
international standards, we have benefited from various sources available to us.
7.276. In particular, w e have been guided by interpretative principles, including customary rules
of interpretation of public international law. We recall that, in its consideration of the panel's
reasoning and findings concerning the meaning of the Terrestrial Code in India – Agricultural
Products, the Appellate Body bemoaned the vagueness of India's allegations concerning
interpretative glitches in the panel's approach . The Appellate Body opined that India had not
demonstrated why or how that panel's analysis departed from a proper application of the
customary rules of treaty interpretation or how, if properly applied, such rules would have
produced a different outcome regarding the meaning of the Terrestrial Code. In this dispute, the
European Union asserts that the Terrestrial Cod e is not an international agreement (treaty), but
that it is a document adopted by the World Assembly of Delegates of the OIE. 414 The European
Union agrees that in interpreting the Code the WTO adjudicating bodies may seek guidance in the
relevant customary rules of treaty interpretation, including in the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties (Vienna Convention).415 Russia also believes that the Panel may apply customary rules of
treaty interpretation to determine the meaning of the Terrestrial Code and the relevant
international standards.416
7.277. Article 3.2 of the DSU refers to the customary rules of treaty interpretation. It is well
established that these are articulated in the Vienna Convention, calling for examination of text,
context, object and purpose in t he interpretation of international treaties. Pursuant to
Article 2.1(a) of the Vienna Convention, for the purposes of that Convention, a treaty is an
international agreement concluded between states in written form and governed by international
law. The customary rules of treaty interpretation in the Vienna Convention are clearly to be applied
to our interpretation of the provisions of a "treaty" (i.e. the SPS Agreement as part of the WTO
Agreement).
7.278. By contrast, the Terrestrial Code is a set of internatio nal standards, rather than a treaty.
Therefore, the rules of interpretation in the Vienna Convention would not be directly applicable to
the interpretation of the international standards set out in the Terrestrial Code in the same manner
as they would to a treaty. Nevertheless, we consider that they may serve as useful guidance in our
examination of the provisions of the Terrestrial Code.
7.279. Furthermore, we have had recourse to the views of the OIE, as the relevant standard -
setting body referred to in Annex A (3) to the SPS Agreement, through direct written consultation
with that body. We have also benefitted from oral and written consultation with experts in the
relevant fields pursuant to Article 11.2 of the SPS Agreement and Article 13 of the DSU.
7.280. We find s upport in t he Appellate Body's decision in India – Agricultural Products for this
Panel's written consultation process with the OIE, and the questions to the OIE relating to the
meaning of, and interrelationships between the relevant provisions of the Terr estrial Code. In that
case, the Appellate Body recalled the comprehensive nature of the discretionary authority of a
panel to "seek" information and technical advice from "any individual or body" it may consider
appropriate, or from "any relevant source" u nder Article 13 of the DSU , underlining that it is
particularly within the province and the authority of a panel to determine the need for information

413 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.79. We note that the Appellate Body's
approach in respect of how to refer to international standards concurs with the approach of the panel in US –
Animals, para. 7.231. Annex A does not set forth a specific definition of any of the terms "standards",
"guidelines", or "recommendations". No panel has yet been faced with determining the meaning of these terms
in the context of the SPS Agreement. The SPS Agreement does not require a fine distinction between the three
terms for its proper application. The OIE seems to use the terms interchangeably, labelling the Terrestrial Code
as part of its standard-setting activities, while individual ASF-related product-specific provisions ("Articles")
within the Terrestrial Code are entitled "recommendations" (see OIE's responses to Panel questions).
414 European Union's response to Panel question No. 117, para. 235.
415 European Union's response to Panel question No. 117, para. 235. (referring to the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties, done at Vienna, 23 May 1969, UN Treaty Series, Vol. 1155, p. 331).
416 Russia's response to Panel question 117, para. 212.

and advice in a specific case, to ascertain the acceptability and relevancy of information or advice
received, and to decide what weight to ascribe to that information or advice or to conclude that no
weight at all should be given to what has been received.417
7.281. The Appellate Body then observed that, under the special or additional rules set forth in
Article 11.2 of the SPS Agreement418, while a panel may generally be expected to consult with
experts in SPS cases, the panel still retains discretion regarding which experts it wishes to consult,
and how it wishes to structure such consultations. The Appellate Body fur ther underlined the
comprehensive nature of a panel's fact -finding powers and the broad permissible scope of expert
consultations conducted by a panel, encompassing consultations on the meaning of the Terrestrial
Code.419
7.282. Moreover, the Appellate Body's decis ion in India – Agricultural Products provided guidance
for this Panel pertaining to the process of consultation with the experts and the conduct of the
expert meeting . In essence, in connection with our own assessment of the meaning of the
Terrestrial Code, this Panel has remained vigilant in terms of how it has treated the responses
received from the OIE and how it has undertaken its assessment of the meaning of the Terrestrial
Code. In this respect, the Panel has remained mindful of the reasoning of the A ppellate Body in
India – Quantitative Restrictions that a panel may not delegate its judicial function to an
international organization that it consults, but must instead critically assess the views of that
international organization.420 The Appellate Body's findings in India – Agricultural Products reaffirm
that the Panel must make its own assessment of the meaning of the Terrestrial Code and not
simply rely on the views of the OIE regarding the meaning of the Terrestrial Code. A Panel may, in
respect of eac h of the interpretative issues it addresses, refer to and accord weight to the OIE's
responses to its questions; however, a Panel must indicate, in each instance, that its conclusions
are also based on its own examination of the wording or text of the rele vant recommendations of
the Terrestrial Code.421
7.283. Mindful of these considerations, we proceed to examine the relevant provisions of the
Terrestrial Code as they correlate with the measures at issue in this dispute.
7.5.1.3.4.2 Relevant provisions of the Terrestrial Code
7.284. We note that the Terrestrial Code foreword indicates that the Code sets out standards for
the improvement of terrestrial animal health and welfare and veterinary public health worldwide,
including through standards for safe international trade in terrestri al animals. As stated in Part A
point 2 of the User's Guide to the Terrestrial Code:
Veterinary Authorities should use the standards in the Terrestrial Code to set up
measures providing for early detection, internal reporting, notification and control of
pathogenic agents … and preventing their spread via international trade in animals
and animal products, while avoiding unjustified sanitary barriers to trade.422
7.285. Part B point 10 of the User's Guide further provides that:
The standards in each of the chapter s of Sections 8 to 15 are designed to prevent the
aetiological agents of OIE listed diseases, infections or infestations from being
introduced into an importing country. The standards take into account the nature of

417 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.86 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US
– Shrimp, para. 104).
418 Article 1.2 of the DSU states that the provisions of the DSU apply subject to special or additional
rules and procedures identified in Appendix 2 thereto. Appendix 2 lists Article 11.2 of the SPS Agreement.
Article 1.2 of the DSU further provides: "To the extent that there is a difference between the rules and
procedures of this Understanding and the special or additional rules and procedures set forth in Appendix 2,
the special or additional rules and procedures in Appendix 2 shall prevail."
419 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, paras. 5.87-5.89.
420 Appellate Body Report, India – Quantitative Restrictions, para. 149.
421 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, paras. 5.93-5.94.
422 Terrestrial Code User Guide (Exhibit EU-2), p. i. See also OIE response to Panel question No. 19.

the traded commodity, the animal health status of the exporting country, zone or
compartment, and the risk reduction measures applicable to each commodity.423
7.286. As noted above, the Terrestrial Code comprises a number of chapters. Those in Volume I
relate to general (so -called horizontal) matters, wh ile those in Volume II relate to
recommendations applicable to specific diseases (OIE-listed diseases and other diseases important
to international trade) and the adoption of measures relating to them. Chapter 15.1 is the Chapter
specifically relating to A SF. We focus on the ASF -relevant international standards set out in the
Terrestrial Code, in particular, Chapter 15.1. Together with other applicable, relevant provisions,
Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code serves as the overarching benchmark against whi ch the EU-
wide ban must be compared in order to determine whether it is based on that standard.
Accordingly, in keeping with the guidance outlined above, it is incumbent on the Panel to discern
the meaning of relevant provisions of Chapter 15.1 and other relevant provisions of the Terrestrial
Code and to conduct the requisite comparative assessment of the EU -wide ban with these
standards in order to determine whether the EU-wide ban satisfies the elements of Article 3.1.424
7.287. Article 15.1.1 contains general pr ovisions. Articles 15.1.2-15.1.4 deal with the ASF status
of a country, zone or compartment (Article 15.1.2 sets out considerations to guide the
determination of the ASF status of a country, zone or compartment; Article 15.1.3 sets forth
considerations relating to historically ASF -free status and free status as a result of an eradication
programme; and Article 15.1.4 addresses the recovery of ASF -free status). Articles 15.1.5 -
15.1.16425 contain product-specific recommendations on how to safely import ASF-susceptible pigs
or pork products, or products derived from them depending upon the ASF -status of the exporting
country, zone or compartment. Articles 15.1.14 -15.1.16 also provide for the situation where the
products concerned have been processed in an approve d establishment so as to ensure the
destruction of ASFV. According to the OIE, all the various combinations of testing, treatment and
certification identified in Chapter 15.1 provide for safe trade of animals and animal products.426
7.288. Turning to the specific text of the provisions concerned, we note that Article 15.1.1,
entitled "General provisions", reads as follows:
Article 15.1.1 General provisions
The pig and its close relatives are the only natural hosts for African swine fever virus
(ASFV). These include all varieties of Sus scrofa, both domestic and wild, warthogs
(Phacochoerus spp.), bushpigs ( Potamochoerus spp.) and giant forest hog
(Hylochoerus meinertzhageni). For the purposes of this chapter, a distinction is made
between domestic pigs (permanently captive and farmed free -range pigs) and wild
pigs (including feral pigs and wild boar) as well as between Sus scrofa and African pig
species.
All varieties of Sus scrofa are susceptible to the pathogenic effects of ASFV, while the
African wild pigs are not and act as reservoirs of the infection. Ticks of the genus
Ornithodoros are natural hosts of the virus and act as biological vectors of the
infection.
For the purpose of the Terrestrial Code, the incubation period in Sus scrofa is 15 days.
Standards for diagnostic tests are described in the Terrestrial Manual.

423 Terrestrial Code User Guide (Exhibit EU-2), p. ii. See also OIE response to Panel question No. 19.
424 We analyse the relevant Terrestrial Code provisions concerning regionalization below (see paras.
7.292-7.325 below. At this point in our analysis, we recall that Chapter 4.3 on "zoning and
compartmentalization" states: "[t]his Chapter is to assist Member Countries wishing to establish and maintain
different subpopulations within their territory using the principles of compartmentalization and zoning. These
principles should be applied in accordance with the measures in the relevant disease chapter(s). This Chapter
also outlines a process through which trading partners may recognize such subpopulations. This process is best
implemented by trading partners through establishing parameters and gaining agreement on the necessary
measures prior to outbreaks of disease." (emphasis added).
425 Article 15.1.17, not invoked in this dispute, contains recommendations for the importation of litter
and manure (from pigs).
426 OIE responses to Panel's questions No. 19.

7.289. The provisions for a country or zone to be considered free from ASF are contained in
Articles 15.1.2 and 15.1.3:
Article 15.1.2 Determination of the ASF status of a country, zone or
compartment
The African swine fever (ASF) status of a country, zone or compartment can only be
determined after considering the following criteria in domestic and wild pigs, as
applicable:
1) ASF is be [ sic] notifiable in the whole country, and all clinical signs suggesti ve of
ASF are subjected to appropriate field and laboratory investigations;
2) an ongoing awareness programme is in place to encourage reporting of all cases
suggestive of ASF;
3) the Veterinary Authority has current knowledge of, and authority over, all d omestic
pigs in the country, zone or compartment;
4) the Veterinary Authority has current knowledge about the species, population and
habitat of wild pigs in the country or zone.
Article 15.1.3 ASF-free country, zone or compartment
1. Historically free status
A country or zone may be considered free from ASF without formally applying a
specific surveillance programme if the provisions of Article 1.4.6. are complied with.
2. Free status as a result of an eradication programme
A country or zone which does not meet the conditions of point 1 above or a
compartment may be considered free from ASF when:
a) there has been no outbreak of ASF during the past three years; this period can be
reduced to 12 months when there is no evidence of tick involvement in the
epidemiology of the infection;
b) no evidence of ASFV infection has been found during the past 12 months;
c) surveillance has been in place in domestic pigs for the past 12 months;
d) imported domestic pigs comply with the requirements in Article 15.1.5. or Ar ticle
15.1.6.
AND
Based on surveillance, ASF infection has been demonstrated not to be present in any
wild pig population in the country or zone, and:
e) there has been no clinical evidence, nor virological evidence of ASF in wild pigs
during the past 12 months;
f) no seropositive wild pigs have been detected in the age class 6 –12 months during
the past 12 months;
g) imported wild pigs comply with the requirements in Article 15.1.7.

7.290. The regaining of free status after an ASF outbreak is covered in Article 15.1.4.:

Article 15.1.4 Recovery of free status
Should an ASF outbreak occur in a free country, zone or compartment, the free status
may be restored where surveillance has been carried out with negative results, either:
1) three months after the last case where a stamping-out policy is practised and in the
case where ticks are suspected to be involved in the epidemiology of the infection,
followed by acaricide treatment and the use of sentinel pigs; or
2) where a stamping-out policy is not practised, the pro visions of point 2 of Article
15.1.3. should be followed.
AND
Based on surveillance, ASF infection has been demonstrated not to be present in any
wild pig population in the country or zone.
7.291. Following these provisions relating to the ASF -status of a country , zone or compartment,
the remainder of Chapter 15.1 sets out product -specific recommendations. We recall that the EU -
wide ban does not apply to products that have been subject to certain forms of treatment that
would ensure destruction of ASFV.427 With this in mind, Table 4 below sets out the product-specific
provisions in Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code that pertain to the products at iss ue pursuant to
the EU-wide ban.
Table 4 Product-specific provisions of Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code428
EU-wide429 Relevant international standard (relevant product-specific provisions of Chapter
15.1 of the Terrestrial Code)
live pigs

Article 15.1.5.
Recommendations for importation from ASF-free countries, zones or
compartments
For domestic pigs
Veterinary Authorities should require the presentation of an international veterinary
certificate attesting that the animals:
1) showed no clinical sign of ASF on the day of shipment;
2) were kept in an ASF-free country, zone or compartment since birth or for at least the
past 40 days.

pork meat

Article 15.1.12.
Recommendations for importation from ASF-free countries, zones or
compartments
For fresh meat of domestic pigs
Veterinary Authorities should require the presentation of an international veterinary
certificate attesting that the entire consignment of fresh meat comes from animals which:
1) have been kept in an ASF-free country, zone or compartment since birth or for at least
the past 40 days, or which have been imported in accordance with Article 15.1.5. or
Article 15.1.6.;
2) have been slaughtered in an approved abattoir, have been subjected to ante- and
post-mortem inspections in accordance with Chapter 6.2., and have been found free of
any sign suggestive of ASF.

raw meat
preparations
Articles 15.1.12 and 15.1.14 (we reproduce the text of Article 15.1.13 to provide an
indication of the conditions to which Article 15.1.14 refers)

427 See para. 7.143 above.
428 This Table contains the relevant product-specific provisions in Chapter 15.1 of Terrestrial Code and
the products as identified in Russia's measures. Russia submitted that Article 15.1.6 was relevant for "piglets
for fattening"/pigs for breeding for the EU-wide ban (e.g,. Russia's response to Panel question No. 272, para.
119). As the European Union does not practice "compartmentalization", and has not sought to rely on this
concept in its argumentation under Article 3 of the SPS Agreement, Article 15.1.6 and other compartment-
specific provisions are excluded from Table 4.
429 European Union's response to Panel question No. 77, paras. 148 – 151; and response to Panel
question No. 271, paras. 85-89. See also Russia's response to Panel question No. 77, para. 127; and response
to Panel question No. 271, paras. 97-98.

EU-wide429 Relevant international standard (relevant product-specific provisions of Chapter
15.1 of the Terrestrial Code)
Article 15.1.13
Recommendations for importation from ASF-free countries or zones
From fresh meat of wild pigs
Veterinary Authorities should require the presentation of an international veterinary
certificate attesting that:
1) the entire consignment of fresh meat comes from animals which:
a) have been killed in an ASF-free country or zone;
b) have been subjected to a post-mortem inspection in accordance with Chapter 6.2. in
an approved examination centre, and have been found free of any sign suggestive of
ASF;
and, if the zone where the animal has been killed is adjacent to a zone with infection in
wild pigs:
2) a sample has been collected from every animal killed and has been subjected to a
virological test and a serological test for ASF, with negative results.

Article 15.1.14
Recommendations for the importation of meat products of pigs (either domestic
or wild), or for products of animal origin (from fresh meat of pigs) intended for
use in animal feeding, for agricultural or industrial use, or for pharmaceutical or
surgical use, or for trophies derived from wild pigs
Veterinary Authorities should require the presentation of an international veterinary
certificate attesting that the products:
1) have been prepared:
a) exclusively from fresh meat meeting the conditions laid down in Articles 15.1.12. or
15.1.13., as relevant;
b) in a processing establishment:
i) approved by the Veterinary Authority for export purposes;
ii) processing only meat meeting the conditions laid down in Articles 15.1.12. or 15.1.13.,
as relevant;
OR
2) have been processed in an establishment approved by the Veterinary Authority for
export purposes so as to ensure the destruction of the ASFV, and that the necessary
precautions were taken after processing to avoid contact of the product with any source
of ASFV.

7.292. According to the European Union, the correct applicable standards for the respective
measures are mainly to be found in Chapter 15.1 (African swine fever) of the Terrestrial Code,
which deals with trade in the products at issue, in conjunction with Chapter 4.3, which deals with
regionalization.430 The European Union posits that it has neither established containment zones nor
compartments as these terms are referred to in the Terrestrial Code; rather, it has established
areas considered to be infected with ASF and ASF -free zones. According to the European Union,
such an approach is an option permitted under Article 4.3.3.3 (zoning and
compartmentalization).431 Russia asserts that the ASF -specific provisions on non -treated products
in Chapter 15.1 are triggered only when the exporting country has objectively demonstrated to the
importing country that it has established OIE-consistent zones – corresponding to the principles for
defining and establishing zones or compartments in Article 4.3.3. 432 In light of the parties' views,
we will focus on ascertaining the manner in which , according to the Terre strial Code, an ASF-free
country or zone could be determined, and will not refer to the establishment of compartments.
7.293. In this dispute, the reference in the pertinent Terrestrial Code provisions not only to the
idea of an ASF -free "country", but also to an ASF-free "zone", is particularly significant. We need
to have a firm understanding of the concept of "zoning" and of any and all interrelationship(s)
between the Terrestrial Code's disease -specific chapter (Chapter 15.1) and the "horizontal"
chapters (Chapters 4.3, 4.4 and 5.3) pertaining to "zoning and regionalization" as this will have a
material impact on our examination of the parties' argumentation and evidence submitted in
support.

430 European Union's first written submission, para. 122.
431 European Union's second written submission, paras. 37-40.
432 Russia's second written submission, para. 33.

7.294. One of the Panel's experts has confirmed that "Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code do[es]
make provision for the imports from ASF infected countries provided the prescribed risk mitigation
measures are applied to render the products 'safe' …". 433 For countries with confirmed ASF
outbreaks, Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Co de permits exports of certain products from ASF -free
zones and compartments. Thus, a country with a confirmed ASF outbreak may establish a free
zone, in accordance with the OIE provisions, from which the specified products (e.g. live domestic
pigs, pork meat from domestic pigs, and raw meat preparations from domestic pigs and wild pigs)
may be imported according to the conditions described in Articles 15.1.5, 15.1.12 and 15.1.14 of
the Terrestrial Code.
7.295. The a cceptance of non -treated products covered by Art icles 15.1.5 (live pigs), 15.1.12
(fresh meat of domestic pigs), and 15.1.14 (meat products of pigs) is contingent upon the
determination that the products in question come from ASF free countries, zones, or
compartments. The conditions that should be met for a country, zone or compartment to be
considered free from ASF , are set out in Articles 15.1.2, 15.1.3, and 15.1.4, while the more
general provisions regarding the establishment of disease free areas are contained in Article 1.4.6,
and Chapters 4.3 and 5.3.
7.296. In particular, Article 15.1.2 of the Terrestrial Code lays out certain pre -conditions that
need to be verified to determine the ASF status of a country, zone or compartment. These include:
(i) that ASF is notifiable in the whole country; (ii) that all clinical signs suggestive of ASF are
subjected to appropriate field and laboratory investigations; (iii) that an ongoing awareness
programme is in place to encourage reporting of all cases suggestive of ASF; (iv) the Veterinary
Authority434 has current knowledge of, and authority over, all domestic pigs in the country, zone or
compartment; and (v) the Veterinary Authority has current knowledge about the species,
population and habitat of wild pigs in the country or zone. 435 In our view, these elements refer to
animal traceability, as well as to epidemiological surveillance, which is a term used in Article 6.2 of
the SPS Agreement when referring to the factors on which a Member should base its determination
of disease-free areas.
7.297. Furthermore, Article 15.1.3 of the Terrestrial Code addresses the requirements for a
country, zone or compartment to be considered free from ASF. This provision first addresses when
a country or zone may be considered historically free from ASF. In that respect, the provision
states tha t a "country or zone may be considered free from ASF without formally applying a
specific surveillance programme if the provisions of Article 1.4.6 are complied with".
7.298. Article 1.4.6 of the Terrestrial Code is entitled "Surveillance to demonstrate freedom f rom
disease or infection". It provides, in relevant part:
1. Requirements to declare a country or a zone free from disease or infection without
pathogen specific surveillance
This article provides general principles for declaring a country or a zone free f rom
disease or infection in relation to the time of last occurrence and in particular for the
recognition of historical freedom.
The provisions of this article are based on Article 1.4.3. and the following premises:
– in the absence of disease and vaccina tion, the animal population would become
susceptible over a period of time;
– the disease agents to which these provisions apply are likely to produce identifiable
clinical signs in susceptible animals;

433 Dr Brϋckner's response to Panel question No. 36, Compilation of the experts' responses, para. 4.42.
434 According to the Glossary of the Terrestrial Code, Veterinary Authority "means the Governmental
Authority of a Member Country, comprising veterinarians, other professionals and para-professionals, having
the responsibility and competence for ensuring or supervising the implementation of animal health and welfare
measures, international veterinary certification and other standards and recommendations in the Terrestrial
Code in the whole territory." Glossary, Terrestrial Code, p. x (Exhibit RUS-32).
435 Article 15.1.2, OIE, Terrestrial Animal Health Code 23rd edn (2014), Vol. II, p. 649.

– competent and effective Veterinary Services will be able to investigate, diagnose
and report disease, if present;
– disease or infection can affect both domestic animals and wildlife;
– the absence of disease or infection over a long period of time in a susceptible
population can be substantiated by effect ive disease investigation and reporting by a
Member Country.
a) Historically free
Unless otherwise specified in the relevant disease chapter, a country or zone may be
recognised as free from infection without formally applying a pathogen -specific
surveillance programme when:
i) there has never been occurrence of disease, or
ii) eradication has been achieved or the disease or infection has ceased to occur for at
least 25 years, provided that for at least the past 10 years:
iii) the disease has been a notifiable disease;
iv) an early detection system has been in place for all relevant species;
v) measures to prevent disease or infection introduction have been in place; no
vaccination against the disease has been carried out unless otherwise provided for in
the Terrestrial Code;
vi) infection is not known to be established in wildlife within the country or zone. A
country or zone cannot apply for historical freedom if there is any evidence of
infection in wildlife.
b) Last occurrence within the previous 25 years
Countries or zones that have achieved eradication (or in which the disease or infection
has ceased to occur) within the previous 25 years, should follow the pathogen -specific
surveillance requirements in the Terrestrial Code if they exist. In the absence of
specific requirements, countries should follow the general recommendations on
surveillance outlined in this chapter provided that for at least the past 10 years:
i) the disease has been a notifiable disease;
ii) an early detection system has been in place;
iii) measures to prevent the introduction of the disease or infection introduction have
been in place;
iv) no vaccination against the disease has been carried out unless otherwise provided
for in the Terrestrial Code;
v) infection is not known to be es tablished in wildlife within the country or zone. A
country or zone cannot apply for recognition of freedom if there is any evidence of
infection in wildlife.
…
5. Demonstration of freedom from infection

A surveillance system to demonstrate freedom from in fection should meet the
following requirements in addition to the general requirements outlined in Article
1.4.3.
Freedom from infection implies the absence of the pathogenic agent in the country,
zone or compartment. Scientific methods cannot provide abso lute certainty of the
absence of infection. Therefore, demonstrating freedom from infection involves
providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate (to a level of confidence acceptable to
Member Countries) that infection with a specified pathogen, if present , is present in
less than a specified proportion of the population.
However, finding evidence of infection at any prevalence in the target population
automatically invalidates any freedom from infection claim unless otherwise stated in
the relevant disease chapter. The implications for the status of domestic animals of
disease or infection present in wildlife in the same country or zone should be assessed
in each situation, as indicated in the relevant chapter on each disease in the
Terrestrial Code.
Evidence from targeted, random or non -random data sources, as stated before, may
increase the level of confidence or be able to detect a lower level of prevalence with
the same level of confidence compared to structured surveys.
7.299. Article 1.4.6 is part of Chapter 1.4, which refers to animal health surveillance. As
indicated, this provision refers to the options available to determine the disease status of a
country, zone or compartment. According to Article 1.4.6, a country or zone may be recognized as
free from in fection, ASF in this case, without formally applying a pathogen -specific surveillance
programme, when (i) the disease has not occurred; or (ii) eradication has been achieved or the
disease or infection has ceased to occur for at least 25 years. For the second situation to qualify as
disease freedom, the following conditions must be satisfied for the past ten years: (i) the disease
is a notifiable disease; (ii) an early detection system is in place for all relevant species;
(iii) measures to prevent disease or infection introduction are in place; and (iv) infection is not
known to be established in wildlife within the country or zone.
7.300. Furthermore, Article 1.4.6 of the Terrestrial Code provides that in cases where the last
occurrence has taken place within the previous 25 years, the country or zone that has achieved
eradication or where the disease has ceased to occur, should follow the pathogen -specific
surveillance requirements in the Terrestrial Code if they exist. 436 In the absence of such
requirements, the same conditions described for the second situation for historical freedom, in the
previous paragraph, should have been satisfied for the past ten years.
7.301. In respect of these requirements for the determination of ASF -free status of a country or
zone, the OIE explained that
The provisions in Article 1.4.6 provide an objective basis that can be used by trading
partners to reach agreement on the health measures applied to trade. Consistent with
OIE policy on the management of disease risks, there are various app roaches, which
should be used and adapted (within limits) according to the circumstances of the OIE
Member Country. The first consideration is to conduct surveillance to ensure that the
true situation with disease or infection is known, with an appropriate level of
confidence. After this, the challenge is to provide evidence and a scientific rationale to
convince trading partners. This second aspect is influenced by several considerations,
including the nature of the relationship between countries and the c redibility of the
Veterinary Services of the exporting country. The OIE provides guidance on all
aspects.437
7.302. Moreover, the OIE observed that

436 We recall that in its responses to Panel questions the OIE confirmed that Chapter 15.1 of the 23rd
edition of the Terrestrial Code "does not contain detailed requirements on surveillance for African swine fever."
OIE response to Panel question No. 4.
437 OIE response to Panel question No. 4.

As already mentioned, the general recommendations in Chapter 1.4 may be refined by
the specific approaches describe d in disease -specific chapters (ital. added for
emphasis). The use of ´may be´ reflects the fact that specific approaches are not
provided in all such chapters, especially older ones that have not been revised for
some years. Requirements for countries, zones or compartments to be considered free
from African swine fever are found in Article 15.1.3. This article refers to Article 1.4.6
regarding requirements for ´historically free´ status. The current Chapter 15.1 does
not contain detailed requirements on surveillance for African swine fever.438 (emphasis
original)
7.303. In this context, we consider that Article 1.4.6 also addresses the recognition of disease -
free areas in the territory of an OIE member based on the application of pathogen specific
surveillance in accordance with the recommendations of Chapter 1.4 of the Terrestrial Code. ASFV
is the specific pathogen for which surveillance should be set up in the context of this case.
7.304. Article 15.1.3 of the Terrestrial Code also refers to the disease-free status of countries,
zones or compartments as a result of an eradication plan. According to this Article, when a country
or zone cannot be considered historically free from ASF, it can still be considered as ASF-free when
(i) there have been no ASF outbreaks during the last three years, or 12 months if there is no
evidence of tick involvement; (ii) there is no evidence of ASF infection in the last 12 months;
(iii) surveillance has been in place in domestic pigs for the last 12 months; and (iv) imported
domestic pigs show no clinical signs of ASF on the day of shipment and have been kept in an ASF-
free country, zone or compartment since birth or for the last 40 days (see Articles 15.1.5 and
15.1.6 of the Terrestrial Code). In addition to these elements, for the country or zone to be
considered ASF-free Article 15.1.3 requires that (i) there has been no clinical nor virological
evidence of ASF in wild pigs during the last 12 months; (ii) no seropositive wild pigs have been
detected in the age class 6-12 months during the last 12 months; and (iii) imported wild pigs have
shown no clinical sign of ASF on the day of shipment, have been captured in an ASF -free country
or zone, and in case such zone is adjacent to a zone with an ASF infection in wild pigs, the animals
were kep t in a quarantine station for 40 days prior to shipment, and were subjected to a
virological test and a serological test performed at least 21 days after entry into the quarantine
station, with negative results (see Article 15.1.7 of the Terrestrial Code).
7.305. Pursuant to the terms of Article 15.1.4, when an ASF outbreak has occurred in a free
country, zone, or compartment, the free status may be restored when certain conditions are
met.439
7.306. In summary, a country or zone may be historically free of ASF (when the conditions set
out in Article 15.1.3.1 are satisfied – including those provided in Article 1.4.6); may be considered
to be ASF-free as a result of an eradication programme (when the conditions set out in
Article 15.1.3.2 are satisfied); or its ASF-free status may be restored after an outbreak has
occurred (when the conditions set out in Article 15.1.4 are satisfied). Furthermore, the
determination of the ASF status of a country, zone or compartment is contingent upon the
consideration of certain factors related to epidemiological surveillance.
7.307. We note that the provisions of the Terrestrial Code relating to ASF status provide for
recognition of ASF -free countries, zones, and compartments. More specifically , Articles 15.1.2,
15.1.3 and 15.1.4 each make refere nce to an ASF -free "country", "zone" or "compartment" on an
equal footing, 440 without imposing any sequence, preference or hierarchy amongst the three
terms.
7.308. In addition to an examination of the ASF specific provisions in Chapter 15.1, we also need
to take into consideration the relevant provisions in Chapters 4.3 (zoning and
compartmentalization) and Article 5.3.7 (sequence of steps to be taken in establishing a
zone/compartment and having it recognised for international trade purposes). Before examining
the meaning of these two provisions, we will first consider the key question of the interrelationship
between horizontal and specific provisions in the Terrestrial Code.

438 OIE response to Panel question No. 4.
439 See para. 7.290 above.
440 See paras. 7.311-7.316 below.

7.309. In addition to questioning the parties on the "horizontal" concept of zoning and its
interrelationship with the ASF -specific provisions of the Terrestrial Code, the Panel posed a series
of related questions to the OIE and to the experts. Particular questions were formulated to better
understand the interaction between the horizontal chapters in Volume I and the disease -specific
chapters in Volume II.
7.310. The OIE explained that the texts in Volume I, such as Chapter 1.4 on animal health
surveillance and Chapter 4.3 on zoning and regionalization, establish a basic framework that can
be applied to a ll diseases and host species. The goal is to establish a systematic approach to the
prevention and control of disease, based on science and a series of key principles. In the disease -
specific chapters contained in Volume II, such as Chapter 15.1 (African s wine fever), the
recommendations are tailored to the specific epidemiological characteristics of infectious agents.
The role of wild animals in the epidemiology of a disease is an important risk factor for some
diseases and not for others. The significance of disease in wildlife is mentioned as a factor to be
considered in general when designing surveillance programmes. Specific provisions are contained
in Volume II, but only for those diseases where it is necessary to address infection in wild animals
in order to control the disease in domestic animals. 441 The OIE further explained that some points
are covered in Volume II and not in Volume I, e.g. in Article 4.3.1:
to regain free status following a disease outbreak in a zone or compartment, Member
Countries should follow the recommendations in the relevant disease chapter in the
Terrestrial Code.442
7.311. The Terrestrial Code provisions on zoning and compartmentalization promote the goal of
the Terrestrial Code, which is to provide for safe trade while avoiding unju stified sanitary barriers
to trade.443 Article 4.3.1 states that zoning and compartmentalization are procedures implemented
by an OIE member with a view to defining subpopulations of distinct health status within its
territory for the purpose of disease cont rol and/or international trade. The purpose of establishing
zones is to maintain separation in terms of the health status of distinct sub -populations of animals
so that the appropriate health measures can be targeted to the appropriate population. Zoning and
compartmentalization accomplish this goal by recognizing that disease status may not be country -
wide and that the application of import measures should be tailored to the status of the exporting
area. This general principle is embodied in Articles 4.3.2 and 4.3.3. Article 4.3.2 provides that the
importing country should recognize the existence of a zone or compartment: (i) when the
appropriate measures recommended in the Terrestrial Code are applied; and (ii) the Veterinary
Authority of the exporting cou ntry certifies that this is the case. Furthermore, Article 4.3.3 sets
forth principles for defining and establishing a zone or compartment.444
7.312. According to the OIE, no attempt is made to differentiate the levels of protection provided
by the provisions of t he disease chapters or the horizontal chapters (for example, to say that
compartmentalization provides a higher or lower level of protection than zoning). 445 The approach
taken in Chapter 4.3 and, for ASF in Chapter 15.1, is consistent with the approach to o ther
diseases. Various risk management options are provided. Measures are recommended with
reference to the ASF-free status at the level of a country, zone or compartment (e.g. Articles
15.1.5, 15.1.7, 15.1.8, 15.1.10, 15.1.12 and 15.1.13) and with referen ce to the ASF infected
status of a country or zone (Articles 15.1.6, 15.1.9, and 15.1.11). For the importation of processed
products, the ASF status of the exporting country, zone or compartment may be free or infected
(Articles 15.1.14 to 15.1.17 inclusive).

441 OIE response to Panel question No. 6.
442 OIE response to Panel question No. 6 (quoting OIE, Terrestrial Animal Health Code 23rd edn (2014),
Vol. I, p. 116. (emphasis in the original)).
443 See OIE response to Panel question No. 19, page 35 of OIE Responses to Questions from the Panel,
where it states that "[all] the various combinations of testing, treatment and certification identified in Chapter
15.1 provide for safe trade of animals and animal products". Moreover, paragraph 3 of the introduction of the
Terrestrial Code User's Guide provides that "the OIE standards are based on the most recent scientific and
technical information. Correctly applied, they protect animal health and welfare and veterinary public health
during production and trade in animals and animal products." Terrestrial Code User Guide (Exhibit EU-2), p. i.
444 OIE, Terrestrial Animal Health Code 23rd edn (2014), Vol. I, pp. 116-119.
445 OIE responses to Panel question No. 19.

7.313. The Terrestrial Code Glossary indicates that a "zone/region" means a clearly defined part
of a territory containing an animal subpopulation with a distinct health status with respect to a
specific disease for which required surveillance, control and bi osecurity measures have been
applied for the purpose of international trade. Zoning/regionalization is the act of establishing a
zone/region. The OIE does not differentiate between zoning and regionalization.446 The terms zone
and zoning are generally used in the Terrestrial Code. Compartmentalization is linked to zoning. All
applications of zoning and compartmental ization are based on the definition of a subpopulation of
animals that has a different health status to that of the population in the rest of the national
territory. As stated in Article 4.3.1 of the Terrestrial Code, "[w]hile zoning applies to an animal
subpopulation defined primarily on a geographical basis (using natural, artificial or legal
boundaries), compartmental ization applies to an animal subpopulation defined primarily by
management and husbandry practices related to biosecurity. In practice, spatial considerations
and good management including biosecurity plans play important roles in the application of both
concepts."447
7.314. As noted above, the provisions of Chapter 15.1 refer to the concepts of ASF-free zones and
ASF-infected zones. The Terrestrial Code Glossary defines an infected zone as an area where a
disease has been diagnosed. 448 A free zone "means a zone in which the absence of the diseas e
under consideration has been demonstrated by the requirements specified in the Terrestrial Code
for free status being met. Within the zone and at its borders, appropriate official veterinary control
is effectively applied for animals and animal products, and their transportation".449 The Terrestrial
Code Glossary additionally contains definitions of two kinds of zones, namely, "containment zones"
and "protection zones":
A containment zone means a defined zone around and including suspected or infected
establishments, taking into account the epidemiological factors and results of
investigations, where control measures to prevent the spread of the infection are
applied.
A protection zone means a zone established to protect the health status of animals in
a fr ee country or free zone, from those in a country or zone of a different animal
health status.450
7.315. The OIE explained that both containment and protection zones are implemented using
measures based on the epidemiology of the disease of interest to prevent the s pread of the
causative pathogen. These measures may include vaccination, movement control, animal
identification, biosecurity and disease surveillance. The OIE further explained that the main
distinction between the two zones relates to the circumstances i n which they are used. A
containment zone is implemented in response to a limited outbreak of disease in a free country or
zone. Its purpose is to contain the outbreak i.e. limit it to a defined area, partly for the purposes of
disease control but also for the purpose of limiting impact on trade. In contrast, a protection zone
is implemented to protect the health status of animals in a country or zone that is free from a
given disease against the risk of infection from adjacent countries or zones of differe nt (lower)
animal health status.451
7.316. According to the OIE, these zones are defined with sufficient precision, based on their
objectives and the requirements for implementing them. The OIE allows for the possibility that
countries will use different terminolog y (for example, based on the terminology used in the
national veterinary legislation). However, this should not hinder the recognition of the equivalence
of animal health safeguards. The OIE encourages harmonized approaches (if not the use of the
same terms) to facilitate recognition of zones established and agreement on the requirements for
the certification of commodities.452

446 OIE responses to Panel question No. 16.
447 OIE, Terrestrial Animal Health Code 23rd edn (2014), Vol. I, pp. 116.
448 Glossary, Terrestrial Code , p. v (Exhibit RUS-32).
449 Glossary, Terrestrial Code , p. iv (Exhibit RUS-32).
450 Glossary, Terrestrial Code , pp. ii and vii (Exhibit RUS-32).
451 OIE responses to Panel question No. 17.
452 OIE responses to Panel question No. 16.

7.317. We consider that the concept of "zone" in the Terrestrial Code is broad. It includes, but is
not exhausted by the concepts of "protec tion" and "containment" zones . The OIE's opinion lends
support to our view.453 The OIE also opines that the concept also includes infected zones, zones
that are free of disease with or without vaccination, zones that are officially recognised by the OIE,
and seasonally free zones , and that various applications of the zoning concept are found in the
disease-specific chapters as appropriate to the epidemiology of each disease.454
7.318. According to Russia, in order for it to be able to implement the recommendations set out in
certain provisions of Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code (African swine fever) the European Union
first has to demonstrate that it has established effective zones or compartments consistent with
the principles set out in Article 4.3.3 and 5.3.7 of the Terrestrial Code. Russia argues that the
Terrestrial Code envisages country -wide import restrictions when exporting countries have failed
to effectively establish zones after an ASF outbreak. 455 The European Union asserts that, the
Terrestrial Code di sease-specific provisions "prevail over" the horizontal ones, at least whenever
the disease-specific chapter is more specific or restricts options that are described in the horizontal
chapters. The European Union asserts that it is not correct to go direct ly to Chapters 4.3 and 5.7
while ignoring Articles 15.1.2 and 15.1.3 (which refer to the determination of ASF status of a
country or zone and to historically free status of zones and the regaining of free status as a result
of an eradication programme).456
7.319. With respect to the assertion by the European Union that "the disease specific chapters of
the Terrestrial Code (Volume II) prevail over the horizontal chapters (Volume I), at least whenever
the disease specific chapter is more specific or restricts options that are described in the horizontal
chapters"457, we recall the OIE's clarification that it considered the European Union's statement to
be "generally correct".458 The OIE also agreed with the European Union's statement that: "it is not
correct to extract s ome provisions of Chapters 4.3 and 5.7 ignoring Articles 15.1.2 and 15.1.3
…".459 According to the OIE, in practice, it is usually the case that the provisions in Volume I and II
apply in a complementary manner. There is rarely, if ever, conflict between the provisions because
those in Volume I are general and those in Volume II are specific and only apply to the disease
that is the subject of the chapter. Hence it is not usually necessary for one provision to "prevail
over" another. 460 The OIE drew our attenti on to Article 1.4.1.1 on animal health surveillance,
which, it asserted, helps to explain the relationship between the provisions in Volumes I and II.
Article 1.4.1.1.
The following recommendations may be applied to all diseases or infections and all
susceptible species (including wildlife). The general recommendations in this chapter
may be refined by the specific approaches described in the disease chapters (ital.
added for emphasis). Where detailed disease or infection -specific information is not
available, suitable approaches should be based on the recommendations in this
chapter. (emphasis added)
7.320. In a similar vein, Article 4.3.1 of the Terrestrial Code states:
This chapter is to assist Member Countries wishing to establish and maintain different
subpopulations within their territory using the principles of compartmentalisation and
zoning. These principles should be applied in accordance with the measures
recommended in the relevant disease chapter(s). (emphasis added)
7.321. The OIE indicated that the phrase "w ishing to establish" indicates that the use of zoning
and compartmentalization is optional. 461 In a country affected by an outbreak of ASF the

453 OIE responses to Panel question No. 16.
454 OIE responses to Panel question No. 16.
455 See e.g. Russia's first written submission, para. 60; and second written submission, para. 40.
456 European Union's response to Panel question No. 20, paras. 83-86.
457 European Union's response to Panel question No. 20, para. 85.
458 OIE responses to Panel question No. 6, referring to European Union's responses to Panel question
No. 20, paras. 84-85.
459 OIE responses to Panel question No. 6.
460 OIE responses to Panel question No. 6.
461 OIE responses to Panel question No. 26.

veterinary authority is responsible for deciding whether to use these approaches or not. We agree
with this view, which is reinforced with the text of Article 4.3.1, which also states:
Before trade in animals or their products may occur, an importing country needs to be
satisfied that its animal health status will be appropriately protected. In most cases,
the import r egulations developed will rely in part on judgements made about the
effectiveness of sanitary procedures undertaken by the exporting country, both at its
borders and within its territory.
7.322. Furthermore, Article 4.3.2 states:
The exporting country should be able to demonstrate, through detailed documentation
provided to the importing country, that it has implemented the recommendations in
the Terrestrial Code for establishing and maintaining such a zone or compartment.
An importing country should recognise the existence of this zone or compartment
when the appropriate measures recommended in the Terrestrial Code are applied and
the Veterinary Authority of the exporting country certifies that this is the case.
7.323. In response to a Panel question pertaining to zoning under the Terrestrial Code, the OIE
explained as follows:
An importing country may choose to take measures only on a country -wide basis, or
only on a zone basis, or only on a compartment basis, subject to the
recommendations in the Terrestrial Code….
Article 5.1.2 sets out the responsibilities of an importing country in relation to
international trade. Point 1 advises that import requirements ... should assure that
commodities introduced into the importing country c omply with the standards of the
OIE (ital. added for emphasis).462
7.324. We recall Dr Thiermann's statement that "[w]hatever zoning approach is used, the
sequence of steps to be taken in establishing a zone/compartment and having it recognized for
international trade purposes is as outlined in Article 5.3.7 of the Terrestrial Code."463
7.325. Article 5.3.7 deals with the establishment of specific subpopulations (zone or
compartment) and their recognition for the purpose of international trade. 464 Article 5.3.7 spells
out an approach to the obtaining of recognitio n of specific subpopulations from trading partners. If
it does not prove possible to reach agreement, Article 5.3.8 contains a process to resolve
differences between countries, such as the refusal to recognise a zone. We observe, however, that
Article 5.3.7 itself clearly states:
There is no single sequence of steps which should be followed in establishing a zone or
a compartment. The steps that the Veterinary Services of the importing country and
the exporting country choose and implement will generally de pend on the
circumstances existing within the countries and at their borders, and their trading
history. (emphasis original)
7.326. Recognizing the optional 465 nature of the establishment of disease -free zones and their
form under the Terrestrial Code, and the furt her clarification in Article 5.3.7 that different

462 OIE response to Panel question No. 26. (emphasis original)
463 Dr Thiermann's response to Panel question No. 34, para. 4.35.
464 As the OIE explained: "The article does not provide explicit guidance on how to establish the
subpopulation. Rather, it refers the reader to other parts of the Code, e.g:
In Article 5.3.7.1(b):'The exporting country describes in the biosecurity plan for the zone the measures
which are being, or will be, applied to distinguish such an area epidemiologically from other parts of its
territory, in accordance with the recommendations in the Terrestrial Code.'(ital. added for emphasis)" OIE
responses to Panel question No. 6 (emphasis original).
465 See also Dr Thomson's response to Panel question No. 31, para. 4.19 of the Compilation of the
experts' responses, where he opines that "how a country manages risk associated with ASF need not concern

processes may be used for the recognition of such zones between trading partners, we examine
whether Russia's measures amount to a "fundamental departure" from, that is, they contradict,
the regionalization and trade provisions of the Terrestrial Code. This will be the basis to reach a
conclusion as to whether or not the measures are "based on" the relevant international standard
within the meaning of Article 3.1.
7.5.1.3.5 Whether the EU -wide ban is "based on" the st andards contained in the
Terrestrial Code in respect of non-treated products
7.327. With these considerations in mind, we read the provisions in Volumes I and II of the
Terrestrial Code together. In our view, the text of Chapter 15.1, read in conjunction with the
general obligations on zoning and compartmentalization in Article 4.3.2, and the sequence of steps
set out in Article 5.3.7, indicates that the import recommendations contained therein are not only
intended for country -wide purposes, but are intended to a pply to zones and compartments. The
application by an importing Member of the product -specific recommendations to zones or
compartments presupposes that the exporting Member has established such zones or
compartments within its territory according to the T errestrial Code (in this case, Articles 4.3.3 and
15.1.2-4).466 If an exporting country does so, Chapter 15.1 envisages that the importing Member
will allow the importation from that zone or compartment subject to the specific recommendations
therein. This m eans that the Terrestrial Code envisages that importing Members, when applying
measures to address the risk of entry, establishment or spread of ASF, will recognize that if an
exporting Member is not entirely free of ASF, it may have zones or compartments that are ASF -
free where these have been properly established by the exporting Member.
7.328. In our view, the particular structure and nature of the relevant international standard
applicable to trade in non -treated pork and pig products, as enshrined in the pro visions of the
Terrestrial Code already examined, have clear parallels with the substantive obligations Members
have in the context of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. The Appellate Body has observed that
Article 6 establishes, through its three paragraphs, a series of obligations regarding the adaptation
of SPS measures to regional conditions. 467 Among the characteristics to which a Member has the
obligation to adapt its SPS measures are " pest-or disease-free areas". This is clearly indicated in
the title of Article 6 (Adaptation to Regional Conditions, Including Pest - or Disease-Free Areas and
Areas of Low Pest or Disease Prevalence) and in the text of Articles 6.2 and 6.3, which refer to
"disease-free areas". Furthermore, according to Annex A(6) of the SPS A greement a disease-free
area is an "area, whether all of a country, part of a country, or all parts of several countries, as
identified by the competent authorities, in which a specific … disease does not occur". The Glossary
of the Terrestrial Code define s a free zone as one in "which the absence of the disease under
consideration has been demonstrated by the requirements specified in the Terrestrial Code for free
status being met. Within the zone and at its borders, appropriate official veterinary control is
effectively applied for animals and animal products, and their transportation." 468 In our view, both
definitions refer to the same substantial question, whether a disease is present in a particular
area.
7.329. We recall that Russia's alternative defence that t he EU -wide ban is "based on the OIE
standard to the extent possible" is largely grounded on Russia's argument that it "objectively
decided not to recognise"469 the ASF-free zones identified by the European Union. In our view, this
clearly touches upon the parties' arguments in respect of Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement.

an importer as long as the overall risk is effectively managed and the exporting country certifies that the TAHC
standards for the commodity or product in question have been fulfilled".
466 We find support for this approach in Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.249 ("[t]he application by
an importing Member of the product-specific recommendations to zones or compartments presupposes that the
exporting Member has established such zones or compartments within its territory according to the Terrestrial
Code (in this case Articles 4.3.3 and 8.5.4)"); and in Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.262
("the application by an importing country of the product-specific recommendations to zones or compartments
presupposes that the exporting country has established such zones or compartments within its territory
according to the Terrestrial Code.").
467 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.131.
468 Glossary, Terrestrial Code, p. iv (Exhibit RUS-32).
469 See e.g. Russia's second written submission, section II.A.3.

7.330. We have examined the meaning of the relevant international standards applicable to
non-treated products in the light of the parties' arguments and the circumstances in this dispute .
We conclude that before comparing the EU -wide ban with those standards for the purposes of
determining whether that measure is "based on" them, it is appropriate and instructive for us to
turn to our examination of the European Union's claims under Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.
7.331. We note that this approach is appropriate in the circumstances of the present case, where
our conclusions under Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement will have no impact on the complainant's
burden of proof in respect of claims brought under other provisions of the SPS Agreement
(i.e. Article 6). That would not be the case when a panel is faced with examining a justification
that the challenged measures "conform to" the relevant international standard pursuant to
Article 3.2, because an affirm ative finding of such justification would raise a presumption of
consistency with the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement and of the GATT 1994.470
7.332. Therefore, we will suspend our analysis of the parties' claims under Article 3 in respect of
the EU -wide ban to examine such measure under Article 6. Following our analysis of the
consistency of the EU-wide ban with Article 6 we will resume our analysis of whether that measure
is "based on" the relevant international standard and provide our findings in that respect. We now
turn to examine the European Union's claims under Article 6 in respect of the EU-wide ban.
7.5.2 Claims under Articles 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 of the SPS Agreement
7.5.2.1 Main arguments of the parties
7.5.2.1.1 European Union
7.333. The European Union argues that instead of " provisionally" complying with the terms of the
veterinary certificates, as Russia contends it is doing, Russia was under an obligation to adapt its
measures to the sanitary characteristics from which the products at issue originate and to which
they are destined.471
7.334. The European Union claims that the EU -wide ban is inconsistent with Articles 6.1 and 6.2
of the SPS Agreement , because Russia has not ensured, and does not ensure, that the EU -wide
ban is adapted to the sanitary characteristics of the area from wh ich the products at issue
originate and to which they are destined. The European Union further contends that the EU -wide
ban failed to take into account, inter alia, the level of prevalence or absence of ASF, the existence
of eradication and control progra ms in the affected EU member States (immediately implemented
in accordance with international standards laid down by the OIE), and appropriate criteria or
guidelines developed by the relevant international organizations.472
7.335. Regarding the first sentence of Article 6.2, the European Union argues that Russia failed to
recognize the concepts of disease -free areas with respect to ASF in the European Union. 473 The
European Union claims that this is evidenced by Russia's application of an indiscriminate EU -wide
ban.474 Regarding the second sentence of Article 6.2, the European Union further argues that these
bans were applied without taking into account relevant factors such as geography, ecosystems,
epidemiological surveillance and the effectiveness of sanitary controls .475 The European Union
claims that given its large geographical territory, the geographical factor must be taken into
account and highlights its control measures in this regard. The European Union outlines the
various steps taken to control ASF in live pigs and wild boars.476
7.336. The European Union submits that with respect to Article 6.3, it has provided Russia with
information beyond what is necessary for objectively demonstrating that disease -free areas or

470 See Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, paras. 102 and 170.
471 European Union's second written submission, para. 95.
472 European Union's first written submission, para. 216.
473 European Union's first written submission, para. 215.
474 European Union's first written submission, para. 210.
475 European Union's first written submission, para. 210.
476 European Union's first written submission, paras. 211-214.

areas of low disease prevalence are and are likely to r emain disease-free areas or areas of low
disease prevalence, respectively.477
7.5.2.1.2 Russia
7.337. Russia argues that, taking into consideration the very factors listed in Article 6.1 of the
SPS Agreement, it objectively and reasonably did not accept the European Union's zones.478 Russia
asserts that in evaluating whether there is an objective basis for Russia's decision not to recognize
the proposed ASF -free zones in conformity with the applicable Terrestrial Code standards and
consistent with Article 6 of the SPS Agreemen t, the Panel must determine whether Russia's
decision regarding the various European Union zones was "objectively justifiable". Russia stresses
that in conducting that review, the Panel must not substitute its own judgement of the weight to
be given to cer tain evidence for that given by the importing country. Rather, it must determine
whether the totality of the circumstances and evidence (or lack thereof) was sufficient to support
the objectivity of Russia's decision in light of the relevant provisions of the Terrestrial Code and
SPS Agreement Article 6 criteria and the available information. 479 Russia further argues that if the
Panel finds that Russia was objectively justified in not accepting the EU zones in conformity with
the Terrestrial Code zoning/regio nalization standards, recommendations, and guideline
benchmarks, it should also find that it acted consistently with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.480
7.338. Russia responds to the European Union's claim under the first sentence of Article 6.2 of the
SPS Agreement by contending that the obligation contained therein to recognize the concepts of
pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence relates to an abstract idea
and is not linked to specific areas of a given exporting Member. 481 Russia accordingly draws the
attention of the Panel to existing Customs Union legislation - specifically, Customs Union Decision
No. 317 – which, Russia asserts, recognizes the concept of disease -free areas in the abstract and
explicitly recognizes the concept of disease-free areas as applied to ASF. 482 In addition, Russia
refers to the 2006 Memorandum between the European Union and Russia which includes
provisions aimed at applying the principles of zoning and regionalization in the international
movement of animals and products of animal origin between EU member States and Russia. 483 On
this basis, Russia argues that clearly, Russia recognizes the concept of disease -free areas not only
in the abstract as required under Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement, but also specif ically as applied
to ASF and as applied with respect to the European Union. 484 Russia further argues, specifically in
respect of the EU -wide ban, that the language of the agreed veterinary certificates considers the
concept of disease-free areas.485
7.339. Russia argues that the European Union has failed to objectively demonstrate to Russia that
the alleged ASF -free areas in the four infected EU Member States "are, and are likely to remain,
pest- or disease-free areas", in accordance with Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreem ent.486 In Russia's
view, the European Union has failed to effectively establish ASF containment zones in accordance
with the OIE guidelines and therefore the entirety of the four infected EU member States should be
considered ASF -infected.487 Russia argues th at the European Union failed to provide timely,
comprehensive and accurate information relevant for assessing its zones and ASF -control
measures inconsistently with Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement and Terrestrial Code Article 5.3.7.
Furthermore, the European Union withheld national eradication plans from Russia until March 2015
and May 2015 despite acknowledging that these reports contain highly relevant information.488

477 European Union's first written submission, para. 218.
478 Russia's first written submission, para. 231.
479 Russia's second written submission, para. 49. See also response to Panel question No. 113, paras.
190-196.
480 Russia's second written submission, para. 56.
481 Russia's first written submission, para. 222.
482 Russia's first written submission, para. 223 and 224 (referring to Exhibit-RUS 25).
483 Russia's first written submission, para. 225.
484 Russia's first written submission, para. 225.
485 Russia's first written submission, para. 411.
486 Russia's first written submission, para. 236.
487 Russia's first written submission, para. 237.
488 See Russia's second written submission, paras. 58-77.

7.5.2.2 Main arguments of the third parties
7.5.2.2.1 Australia
7.340. Australia asserts that it agrees with Russi a that the first sentence of Article 6.2 of the SPS
Agreement requires only the recognition of the concept of "pest- or disease-free areas and areas
of low pest or disease prevalence". Australia however, also stresses that the Appellate Body in
India - Agricultural Products held that "to comply with Article 6.2, SPS measures adopted by WTO
Members must at a minimum not deny or contradict the recognition of the concepts of such areas
when these concepts are relevant with respect to the disease at issue".489
7.341. Australia emphasizes that it will be necessary for the Panel to determine whether Russia's
measures, notified or otherwise, operate in a manner such as to deny or contradict the recognition
of such areas. Such a finding may be informed by the Panel 's other findings under Article 3 and
Article 5 of the SPS Agreement.490
7.5.2.2.2 Brazil
7.342. Brazil argues that the main question under discussion in this topic is whether it is possible
to rightfully impose an import prohibition (country and/or EU -wide ban) if the importing Mem ber
considers that the measures adopted by the exporting Member were not sufficient to establish
disease- or pest-free zones or compartments.491
7.343. Brazil asserts that adaptation to regional conditions in the context of Article 6.1 of the SPS
Agreement entails taking into account, inter alia, appropriate criteria or guidelines which may be
developed by the relevant international organizations.492
7.344. Brazil argues that a Member has the right to consider that the measures adopted by
another Member are not satisfactory for the determination of the containment zone, if (i) there
was no conformity with the standard in the sense of Article 3.2 or (ii) the level of protection sought
by the importing Member is higher than the one established by the standard. In Brazil's view, if an
importing Member considers that the measures adopted by the exporting Member do not conform
to the international standard in the sense that the measures adopted do not "embody the
international standard completely", then there could be a basis for t he establishment of an import
prohibition. On the other hand, a Member may choose to adopt a higher level of protection and
decide that the mechanism established by the exporting country is not sufficient according to its
own appropriate level of protectio n. Brazil points out that if this is the case, a risk assessment to
provide scientific justification must be elaborated to justify the SPS measure.493
7.5.2.2.3 Norway
7.345. Norway argues that in examining the claims relating to regionalization, the Panel should
first assess whether Russia properly has recognized the concepts of pest - or disease-free areas
and areas of low pest or disease prevalence, and whether any determination of such areas is
based on relevant factors, including geography, ecosystems, epidemiological sur veillance, and the
effectiveness of sanitary and phytosanitary control. Second, the panel should assess whether
Russia has ensured that the measures at issue are adapted to the SPS characteristics of the
affected area, as set out in Article 6.1. According to the second sentence of this provision, the
Panel should consider whether Russia in its assessment of the SPS characteristics of a region , has
taken into account relevant factors, such as the level of prevalence of ASF, the existence of
eradication and c ontrol programmes, and appropriate criteria or guidelines developed by the
relevant international organizations.

489 Australia's third-party submission, para. 19 (citing Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para.
7.698).
490 Australia's third-party submission, para. 20.
491 Brazil's third-party submission, para. 4.
492 Brazil's third-party submission, para. 5.
493 Brazil's third-party submission, paras. 7-9.

7.346. Norway emphasizes that that a finding that the respondent party has not recognized the
concepts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence, will lead to a
finding that this party has not ensured that its measures are adapted to the SPS characteristics of
those areas pursuant to the first sentence of Article 6.1, and that conversely, where there is a
finding that th e respondent party has recognised these concepts, a consideration must be
undertaken, of whether this party has ensured that its measures are adapted to the
SPS characteristics of the affected areas and whether it took into account relevant factors when
assessing the SPS characteristics of a region, consistent with Article 6.1.494
7.5.2.2.4 United States
7.347. The United States argues that the provisions of Article 6 contain separate but inter -related
obligations that must be read together in context. The United States empha sizes that while the
first sentence of Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement imposes an obligation with respect to measures,
the first sentence of Article 6.2 requires recognition of concepts, i.e. pest - or disease-free areas
and areas of low pest or disease prevalence.495
7.348. The United States highlights that neither the obligations in the first sentence of Article 6.2
of the SPS Agreement, nor those in Article 6.1, arise only following a request under Article 6.3 to
recognize a specific area as a pest - or disease -free area or area of low pest or disease
prevalence.496
7.5.2.3 Analysis by the Panel
7.5.2.3.1 Introduction
7.349. The issues before the Panel are whether the EU -wide ban is consistent with Articles 6.1
and 6.2 of the SPS Agreement, and whether the European Union has satisfied the r equirements of
Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement in respect of the EU-wide ban.
7.350. We now look at these legal provisions.
7.5.2.3.2 The legal provisions at issue
7.351. Article 6 of the SPS Agreement states:
Article 6
Adaptation to Regional Conditions, Including Pest- or Disease- Free Areas and
Areas of Low Pest or Disease Prevalence
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 a ll 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 speci fic 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, epidemiological surveillance, and
the effectiveness of sanitary or phytosanitary controls.

494 Norway's third-party submission, paras. 27-30.
495 United States' third-party submission, paras. 3-6.
496 United States' third-party submission, paras. 7-11.

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
evidence thereof in order to objectively demonstrate to the importing Member that
such areas are, and are lik ely to remain, pest - or disease-free areas or areas of low
pest or disease prevalence, respectively. For this purpose, reasonable access shall be
given, upon request, to the importing Member for inspection, testing and other
relevant procedures.
7.352. Annex A(6) and A(7) of the SPS Agreement set forth the definitions of "pest - or disease-
free areas" and "areas of low pest or disease prevalence", respectively, as:
6. Pest- or disease-free area – An 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.
NOTE: A pest - or disease -free area may surround, be surrounded by, or be
adjacent to an area – whether within part of a country or in a geographic region which
includes parts of or all of several countries – in which a specific pest or disease is
known to occur but is subject to regional control measures such as the establishment
of protection, surveillance and buffer zones which will conf ine or eradicate the pest or
disease in question.
7. Area of low pest or disease prevalence – An 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 o r disease occurs at low levels and which is
subject to effective surveillance, control or eradication measures.
7.353. The Appellate Body observed in India – Agricultural Products that Article 6 of the SPS
Agreement establishes, through its three paragraphs, a se ries of obligations regarding the
adaptation of SPS measures to regional conditions. The Appellate Body started by noting:
[B]oth the title of this provision and the first sentence of Article 6.1 refer to the
requirement to "adapt" SPS measures to certain regional conditions. Whereas the title
speaks more generally of "Adaptation to Regional Conditions", the first sentence of
Article 6.1 imposes on WTO Members a specific obligation to ensure that their SPS
measures are "adapted" to the "sanitary or phytosan itary characteristics" of the areas
from which the product originated and to which the product is destined. Moreover, we
observe that, among the regional conditions in respect of which adaptation is
envisaged, the title to Article 6 refers to "Pest - or Disease-Free Areas and Areas of
Low Pest or Disease Prevalence". We see a link between this language and the second
sentence of Article 6.1, which identifies the "level of prevalence of specific diseases or
pests" as one of the relevant SPS characteristics of a region in respect of which
adaptation is envisaged. Similarly, the reference to "Pest - or Disease-Free Areas and
Areas of Low Pest or Disease Prevalence" in the title of Article 6 is also directly
connected with the second and third paragraphs of this p rovision, which deal explicitly
with these types of areas.497
7.354. The first sentence of Article 6.1 stipulates that "Members shall ensure that their sanitary or
phytosanitary measures are adapted to the sanitary or phytosanitary characteristics of the area …
from which the product originated and to which the product is destined." In relation to the text of
the first sentence of Article 6.1, the Appellate Body observed:
The verb "ensure" is defined as to make certain the occurrence of a situation or
outcome.498 In turn, the term "adapt" means "fit, adjust, ( to); make suitable ( to or

497 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.131.
498 (footnote original) Relevant definitions of the term "ensure" are "guarantee, warrant" and "make
certain the occurrence of (an event, situation, outcome, etc.) (Foll. by that)". (Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary, 6th edn, A. Stevenson (ed.) (Oxford University Press, 2007), Vol. 1, p. 840)

for)".499 Two areas are relevant to the obligation in the first sentence of Article 6.1:
the area from which the product originated and the area to which the product is
destined. Article 6.1 indicates that the term "area" encompasses "all of a country, part
of a country, or all or parts of several countries". The "areas" that are relevant for
purposes of Article 6.1 can therefore vary, and may entail a territory that can be
smaller than, the same size as, or bigger than, a country. We observe that, pursuant
to the first sentence of Article 6.1, a Member's obligation to ensure adaptation applies
in respect of "SPS measures" in the plural, suggesting that it applies generally, as well
as in co nnection with each specific SPS measure maintained by a Member.
Furthermore, the use of the present tense "are adapted", and the absence of any
language limiting the temporal scope of application of this obligation, suggest that the
obligation in Article 6.1 does not apply only at one specific point in time (e.g. when an
SPS measure is adopted), but is, instead, an ongoing one. Indeed, both the notion of
"adaptation", as well as the fact that the relevant SPS characteristics of regions may
fluctuate500, point to an obligation that is not static, but rather ongoing, requiring that
SPS measures be adjusted over time so as to establish and maintain their continued
suitability in respect of the relevant SPS characteristics of the relevant areas. We also
see 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.501
7.355. In relation to the text of the first sentence of Article 6.2, the Appellate Body stated:
The first sentence of Article 6.2 establishes that "Members shall, in particular,
recognize the concepts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease
prevalence."502 We observe that the use of the words "in particular" in the fi rst
sentence of Article 6.2 underscores the link between Articles 6.1 and 6.2. Similarly,
the title to Article 6, which refers to "Adaptation to Regional Conditions Including Pest-
or Disease-Free Areas and Areas of Low Pest or Disease Prevalence" 503, read together
with the first sentence of Article 6.1, indicates that "pest - or disease-free areas" and
"areas of low pest or disease prevalence" are a subset of all the SPS characteristics of
an area that may call for the adaptation of an SPS measure. We read th e words "in
particular", together with the title to Article 6, as underlining the interlinkages
between the first and second paragraphs of Article 6. More specifically, we consider
that these elements point to 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. These considerations, in our view, indicate that, together, Artic les 6.1
and 6.2 accord prominence to the content of Article 6.2 as one particular way through
which a Member can ensure that its SPS measures are "adapted", as required by
Article 6.1.504
7.356. The Appellate Body then went on to note that the structure of the fir st two paragraphs of
Article 6 is similar in certain respects. Each has two sentences, and in each paragraph the nature
of the obligation under the first sentence is more general than under the second sentence. The
first sentence of Article 6.2 establishes the obligation to recognize "the concepts of pest - or

499 (footnote original) Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edn, A. Stevenson (ed.) (Oxford University
Press, 2007), Vol. 1, p. 24.
500 (footnote original) Thus, for example, a pest may be introduced into an area where it was not
previously present, or there may be an outbreak of a disease in an area that was previously disease free.
Alternatively, pests or diseases may be eradicated in specific areas.
501 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.132.
502 (footnote original) Paragraph 6 of Annex A to the SPS Agreement defines the term "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." Paragraph 7 of
Annex A, in turn, defines the term "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."
503 (footnote original) Emphasis added.
504 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.133.

disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence". Neither of the first sentences of
Article 6.1 or Article 6.2 is explicitly linked to a specific assessment or determination. Rather, the
first sentence of Article 6.1 speaks of an obligation to "ensure" adaptation in respect of SPS
measures generally, and the first sentence of Article 6.2 refers to a general obligation to
"recognize" the "concepts" listed therein.505 The Appellate Body continued:
In turn, the second sentences of Articles 6.1 and 6.2 both identify how a specific
action is to be taken. The second sentence of Article 6.1 specifies, in a non -exhaustive
manner, the elements that Members must take into account in assessing the SPS
characteristics of a region. These elements include: the level of prevalence of specific
diseases or pests; the existence of eradication or control programmes; and
appropriate criteria or guidelines that may be developed by the relevant international
organizations. The second sentence of Article 6.2 indicates how the specific action of
determining the existence of "such areas" (that is, pest - or disease -free areas and
areas of low pest or disease prevalence) is to be taken. This sentence establishes that
the following factors must be used as a basis for making such a determination:
geography, ecosystems, epidemiological surveillance, and the effectiveness of sanitary
or phytosanitary controls. Thus, the second sentences of Article 6.1 and of Article 6.2,
respectively, identify how a Member is required to "assess" the SPS characteristics of
a region and "determine" pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease
prevalence.506
7.357. The Appellate Body emphasized the existence of important common elements throughout
Article 6, which reveal the interlinkages that exist among the paragraphs of this provision. All
three paragraphs of Article 6 are interconnected, addressing different aspects of the obligation to
adapt SPS measures to regional conditions. The main and overarching obligation under Article 6
for a Member to ensure that its SPS measures are adapted to regional SPS characteristics is set
out under the first sentence of Article 6.1. In turn, the remainder of Article 6 elaborates on the
specific aspects of such obligation, notably, with respect to pest- or disease-free areas and areas
of low pest or disease prevalence , as well as the respective duties that apply to importing and
exporting Members in this connection.507
7.358. Article 6.3 refers to a situation that is distinct from those in Articles 6.1 and 6.2. It is not
addressed to Members generally, as are the first two paragraphs of Article 6. Rather, Article 6.3
relates to the particular situation where an exporting Member is claiming that an area within i ts
territory is a pest- or disease-free area or an area of low pest or disease prevalence. This provision
specifies what must be objectively demonstrated by an exporting Member seeking recognition of a
specific area within its territory as a pest - or disease-free area or an area of low pest or disease
prevalence through the provision of the necessary evidence. The Appellate Body in India –
Agricultural Products has indicated that, t hrough the phrase "[f]or this purpose", Article 6.3 also
stipulates, in its second sentence, that such Member must allow the importing Member adopting or
maintaining an SPS measure to have access to its territory for the purpose of verifying such
demonstration.508 Like Article 6.2, Article 6.3 relates to pest - or disease-free areas and areas of
low pest or disease prevalence, which are a subset of the SPS characteristics that are relevant
under Article 6.1.
7.359. The Appellate Body has clarified, in respect of the relationship between Articles 6.1 and
6.3, that while it agreed that there w as "no explicit conditional language linking Article 6.1 and
Article 6.3", it emphasized the need for Article 6.1 and the remainder of Article 6 to be read
together.509 The Appellate Body has observed that, depending on the nature of the claims raised
and the circumstances of the case, a panel may be called upon to scrutinize whether a Member
has determined that a specific area is free of disease and adapted its SPS measures accordingly.
While a Member may act inconsistently with the obligation under the firs t sentence of Article 6.1
absent the objective demonstration provided for in Article 6.3 by an exporting Member 510, the

505 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.134.
506 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.135.
507 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.141.
508 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.140.
509 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.155.
510 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.157.

scrutiny by the panel may involve examining whether the importing Member received a request
from an exporting Member to recognize an area within its territory as "disease -free". In such
cases, an exporting Member may 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 6.3.511 The Appellate Body indicated that
[A]n exporting Member claiming, for example, that an importing Member has failed to
determine a specific a rea 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
inconsistently with Articles 6.1 or 6.2, unless that exporting Member can demonstrate
its own compliance with Article 6.3.
This is not to suggest, as India does, that a Member adopting or maintaining an
SPS measure can only be found to have breached the obligation in the first sentence
of Articl e 6.1 after an exporting Member has made the objective demonstration
provided for in Article 6.3. Indeed, as noted above, 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. Moreover, as noted above, 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 pursu ant to the first sentence of Article 6.1. We also
observe that Article 6.1 expressly identifies "criteria or guidelines" developed by
relevant organizations as relevant for the assessment of the SPS characteristics of
regions, which suggests that, under ce rtain circumstances, the adaptation of an SPS
measure to regional SPS characteristics may be accomplished by taking into account
relevant criteria and guidelines developed by such organizations, if any. Finally, we
recall that the overarching requirement u nder Article 6.1 to ensure the adaptation of
SPS measures is an ongoing obligation that applies upon adoption of an SPS measure
as well as thereafter. All of these considerations reinforce that a Member may act
inconsistently with the obligation under the first sentence of Article 6.1 absent the
objective demonstration provided for in Article 6.3 by an exporting Member. For these
reasons, we agree with the Panel that "the obligations in Articles 6.1 and 6.2 are not
triggered by an invocation of Article 6.3, as argued by India".512
7.360. The panel in US – Animals also found that once the importing Member determines that the
area subject to the exporting Member's claim is pest -or disease -free or of low pest or disease
prevalence, it is required to "adapt" its measure to the pest- or disease status of that area. In this
regard, the importing Member "shall take into account", besides pest - or disease-prevalence, the
other factors listed in the second sentence of Article 6.1. 513 While the panel in US – Animals also
indicated that the obligations in Articles 6.1 and 6.2 are not necessarily contingent on the actions
of the exporting Member under Article 6.3, the panel took the view that "in some circumstances
the ability of the importing Member to adapt a measure under Articl e 6.1 is dependent on the
exporting Member's compliance with Article 6.3".514
7.361. In respect of the exporting Member's obligation to comply with the specific provisions set
out in Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, the panel in US—Animals stated:
Article 6.3 rec ognizes that, in certain cases, exporting Members are well if not best
placed to gather information about the SPS conditions of geographical areas located
within their territories, and that, without their cooperation, the "objective
demonstration" of the p est-or disease status of the areas concerned to the importing

511 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.156.
512 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, paras. 5.156-5.157. (footnotes omitted)

Member may prove impossible. Furthermore, it would not be logical to expect an
importing Member to necessarily adapt its measures to the disease statuses of any
and all areas, regions or parts o f countries the world over absent solicitation or
provision of relevant information on the part of the exporting Members wishing to
obtain market access.515
7.362. The panel in US – Animals also determined that in the case where an importing Member
has an appropriate regulatory framework in place, the exporting Member may submit a claim that
specific areas within its territory are pest- or disease-free or of low pest or disease prevalence. The
panel determined that Article 6.3 "contemplates an exchange of information between the exporting
and importing Members, whereby the former provides evidence concerning the pest or disease
status of areas located within its territory, and the latter evaluates such information with a view to
adapting its measure to the SPS characteristics of the areas concerned."516 Furthermore, the panel
in US – Animals highlighted the obligation of the exporting Member to not only objectively
demonstrate that areas within its territory are pest - or disease -free or of low pest or disease
prevalence at a given point in time, but also that such areas are "likely to remain" in the same
pest- or disease-condition.517
7.5.2.3.3 Order of analysis of claims under Article 6
7.363. We note that the panel in India – Agricultural Products found it appropriate to begin its
analysis of the consistency of the respondent's measures with Article 6, by focusing on Article 6.2
and then Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement . The panel further interpreted Article 6.2 such that a
finding that a Member has failed to recognize the concepts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas
of low pest or disease prevalence as required by the first sentence of Article 6.2, leads inevitably
to a finding that such Member has also failed to determine those areas based on factors such as
geography, ecosystems, epidemiological surveillance, and the effectiveness of sanitary or
phytosanitary controls.518 We consider that the factual pattern in that dispute is different from the
one in this dispute. In particular, we note that in India – Agricultural Products the United States
had not raised claims in respect of certain areas of its territory being free of avian influenza, rather
it focused on the fact that India's measures precluded recognition of disease-free areas or areas of
low disease prevalence.519
7.364. In the instan t case, the European Union indicates that it formally requested Russia to
recognize the ASF -disease-free status of regions other than where ASF outbreaks have
occurred.520 The evidence on record indicates that the European Union submitted a request for the
recognition of a particular d isease-free area(s) to Russia, and subsequently insisted that Russia
accepts this request.521 The European Union sent letters to the competent authorities in Russia,
seeking acceptance of the sanitary status of the EU member State s and their regions on
31 January 2014.522 In its letter to Russia, the European Union indeed requested "the Competent
Authorities of the Russian Federation to accept the ASF-free sanitary status of EU Member States
(and their regions under the principle of regionalization) and the animal health standards for
international trade in live pigs and pig products in line with the sanitary and trade standards and
criteria of the OIE and the memorandum between the EC and the RF concerning the principles of
zoning and regionalization in the veterinary field of 2006". 523 While Russia does not dispute that
the European Union submitted such a request, it asserts that the European Union did not submit
the "necessary evidence" to adequately or appropriately substantiate its request within the

518 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.689.
519 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.693.
520 European Union's response to Panel question No. 133, para. 279.
521 European Union's opening statement at the first meeting of the Panel, para. 109 (referring to
European Union's letter of 31 January 2014, ARES(2014)226547, SANCO G7/JP/mh(2014)241111 (Exhibit EU-
64)). See also Exhibits EU-65, EU-85, EU-86, EU-173, EU-91, EU-92,EU-94, RUS-154, and RUS-319.
522 European Union's letter of 31 January 2014, ARES(2014)226547, SANCO G7/JP/mh(2014)241111
(Exhibit EU-64).
523 European Union's letter of 31 January 2014, ARES(2014)226547, SANCO G7/JP/mh(2014)241111
(Exhibit EU-64).

meaning of Article 6.3, and subsequent requests in light of subsequent outbreaks of the disease,
and that, consequently, the European Union's claims under Articles 6.1 and 6.2 must fail.524
7.365. The Panel considers that it may be difficult ind eed for any exporting country to seek
recognition of a disease -free area in the absence of a regulatory scheme in the importing country
that permits the recognition of such a concept. Therefore, the Panel first examines whether Russia
recognizes the concep t of disease -free areas within the meaning of Article 6.2 of the
SPS Agreement. Should we find that Russia recognizes such a concept, we will proceed to examine
whether the European Union provided the necessary evidence thereof 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 of the SPS Agreement . Informed by
the Panel's findings on this issue, the Panel will continue by consi dering 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.
7.5.2.3.4 Whether Russia recognizes the concept of pe st – or disease -free areas and
areas of low pest or disease prevalence pursuant to the first sentence of Article 6.2
7.366. We turn to the European Union's claim that Russia acted inconsistently with the first
sentence of Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement by fail ing to recognize the concepts of pest - or
disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence.525
7.367. Article 6 does not specify any particular manner in which a Member must "recognize" the
concepts set out in Article 6.2. 526 The first sentence of Arti cle 6.2 does not prescribe whether a
Member's recognition of the relevant concepts must be done in writing through a formal
governmental act, or whether it may be accomplished in some other manner. 527 From this, the
Appellate Body surmised:
We consider that the fact that Article 6 does not prescribe the particular manner by
which Members must "ensure" adaptation of their SPS measures or "recognize" the
relevant concepts suggests that Members enjoy a degree of latitude in determining
how to do so within their domestic SPS regime. Accordingly, assessing whether or not
a Member has complied with the obligations in Articles 6.1 and 6.2 will necessarily be
a function of the nature of the claims raised by the complainant and the circumstances
of each case. This may involve scrutiny of the specific steps and acts that the Member
has or has not taken in the light of the SPS characteristics of the relevant areas, which
may include pest- or disease-free areas or areas of low pest or disease prevalence, as
well as of broa der aspects of the importing Member's regulatory regime, if any,
governing SPS matters. The second sentence of Article 6.1 also points to the
relevance of appropriate criteria and guidelines developed by relevant international
organizations to the obligation set out in that paragraph. We note, in this regard, that
the Panel appears rightly to have acknowledged that the fact that a relevant
international organization has determined that the concepts of pest - or disease-free
areas and areas of low pest or dis ease prevalence are, or are not, relevant with
respect to a specific pest or disease may have a bearing on the assessment of a
Member's compliance with Article 6 with respect to such pest or disease. 528 This, too,
underscores the case -specific nature of asse ssing whether a Member has complied
with its Article 6 obligations.
While the assessment of the consistency of a Member's SPS measure with Articles 6.1
and 6.2 will be a function of the claims brought by the complainant and the
circumstances of each particular case, it is nevertheless clear that compliance with the
obligations in Articles 6.1 and 6.2 will be facilitated in circumstances where WTO
Members put in place a regulatory scheme or structure that accommodates adaptation

524 Russia's second written submission, paras. 131-132.
525 European Union's second written submission, paras. 89-93.
526 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.136.
527 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.136; and Panel Report, India –
Agricultural Products, para. 7.698.
528 (footnote original) Panel Report, fn 1217 to para. 7.698.

of SPS measures on an ongoin g basis. 529 Furthermore, notwithstanding the
circumstance-specific nature of the inquiries under Articles 6.1 and 6.2, we agree with
the Panel's observation that SPS measures or regulatory schemes that explicitly
foreclose the possibility of recognition of t he concepts of pest - or disease-free areas
and areas of low pest or disease prevalence cannot, when these concepts are relevant
with respect to the diseases addressed by such SPS measures, be found to be
consistent with Article 6.2.530
The interlinkages bet ween Articles 6.1 and 6.2 of the SPS Agreement, in turn,
illuminate the close nexus between a Member's satisfaction of the obligation to
recognize the concepts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease
prevalence set out in Article 6.2, on the one hand, and its satisfaction of the obligation
to ensure that its SPS measures are adapted to the relevant SPS characteristics within
the meaning of Article 6.1, on the other hand. More specifically, in a situation where
pest- or disease-free areas or areas of low pest or disease prevalence are relevant, a
Member may be required to recognize the concepts of these areas not only by virtue
of the express obligation in Article 6.2, but also so as to be in a position properly to
"assess" the SPS cha racteristics of relevant areas under the second sentence of
Article 6.1, and ultimately ensure, as required under the first sentence of Article 6.1,
that its SPS measures are adapted accordingly.531
7.368. Mindful of these considerations, we recall that Russia res ponds to the European Union's
claim under the first sentence of Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement by contending that the
obligation contained therein to recognize the concepts of pest - or disease-free areas and areas of
low pest or disease prevalence relate s to an abstract idea and is not linked to specific areas of a
given exporting Member. 532 Russia accordingly draws the attention of the Panel to existing
Customs Union legislation - specifically, Customs Union Decision No. 317 – which, Russia asserts,
recognizes the concept of disease -free areas in the abstract and explicitly recognizes the concept
of disease-free areas as applied to ASF. 533 In addition, Russia refers to the 2006 Memorandum
between the European Union and Russia which includes provisions aimed at applying the principles
of zoning and regionalization in the international movement of animals and products of animal
origin between EU member States and Russia. 534 On this basis, Russia argues that clearly, Russia
recognizes the concept of disease -free areas not only in the abstract as required under Article 6.2
of the SPS Agreement, but also specifically as applied to ASF and as applied with respect to the
European Union. 535 Russia further argues, specifically in respect of the EU -wide ban, that the
language of the agreed veterinary certificates considers the concept of disease-free areas.536
7.369. Turning to the evidence proffered by Russia in support of its contention that its SPS
regulatory framework recognizes the concept of "regionalization" in the abstract, we note that
Customs Union Decision No. 317 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 contagio us animal 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"; and that "Regionalization is carried out in accordan ce
with the recommendations of the World Organization for Animal Health (hereinafter referred to as
'OIE')(as amended by Decision of the Customs Union Commission No 830 of 18 October 2011)".537

529 (footnote original) This would be the case, for example, where a Member has established a
mechanism for recognition of specific pest- and disease-free areas and areas of low pest and disease
prevalence upon a properly substantiated request being made by an exporting Member seeking such
recognition and allowing verification of the same.
531 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, paras. 5.137-5.139.
532 Russia's first written submission, para. 222.
533 Russia's first written submission, para. 223 and 224 (referring to Exhibit-RUS 25).
534 Russia's first written submission, para. 225.
535 Russia's first written submission, para. 225.
536 Russia's first written submission, para. 411. See also second written submission, paras. 215-218.
537 Section on "Terms used in the Common Veterinary (Veterinary and Health) Requirements" of
Customs Union Decision No. 317 (Exhibit RUS-25), p. 1.

7.370. Moreover, Customs Union Decision No. 317 comprises chapters con taining veterinary
requirements applicable to imports of a number of goods into the Customs Union territory. For
instance, 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."538 All the chapters of Customs Union Decision No. 317
that refer to the products at issue include reference to the ASF situation necessary for accepting
imports of the respective products. 539 For each of the products, the req uirement clearly states "in
the territory of the country or administrative territory." (emphasis added)
7.371. On the basis of the evidence on record , we find that Russia's SPS ASF -related regulatory
framework set out in Customs Union Decision No. 317 , did, and continues to, expressly recognize
the concept of regionalization and the possibility for regionalization to be considered and carried
out. Moreover, the 2006 Memorandum between the European Union and Russia includes provisions
aimed at applying the princip les of zoning and regionalization in the international movement of
animals and products of animal origin between EU member States and Russia 540, and the bilateral
veterinary certificates also contain language recognizing the concept of regionalization in tra de
between Russia and the European Union. 541 In particular, most of the bilaterally agreed veterinary
certificates, referring to the veterinary requirements contained in each certificate, provide that
"[a]dministrative 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". 542 Furthermore, the
bilaterally agreed veterinary certificates recognize the concept of regionalization, in that they
require certification of the freedom of the entire territory of the EU from ASF "except Sardinia",
thereby providing for a different treatment for this area of the European Union.543
7.372. We are therefore not in a situation like the one envisaged by the panel and Appellate Body
in India – Agricultural Products544 where the regulatory scheme of the importing Member explicitly

538 Other relevant chapters include: Chapters 8, 9, 22, 28, 33, 35, 37 and 38. See para. 7.204 and
Table 3.
539 See e.g. Chapter 7 on "Veterinary Requirements for the import into the customs territory of the
Customs Union and/or transfer between Parties of breeding and utility pigs" of Customs Union Decision No. 317
(Exhibit RUS-25).
540 European Union-Russia Memorandum of 4 April 2006 concerning principles of zoning and
compartmentalization in the veterinary field (Exhibit EU-61).
541 See fn 248 above.
542 For instance, see fn 1 of Veterinary certificate for piglets for fattening (Exhibit EU-52). See also fn
248 above.
543 See fn 248 above.
544 In India - Agricultural Products, the panel determined that according to its first sentence, Article 6.2
("Members shall … recognize the concepts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease
prevalence") imposes the obligation to recognize the "concepts". The panel clarified that the term concept is
defined as an "abstract idea" ((footnote original) The Oxford Dictionaries Online, accessed 10 April 2014,
<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/concept?q=concept>.) or "an idea of a class of objects,
a general notion or idea".((footnote original) The Oxford English Dictionary, OED Online, Oxford University
Press, accessed 10 April 2014, <http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/38130?rskey=vaS8sT&result=1#eid>.) The
panel further explained that this means that Members are required to recognize the idea or notion of pest- or
disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence in the abstract; the obligation under the first
sentence of Article 6.2, is not linked to specific areas of a given exporting Member. Panel Report, India -
Agricultural Products, para. 7.695. The panel also recalled that the relevant implementing instrument
prohibited the importation of the relevant products on a country-wide basis. The panel found nothing on the
face of this instrument that allows for the recognition of disease-free areas and/or areas of low disease
prevalence within a country that notifies NAI to the OIE. To the contrary, the panel considered that S.O.
1663(E) "reflects the opposite", Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.702, and that it does so in
"clear and unequivocal language" Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.703. Therefore, the panel
held that, "by imposing a prohibition on a country-wide basis, [S.O. 1663(E)] contradicts the requirement to
recognize the concept of disease-free areas and areas of low disease prevalence". Panel Report, India –
Agricultural Products, para. 7.702. The Appellate Body found that the panel did not err in its application of
Article 6.2 by not relying solely on certain legislative provisions that were silent on the concepts of disease-free
areas and areas of low-disease prevalence in assessing whether India recognized the concepts of disease-free
areas and areas of low-disease prevalence. Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, paras. 5.173-
5.175. Furthermore, the Appellate Body did not exclude the possibility that recognition of the concepts could
be done through and upon adoption of the very SPS measure that is adapted to the SPS characteristics of the
relevant areas. Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.175.

forecloses the possibility of recognition of the concepts of pest - or disease-free areas and areas of
low pest or disease prevalence such that it cannot be found to be consistent with Article 6.2.
7.373. Recalling that the acknowledgement of particular "abstract ideas" for the purposes of
Article 6.2 is less stringent than the obligation of "ensuring" that a measure is "adapted" to the
SPS characteristics of an area under Art icle 6.1, w e find that Russia's legislative framework
recognizes the concept of regionalization within the meaning of Article 6.2 of the
SPS Agreement.545
7.374. However, the parties' arguments press us to further examine whether such recognition in a
Member's le gislative/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. The European Union posits that although Russia contends that its l egislation recognizes the
concept of disease -free areas in the abstract, this understanding of "recognition" contradicts the
recent guidance from the Appellate Body in India – Agricultural Products . According to the
European Union, 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." 546 The European Union refers to the
existence of the EU -wide ban as evidence that Russia has failed to distinguish between ASF -free
areas and areas considered infected with ASF. 547 Moreover, the Europe an Union argues that
Russia's recognition of regionalization is contradicted by the facts of this case. 548 For its part, with
reference to the same Appellate Body ruling in India – Agricultural Products, Russia argues that
there is considerable flexibility in the ways that Members can demonstrate that their recognition of
the concept of regionalization is consistent with the SPS Agreement. 549 Russia distinguishes
between the recognition of the concept of regionalization and the acceptance of specific
regionalization measures in a particular case, contending that Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement
and the SPS Committee Guidelines on the Implementation of Article 6 do not impose an obligation
on the importing country to actually recognize an exporting country's zone . Russia argues that
instead, Article 6.2 merely requires the importing country to allow for the consideration of
regionalization.550
7.375. We note that the European Union's reference to the Appellate Body report in India –
Agricultural Products corresponds to the paragraphs where the Appellate Body examined the
rationale on which the panel in that dispute grounded the relationship between Articles 6.1 and
6.2. In particular, the Appellate Body expressed disagreement with the panel's idea that "the
obligation to ensure that a Member's SPS measures are 'adapted' within the meaning of Article 6.1
always presupposes that a Member must have recognized the concepts mentioned in Article
6.2".551 In the context of such disagreement, the Appellate Body observed that "we quest ion the
Panel's statement to the extent that it may be read as excluding that recognition of the concepts
could be done through and upon adoption of the very SPS measure that is adapted to the SPS
characteristics of the relevant areas". 552 In our view, the A ppellate Body's considerations were
aimed at addressing a situation where an SPS measure adopted by a Member could recognize the
concepts mentioned in Article 6.2 even in the absence of a pre -existing regulatory framework that
did so.

545 We find support in the approach of the panel in US – Animals, which referred to the reasoning of the
panel in India – Agricultural Products and concluded that "Members are required to accept the authority and
validity of the general notions of 'pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence' and
to treat them as worthy of consideration in the adoption and application of their SPS measures." Panel Report,
US – Animals, para. 7.647. In particular, the Panel referred to the "less exigent obligation" of the first sentence
of Article 6.2, which "simply requires" acknowledgement of particular "abstract ideas", as compared to the
obligations under Article 6.1 of "ensuring" that a measure is "adapted" to the SPS characteristics of an area
under Article 6.1. Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.647.
546 European Union's second written submission, para. 90. (emphasis original)
547 European Union's second written submission, para. 91.
548 European Union's second written submission, para. 92.
549 Russia's second written submission, para. 133, citing Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural
Products, para. 5.137.
550 Russia's second written submission, para. 135 (referring to SPS Committee Guidelines on the
Implementation of Article 6 (Exhibit EU-51)).
551 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.143.
552 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.143.

7.376. However, in the current case, we are faced with a different situation. As we have described
above, we are faced with a set of measures that were adopted in the context of a regulatory
framework that, in our view, provides a general recognition of the concepts mentioned in the first
sentence of Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement. This was not the case in the context of the
measures adopted by India and examined by the panel and the Appellate Body in India –
Agricultural Products. In addition, in the current dispute, the measures at issue allegedly fail to
accept the existence of any disease -free area within the territory of the European Union. As we
have alluded to in paragraph 7.373 above, in our view, such a claim is best examined in the
context of our analysis of a Member's obligation under Article 6.1, rather than under Article 6.2 of
the SPS Agreement.
7.377. We consider this to be the best approach for the following reasons. The European Union's
proposed interpretation of the concept "recognition" seems to rely on the assumption that the only
manner in which a Member could satisfy its obligation under Article 6.2 is by granting the
recognition of the concepts listed in the first sentence of Article 6.2 through the challenged SPS
measure. In our view, thi s assumption does not always apply. It could be the case that the
challenged SPS measure would be a means to determine whether a Member recognizes the
relevant concepts of the first sentence of Article 6.2. However, as noted by the Appellate Body, the
text of the first sentence of Article 6.2, does not refer to the manner in which a Member shall
recognize those concepts.553 As we have explained, we do not consider this to be a case where the
challenged SPS measure is the most suitable way to determine compliance with Article 6.2.
7.378. Moreover, we consider that the European Union's proposed interpretation would lead the
first sentence of Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement to redundancy and inutility in the present case.
If we accept the European Union's suggested int erpretation, we would be examining a crucial
element of our 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. In our view , the European Union's approach might lead to a situation where a panel
faced with an SPS measure adopted by a Member which has in place a legal framework that
recognizes the concepts described in the first sentence of Article 6. 2, to still find an inconsi stency
of a challenged measure with the first sentence of Article 6.2. In our view, this could lead us to act
against the principle of effective treaty interpretation ( ut res magis valeat quam pereat ),
recognized by the Appellate Body as that which require s an interpreter to give meaning and effect
to all the terms of the treaty, and precludes an interpreter from adopting a reading that would
result in reducing whole clauses or paragraphs of a treaty to redundancy or inutility.554
7.379. Based on the foregoing, we c onsider that Russia recognizes the concepts mentioned in the
first sentence of Article 6.2 in respect of ASF and as a consequence , the EU -wide ban is not
inconsistent with Russia's obligations under the first sentence of Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement.
Following this finding we turn to examine the European Union's compliance with the provisions of
Article 6.3 in order to have findings that will inform our analysis of Russia's compliance with its
obligations under Article 6.1.
7.5.2.3.5 Whether the European Union objectively demonstrated that there are disease-
free areas or areas of low disease prevalence outside the territory of Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland, pursuant to Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement
7.5.2.3.5.1 Introduction
7.380. The European Union argues that since the detection of ASF in wild boar in Lithuania in
January 2014 , the European Union has provided Russia with information that it considers as
beyond what is necessary for objectively demonstrating that disease -free areas or areas of low
disease prevalence are and are likely to remain disease -free areas or areas of low disease
prevalence, respectively.555 The European Union contends that it has provided in a timely manner
all the necessary information with respect to its ASF regionalization measures in Lithuania, Poland,

553 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.136.
554 Appellate Body Report, Korea – Dairy, para. 80 (referring to Appellate Body Reports, United States –
Gasoline, p. 23; Japan – Alcoholic Beverages, p. 12; Canada –Dairy, para. 133; and Argentina – Footwear
(EC), para. 88.)
555 European Union's first written submission, paras. 218 and 219-232.

Latvia and Estonia, to objectively demonstrate to Russia that the areas in these EU member States
and the rest of the European Union, except Sardinia, are and are likely to remain disease-free
areas; and that reasonable access has been given to Rus sia for inspection, testing and other
relevant procedures. The European Union asserts that Russia failed to conclude its recognition
process without undue delays, in violation of its obligations under Article 6 of the
SPS Agreement.556
7.381. The European Union opi nes that under Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, an importing
Member is under no obligation to automatically accept a regionalization proposal from the
exporting Member. However, its decision must take into account objective factors such as those
enunciated in the second sentence of Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement: geography, ecosystems,
epidemiological surveillance and the effectiveness of sanitary controls . In case of disagreement
between the importing and the exporting Members, the exporting Member can refer the dispute to
the WTO adjudicating bodies. A panel presented with such a case has the duty to make an
objective assessment of the matter before it according to Article 11 of the DSU.557
7.382. Russia argues that the European Union has failed to objectively demonstrate to Russia that
the alleged ASF -free areas in the four infected EU Member States "are, and are likely to remain,
pest- or disease-free areas", in accordance with Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement. 558 In Russia's
view, the European Union has failed t o effectively establish ASF containment zones in accordance
with the OIE guidelines and therefore the entirety of the four affected EU member States should
be considered ASF -infected.559 Russia argues that the European Union failed to provide timely,
comprehensive and accurate information relevant for assessing its zones and ASF -control
measures inconsistently with Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement and Terrestrial Code Article 5.3.7.
Furthermore, the European Union withheld national eradication plans from Russia until March 2015
and May 2015, despite acknowledging that these reports contain highly relevant information.560
7.5.2.3.5.2 Legal test
7.383. Pursuant to Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, an exporting Member claiming that an area
within its territory is pest – or disease -free or an area of low pest or disease prevalence shall
provide the necessary evidence 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.
7.384. We consider that an assessment under Article 6.3 requires us to examine a number of
aspects. We observe that the exporting Member must provide "evidence", and not merely
"information", to support its claim of a disease -free area. Moreover, suc h evidence must not only
"demonstrate", but must rather "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. With this in mind , f irst, we need to determine what is the "necessary
evidence" that must be provided by the exporting Member . We also need to determine what is
meant by "objectively demonstrating" the disease status of an area. In our view, the examination
of these two el ements needs to be done in relation to the disease status an exporting Member is
claiming to exist, in the light of the circumstances of a particular dispute. In the instant case, the
European Union claims that there are areas within the European Union tha t are ASF-free and are
likely to remain so.561 In our consideration of what is the "necessary evidence" the European Union
should have provided to Russia, we will look at both areas being ASF -free and the likelihood of
those areas remaining free of the disea se. Similarly, we consider it appropriate for our analysis of
the parties' claims in this dispute to articulate the standard of what is required to "objectively
demonstrate" in respect of an area being ASF -free and also in respect of that area being likely to
remain so. We turn to examine the meaning of "necessary evidence".

556 European Union's first written submission, para. 236.
557 European Union's response to Panel question No. 112, paras. 219-220.
558 Russia's first written submission, para. 236.
559 Russia's first written submission, para. 237.
560 See Russia's second written submission, paras. 58-77.
561 European Union's opening statement at the second meeting of the Panel, para. 46 (referring to first
written submission, paras. 218-236; and second written submission, paras. 101-125).

7.385. The panels in India – Agricultural Products and US – Animals observed that Article 6.3
does not specify what evidence would be necessary for the exporting Member to provide to the
importing Member to objectively demonstrate that an area within its territory is, and is likely to
remain, pest- or disease-free or with low pest or disease prevalence.562
7.386. The panel in India – Agricultural Products acknowledged the potential link between the
information required for the assessment of SPS characteristics envisaged by the second sentence
of Article 6.1, and the obligation of an exporting Member to provide the "necessary evidence"
under the first sentence of Article 6.3, that an area within its territory is pest- or disease-free or of
low pest or disease prevalence. In this context, that panel observed that
Article 6.1, second sentence, provides a non -exhaustive list of factors that a Member
could consider in assessing the SPS characteristics of t he area in question. Thus
although Article 6.1 may inform the inquiry that an importing Member may conduct in
order to determine whether an exporting Member has 'objectively demonstrated' that
there is an area within its territory that is pest - or disease-free or is an area of low
pest or disease prevalence, there is nothing in the language of either provision that
requires this particular approach.563
7.387. The panel in US – Animals, observed that the second sentence of Article 6.2 provides a
non-exhaustive list o f factors that the importing Member shall consider in reaching a conclusion
concerning the disease status of an area. That panel observed that "if an exporting Member wishes
to 'objectively demonstrate' the disease free status of an area the information su bmitted should
address the factors listed in Article 6.2 in addition to any other information that would assist the
importing Member in making its determination. The Article 6 Guidelines are also informative
regarding the evidence that should be provided b y the exporting Member, as well as the factors
that should normally be considered by the importing Member in such a situation.564"565
7.388. We agree that the factors listed in the second sentence of Article 6.1 as well as the second
sentence of Article 6.2 may form part of the "necessary evidence" that an exporting Member needs
to provide to the importing Member in order to "objectively demonstrate" that an area within its
territory is, and is likely to remain, pest - or disease-free or with low pest or disease preval ence.
Furthermore, we also consider the SPS Committee Guidelines on the Implementation of Article 6 to
be informative in this respect.566
7.389. In sum, an exporting Member seeking to "objectively demonstrate" the disease status of a
particular area within its terr itory should provide among the supporting "necessary evidence", the
following about the respective area, as relevant to the particular situation: (i) geography;
(ii) ecosystems; (iii) epidemiological surveillance; (iv) effectiveness of sanitary or phytosan itary
controls; (v) level of prevalence of specific diseases or pests; (vi) existence of eradication or
control programmes; and (v ii) information corresponding to appropriate criteria or guidelines
developed by the relevant international organizations. We highlight that the categories and
amount of evidence in respect of each has to be determined on a case -by-case basis, taking due
account of the actual circumstances being analysed by a panel.
7.390. We recall that pursuant to Article 6.3 such evidence should amo unt to that which is
"necessary" to "objectively demonstrate" the disease status of the particular area. In our view, an
examination of the compliance of an exporting Member with this obligation requires a clear
understanding of what such an objective demo nstration entails. Neither previous panels nor the
Appellate Body have ruled on the meaning of "objectively demonstrate" in the context of
Article 6.3.

563 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.676.
564 (footnote original) See Article 6 Guidelines, paras. 8-10.
566 We consider of special importance in this dispute the characteristics of the veterinary and
phytosanitary infrastructure and authorities in the exporting Member, as relevant for the determination of
epidemiological surveillance, the effectiveness of sanitary or phytosanitary controls, and the existence of
eradication or control programmes. See Article 6 Guidelines, paras. 8-10.

7.391. The adverb "objectively" is defined in the dictionary as "without being influenced by
personal feelings or opinions; in an impartial or detached manner." 567 The verb "demonstrate" is
defined in the dictionary as "[t]o establish the truth of (a proposition, theory, claim, etc.) by
reasoning or deduction or (in later use) by providing practical proof or eviden ce"; "to prove"; "[o]f
a thing, fact, situation, etc.: to show the truth of"; "to be proof of or constitute evidence for (a
claim, theory, etc.)"; and "[t]o establish the truth of something; to show that a proposition,
conclusion, etc., is a necessary cons equence of axioms or previously accepted statements." 568 It
thus seems that "objectively demonstrate" means to prove something in an impartial manner. We
consider thus that the exporting Member cannot merely provide general information in support of
its clai m, but rather sufficient relevant scientific and technical evidence, as relevant for the
circumstances of the particular dispute, to prove in an impartial manner that an area within its
territory is free of a disease and is likely to remain so.
7.392. We consider this conclusion to be in line with the manner in which the Appellate Body
interpreted the meaning of a similar expression in Article 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement.
Although this interpretation was made by the Appellate Body in the context of a differe nt WTO
Agreement, we consider this to be informative in the current dispute. Article 3.1 of the Anti -
Dumping Agreement provides that a "determination of injury for the purposes of Article VI of the
GATT 1994 shall be based on positive evidence and involve an objective examination of…". The
Appellate Body has found that the term "objective examination" requires "that an investigating
authority's examination 'conform to the dictates of the basic principles of good faith and
fundamental fairness', and be condu cted 'in an unbiased manner, without favouring the interests
of any interested party, or group of interested parties, in the investigation'". 569 In essence, the
term "objective" requires a standard of impartiality.
7.393. In our view, Article 6.3 requires an exporting Member to provide the "necessary evidence",
which includes the categories described in paragraph 7.389 above, in order to "objectively
demonstrate", that is, in order to prove in an impartial manner, the disease status of a n area
within its territory. The Panel underlines that this standard is not met with the provision of some
information in respect of the relevant categories described above. Rather, it implies the provision
to the importing Member of the necessary evidence to make the objective demonstration of the
disease status in the territory of the exporting Member.
7.394. The disease status relevant for this dispute includes the existence of ASF-free areas as well
as the likelihood of those areas remaining ASF -free. This re quires examining, as relevant to the
circumstances of the present dispute, the information that would constitute the "necessary
evidence" that the European Union should have provided to Russia to objectively demonstrate that
there are ASF -free areas within the European Union . We also need to examine separately what
would constitute the "necessary evidence" that the European Union should have provided to Russia
to objectively demonstrate that the alleged ASF-free areas are likely to remain so.
7.395. We have identified among the "necessary evidence" required to "objectively demonstrate"
the disease status in a particular area, a Member should provide evidence of (i) geography;
(ii) ecosystems; (iii) epidemiological surveillance; (iv) effectiveness of sanitary or phy tosanitary
controls; (v) level of prevalence of specific diseases or pests; (vi) existence of eradication or
control programmes; and (vi i) information corresponding to appropriate criteria or guidelines
developed by the relevant international organizations . We note that this is an illustrative list, and
that these elements are not cumulative. Furthermore, some of these elements are interrelated. For
example, geography may not be a relevant factor in the spread of all pests or diseases, and
control and eradication programmes are relevant only when a particular disease is known to exist
within an area. At the same time, the level of prevalence of a specific disease can only be
established through assessing the effectiveness of surveillance programmes.

567 Online Oxford English Dictionary, "objectively (adverb, entry 5)",
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/129636?redirectedFrom=objectively#eid (accessed 17 December 2015)
568 Online Oxford English Dictionary, "demonstrate (verb, Entries 2.a, 2.b, and 2.c.)
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/49840?rskey=9X3Glf&result=2&isAdvanced=false#eid (accessed 17
December 2015).
569 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 126. See also Appellate Body Report, US – Hot Rolled
Steel, para. 193.

7.396. In our view, the amount and type of evidence that a Member should present in support of
the disease status of a particular area needs to be determined on a case -by-case basis. Therefore,
we will review certain aspects relevant to this dispute that will enable us t o identify in a more
specific manner the categories of information the European Union should have provided Russia to
objectively demonstrate that there are areas within its territory free of ASF.
7.397. Especially relevant in determining the categories of eviden ce germane to a particular
dispute are the nature of the disease and the type of characteristics that an exporting Member is
claiming to prevail within an area of its territory. As we have already indicated, the European
Union claims that it has objectivel y demonstrated that an area within its territory is free of ASF
and is likely to remain so. 570 We consider that the European Union's claim should be examined in
light of the absence of ASF in most of its territory.
7.398. We recall the definition in the SPS Agreeme nt of a pest- or disease-free area. Paragraph 6
of Annex A of the SPS Agreement provides
An 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.
NOTE: A pest - or disease-free area may surround, be surrounded by, or be adjacent
to an area – whether within part of a country or in a geographic region which includes
parts of or all of several countries – in which a specific pest o r disease is known to
occur but is subject to regional control measures such as the establishment of
protection, surveillance and buffer zones which will confine or eradicate the pest or
disease in question.
7.399. This definition provides useful elements to unde rstand what a Member needs to prove to
demonstrate the existence of a disease -free area. In particular, paragraph 6 of Annex A defines a
disease-free area as one where the specific disease does not occur. Reading Article 6.3 in the
context of paragraph 6 o f Annex A leads us to consider that an exporting Member seeking to
objectively demonstrate the existence of a disease -free area has to objectively demonstrate that
the pertinent disease does not occur in the relevant area (i.e. all of a country, part of a country, or
all or parts of several countries). Based on our interpretation of the term s "necessary evidence" in
Article 6.3, we have already identified some categories of evidence that would be necessary to
objectively demonstrate the disease status of an area. However, we consider it appropriate to
further examine relevant scientific sources to have a more detailed understanding of what each of
those categories of information refers to in the context of a specific disease.
7.400. We are aware that it is impossib le for any Member to provide a laboratory -type scientific
proof that a particular disease is not present in a certain area. What an exporting Member claiming
that an area within its territory is disease free must objectively demonstrate depends on the
specific disease and on the situation in that particular Member. This may include that evidence of
the existence of the disease has been sought and not found, that monitoring, surveillance and
reporting systems are in place to ensure that any evidence of the e xistence of the disease would
be promptly reported, that measures to prevent the entry of the disease are in place, among other
aspects. These elements are linked to the existence of a pathogen specific surveillance system, as
applicable in the context of the international standards contained in Chapter 1.4 of the Terrestrial
Code.571
7.401. We recall that Chapter 1.4 of the Terrestrial Code contains a number of provisions relevant
for the type of surveillance that OIE members should follow in order to demonstrate t he disease
status of a particular area. Among the provisions of Chapter 1.4, Article 1.4.6 illustrates the type
of evidence that should be provided by a Member exporting products subject to SPS measures
because of the presence of a disease covered by the T errestrial Code. This provision applies to
ASF, as indicated in Article 15.1.3 of the Terrestrial Code. As we have explained above,

570 European Union's opening statement at the second meeting of the Panel, para. 46 (referring to first
written submission, paras. 218-236; and second written submission, paras. 101-125).
571 See para. 7.299 above.

Article 1.4.6 contemplates the possibility that ASF -free areas may be determined on the basis of
pathogen specific surveillance.572
7.402. In connection with the OIE 's explanation on the demonstration of disease -free areas
pursuant to Article 1.4.6 of the Terrestrial Code 573, during the Panel's meeting with the experts,
the Panel asked the experts what type of evidence they consider an exporting member would need
to provide to demonstrate the historically free status of a zone. In reply to this question,
Dr Thiermann referred to the historic monitoring and surveillance of pathogens as documented in
the OIE's WAHIS information system. Furt hermore, Professor Penrith noted that it would be hard
to imagine a situation where the infection would be present in domestic pigs and be completely
undetected and not cause any disease in a certain percentage of the pig population.574
7.403. The elements described above as articulated in Article 1.4.6 of the Terrestrial Code and as
explained by the OIE and the experts in respect of demonstration of the disease status of a
country, zone or compartment illustrate how we can understand the scope of certain categories of
the necessary evidence required, pursuant to Article 6.3, to objectively demonstrate the existence
of ASF-free areas.
7.404. Based on the foregoing, we consider that the European Union should have provided to
Russia necessary evidence in respect of (i) epide miological 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 level of prevalence of ASF. The information provided
by the European U nion to Russia in respect of these categories should objectively demonstrate
that there are ASF-free areas within the European Union.
7.405. No previous panel has been required to examine pursuant to Article 6.3 what is the
necessary evidence to objectively demo nstrate that a disease-free area is likely to remain so . The
terms "likely to remain" as contained in Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, seem to be close to the
term "likelihood" in paragraph 4 of Annex A as referred to in the definition of a risk assessmen t.
"Likely" is used as an adverb in the last sentence of Article 6.3. "Likelihood" is used as a noun in
the context of the first sentence of paragraph 4 of Annex A. According to the dictionary definition,
both "likely" and "likelihood" refer to "probability".575 We recall that the Appellate Body has
interpreted the term "likelihood" in the context of paragraph 4 of Annex A. In Australia – Salmon,
the Appellate Body observed:
[W]e note that the first definition in paragraph 4 of Annex A speaks about the
evaluation of "likelihood". In our report in European Communities – Hormones, we
referred to the dictionary meaning of "probability" as "degrees of likelihood " and "a
thing that is judged likely to be true ", for the purpose of distinguishing the terms
"potential" and "probability".576 For the present purpose, we refer in the same manner
to the ordinary meaning of "likelihood", and we consider that it has the same meaning
as "probability".577 On this basis, as well as on the basis of the definition of "risk" and
"risk assessment" developed by the Office international des épizooties ( "OIE") and the
OIE Guidelines for Risk Assessment , we maintain that for a risk assessment to fall
within the meaning of Article 5.1 and the first definition in paragraph 4 of Annex A, it
is not sufficient that a risk assessment conclude that there is a possibility of entry,
establishment or spread of diseases and associated biological and economic
consequences. A proper risk assessment of this type must evaluate the "likelihood",
i.e., the "probability", of entry, establishment or spread of disease and associated
biological and economic consequences as well as the "likelihood", i.e., "probability", of

572 See para. 7.303 above.
573 OIE response to Panel question No. 4.
574 Professor Penrith, Transcript, paras. 1.303 and 1.308
575 See Online Oxford English Dictionary, "likely" (adj. and adv. - 2.a),
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/108315?rskey=cgzqFH&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid (accessed
2 February 2016) and Online Oxford English Dictionary, "likelihood" (noun - 2.a),
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/108313?redirectedFrom=likelihood#eid (accessed 2 February 2016).
576 (footnote original) Adopted 13 February 1998, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, para. 184.
577 (footnote original) "Likelihood: probability", The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (9th ed.,
Clarendon Press).

entry, establishment or spread of disease according to the SPS measures which might
be applied.578
7.406. Based on this guidance, we consider that the objective demonstration of whether an area
is likely to remain free of a disease requires the exporting Member to provide the necessary
evidence to support that there is "probability" that the disease-free status will be maintained in the
particular area. In respect of an exporting Member's qualitative assertion that a disease -free area
is likely to remain so, we consider that the necessary evidence is also informed by the nature of
the disease and the natu ral vectors that could spread the disease in the context of the
effectiveness of the control measures that the exporting Member has in place for the particular
disease.
7.407. As we have explained, ASF is a highly contagious haemorrhagic disease of pigs and
European wild boar, caused by ASFV. Wild boars are hosts that manifest the disease. 579 It is
therefore relevant for the determination of the probability of the spread of the disease to provide
evidence in respect of the presence of the disease in wild boar and t he exact location of where
such presence has been identified. This will be of particular relevance in situations where the areas
claimed to be free of ASF by the exporting Member are located in geographic proximity to areas
where ASF is present in wild boars.
7.408. In our view, in addition to the evidence that we have already identified with respect to the
demonstration of an area being disease -free, an exporting Member should provide evidence of the
effectiveness of its control measures. We consider that this evidence should at least include
evidence with respect to measures to prevent the entry and spread of the disease, the emergency
actions adopted in case of an outbreak of the disease, and , when relevant, the eradication
programmes of the disease in areas where it occurs.
7.409. Moreover, we consider that pursuant to the Terrestrial Code, the evaluation of veterinary
services in the exporting Member is relevant in the context of the assessment of the effectiveness
of the control measures applied by that exporting Mem ber. The relevant provisions in this respect
are found in Chapter 3 of the Terrestrial Code; specifically in Chapter 3.2. In our view, for an
importing Member to feel confident about the assurances provided by the veterinary authorities of
the exporting Member, it should have the necessary evidence that demonstrates that the exporting
Member's veterinary authorities are capable.
7.410. In this case, the facts demonstrate that there has been a long trading history in animal
products from the European Union to Russi a, and that, until the first case of ASF in the European
Union's territory, the trade in the products at issue in this dispute took place on the basis of
veterinary certificates issued by the competent authorities in the EU member States. Thus, until
the t ime of the first ASF case in the European Union, Russia apparently had confidence in the
capacity and credibility of the EU member State veterinary services. We consider this to be the
case despite Russia's alleged "reasonable doubts about the capacity of the veterinary authorities in
the infected EU member States to effectively control ASF". 580 In our view , the instances of
smuggling and fraudulent certificates to which Russia refers are by no means evidence that would
support putting into question the capacity of the veterinary authorities in the European Union or in
the affected EU member States. 581 There is no indication whatsoever that such capacity and

578 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Salmon, para. 123 (some footnotes omitted) (emphasis original

579 OIE Technical Disease Card: African Swine Fever (ASF Technical Disease Card)
http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Animal_Health_in_the_World/docs/pdf/Disease_cards/AFRICAN_SWIN
E_FEVER.pdf (last updated April 2013; last accessed 23 October 2015). See OIE ASF Technical Disease Card
(Exhibit RUS-186).
580 Russia's first written submission, paras. 160-175; and second written submission, paras. 122-124.
581 Russia's first written submission, paras. 163-168 (referring to Declaration of Lebedev, paras. 30-33
(Exhibit RUS-41), Rosselkhoznadzor News, "New Meat Product Smuggling Channel from the EU Detected by
Rosselkhoznadzor", 16 January 2014. (Exhibit RUS-85), Pig Progress, "Russia: Measures needed to stop pork
fraud", 5 December 2014. (Exhibit RUS-86), Rosselkhoznadzor News, "On the working meeting between
Sergey Dankvert, Head of Rosselkhoznadzor, and Senior Officials of State Veterinary Services and Heads of
Industry Unions and Associations from Denmark, France, the Netherlands and Italy", 20 November 2014.
(Exhibit RUS-87); and second written submission, para. 124 ((referring to instances of shortcomings related to
certificates dating back to 2007, 2010 EFSA Scientific Opinion, p. 37 (Exhibit EU-24)).

credibility ceased to exist solely because of the incidence of ASF within the European Union
territory. On the contrary, despite Russia's observations regarding the credibility and capacity of
the relevant veterinary services582, in light of the volume and frequency of information provided by
the European Union veterinary services to Russia regarding the ASF ca ses and outbreaks, the
numerous bilateral exchanges and control visits that both parties have reported, it would appear
that the capacity and credibility of the European Union veterinary services was confirmed by their
actions in response to the ASF outbreaks.
7.411. One useful element for the assessment of the effectiveness of these control measures, to
the extent it is available, is data regarding the actual spread of a disease within a given time
frame. If such data is available to the exporting Member at the time it claims that disease -free
areas within its territory are likely to remain free, this real world evidence could support – or
undermine – its claims of the likelihood of a designated area remaining disease free. There may be
situations when an exporting Member claims on several occasions that disease-free areas within its
territory are likely to remain free. In that situation, the assessment of the real world evidence
could include the most updated information available to an exporting Member . In this particular
dispute, the EU member States provide information to the OIE that is then registered in the
WAHIS database.583 In response to a question from the Panel, both parties explained that there
might be discrepancies in the information they have identifi ed regarding the number of cases and
of outbreaks, probably due to the use of different sources and to distinct readings of the
information available in the WAHIS database. 584 These differences have raised some difficulties in
identifying the specific time and location of some of the cases or outbreaks. However, the evidence
on record has supported our understanding of the presence and spread of ASF in the territory of
the four affected EU member States throughout 2014 and part of 2015.
7.412. In our view, it is of paramount importance to indicate whether the presence of the disease
has occurred in wildlife or in domestic pigs. This is because, as the experts consulted by the Panel
have explained, there is a difference in the risks associated with the spread of ASF disease through
wild boar and through infection of live domestic pigs. Professor Penrith 585 and Dr Thomson 586
indicated that it is unlikely that wild boars will become the most important source of infection.
While ASF may be difficult to eradicate in wild boar, controls on the movement of wild boar may be
sufficient to reduce the risks of spread to and infection of large commercial pig holdings subject to
biosecurity measures. It is primarily these large commercial pig holdings which provide the
animals used in the production of products for export.
7.413. Based on the foregoing, we consider that to objectively demonstrate that ASF -free areas
are likely to remain so the European Union should have provided to Russia the necessary evidence
in respect of the effectivenes s of its control measures on ASF (including information on their
effectiveness in the real world) . For this purpose, we will address the information provided on:
(i) the surveillance programme; (ii) diagnostic analysis; (iii) measures for early detection a nd
response, including movement control; and (iv) eradication of the disease.

582 Russia's first written submission, paras. 80-110 and opening oral statement in the second meeting of
the Panel, para. 8 (regarding the appropriateness of the zones established in the four affected EU member
States to control the spread of ASF); Exhibit RUS-297 (revised) (referring to the effectiveness of the ASF-
infected zones set by each of the four affected EU member States after the first outbreak in the respective EU
member State); Exhibits EU-15, EU-84, RUS-31, RUS-53, and RUS-263 (referring to certain aspects of the
effectiveness of the ASF protection measures adopted by the European Union and the four affected EU member
States); first written submission, paras. 117-130 (referring to the risks of ASF spreading arising from wild boar
density and levels of establishments and holdings maintaining pigs in backyard farms in the four affected EU
member States); Exhibits RUS-71, RUS-309, and RUS-359 (reports of Russian officials who visited certain
areas in the affected EU member States in 2014). The Panel notes that there is evidence on record that
Lithuanian and Polish veterinary authorities challenged some of the incidents reported by Russian veterinary
officials who visited those EU member States in 2014; see Exhibits EU-248 (comments from Lithuanian
veterinary authorities to the inspection report of the veterinary officials from the Customs Union) and EU-249
(comments from Polish veterinary authorities to the inspection report of veterinary officials from the Customs
Union).
583 See para. 7.425 below.
584 See European Union's response to Panel question No. 52, paras. 118-120; and Russia' response to
Panel question No. 52, paras. 75-76.
585 Professor Penrith's response to Panel question No. 2.
586 Dr Thomson's response to Panel question No. 2.

7.414. If we find that the European Union 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.
7.415. With these considerati ons in mind we will examine whether the European Union provided
to Russia the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that there are areas in the European
Union, outside Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, that are ASF -free and are likely to rema in
so.
7.416. Our task, then, is to make an objective assessment, pursuant to Article 11 of the DSU, of
whether the European Union provided Russia with the necessary evidence to objectively
demonstrate that areas within the European Union are, and are likely to r emain, free of ASF. We
will undertake our examination by assessing the parties' arguments and evidence. We will also
support our analysis, as relevant, with the guidance we received through the responses from the
experts. We recall that the following exami nation is focused on the geographical scope of the EU -
wide ban, this is, those areas in the European Union outside the territories of Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland. In section 7.6.2.3.2 below we pursue this same examin ation in respect of
the allegedly disease-free areas within those territories.
7.417. We recall that the EU -wide ban was initially put in place on 2 9 January 2014. The
European Union's first request for recognition of disease -free areas was addressed to Russia o n
31 January 2014. At that time, the EU-wide ban included the entire territory of the European Union
with the exception of Lithuania. This situation changed on 27 February 2014, when the ban on
Poland was put in place, then again on 27 June 2014 when the ban on Latvia was put in place, and
finally on 11 September 2014 when the ban on Estonia was put in place. In section 7.3.6 above,
we have set out the general temporal framework that we will follow in our examination of the
European Union's claims. Based on that general approach and the temporal considerations referred
to above, we will examine the information provided by the European Union in the period between
29 January and 11 September 2014, as well as any subsequent informat ion on record, in order to
determine if and at which points in time the European Union provided the necessary evidence
pursuant to its obligation under Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement. We note that this approach is
justified in the context of the present dispute and it may not be the case for other disputes where
the situation in respect of the disease in question has different temporal circumstances.
7.418. In the following section, the Panel presents, according to the evidence on record, the
information that the European Union provided to Russia from January 2014 until September 2015.
This section will be followed by the Panel's examination of such evidence in light of the parties'
arguments and the applicable legal test.
7.5.2.3.5.3 Information provided by the European Union to Russia from January 2014
7.419. From 24 January 2014 , the European Union sent correspondence to Russia relating to the
ASF outbreaks, first in Lithuania, then in Poland, Latvia, and Estonia. The European Union's
correspondence can be divided into three broad categories.
7.420. The first category includes updates, at times daily, on the status of new ASF outbreaks in
the affected EU member States. This information was normally addressed to Permanent Missions
in Brussels, including Russia's, and provided through fa xes. These faxes normally forwarded the
report of the national veterinary authority of the EU member State where the outbreak had taken
place, together with the Commission Implementing Decision 587 (Draft or Final) adopted in respect
of identifying the protec tion and surveillance zones mandated in Council Directive 2002/60/EC in
the territory where the outbreak had occurred.588

587 See Exhibits EU-33, EU-34, EU-35, EU-36, EU-37, EU-38, EU-39, EU-40, EU-41, EU-42, EU-43,
EU-44, EU-103, EU-107, RUS-36, RUS-151, RUS-268, RUS-298, RUS. 299, RUS-300, RUS-301, and RUS-302.
588 See Exhibits EU-132, EU-133, EU-134, EU-135, EU-136, EU-137, EU-138, EU-139, EU-140, EU-141,
EU-142, RUS-30, EU-143, EU-144, EU-145, EU-146, EU-147, EU-148, EU-206, EU-186, EU-207, EU-208, EU-
209, EU-210, EU-187, RUS-326, RUS-327, RUS-328, EU-177, EU-211, and EU-212.

7.421. The second category relates to communications sent by the European Union in connection
with meetings that both parties planned in order to undertake consultations on the manner in
which it would be best to address the situation.589
7.422. The third category are letters that the European Union sent to Russia with information in
support of its claim that there are ASF-free areas, which are likely to remain so, in the European
Union. Most of those communications were sent in response to information requests sent by
Russia.590 These letters are those sent by DG SANCO to FSVPS on 7 February 591, 6 March 592,
13 March593, 21 May594 and 13 June595 2014 and by DG SANTE to FSVPS on 24 March 2015596, and
on 16 June 2015. 597 These communications included information on, among other things, the
applicable regulatory framework for ASF control, contingency planning for infectious diseases,
audits of national contingency plans, exam ples of national legislation adopted in response to ASF
outbreaks, pig population, pig holdings, and the pig industry.
7.423. The Panel has carefully examined the preceding evidence. In Appendix 1 of the report, the
Panel provides a detailed chronology of the com munications exchanged between the European
Union and Russia, as available on record, together with an indication of the documents attached to
those communications that have been submitted by either party in the record of these
proceedings.
7.424. The European Uni on points out that , in addition to providing the above -described
information to Russia, on several occasions it also invited Russia's authorities to send experts to
join on-the-spot visits of the Community Veterinary Emergency Team to the affected EU membe r
States as observers. Russian experts visited the affected areas on the following occasions: 28 -
31 January 2014 (Lithuania), 25-28 February 2014 (Poland) and 13-14 October 2014 (Estonia).598
7.425. We note that in addition to this information, the veterinary autho rities of the EU member
States have regularly notified ASF outbreaks on wild boar or domestic pigs to the OIE. We recall
that the OIE explained that "EU member States operate as individual countries within the OIE" and
that each EU member State is responsi ble for "reporting disease status information in the country,
through the application in the respective country" of the Terrestrial Code. 599 Furthermore, the
European Union explains that disease notification to the OIE is done entirely by each EU member
State, without European Union's Commission coordination. 600 Both parties have submitted to the
Panel's record exhibits that are based on or contain notification reports from the WAHIS database

589 See Exhibits EU-62, EU-64, RUS-185, EU-175, RUS-217, EU-87, EU-89, EU-173, RUS-56, RUS-133,
RUS-380, RUS-330, and RUS-132.
590 Russia's information requests and observations on information provided by the European Union were
made through the following communications: letter of 29 January 2014 (Exhibit EU-62); letter of 5 February
2014 (Exhibit EU-84); letter of 27 February 2014 (Exhibit RUS-231); letter of 3 March 2014 (Exhibit RUS-137);
letter of 12 March 2014 (Exhibits EU-90/RUS-135); letter of 13 March 2014 (Exhibit RUS-209); letter of 19
March 2014 (Exhibit RUS-130); letter of 2 April 2014 (Exhibit RUS-54); letter of 2 April 2014 (Exhibit RUS-53);
letter of 10 April 2014 (Exhibit RUS-240); letter of 16 May 2014 (Exhibit EU-93); letter of 30 June 2014
(Exhibit RUS-250); letter of 29 July 2014 (Exhibit RUS-263); letter of 31 July 2014 (Exhibit RUS-157); letter of
13 October 2014 (RUS-39); letter of 1 December 2014 (Exhibit RUS-131); letter of 19 December 2014 (Exhibit
RUS-379); letter of 19 March 2015 (Exhibit RUS-153); and letter of 10 April 2015 (Exhibit RUS-329).
591 European Union's letter to Russia of 7 February 2014, ARES(2014)304571,
SANCO/G7/DP/tb(2014)328578 (Exhibit EU-65).
592 European Union's letter to Russia of 6 March 2014, ARES(2014)601346,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh/(2014)630598 (Exhibit EU-86).
593 European Union's letter to Russia of 13 March 2014, ARES(2014)709435,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014)745829 (Exhibit EU-91).
594 European Union's letter to Russia of 21 May 2014, ARES(2014)1658269,
SANCO/G6/AB(2014)1782253 (Exhibit EU-92).
595 European Union's letter to Russia of 13 June 2014, ARES(2014)1941949,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014)2038505 (Exhibit EU-94).
596 European Union's answers to questions sent by Russia in the attachment to letter FS-AS-8/23743
dated 1 December 2014 (24 March 2015) (Exhibit RUS-167). See also Letter of 24 March 2015 from the EU to
Russia, Ref. Ares(2015)1284836 (Exhibit RUS-154).
597 Letter from the European Union Veterinary Service to the Russian Federation Veterinary Service, Ref.
Ares (2015)2518258. 16 January 2015. (Exhibit RUS-319).
598 European Union's response to Panel question No. 47, para. 106. See Appendix 1 below.
599 OIE response to Panel question No. 28.
600 European Union's response to Panel question No. 241, para. 47.

regarding the reports of ASF outbreaks and cases in the four affected EU member States. 601 The
experts recognized the above-average notification rate with respect to the EU member States ,
particularly in the backyard sector.602
7.426. There is a final category of information that the European Union provided to Russia. That
is, information that seems to have been provided only through the submissions and exhibits on
record in these proceedings. Among such information are the compilations of maps on the ASF
situation in the European Union between 2007 and 2014 603 and the eradication plans for Estonia
and Latvia.604
7.5.2.3.5.4 Panel's assessment of the evidence provided by the European Union to
Russia
7.427. In the previous section we explained that in the present dispute the European Union has
the burden to demonstrate it provided to Russia the necessary evide nce to objectively
demonstrate two aspects of its ASF situation. The first, that there are ASF -free areas within the
European Union, outside Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. The second, that those areas are
likely to remain ASF -free. We will first a ddress the issue with respect to the existence of ASF -free
areas within the European Union and then move on to examine whether such areas are likely to
remain so.
7.428. As we have explained in the preceding section, we consider that to objectively
demonstrate t hat there are ASF -free areas in the European Union outside Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland, the European Union's burden, pursuant to its obligation under Article 6.3 of
the SPS Agreement, is to demonstrate that it provided Russia the necessary evide nce 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 level of
prevalence of ASF. Moreover, this information should objectively demonstrate that ASF does not
occur in the territory of the European Union outside the four affected EU member States.
7.429. In our view, the European Union has provided evidence in respect of each of the preceding
categories. We turn to examine when such information was made available to Russia and to what
extent it would suffice to substantiate the European Union's objective demonstration of the ASF-
free status of those areas in the European Union outside Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
7.430. We begin by considering first the requirement for evidence relating to the epidemiological
surveillance of ASF. The first question we address in this respect is whether ASF is a notifiable
disease in the European Union. The package of infor mation attached to the letter sent by DG
SANCO to FSVPS on 7 February 2014 included a website link to the text of

601 Those exhibits include: EU-118; RUS-27 (referred to in Russia's first written submission, regarding
the ASF situation in Lithuania), RUS-33 (referred to in Russia's first written submission, regarding the ASF
situation in Poland), RUS-34 (referred to in Russia's first written submission, regarding the ASF situation in
Latvia), RUS-35 (referred to in Russia's first written submission, regarding the ASF situation in Estonia), RUS-
73 (referred to in Russia's first written submission, regarding the ASF situation in Poland); RUS-104 (referred
to in Russia's first written submission, para. 238, regarding the ASF situation in Estonia); RUS-105 (referred to
in Russia's first written submission, para. 238, regarding the ASF situation in Lithuania), RUS-106 (referred to
in Russia's first written submission, para. 238, regarding the ASF situation in Latvia), RUS-107 (referred to in
Russia's first written submission, para. 238, regarding the ASF situation in Poland), RUS-145 (referred to in
Russia's first written submission, regarding the ASF situation in Poland), RUS-152 (referred to in Russia's
opening oral statement in the first meeting with the Panel, paras. 27-28, ASF Outbreaks and Cases per Month
for Lithuania, Poland, Latvia and Estonia, January 2014 to March 2015), RUS-164 (referred to in Russia's
opening oral statement in the first meeting with the Panel, para. 30), RUS-168 (referred to in para. 12 of
Russia's closing statement at the first meeting of the Panel - referring to WAHIS interface), RUS-194 (Russia's
response to Panel question No. 26, para. 14), RUS-275 (referred to in Russia's second written submission,
para. 94), RUS-296 (referred to in Russia's comments to experts' responses to Panel question No. 52, para.
134) and RUS-296 revised (exhibited to Russia's opening statement in the second meeting with the Panel).
602 See experts' responses to Panel question No. 50, Compilation of experts responses, paras. 4.124-
4.129.
603 African Swine Fever from 2007 to 2014, compilation by the European Commission of maps from OIE
(Exhibit EU-21).
604 See European Union's response to Panel question No. 19, para. 82. These were submitted as Exhibits
EU-116 and EU-117. See also Exhibit EU-103.

Council Directive 2002/60/EC, laying down specific provisions for the control of ASF. 605 Through
the letter from DG SANCO to FSVPS, the European Union explained that, pursuant to Council
Directive 2002/60/EC, EU member States have the obligation to ensure that the presence or the
suspected presence of ASF is compulsorily and immediately notified to the competent authority. 606
Indeed Article 3 of Cou ncil Directive 2002/60/EC, entitled "African swine fever notification",
provides the obligation described by the European Union in its letter of 13 March 2014. 607 In our
view, the European Union provided Russia at least as at 7 February 2014 with the necessa ry
evidence to objectively demonstrate that ASF has been a notifiable disease in the European Union.
In addition, we consider that the ASF notifications by the EU member States to the OIE, and the
reliability of those notifications through the WAHIS inform ation system to verify the ASF situation
in the EU member States at any given point in time, further reinforces this finding.608
7.431. The second question in respect of epidemiological surveillance is whether the European
Union has had in place appropriate monito ring and surveillance mechanisms for ASF. The package
of information attached to the letter sent by DG SANCO to FSVPS on 7 February 2014 included, in
addition to the already mentioned Council Directive 2002/60/EC, a website link to the text of
Commission D ecision 2003/422/EC, approving an ASF diagnostic manual. 609 In our view, these
regulations provide a clear legal framework in respect of the monitoring and surveillance
mechanisms for ASF in the European Union. Article 18 of Council Directive 2002/60/EC, ent itled
"Diagnostic procedures and bio -safety requirements" provides the general obligations that
EU member States have in respect of a uniform approach to diagnostic procedures, sampling and
laboratory testing to detect ASF. The detailed description of the diagnostic procedures is laid out in
Commission Decision 2003/422/EC.
7.432. In this respect, the European Union also referred in its letter of 7 February 2014 to
surveillance programmes approved for 2013 for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland . The
European Union indicated that updated revisions of these programmes to be implemented in 2014
with European Union's financial support were under internal discussion. 610 We are mindful of the
limited evidentiary value of these documents, which seem to be applications for financial resources
submitted to the European Union. However, we find them to provide an indication of the type of
surveillance that was put in place by some of the EU member States which were more at risk due
to their proximity with areas in Belarus a nd Ukraine where there had been ASF outbreaks. These
surveillance programmes included activities such as (i) laboratory testing of dead wild boar and
domestic pigs; (ii) strengthening of biological security at road borders (including disinfection of
trucks); (iii) regular inspections of pig holdings; (iv) information campaigns to raise awareness and
sensitize the public and relevant stakeholders to the threat of an ASF outbreak; and (v) training
for relevant stakeholders designed to convey knowledge of ASF. 611 Furthermore, these documents
generally refer to domestic regulations that provide the conditions for the application of the
surveillance obligations foreshadowed in Council Directive 2002/60/EC and in accordance with
Commission Decision 2003/422/EC.
7.433. Also in respect of monitoring and surveillance mechanisms for ASF, the European Union
explained in the letter from DG SANCO to FSVPS of 6 March 2014 that the Council Directive
2002/60/EC and the diagnostic manual for ASF had already been provided. 612 Moreover, through

605 European Union's letter to Russia of 7 February 2014, ARES(2014)304571,
SANCO/G7/DP/tb(2014)328578 (Exhibit EU-65). The text of Council Directive 2002/60/EC is on record as
Exhibit EU-31.
606 European Union's letter to Russia of 13 March 2014, ARES(2014)709435,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014)745829 (Exhibit EU-91), p. 6.
607 Council Directive of 27 June 2002, 2002/60/EC (Exhibit EU-31), p. L 192/28.
608 See para. 7.425 above.
609 European Union's letter to Russia of 7 February 2014, ARES(2014)304571,
SANCO/G7/DP/tb(2014)328578 (Exhibit EU-65). The text of Commission Decision 2003/422/EC is on record as
Exhibit EU-32.
610 European Union's letter to Russia of 7 February 2014, ARES(2014)304571,
SANCO/G7/DP/tb(2014)328578 (Exhibit EU-65), p. 5 of the Annex.
611 See Veterinary Control Programme on African swine fever Poland in 2014, 2013 (Exhibit EU-237),
Veterinary Control Programme on African swine fever early detection in Lithuania and Belarus in 2014, 2013
(Exhibit EU-238), and Veterinary Programme on African swine fever early detection in Latvia in 2014, 2013
(Exhibit EU-239).
612 European Union's letter to Russia of 6 March 2014, ARES(2014)601346,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh/(2014)630598 (Exhibit EU-86), p. 6.

the letter from DG SANCO to FSVPS of 13 March 2014, the European Union explained that
"[s]urveillance demonstrating absence of ASF in the EU in not high risk territories not adjacent to
infected areas is based on passive surveillance by means of structured non-random surveillance
activities as described in Article 1.4.5. of the OIE Terrestrial Code". 613 The European Union further
explained that such surveillance is based on the obligation of EU member States to ensure that the
presence or the suspec ted presence of ASF is compulsorily and immediately notifiable to the
competent authority, pursuant to Article 3 of Council Directive 2002/60/EC. The European Union
also explained that active surveillance is applied in designated risk areas covering in 201 4 four
EU member States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland), and that it would be expanded to other
EU member States adjacent to high risk areas like Finland or Romania, e.g., areas bordering
countries with active ASF outbreaks.614
7.434. Through the letter from DG SANCO to FSVPS of 21 May 2014, the European Union referred
to the surveillance programmes approved for the four affected EU member States for 2013 that
were provided with the letter of 7 February 2014. This letter of 21 May also provided updated
versions of these programmes for the year 2014. 615 Lastly, through the letter from DG SANCO to
FSVPS of 13 June 2014, the European Union reiterated its explanation of the type of surveillance
programmes it applies contingent on the risk of ASF due to geographi cal proximity. In the
European Union's words "[a]s a general rule, non-specific or passive surveillance is applied all over
the EU. ASF -targeted (active) surveillance is applied where there is a differentiated risk, such as
in the territories or countries that neighbour infected countries. In 2013, surveillance was
implemented in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland . In 2014, as a result of the detected cases,
surveillance in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland was further intensified. Such surveillan ce is
also being intensified in other EU Member States countries who consider themselves to be at risk,
due to their close proximity to the border with the Russian Federation, Belarus and/or Ukraine."616
7.435. In our view, the explanations and information provided by the European Union through the
communications referred to in respect of epidemiological surveillance of ASF sufficiently
demonstrate that the European Union has had in place appropriate monitoring and surveillance
mechanisms for ASF. The European Union provided information to Russia regarding its ASF
regulatory framework through its letter of 7 February 2014. A lthough some of the explanations
that the European Union provided in this respect were made through the communications of
6 March and 21 May 2014 , because such explanations are grounded on the legal framework that
was already provided to Russia in the letter of 7 February 2014, we find that the European Union
provided Russia at least as at 7 February 2014 with the necessary evidence to objectively
demonstrate that the European Union has had in place appropriate monitoring and surveillance
mechanisms for ASF.
7.436. The second cluster of evidence we will examine refers to the effectiveness of sanitary or
phytosanitary controls in respect of ASF. Regarding this cluster of information we will examine
whether the European Union has had in place measures to prevent introduction of ASF. We find
the most useful guidance in this respect in the attachment to the letter of 13 March 2014 entitled
"Working Document on EU preventive measures for ASF (SANCO/7037/2014 Rev 1)". 617 We
consider this document to be indicative, on a scientific and technical level, of the ASF preventative
measures the European Union has in place. Through this document, dated 6 March 2014, the
European Union indicated six areas that summarize the measures in force in the European Union
to prevent the introduction and spread of ASF. The first of these areas is called "Baseline measures
for keeping and moving pigs in MSs" and refers to Directive 2008 /71/EC in respect of
identification, marking, and database registration of animals and to the regulations applicable to
feeding of animal products to pigs, which prohibit feeding of swill and ensure only safe ingredients

613 European Union's letter to Russia of 13 March 2014, ARES(2014)709435,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014)745829 (Exhibit EU-91), p. 6.
614 European Union's letter to Russia of 13 March 2014, ARES(2014)709435,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014)745829 (Exhibit EU-91), pp. 6-7.
615 European Union's letter to Russia of 21 May 2014, ARES(2014)1658269,
SANCO/G6/AB(2014)1782253(Exhibit EU-92), p. 9.
616 European Union's letter to Russia of 13 June 2014, ARES(2014)1941949,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014)2038505 (Exhibit EU-94), p. 5.
617 See European Union's letter to Russia of 13 March 2014, ARES(2014)709435,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014)745829 (Exhibit EU-91), p. 7 and European Union Working Document on ASF,
ARES(2014)605187 (Exhibit EU-88).

can come into contact with pigs. 618 We have no clear evidence on record that the European Union
provided Russia with copies of Directive 2008/71/EC 619 or the regulations applicable to feeding of
animal products to pigs.620
7.437. The second area indicated by the European Union as part of the measures in force to
prevent the introduction and spread of ASF refers to "Baseline measures for intra -EU trade in live
pigs". In this respect, the European Union described the conditions applicable to new born pigs
regarding where they should be kept for the first 3 0 days, the veterinary clinical inspections they
should be subjected to, the conditions for issuance of veterinary certificates, their registration in
the TRACES system once the consignment destination is defined, and conditions for
transportation.621
7.438. The t hird area that the European Union identified as part of the measures in force to
prevent introduction and spread of ASF is "Baseline measures on the introduction into the Union of
personal consignments of products of animal origin". In this respect, the European Union explained
that there are controls in place that aim at detecting the presence of personal consignments of
products of animal origin, which are organized on the basis of a risk assessment and involve the
use of scanners and dogs leading to seiz ure and destruction of personal consignments and
penalties; the EU member States submit annual reports on this area to the Commission.622
7.439. The fourth area identified by the European Union as part of the measures in force to
prevent introduction and spread of ASF is "Baselines measures in food hygiene". The European
Union explained that this area covers veterinary ante -mortem and post -mortem inspection of all
pigs; post-mortem inspection of wild game and initial examination by trained hunters; and official
inspection of pigs slaughtered outside slaughterhouses for personal consumption.623
7.440. As a fifth area, the European Union refers to "Specific rules upon occurrence of ASF in
Member States". The European Union explained that these rules consist of surveillance in all
suspected and in -contact pig holdings, as well as all holdings included in the infected area;
standstill of pigs around every outbreak in a farm as well as pig holdings in the infected area;
creation of protection and surveillance zones in response to outbreaks in domestic pigs and
creation of an infected area in cases of outbreaks in wild boars; movement restrictions on pig
products; cleansing and disinfection of infected holdings; enhanced farmed bio -security; stamping
out of all pigs in infected and in-contact holdings; and eradication programmes. 624 We note that
these correspond to those enshrined in the relevant articles of Council Directive 2002/60/EC,
which was provided by the European Union to Russia through the letter of 7 February 2014. 625 The
European Union further explained that EU member States applied additional measures to ensure
that certain pork products are not dispatched from their territory or from the part of the territory
subject to restrictions for ASF.626
7.441. Lastly, the European Union refers to "Specific measures to mitigate risk of introducing ASF
from neighbouring countries". These measures refer to requirement of proof of cleansing and
disinfection of livestock vehicles on arrival from third countries; and requirement of cleansing and

618 European Union Working Document on ASF, ARES(2014)605187 (Exhibit EU-88), p. 2.
619 The European Union exhibited Directive 2008/71/EC as Exhibit EU-250, which the European Union
quotes in its comments to Russia's response to Panel question No. 306, paras. 158-160.
620 It is our understanding that the legal framework applicable to swill feeding are described in European
Union's response to Panel question No 49, paras. 109-112, which refers to Commission Regulation (EU) No
142/2011 of 25 February 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of
the Council laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for
human consumption and implementing Council Directive 97/78/EC as regards certain samples and items
exempt from veterinary checks at the border under that Directive, OJ L 54, p.1 (Exhibit EU-149) and
Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down
health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and
repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation), OJ L 300, p.1 (Exhibit EU-150).
621 European Union Working Document on ASF, ARES(2014)605187 (Exhibit EU-88), p. 2.
622 European Union Working Document on ASF, ARES(2014)605187 (Exhibit EU-88), p. 4.
623 European Union Working Document on ASF, ARES(2014)605187 (Exhibit EU-88), p. 4.
624 European Union Working Document on ASF, ARES(2014)605187 (Exhibit EU-88), pp. 4-5.
625 See Appendix 1 below.
626 European Union Working Document on ASF, ARES(2014)605187 (Exhibit EU-88), p. 5.

disinfection in case it has not been satisfactorily carried out on the incoming livestock vehicle. 627
Through the letter of 13 March 2014 , the European Union provided Russia with
Committee Implementing Decision 2013/426/EU, on measures to prevent the introduc tion into the
Union of ASFV from certain third countries, which contains the above mentioned measures to
mitigate risk of introducing ASF from neighbouring countries. 628 Furthermore, the ASF surveillance
programmes of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland provided through the letter of 7 February
2014, refer to this type of activity.629
7.442. In addition to the "Working Document on EU preventive measures for ASF", the European
Union provided Russia with information on the measures in place to prevent introduction o f ASF.
These include the guidelines for contingency planning for EU member States, the contingency
plans of certain EU member States, and the audits of some of those contingency plans. This
information was provided through the letter of 7 February 2014. 630 Russia objects to the use of
this information, because in its view, the information does not reflect conditions and appropriate
control measures that should be taken after an outbreak .631 In our view, the documents provided
by the European Union to Russia in respect of contingency planning, included general information
on the type of emergency plans that would be carried out in case of an outbreak of an epidemic
disease, further explaining what type of preventive measures were mandated to be in place
pursuant to the European Union's legal framework applicable to the prevention of ASF.
7.443. We also note that the European Union has been keen to clarify and address situations that
have caused Russia concern in respect of the prevention of ASF. In particular, we are re ferring to
the letter of 4 April 2014 where the European Union explained and responded to Russia's enquiries
in respect of the movement of pig products from ASF affected areas of the European Union and
suspected violations on third country product transhipment.632
7.444. In our view, the European Union provided to Russia information pertaining to the measures
in place to prevent introduction of ASF. Of particular relevance to us is the document that the
European Union sent to Russia attached to the letter of 13 Mar ch 2014 entitled "Working
Document on EU preventive measures for ASF (SANCO/7037/2014 Rev 1)". 633 As described in the
preceding paragraphs, some of that information was already provided to Russia together with the
European Union's letter of 7 February 2014 . We note that the European Union's explanations
presented in the above mentioned "Working Document on EU preventive measures for ASF" failed
to identify the regulatory basis for some of the measures described therein. However we consider
that d espite these limitations, we find that the general information submitted by the
European Union as at 7 February 2014 amounts to the necessary evidence to objectively
demonstrate that the European Union has had in place measures to prevent the introduction of
ASF.
7.445. The third c ategory of evidence that we consider necessary for the European Union to
objectively demonstrate that certain areas in the European Union are ASF-free refers to
ecosystems. The first aspect that we will examine is whether there is knowledge of the
establishment of ASF in wildlife in the areas claimed to be free of ASF. In paragraphs 7.430 to
7.435 we examine the fact that ASF is a notifiable disease and the monitoring and surveillance
mechanisms that the European Union has in place for ASF. Based on those considerations,
together with the manner in which individual EU member States provided updated and reliable
notifications to the OIE to include in the WAHIS database, we find merit in the fact that ASF is not
known to be established in wildlife outside the four affected EU member States (Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland), with the exception of Sardinia.

627 European Union Working Document on ASF, ARES(2014)605187 (Exhibit EU-88), p. 5.
628 Commission Implementing Decision "On measures to prevent the introduction into the Union of the
African swine fever virus from certain third countries or parts of the territory of third countries in which the
presence of that disease is confirmed and repealing Decision 2011/78/EU (2013/426/EU)" (Exhibit RUS-349)
629 See para. 7.432 above.
630 See section "Emergency response in case ASF in the EU member States/Contingency Plans" in
Table A4 in Appendix 1 below.
631 Russia's comments to the European Union's response to Panel question No. 322, para. 198.
632 Letter from DG SANCO to the Russian Veterinary Service, SANCO/G7/PD/mh (2014) 1055360, 4
April 2014 (Exhibit RUS-56).
633 European Union's letter to Russia of 13 March 2014, ARES(2014)709435,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014)745829 (Exhibit EU-91) p. 7. This document was exhibited as Exhibit EU-88.

7.446. Our view on this matter is further reinforced by the evidence provided by the Europea n
Union on behavioural ecology of wild boars. In this regard, attached to the letter of 7 February
2014, the European Union sent Russia the 2010 EFSA scientific opinion. That document explains
that:
[W]ild boar do not migrate, at least according to the cl assic definition of migration.
Some small seasonal movements are registered but always inside the usual individual
home range that varies from 20 -100 km2. Infections can spread between larger
regions, however, where there is continuity in the geographical distribution of the wild
boar, as observed for CSF (EFSA, 2009c). In this respect, the Ukraine (Crimea),
Poland and Romania may be at risk due to the continuous distribution and the high
density of wild boar. Possible corridors may also exist from the infe cted Russian areas
into Lithuania or Latvia. Where wild boar are absent or natural/artificial barriers
prevent direct contact between infected and susceptible populations, infections usually
fade out spontaneously (Artois et al., 2002); for ASF, this patte rn has been observed
in Sardinia only (Firinu and Scarano, 1988).634
7.447. This was further confirmed through the explanation provided in the attachment to the
letter sent by DG SANCO to FSVPS on 13 June 2014, where the European Union explained the
criteria used to identify the borders of the infected/free/high risks zones in the territory of Poland
and Lithuania.635 The Panel's experts confirmed the scientific merit of this information.636 In our
view, this scientific justification demonstrates the negligible risk o f ASF spreading through wild
boar populations from the most eastern territories of the European Union to the central and
western areas. Furthermore, the European Union's explanations of the measures adopted for the
prevention of the spread of ASF support t he objective demonstration that ASF-free areas within
the European Union are likely to remain so.
7.448. The last category of evidence refers to the level of prevalence of ASF in the areas claimed
to be free of ASF. As we observed earlier, evidence regarding the level of prevalence of ASF is
directly related to the surveillance programmes. In this regard, we have already noted that the EU
member States have provided updated and reliable notifications to the OIE for inclusion in the
WAHIS database. This information clearly confirms that there is no presence of ASF and ASFV in
the areas outside Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland that the European Union claims to be free
of ASF.
7.449. In our view, the examination of the preceding evidence supports a conclusion that the
European Union provided to Russia, as at 7 February 2014, the necessary evidence to objectively
demonstrate that the ASF-free areas within the European Union were ASF-free and were likely to
remain so. However, we are mindful of the changing nature of the ASF situation in the eastern part
of the European Union from that date and until 11 September 2014. We are also mindful that we
are examining the EU-wide ban independent from the bans on the imports of the products at issue
from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. This means that we are examining the EU-wide ban as
it was after 11 September 2014, following the adoption of the bans on the imports of the products
at issue from Estonia. In light of these considerations, in section 7.6.2.3.3 below we will examine
whether there are any changes in the necessary evidence that the European Union had to provide
to Russia in order to objectively demonstrate the existence of ASF-free areas in Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland. Wit h this in mind, our preliminary conclusion based on examination of the
preceding evidence is only applicable in respect of the ASF-free areas within European Union that
are located outside Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.

634 2010 EFSA Scientific Opinion (Exhibit EU-24).
635 European Union's letter to Russia of 13 June 2014, ARES(2014)1941949,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014)2038505 (Exhibit EU-94), p. 4.
636 See Professor Penrith's response to Panel question Nos. 9.d, 21.a, and 22.a; and Dr Thomson's
response to Panel question No. 9d.

7.450. We recall that Russia has challenged the sufficiency of the information examined in support
of the European Union's satisfaction of its obligation under Article 6.3. We have these objections in
mind as we pursue our analysis.637
7.451. In addition to the evidence that we have referred to, th e European Union provided
explanations and additional information to complement the necessary evidence provided as at
7 February 2014. Among such information we highlight the explanations on the detailed
emergency response action plan provided through the letter of 21 May 2014 638; and the detailed
information regarding monitoring/surveillance of wild boars in each EU member State, data
regarding the role of wild boars in the spread of ASF in EU member States, the detailed
information regarding the measures ta ken by each EU member State to prevent the trans -
boundary spread of ASF in the European Union, the detailed information regarding the measures
taken by each EU member State to prevent the trans -boundary spread of ASF through the
movement of wild boars in t he European Union, and the detailed information on measures
intended to prevent the spread of ASF to/from small and average -sized farms and farms/facilities
with low level protection (e.g., premises where pigs are not indoors) in each EU member State, all
provided through the letter of 24 March 2015.639
7.452. Moreover, it is relevant to highlight that before the first ASF outbreak in Lithuania, Russia
had viewed the entire territory of the European Union as free of ASF, with the exception of
Sardinia. This was the case at least as of 2006, when the text of the bilateral veterinary
certificates was agreed.640 We recall that, pursuant to the 2006 Memorandum, the wording of the
bilateral veterinary certificate that had been agreed between the European Union and Russia
allows importation of the products concerned accompanied by an attestation that the products at
issue "…originate from premises and/or administrative territory of the EU Member State that are
officially free from the following contagious diseases: African swine fever - during the last 3 years
in the territory of the EU excluding Sardinia…." 641. Up to and until the first outbreak of ASF in
Lithuania in January 2014, the entire European Union territory (with the exception of Sardinia) had
been recognized by Rus sia as free of ASF for at least the "last 3 years". It was under that basis
and mutual trust that the European Union was able to trade in pig products with Russia.642
7.453. In addition to the preceding analysis regarding the information provided by the European
Union to Russia to objectively demonstrate that there are ASF -free areas within the European
Union outside Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, we will examine the information provided by
the European Union with respect to those ASF-free areas being likely to remain so.
7.454. In paragraph 7.406 above we explained that for an exporting Member to objectively
demonstrate that a disease -free area is likely to remain so, it should provide to the importing
Member the necessary evidence to support that there is "probability" that the disease-free status
will be maintained in the particular area. We also observed that an objective demonstration of a
disease-free area being likely to remain so requires, in addition to the infor mation required to
objectively demonstrate there are disease -free areas, the necessary evidence to support the
effectiveness of the control measures.
7.455. We have provided a detailed examination with respect to the effectiveness of the control
measures in place for the EU member States not affected with ASF.643 We have identified evidence
in support of our conclusion that the European Union provided to Russia the necessary evidence to
objectively demonstrate that the European Union has had in place measures to pre vent the
introduction of ASF. In addition, we consider the fact at the time of the establishment of the Panel
on 22 July 2014 and even at the time the parties provided the latest information on the spread of
ASF in the European Union, on 22 October 2015, there had been no cases of ASF reported outside
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, as further "real world" evidence of the effectiveness of the

637 Russia's second written submission para. 131-132; comments to the expert's responses to Panel
questions No. 12 and 13; and comments to European Union's response to Panel question No. 322.
638 See Table A5 in Appendix 1 below.
639 See Table A8 in Appendix 1 below.
640 See fn 117 above.
641 Veterinary certificate for piglets for fattening (Exhibit EU-52).
642 See European Union's opening statement at the second panel meeting, para. 103.
643 See paras. 7.436 - 7.444 above.

European Union's control measures for ASF .644 We therefore conclude that the European Union
provided to Russia the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that the ASF -free areas in
the European Union, outside Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, are likely to remain ASF-free.
7.456. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that in the period between 7 February 2014 and
11 September 2014, the European Union objectively demonstrated to Russia that there are areas
within the European Union territory, outside of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, which are
free of ASF and are likely to remain so. Furthermore the re levant evidence on record that the
European Union has submitted to Russia subsequent to 11 September 2014 serves to confirm and
support our finding.
7.5.2.3.6 Whether Russia, through the EU -wide ban, ensured adaptation to the SPS
characteristics of the European Unio n and of Russia in respect of ASF, pursuant to
Russia's obligations under Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement
7.5.2.3.6.1 Introduction
7.457. The European Union argues that Russia fails, through the EU -wide ban, to adapt its
measures to the SPS characteristics of the European U nion and of Russia in respect of ASF. This is
because in assessing the sanitary characteristics of the affected area, Russia failed to take into
account, inter alia, the level of prevalence or absence of ASF, the existence of eradication and
control progra mmes (immediately implemented in accordance with international standards laid
down by the OIE), and appropriate criteria or guidelines developed by the relevant international
organizations.645 The European Union further stresses that despite the implementati on of
appropriate regionalization measures within the European Union, Russia fails to recognize the
EU territory, excluding the restricted areas, as disease -free areas. 646 The European Union also
points out that Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement requires that measures are adapted not only to
the area from which a product originates, but also to the area to which it is destined. In this
regard, the European Union highlights that there are regions in Russia where wild boars do not
occur and that to the extent to which domestic pigs do not occur in those regions in Russia, the
introduction of the products at issue would not present ASF -related sanitary risks, and importation
to consumers in those regions should be allowed.647
7.458. Russia argues that taking into considera tion the very factors listed in Article 6.1 of the
SPS Agreement, it objectively and reasonably did not accept the European Union's zones.648 Russia
asserts that in evaluating whether there is an objective basis for Russia's decision not to recogn ize
the pro posed ASF -free zones in conformity with the applicable Terrestrial Code standards and
consistent with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, the Panel must determine whether Russia's
decision regarding the various European Union zones was "objectively justifiable ". Russia stresses
that in conducting that review, the Panel must not substitute its own judgement of the weight to
be given to certain evidence for that given by the importing country . Rather, it must determine
whether the totality of the circumstances an d evidence (or lack thereof) was sufficient to support
the objectivity of Russia's decision in light of the relevant provisions of the Terrestrial Code and
SPS Agreement Article 6 criteria and the available information. 649 Russia further posits that there
exist considerable parallels between the more specific zoning provisions in Terrestrial Code
Chapter 4.3 and Article 5.3.7 and the more general relevant factors listed in Articles 6.2 and 6.1 of
the SPS Agreement.650 In this regard Russia argues that first, Ar ticle 6.1 makes mandatory taking
into account "the appropriate criteria and guidelines which may be developed by the relevant
international organizations", meaning any objective assessment of an ASF-free zone consistent
with Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreemen t would have to include the assessment of the zoning
"principles" set out in Terrestrial Code Article 4.3.3 as well as the related Article 5.3.7. 651 Second,
all of the general factors listed in SPS Agreement Articles 6.1 and 6.2 for importing countries to

644 See Data from OIE WAHIS Interface, as of 31 August 2015 (Exhibit RUS-296 revised).
645 European Union's first written submission, para. 215.
646 European Union's first written submission, para. 215.
647 European Union's second written submission, para. 128.
648 Russia's first written submission, para. 231.
649 Russia's second written submission, para. 49. See also Russia's response to Panel question No. 113,
paras. 190-196.
650 Russia's second written submission, para. 50.
651 Russia's second written submission, para. 51.

take into account when deciding to accept regionalization are also included in the more specific
provisions of Chapter 4.3 of the Terrestrial Code, and that regardless of whether the
Terrestrial Code provisions in Articles 4.3.3 and 4.3.3.3 are binding on t he European Union in
seeking to establish an ASF -free zone, at a minimum, these provisions are relevant benchmarks
for assessing the general criteria of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. 652 Third, Article 6.3 of the
SPS Agreement also overlaps considerably with Terrestrial Code Article 5.3.7, which addresses the
"sequence of steps to be taken in establishing a zone/compartment and having it recognized for
international trade purposes".653 Russia concludes that the Terrestrial Code is a more detailed and
elaborated version of the general provisions set out in Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.
Accordingly, if the Panel finds that Russia was objectively justified in not accepting the EU zones in
conformity with the Terrestrial Code zoning/ regionalization standards, re commendations, and
guideline benchmarks, it should also find that it acted consistently with Article 6 of the
SPS Agreement.654
7.459. In light of the parties' arguments, the Panel is faced with the question of whether Russia,
in applying the EU -wide ban, adapted i ts measures to the SPS characteristics of the European
Union and of Russia in respect of ASF, pursuant to Russia's obligations under Article 6.1 of the
SPS Agreement. In addressing this question, the Panel will first examine the applicable legal test,
including a review of Russia's argument of the applicable standard of review.
7.5.2.3.6.2 Legal test
7.460. The first sentence of Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement stipulates that "Members shall
ensure that their sanitary or phytosanitary measures are adapted to the sanitary or p hytosanitary
characteristics of the area … from which the product originated and to which the product is
destined." Pursuant to the second sentence of Article 6.1, 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."
7.461. The Appellate Body in India – Agricultural Products observed, in respect of the first
sentence of Article 6.1, that the "verb 'ensure' is defined as to make certain the occurrence of a
situation or outcome. 655 In turn, the term "adapt" means 'fit, adjust, ( to); make suita ble (to or
for)'656."657 The Appellate Body further noted that there are two relevant areas to the obligation in
the first sentence of Article 6.1, the area from which the product originated and the one to which it
is destined.658 The Appellate Body indicated that the adaptation of an SPS measure does not only
occur a single time; rather, the obligation to ensure that a Member's SPS measures are "adapted"
to the relevant areas is "a continuing obligation".659
7.462. The panel in US – Animals stated that the obligation u nder Article 6.1 requires the
"adaptation" of a measure, which, it explained, entails that the measure in question must be
tailored or calibrated to the specific SPS characteristics of the area concerned. 660 It also
highlighted that there was an inherent obl igation for the regulating Member to adapt its measure
not only to the area of origin, but also to the area of destination of a product.661

652 Russia's second written submission, para. 52.
653 Russia's second written submission, para. 53.
654 Russia's second written submission, para. 56.
655 (footnote original) Relevant definitions of the term "ensure" are "guarantee, warrant" and "make
certain the occurrence of (an event, situation, outcome, etc.) (Foll. by that)". (Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary, 6th edn, A. Stevenson (ed.) (Oxford University Press, 2007), Vol. 1, p. 840)
656 (footnote original) Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edn, A. Stevenson (ed.) (Oxford University
Press, 2007), Vol. 1, p. 24.
657 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.132. See also Panel Reports, India –
658 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.132.
659 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.154.

7.463. Regarding the second sentence of Article 6.1, the Appellate Body in India – Agricultural
Products observed that it "specifies, in a non-exhaustive manner, the elements that Members must
take into account in assessing the SPS characteristics of a region. These elements include: the
level of prevalence of specific diseases or pests; the existence of eradication or control
programmes; and appropriate criteria or guidelines that may be developed by the relevant
international organizations."662
7.464. The panel in US – Animals agreed with the panel in India – Agricultural Products that the
second sentence of Article 6.1 "presupposes t hat Members undertake an assessment of the SPS
characteristics of a region" and contains "a list of factors that shall be taken into account by
Members in undertaking such assessment."663
7.465. The panel in US - Animals concluded that the two sentences of Article 6.1 provide a
"logical progression" in that a Member must "assess" the SPS characteristics of a given area,
taking into account, inter alia, the identified factors in the second sentence of Article 6.1. Once the
SPS characteristics of the area have been a ssessed, the Member is required to "adapt" its SPS
measure to such characteristics.664
7.466. The panel in India – Agricultural Products explained that if a determination is made that
the concepts of disease -free areas and areas of low disease prevalence – as required by the first
sentence of Article 6.2 - have not been recognized, then this will lead to a finding that the
measures are not adapted to the SPS characteristics of the area from which products originate or
to which they are destined, pursuant to the first sentence of Article 6.1.665
7.467. The panel in India – Agricultural Products further clarified that a Member's failure to ensure
that its SPS measures are adapted to the SPS characteristics of an area for the purpose of the first
sentence of Article 6.1 may warr ant a concomitant finding that the Member has not taken into
account the factors in the second sentence of Article 6.1, in assessing the SPS characteristics of a
region. That panel indicated that the language of the first sentence of Article 6.1 is framed in the
present tense ("are adapted"), which leads to the consideration that the adaptation of the measure
to the SPS characteristics of the area is an element of the SPS measure as such , which the
implementing Member must ensure. 666 The first sentence of Article 6.1 denotes that a Member
must make certain of its measures' suitability (in this case, suitable for the SPS characteristics of
the area).667
7.468. We agree with the panel in US – Animals, that
"[A]daptation" of a measure entails that the measure in question must be tailored or
calibrated to the specific SPS characteristics of the area concerned. If, for instance,
the area from which a product originates presents a lower level of risk than the rest of
the territory of an exporting Member, an importing Member w ould be required to
impose less stringent conditions on imports of products therefrom. The contrary may
also be true. If, indeed, the area from which a product originates presents a higher
level of risk than the rest of the exporting Member's territory, su ch an
SPS characteristic may warrant the imposition of particularly stringent import
restrictions targeting that specific area. We also note that the first sentence of
Article 6.1 refers to both the area "from which the product originated" and the area
"to which the product is destined". This indicates that the regulating Member is
required to adapt its measure not only to the area of origin, but also to the area of
destination of a product. If, for instance, a particular area within the territory of an
importing Member has a similar SPS status as the area of origin of a product (e.g. has

662 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.135.
665 Panel Report, India - Agricultural Products, para. 7.709.
666 Panel Report, India - Agricultural Products, para. 7.675.
667 Panel Report, India - Agricultural Products, para. 7.669.

the same level of prevalence of a given disease), that Member may be required to
tailor its measure by relaxing the restrictions on imports into that area.668
7.469. In examining whether the United States adapted its measure to the SPS characteristics of
Patagonia, the panel in US – Animals assessed whether the United States' omission to recognize
Patagonia as separate from the rest of the Argentinian territory was justified by Arge ntina's failure
to objectively demonstrate that, at the time of the panel's establishment, Patagonia was and was
likely to remain FMD -free.669 After being satisfied that Argentina had met its burden of providing
the evidence necessary to "objectively demonstrate" that Patagonia as a whole was, and was likely
to remain FMD-free, the panel concluded that the United States' failure to recognize Patagonia as
FMD-free was a failure to adapt its general prohibition on imports of FMD -susceptible animals and
animal products from Argentina to the specific SPS characteristics of the Patagonia region and is
thus inconsistent with Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement.670
7.470. In this dispute Russia posits that the Panel must not substitute its own judgement of the
weight to be give n to certain evidence for that given by the importing country . Rather, it must
determine whether the totality of the circumstances and evidence (or lack thereof) was sufficient
to support the objectivity of Russia's decision in light of the relevant provis ions of the Terrestrial
Code and SPS Agreement Article 6 criteria and the available information.671
7.471. In our view, the approach followed by the panel in US – Animals provides some clarity as
to the type of assessment that should be made in the context of Arti cle 6.1. The Panel needs to
examine the evidentiary record and make an objective assessment, pursuant to its obligation
under Article 11 of the DSU, of whether the challenged measure is adapted to the relevant ASF
characteristics of the area where the prod ucts at issue originate and of the area to which they are
destined. Such an objective assessment is framed in the broader context of panels' standard of
review, which has been described by the Appellate Body in respect of fact -finding, "as neither de
novo review as such, nor 'total deference', but rather the 'objective assessment of facts'" 672 and in
respect of legal questions, Article 11 of the DSU requires a panel to "make an objective
assessment of the matter before it, including an objective assessment of the facts of the case and
the applicability of and conformity with the relevant covered agreements."673
7.472. Based on the foregoing, we turn to examine whether the EU-wide ban is adapted to certain
areas within the European Union outside the territories of Eston ia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
and to the SPS characteristics in Russia.
7.5.2.3.6.3 Whether the EU -wide ban is adapted to the relevant SPS characteristics of
areas within the European Union outside the territories of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Poland and to the SPS characteristics of Russia
7.473. We recall that pursuant to Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement Russia has the obligation to
adapt its SPS measures to the sanitary and phytosanitary characteristics of the area from which
the product originated and to which the product is destined. In this case, this means adaptation to
the SPS characteristics of the European Union's territory outside Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Poland and to the SPS characteristics of Russia.674 In order to determine whether Russia has made
such an adaptation, we will first examine the SPS characteristics in each of those areas and then
analyse whether the EU-wide ban is indeed adapted to them.

671 Russia's second written submission, para. 49. See also Russia's response to Panel question No. 113,
paras. 190-196.
672 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 117.
673 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 118.
674 See also Professor Penrith's response to Panel question No. 13, para. 2.126 of the Compiled
Individual Experts' Replies, where she opines that "[t]here are 27 states in the EU; all of these cannot be
considered to pose an equal risk of ASF for Russia. For instance, at least in terms of spread by migrating wild
boars, there would be little sense in UK and Ireland, as well as Malta, Cyprus and any other islands within the
EU, including Sardinia in spite of not being free of ASF, needing to supply detailed information about wild boar
populations and their movements…".

7.474. In section 7.5.2.3.5 above, we examine whether the European Union obj ectively
demonstrated that there are disease-free areas, which are likely to remain so, outside the territory
of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, pursuant to Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement. Our
finding, after reviewing the evidence provided by the European Union to Russia, as indicated in
paragraph 7.449 above, is in the affirmative.
7.475. An important element in support of this conclusion is the surveillance and control
programmes that the European Union has in place for AS F. These programmes are contained in
the overarching legal framework for ASF, Council Directive 2002/60/EC, which we describe in
paragraph 7.433 above and in Appendix 2 below . Furthermore, the limited home -range of wild
boars supports the conclusion that the ASF-free areas in the European Union are likely to remain
so.675
7.476. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the areas of the European Union outside Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are characterized as being free of ASF and likely to remain so. It is to
that particular characteristic to which Russia has the obligation to adapt its measures.
7.477. In our view, imposing an outright ban on the non-treated products at issue, such as the
one imposed by Russia through the EU-wide ban, and failing to recognize the existence of ASF-free
areas within the European Union's territory amounts to not adapting the measure to the sanitary
and phytosanitary characteristics of the European Union territory outside Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland.
7.478. Moreover, we have observed that starting in 2007, there have been ASF outbreaks in
Russia and that ASF has not been eradicated from Russia. 676 In our view, this forms part of the
SPS characteristics of the territory to which the products at issue fro m the European Union are
destined and to which Russia must also adapt its measure. The SPS experts consulted by the Panel
stressed many times that it "needs to be remembered that the RF [Russia] is not an ASF -free
country". 677
7.479. The panel in US – Animals observed, "[i]f for instance, a particular area within the territory
of an importing Member has a similar SPS status as the area of origin of a product (e.g. has the
same level of prevalence of a given disease), that Member may be required to tailor its measur e
by relaxing the restrictions on imports into that area". 678 We agree with this statement, in the
sense that the level of prevalence of a given disease in the territory of the importing Member is
part and parcel of what that importing Member must adapt its SPS measures to. We recall also the
comment by Dr Thomson that: "it seems to me that the problem under discussion is a regional one
encompassing the Caucuses, Baltic States, the Russian Federation and eastern parts of the EU. As
indicated elsewhere, from a n ASF perspective, the whole region seems to be in roughly the same
position. Most of the vast surface area of the EU lies outside this region …" .679 This is not to say
that a country in which a disease occurs cannot impose any import restrictions to preven t the
further entry of the disease into regions in which control measures are in place, or its spread into
areas of the importing country which are free of the disease. Rather, the fact that a disease
already exists within the importing area and it is under official control, are factors to be considered
in determining if a particular measure , applied to imported products, is adapted to the SPS
characteristics of the region to which a product is destined.
7.480. In addition, pursuant to the second sentence of Artic le 6.1, in assessing the SPS
characteristics of a region, Members shall take into account, among other things, the level of
prevalence of the specific diseases, the existence of eradication or control programmes, and
appropriate criteria or guidelines whic h may be developed by the relevant international
organizations. In our view, because a Member needs to know what are the SPS characteristics to
which its SPS measures need to be adapted, it would be difficult for a Member to act in accordance

675 See para. 7.446 above.
676 See Russia's first written submission, para. 23 (referring to OIE WAHIS Interface, Event summary
Reports, African swine fever, Russia (2007-2014). (Exhibit RUS-144)); response to Panel question No. 143,
para. 264; and second written submission, paras. 146-147. See also paras. 4.22-4.24 above.
677 Dr Thomson, response to Panel question 13, para. 2.128.
679 Dr Thomson's response to EU Question No.5, Transcript, para. 1.128.

with its obligations under Article 6.1 if it had not made an assessment of the areas from where the
products at issue originate and to which they are destined.
7.481. We agree with the panel in US – Animals that "the obligation to 'take into account' the
factors enumerated in the second sentence [of Article 6.1] is intrinsically connected to the
obligations relating to the assessment of risks under Article 5 of the SPS Agreement. In particular,
Article 5.2 requires Members conducting 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' when
assessing the risks as required by Article 5.1. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the
assessment of the SPS characteristics of an a rea, taking into account the factors listed in the
second sentence of Article 6.1 could be conducted as part of a Member's risk assessment.680"681
7.482. It is undisputed that Russia did not base its EU-wide ban on a risk assessment. In section
7.5.5 below, we examine the justifications raised by Russia to excuse compliance with its
obligation, pursuant to Article 5.1, to base its SPS measures on a risk assessment.
Notwithstanding our examination in section 7.5.5 below, we consider it relevant to our analysis
under Article 6.1 that Russia has not made an assessment of the risks arising from the imports of
the products at issue from the territory of the European Union outside Estonia, Latvia, Lith uania,
and Poland. In particular, we consider that the lack of risk assessment limits a Member's ability to
assess the SPS characteristics from where the products in question originate.
7.483. In this case, we consider that rejecting the imports of goods from any of the areas of the
European Union outside Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, that the European Union
demonstrated to be free of ASF and are likely to remain so, and not tailoring the EU -wide ban in a
manner that ensures adaptation to the presence of ASF in certain areas in Russia, constitute a
breach of Russia's obligation under Article 6.1. This breach is further corroborated by Russia's
failure to make a risk assessment as appropriate to the circumstances, which in this case entail s
an exhaustive e xamination, including the corresponding scientific justification, of the
regionalization measures adopted by the European Union.
7.5.2.3.6.4 Conclusion
7.484. Based on the foregoing, we find that Russia did not adapt the EU -wide ban to the SPS
characteristics related to ASF of the areas where the products subject to that measure originated
nor to the SPS characteristics related to ASF in Russia. We therefore find that the EU -wide ban is
inconsistent with Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement.
7.5.2.4 Conclusion in respect of the EU -wide ban consistency with Article 6 of the SPS
Agreement
7.485. In this section we find that 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 Agreement.682
7.486. We also find that in the period between 7 February and 11 September 2014, the European
Union objectively demonstrated to Russia, pursuant to Article 6.3, that there are areas within the
European Union territory, outside Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, which are free of ASF and
are likely to remain so.683
7.487. Lastly we find that Russia did not adapt the EU -wide ban to the SPS characteristics related
to ASF of the areas where the products subject to that measure originated nor to the SPS
characteristics related to ASF in Russia. Therefore, the EU -wide ban is inconsistent with Article
6.1.684

680 (footnote original) Our statement should not be read to preclude the possibility of other situations
where Article 6.1 could be applied in the absence of a risk assessment.
682 See section 7.5.2.3.4 above.
683 See section 7.5.2.3.5 above.
684 See section 7.5.2.3.6 above.

7.5.3 Claims under Articles 3.1 of the SPS Agreement (continued)
7.5.3.1 Assessing the EU -wide ban in light of the relevant international standard in
order to determine whether it is "based on" such standard
7.488. In section 7.5.1.3.4 above we discerned the meaning of the relevant international
standards in this dispute, articulated in the Terres trial Code. At the end of that section we
observed that as a result of our examination of the meaning of the relevant international standards
applicable to non-treated products in the light of the parties' arguments and of the circumstances
in this dispute, we concluded that before comparing the EU -wide ban with those standards for the
purposes of determining whether that measure is "based on" them, we considered it appropriate
and instructive for us to turn to our examination of the European Union's claims under Article 6 of
the SPS Agreement. 685 After conducting our examination of the European Union's claims under
Article 6 and reaching the respective findings, we now resume our examination of whether the EU -
wide ban is based on the relevant provisions of th e Terrestrial Code applicable to the non -treated
products at issue.
7.489. In section 7.5.1.3.2 above we explained the applicable legal standard under Article 3.1 of
the SPS Agreement. For a measure to be based on a relevant internat ional standard it should be
"founded", "built upon" or "supported by" such a standard. Moreover, if a measure is found to
contradict, that is, fundamentally departs from the standard, it cannot be properly concluded that
such an international standard has been used "as a basis for" the respective measure.686 In light of
these criteria, we now turn to examine the question of whether the EU -wide ban is "based on" the
relevant provisions of the Terrestrial Code.
7.490. We recall that the provisions of the Terrestrial Code relating to ASF status provide for
recognition of ASF -free countries, zones, and compartments. Thus, Articles 15.1.2, 15.1.3 and
15.1.4 each make reference to an ASF -free "country", "zone" or "compartment" on an equal
footing, without imposing any seq uence, preference or hierarchy amongst the three terms.
Moreover, pursuant to Articles 15.1.5 (applicable to trade of live pigs), 15.1.12 (applicable to trade
in pork meat and pork meat preparations) and 15.1.14 (applicable to pork meat preparations),
trade of certain pig and pork products is safe when they originate from animals located in an ASF-
free country or zone.687
7.491. In section 7.5.2.3.5 above we conclude that the European Union provided Russia with the
necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that areas in the European Union outside Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are free of ASF and are likely to remain so.688
7.492. We also recall that, pursuant to the 2006 Memorandum 689, the wording of the bilateral
veterinary certificat e that had been agreed between the European Union and Russia allows
importation of the products concerned accompanied by an attestation that the products at issue
"…originate from premises and/or administrative territory of the EU Member State that are
officially free from the following contagious diseases: African swine fever - during the last 3 years
in the territory of the EU excluding Sardinia" .690 Up to and until the first outbreak of ASF in

685 See para. 7.330 above.
686 See para. 7.254 above.
687 See section 7.5.1.3.4.2 above.
688 See section 7.5.2.3.5.4 above.
689 European Union-Russia Memorandum of 4 April 2006 concerning principles of zoning and
compartmentalization in the veterinary field (Exhibit EU-61).
690 Veterinary certificate for piglets for fattening (Exhibit EU-52). A similar language can be found in the
following certificates: Veterinary certificate for pigs for breeding, exported from the EU into Russia,
11/08/2006 (Veterinary certificate for pigs for breeding) (Exhibit EU-53); the Veterinary certificate for pork
meat and raw meat preparations, exported from the EU into Russia, 11/08/2006 (Veterinary certificate for pork
meat and raw meat preparations) (Exhibit EU-54); the Veterinary certificate for slaughter pigs, exported from
the EU to Russia, 16/12/2009 (Veterinary certificate for slaughter pigs)(Exhibit EU-55); the Veterinary
certificate for finished food products, containing raw material of animal origin, exported from the EU to Russia,
24/05/2011 (Veterinary certificate for finished food products) (Exhibit EU-56); the Veterinary certificate for
canned meat, salamis and other ready for consumption meat products, exported from the EU to Russia,
24/05/2011 (Veterinary certificate for canned meat, salamis and other ready for consumption meat
products)(Exhibit EU-57).

Lithuania in January 2014, the entire European Union territory (with the exception of Sardinia) had
been recognized by Russia as free of ASF for at least the "last 3 years". Following the outbreak of
ASF in Lithuania, Russia banned certain products from all EU member States, even the other EU
member States who had not experienced an outbreak of ASF. The Panel recalls that each of the EU
member States is individually a member of the OIE.691
7.493. Given that the relevant provisions of the Terrestrial Code call upon OIE members to allow
for the possibility of recognition of ASF-free status (whether historically or on the basis of
eradication) on a country or "zone" basis, the failure of Russia to even allow for the possibility for
imports from the unaffected EU member States since January 2014 amounts, in our view, to a
"fundamental departure" from the provisions of the Terrestrial Code dealing with ASF-free status,
in particular, Articles 15. 1.2 through 15.1.4. Accordingly, we find that, in respect of non -treated
products, the EU-wide ban contradicts the relevant international sta ndards and therefore it cannot
be considered to be "based on" that standard for the purposes of Article 3.1 of the SPS
Agreement.
7.5.3.2 Conclusion
7.494. Based on the foregoing, we find that the EU -wide ban is not based on the Terrestrial Code
and is consequently inconsistent with Russia's obligation to base its SPS measures on international
standards, pursuant to Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement.
7.5.4 Claims under Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement
7.5.4.1 Main arguments of the parties
7.5.4.1.1 European Union
7.495. The European Union claims that Russia did and continues to fail to modify the measures at
issue in order to permit the resumption of imports to Russia of the products at issue from non -
affected areas in the European Union and/or with respect to appropriately treated or processed
products. The European Union's claim under Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement refers to
"the acceptance of EU regionalization measures". 692 The European Union argues that Russia failed
to ensure that procedures for checking and ensuring the fulfilm ent of SPS measures were
undertaken and completed without undue delays and in a manner no less favourable for imported
products than for like domestic products under Annex C(1)(a). The European Union further
contends that Russia failed to observe its oblig ations in the operation of approval procedures as
embodied in Annex C(1)(b). The European Union also claims that Russia failed to ensure that
information requirements are limited to what is necessary for appropriate control, inspection and
approval procedures in Annex C(1)(c). In this respect, the European Union concludes that Russia's
measures are in breach of Annex C(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the SPS Agreement and, consequently, of
Article 8 of the SPS Agreement.
7.5.4.1.2 Russia
7.496. Russia contends that the scope of control, inspection and approval procedures as set out in
Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement do not cover the European Union's claims and the
evidence presented. In addition, Russia submits that even if the scope of Annex C did cover the
measures subjec t to the European Union's claims, the European Union has not put forward
sufficient evidence and has not met its burden of proof to establish the prima facie case of a
violation of Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the SPS Agreement. In respect o f the EU-
wide ban, Russia argues that the European Union failed to demonstrate that the "provisional"
measures applied by Russia to the non -affected European Union areas are inconsistent with
Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. Russia asserts that it reviews its provisional
measures on a regular basis, but the European Union's failure to provide sufficient information has
resulted in the current delay. According to Russia, one or more of the Panel's experts has

691 OIE responses to Panel question No. 27.
692 European Union's second written submission, para. 161.

considered relevant a number of the qu estions asked by Russia with respect to all the EU member
States.693
7.5.4.2 Main arguments of the third parties
7.5.4.2.1 Brazil
7.497. Brazil refers to Russia's argument that negotiations leading up to the adoption of a
procedure fall outside of the purview of Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. Brazil
considers that the existence of negotiations involving certain procedures is not, in itself, a decisive
criterion for the determination of the applicability of Article 8. 694 In addition, Brazil refers to the
requirement to complete SPS procedures without undue delay, and highlights that the delay will be
undue when it is unjustified, excessive, unwarranted or disproportionate.695
7.5.4.2.2 United States
7.498. The United States considers that the European Union's claim under Article 8 and Annex C
of the SPS Agreement is based on the incorrect premise that the measures at issue fall under the
purview of those provisions, because they are not control, inspection, nor approval procedures of
an existing SPS measure, but rather a request for modifying the scope of such a measure.696
7.5.4.3 Analysis by the Panel
7.5.4.3.1 Introduction
7.499. The European Union presents it claims under the provisions of the SPS Agreement related
to control, inspection and approval procedures, in the following order: (i) Annex C(1), with
particular reference to (a), (b), and (c); and (ii) Article 8. The European Union argues that in light
of its arguments presented under Annex C(1), Russia has breached the provisions of Annex C(1)
(a), (b), and (c), and, consequently, Article 8. 697 Russia presents its arguments under both Article
8 and Annex C(1), including the relevant sub-provisions of Annex C(1)(a), (b), and (c).
7.500. The Panel is called upon to examine the scope of application of Article 8 and Annex C of
the SPS Agreement, and to assess the claims of inconsistency raised by the European Union in
respect of Annex C(1)(a), (b), and (c). Before turning to the corresponding assessment, we refer
to the relevant legal provisions.
7.5.4.3.2 Relevant legal provisions
7.501. Article 8 of the SPS Agreement, entitled "Control, I nspection and Approval Procedures",
provides:
Members shall observe the provisions of Annex C in the operation of control,
inspection and approval procedures, including national systems for approving the use
of additives or for establishing tolerances for contaminants in foods, beverages or
feedstuffs, and otherwise ensure that their procedures are not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Agreement.
7.502. Annex C of the SPS Agreement is entitled "Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures".
An accompanying footnote is attached to the title of Annex C, which states that:
[7] Control, inspection and approval procedures include inter alia, procedures for
sampling, testing and certification.

693 Russia's Comment to the experts' responses to Panel Questions 12-13.
694 Brazil's third-party submission, paras. 22-27
695 Brazil's third-party submission, paras. 28-33.
696 United States' third-party submission, paras. 12-18.
697 European Union's first written submission, para. 344.

7.503. Annex C(1) provides , in relevant part, that:
1. Members shall ensure, w ith respect to any procedure to check and ensure the
fulfilment of sanitary or phytosanitary measures, that:
(a) such procedures are undertaken and completed without undue delay
and in no less favourable manner for imported products than for like
domestic products;
(b) the standard processing period of each procedure is published or that
the anticipated processing period is communicated to the applicant upon
request; when receiving an application, the competent body promptly
examines the completeness of the documentation and informs the
applicant in a precise and complete manner of all deficiencies; the
competent body transmits as soon as possible the results of the
procedure in a precise and complete manner to the applicant so that
corrective action may be taken if necessary; even when the application
has deficiencies, the competent body proceeds as far as practicable with
the procedure if the applicant so requests; and that upon request, the
applicant is informed of the stage of the procedure, with any dela y being
explained;
(c) information requirements are limited to what is necessary for
appropriate control, inspection and approval procedures, including for
approval of the use of additives or for the establishment of tolerances for
contaminants in food, beverages or feedstuffs;
7.504. Article 8 of the SPS Agreement requires Members to "observe the provisions of Annex C in
the operation of control, inspection and approval procedures", thereby incorporating the disciplines
of Annex C into the operative part of the S PS Agreement. This is consistent with the language of
Article 1.3 of the SPS Agreement, which states that "[t]he annexes are an integral part of
th[e] Agreement". Thus, the non -observance of the obligations in Annex C(1) "implies a violation
of Article 8".698 Accordingly, the Panel will first determine whether Russia has breached its
obligations under Annex C(1)(a), (b), and (c). A ruling that Russia has breached obligations under
Annex C will consequently mean that Article 8 has also been breached.
7.505. As Russia contests that the challenged actions of Russia fall within the scope of Article 8
and Annex C(1) of the SPS Agreement, the Panel will first address whether Article 8 and
Annex C(1) of the SPS Agreement are applicable to Russia's actions. If we find that the challenged
actions fall within the scope of these provisions, we will proceed to assess the European Union's
claims of inconsistency with Annex C(1)(a) through (c), and, consequently, Article 8.
7.5.4.3.3 Whether the challenged actions of Russia fall within the scope of Article 8 and
Annex C(1) of the SPS Agreement
7.5.4.3.3.1 The European Union's complaint
7.506. In its panel request, the European Union alleges that the measures at issue breach:
Article 8 and Annex C.1(a), (b) and (c) of the SPS Agreement , because Russia failed
and fails to modify the measures at issue in order to permit the resumption of imports
to Russia of the products at issue from non -affected areas in the EU and/or with
respect to appropriately treated or processed products. The EU repeatedly approached
Russia since early February 2014 in order to achieve an adaptation of the measures at
issue to the regional conditions in the EU. Russia was provided with all requested
information, in addition to further information, provided at the EU's own initiative.

698 Panel Report, US – Poultry (China), para. 7.394. See also Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.62.
The panel in EC - Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products found that failure to observe the provisions of
Annex C of the SPS Agreement implies a consequential breach of Article 8. Panel Reports, EC – Approval and

Furthermore, a series of bilateral meetings were held between the EU authorities and
the Russian authorities between February and June 2014, at which further information
and explanations were provided. The resulting undue delay is reflected, inter alia, in:
- the letter of the Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and
Phytosanitary Supervision of 12 March 2014 (FS-SD-4/3620);
- the failure to reply to invitations by EU authorities of 31 January
and 14 February 2014 for urgent meetings;
- the failure to reply to additional information and explanations
provided by the EU, with letter of 21 May 2014;
- requesting answers to questions where the EU already provided
exhaustive replies – with a letter dated 16 May 2014, which however
reached the EU only on 4 June 2014 (FS-EN-8/7999);
- requesting answers to questions irrelevant to the case (e.g.
information on establishments in unaffected areas graded by production
volume and biosecurity);
- the belated provisions of invitations for visas for a technical
meeting agreed on 21 February to take place 24-25 February 2014, which
finally only took place on 7 March 2014. Accordingly, Russia failed to
observe the provisions of Annex C of the SPS Agreement on the operation
of control, inspection and approval procedures and oth erwise failed to
ensure that its procedures are not inconsistent with the provisions of the
SPS Agreement, as required by Article 8 of the SPS Agreement.
Furthermore, Russia failed to ensure, with respect to its procedures for checking and
ensuring the ful filment of sanitary measures, that such procedures have been
undertaken and completed without undue delay and in no less favourable manner for
imported products than for like domestic products, as required by Annex C.1(a) to the
SPS Agreement.
With respect to Annex C.1(b) to the SPS Agreement, Russia failed to ensure that the
standard processing period of each procedure is published or that the anticipated
processing period is communicated to the applicant upon request; that when receiving
an application, t he competent body promptly examines the completeness of the
documentation and informs the applicant in a precise and complete manner of all
deficiencies; that the competent body transmits, as soon as possible, the results of
the procedure in a precise and complete manner to the applicant, so that corrective
action may be taken if necessary; that even when the application has deficiencies, the
competent body proceeds, as far as practicable, with the procedure if the applicant so
requests; and that upon reque st, the applicant is informed of the stage of the
procedure, with any delay being explained.
Finally, as regards Annex C.1(c) to the SPS Agreement, Russia failed to ensure that
information requirements are limited to what is necessary for appropriate cont rol,
inspection and approval procedures.699
7.507. In the course of the Panel proceedings the European Union posits, in respect of Article 8
and Annex C of the SPS Agreement, that the acceptance of the European Union's regionalization
measures is not a negotiation between two Members, as argued by Russia, but instead an
objective exchange of information requiring the decision of the importing Member. 700 The
European Union enumerates a series of events, dating from early February 2014, which it argues
constitutes undue delay encountered in the process, including (i) Russia's repeated request for

699 European Union's panel request, p. 5 (WT/DS475/2).
700 European Union's second written submission, para. 162.

information previously provided; (ii) Russia's requests for irrelevant information; or (iii) Russia's
failure to reply to additional information and explanations submitted by the European Union.701
7.508. Russia argues that the European Union, in its claim of Russia's undue delay in responding
to communications/meeting requests, only provides some information on discussions and
exchanges that have taken place between Russia and the Euro pean Union.702 Russia argues that
the evidence the European Union provided distorts the overall picture of the constant information
exchange and intensive negotiations concerning regionalization, including the numerous
explanations provided by Russia in rela tion to the insufficiency of submitted information. Russia
concludes that the European Union has merely asserted a violation of Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a)
by pointing to alleged delays in evaluating requests for regionalization without demonstrating that
these delays were "undue". Russia submits that even if the scope of the procedures covered the
measures subject to the European Union's claims the European Union has not put forward
sufficient evidence and has not met its burden of proof to establish the prima facie case of a
violation of Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the SPS Agreement.
7.509. To the extent that the European Union is challenging Russia's non -acceptance to date of
the European Union's request for recognition of ASF-free areas, we see no obligation in Article 8 or
Annex C(1)(a) through (c) that mandates a particular outcome in respect of the procedures they
address.703 We understand, nevertheless, that the European Union is challenging Russia's process
of consideration of its request for recognition of ASF -free areas, in particular, relating to certain
information requested by Russia.704
7.510. Accordingly, we first examine whether such a process falls within the scope of application
of Article 8 and Annex C. In this examination, we will consider whether the identified actions of
Russia, as the responding Member, constituted "any procedures" that fall within the scope of
Article 8 and Annex C(1). If so, we will consider whether those procedures were aimed at
"checking and ensuring the fulfilment of sanitary or phytosanitary measures."705
7.5.4.3.3.2 Scope of control, inspection and approval procedures
"Any" procedure
7.511. The European Union highlights several provisions within the SPS Agreement to support its
argument that Russia's challenged actions fall within the scope of Annex C(1) and Article 8, such
as Article 6.3, footnote 7 to the SPS Agreement, Article 4.1, as well as making reference to the
SPS Committee Guidelines on Article 6. 706 The European Union does not view the acceptance of
the regionalization measure s as a "negotiation" between two different Members. It is rather an
objective exchange of information and the decision of the importing Member is to be taken with

701 European Union's first written submission, para. 339; response to Panel question No. 194,
paras. 383-384; and second written submission, paras. 161, and 167-183.
702 Russia's first written submission, paras. 432-433. With regard to Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a), Russia
highlights that the European Union in its claims refers to "non-affected areas in the EU", but does not identify
what it means by this reference. Russia indicates that it presents its arguments on the assumption that the
European Union refers to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
703 We do not mean to say that there is no core obligation in these provisions to reach a decision (see
Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1494). Rather, these provisions
foresee a requirement to conduct a procedure and reach a final determination, whether it be positive or
negative. See, for example, Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.112.
704 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 420 ff. The Appellate Body report on Australia –
Apples clarified that a complainant enjoys discretion in identifying the measures at issue and the panel should
not conflate the requirement to identify the measures at issue with the requirement to identify the legal basis
of the complaint. This clarification was given in the part of the report in which the Appellate Body determined
whether the panel erred in finding that the claims under Annex C(1)(a) and Article 8 of the SPS Agreement
were outside of its term of reference. Article 6.2 of the DSU does not impose any additional requirement, as
the Panel's analysis implies, that a complainant must, in its request for establishment of a panel, demonstrate
that the identified measure at issue causes the violation of, or can violate, the relevant obligation. The
question of whether the measures identified in the panel request can violate, or cause the violation of, the
obligation in Annex C(1)(a) and Article 8 is a substantive issue to be addressed and resolved on the merits.
Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 425.
705 See, for example, Panel Report, US - Animals, para 7.71.
706 European Union's second written submission, para. 155.

consideration of the objective and rational factors of the kind non -exhaustively enunciated i n the
second sentence of Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement. It follows from the above that the European
Union's claims pursuant to Annex C and Article 8 fall within the type of situations contemplated by
those legal texts.707
7.512. Russia argues that the definition of control, inspection and approval procedures as set out
in Article 8 and Annex C does not cover the European Union's claims and the evidence
presented.708 Russia submits that the scope of these procedures must be understood in light of
Footnote 7 to Annex C which emphasizes procedural aspects of sampling, testing and certification.
Russia also notes that the term "approval" procedure is conspicuously absent from the language of
Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement. In Russia's view, this provides additional su pport to the
argument that "inspection, testing and other relevant procedures" mentioned in Article 6.3 should
be read to include only procedures to check and ensure fulfilment of measures adopted in
response to regionalization requests. Russia asserts th at the provisions concern procedures of
putting products on a market and not actions or events leading to adoption or revision of
procedures.709 Thus, Article 8 and Annex C do not apply to Russia because neither the text in
Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement nor the case law suggests that the interpretation of
the term "control, inspection and approval procedures" can be stretched to include negotiations
between Members leading up to the adoption of a procedure.710
7.513. In addition, Russia endorses, in its response to the Panel's questions 711, the argument of
the United States in its third-party submission that "processes for modifying a measure" must be
distinguished from "procedures to check and ensure fulfilment of that (unmodified) measure" and
that Article 8 of the SPS Agreement covers the latter and not the former. 712 Russia also supports
the United States' argument that Annex C applies to "products" and not "countries or regions of
origin"713, stating that Annex C procedures concern products and not negotiat ions related to
regionalization requests or revisions to a certification mechanism, as the European Union asserted
in its first written submission.714
7.514. We consider that Article 8 and Annex C cover a broad range of procedures. 715 Apart from
specifying that the procedures be aimed at "checking and ensuring the fulfilment of sanitary or
phytosanitary measures"716, Annex C(1) does not specify or exclude any type of procedures from
its application.717 The use of the terms "including" (Article 8) and "include, inter alia" (footnote 7 to
Annex C), in conjunction with the reference to "any procedure" (Annex C(1)) shows that the lists
of measures contained in the provisions at issue are merely illustrative and not exhaustive. 718 In
particular, we see nothing in Article 8 and Annex C(1) that would exclude procedures linked to the

707 European Union's second written submission, para. 162. See also second written submission,
paras. 158-162.
708 Russia's first written submission, para. 418.
709 Russia's first Written submission, para. 420.
710 Russia's first written submission, para. 423.
711 Russia's response to Panel question No. 200, paras. 383-385.
712 Russia's response to Panel question No. 200, para. 383.
713 United States' third-party submission, para. 17.
714 Russia's response to Panel questions, para. 384.
715 We find support for our approach in the panel report in US – Animals, where the panel agreed with
the Appellate Body finding in Australia – Apples and the panel finding in US – Poultry (China) that Article 8 and
Annex C cover a broad range of procedures (Panel Report, US – Animals, paras. 7.67-7.68). In particular, we
agree with the view of the Panel in US-Poultry (China) that the application of Annex C(1) (and other SPS
provisions) is not dictated by the title or the characterization given to a measure by the Member maintaining it.
"…the Panel considers that the application of specific provisions of the SPS Agreement, such as Annex C(1), is
by no means restricted to the title or the characterization of an SPS measure given to that measure by the
WTO Member maintaining it". Panel Report, US – Poultry (China), para. 7.372.
717 Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement refers to "inspection and…other relevant procedures". Annex C and
Article 8 also refer to "inspection, control and approval procedures." The language used in Article 6.3 contains
no express reference to "approval" procedures. However, the inclusive nature of its reference to "other
relevant procedures" does not exclude the possibility that approval procedures could be covered in that
provision (an issue which we do not need to decide here). Moreover, the context of the reference in Article 6.3
relates to access being granted by the exporting Member to the importing Member for such procedures, which
is not an issue central to the parties' arguments in this case.
718 Panel Report, US - Animals, para. 7.68 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples,
para. 76 in the context of Annex A(1) of the SPS Agreement).

determinations of the disease status of certain geographic regions from their scope of
application.719
7.515. Contrary to Russia's arguments, we see no basis in the language of these provisions that
would support the view that the covered procedures are limited to those addressing products, and
thus that the process of consideration/determinations of the disease -status of certain geographic
regions would be excluded from the scope of Article 8 and Annex C. Cont rary to Russia's
arguments, and those of the United States as a third party in this dispute, the references in
subparagraphs (a), (d), (f) and (h) of Annex C as referring to "products" and not "countries or
regions of origin" does not preclude the possibility that the process of consideration of requests for
regionalization may fall within the scope of Annex C(1).
7.516. We recall that the process at issue in this dispute is Russia's process of consideration of
the European Union's request for the recognition of ASF-free areas within the European Union.
While the immediate objective of such process concerns the recognition of ASF -free status of
certain areas within the European Union, the ultimate effect of this process is to determine
whether, and which, imports w ould be authorized from the European Union. We agree with the
view of the panel in US – Animals that "[t]he ultimate effect of any procedure to designate a
particular region with a 'disease status' is to determine what SPS measures should be applied to
the products originating from that region." 720 We further agree with the determination of that
panel that the impact of the challenged procedures on imports must be taken into account in
determining whether such procedures are "any procedures" under the meaning of Article 8 and
Annex C(1).721
7.517. As we have explained, Russia's SPS framework applicable to animal diseases refers in the
case of ASF to accepting products that come from ASF-free areas.722 In this respect, Russia's
process of consideration of the European Un ion's request for recognition of ASF -free areas is
interlinked with the imposition and perpetuation, as well as the geographical and product scope, of
the EU-wide ban. It is therefore determinative for the placing of products from the European Union
on Russia's market.
7.518. We therefore find that that Russia's challenged actions constitute "procedures" that fall
within the scope of Article 8 and Annex C(1). Having reached this conclusion, we next turn to
consider whether these procedures were "to check and ensur e the fulfilment of sanitary and
phytosanitary measures".
7.5.4.3.3.3 To "check and ensure" the "fulfilment" of SPS measures
7.519. Article 8 and Annex C(1) apply to the procedures dealing with control, inspection and
approval "which are aimed at checking and ensuring the fu lfilment of SPS measures ".723
Annex A(1) defines "sanitary or phytosanitary measure" as any measure applied to achieve any of
the objectives set out therein. We consider that the phrase "to check and ensure the fulfilment of
an SPS measure" means that Article 8 and Annex C cover any procedure to make certain that a
measure applied to achieve one of the objectives in Annex A(1) is fulfilled, that is, fully
implemented.724 The Appellate Body observed in this respect that "since the procedures referred to
in Annex C(1) are those that check and ensure fulfilment of SPS measures, this suggests that such
measures exist prior to the operation, undertaking, or completion of, the relevant procedures, as
the latter seek and ensure fulfilment with the former".725

720 Panel Report, US - Animals, paras. 7.69 (emphasis original).
721 Panel Report, US - Animals, para. 7.70 (referring to Panel Report, US – Poultry (China), para.
7.368). The panel explained that "[…] focusing solely on the immediate object of an importing Member's
procedures, while losing sight of the ultimate effect of the completion of such procedures, might enable
Members to avoid the application of Article 8 and Annex C by simply parsing their regulatory processes
between regional determinations and approvals to import".
722 See Customs Union Decision No. 317 (Exhibit RUS-25).
723 Panel Report, US – Poultry (China), para. 7.356.
724 We find support for this approach in Panel Report, US - Animals, para 7.73.
725 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 436.

7.520. We therefor e examine whether Russia's procedure at issue checks and ensures the
fulfilment of an SPS measure as defined in Annex A(1).
7.521. We recall our findings in paragraph 7.219 above that the EU -wide ban constitutes an
SPS measure within the meaning of Annex A(1), and, our findings in paragraph 7.517 above, that
the procedures at issue – Russia's process for considering the European Union's request for ASF
regionalization – are interlinked with the imposition a nd perpetuation, as well as the geographical
and product scope, of the EU -wide ban and the country -wide bans on imports of the products at
issue into Russia. We therefore find that the procedures at issue are aimed at checking and
ensuring fulfilment of an SPS measure and thus fall within the scope of Article 8 and Annex C(1).
7.522. Russia has insisted 726 that the EU -wide ban was adopted on the basis of the 2006
memorandum727 and of the bilateral veterinary certificates 728; both which were already in
existence. Furth ermore, the EU -wide ban was clearly adopted in connection with Russia's
overarching SPS regulation on animal diseases, as contained in Customs Union Decision 317. 729
Against this backdrop, we consider that the procedure at issue (i.e. Russia's process of
consideration of the European Union's request for the recognition of ASF-free areas within the
European Union), is focused on determining whether the epizootic situation in the European Union
warrants an adaptation of the veterinary certificates bilaterally a greed in 2006. In this vein, the
procedure at issue concerns checking fulfilment of a measure that is already in existence covered
by Article 8 and Annex C(1) of the SPS Agreement (rather than constituting "negotiations"
concerning regionalization and revi sions to certificates that would fall into the category of
processes for modifying a measure).
7.523. We now turn to our examination of the consistency of the process at issue with paragraphs
(a) through (c) of Annex C(1).
7.5.4.3.4 Whether the procedure at issue was under taken in accordance with
Annex C(1)(a) through (c) of the SPS Agreement
7.5.4.3.4.1 Order of analysis
7.524. We recall that the European Union has raised claims in respect of paragraphs (a) through
(c) of Annex C(1) of the SPS Agreement. As we have already noted730, we are free to structure the
order of our analysis of the European Union's claims taking into account the circumstances of the
present case, in a manner that is consistent with the structure and logic of the provisions at
issue.731 Most of the European Union's argumen ts and evidence have focused on the fact that
Russia has requested unnecessary evidence, which was not examined in a timely fashion, raising
alleged violations of paragraphs (c) and (a) of Annex C(1). Furthermore, the European Union, in a
summary fashion, addresses other potential violations concerning paragraph (b) of Annex C(1).
7.525. Based on the foregoing, we will continue our analysis with the formulation of the legal test
in respect of paragraphs (a) through (c) of Annex C(1). Following the legal test we wi ll examine
whether the procedures at issue breach paragraph (c) of Annex C(1), followed by our
corresponding examination in respect of paragraphs (a) and then (b) of Annex C(1).

726 Russia's first written submission, paras. 343 and 345; response to Panel question No. 78, para. 129;
and second written submission, paras. 171-174.
727 European Union-Russia Memorandum of 4 April 2006 concerning principles of zoning and
compartmentalization in the veterinary field (Exhibit EU-61).
728 See fn 117 above.
729 Customs Union Decision No. 317 (Exhibit RUS-25).
730 See para. 7.29 above.
731 Appellate Body Reports, Canada – Autos, para. 151; and Canada – Wheat Exports and Grain

7.5.4.3.4.2 Legal test
Annex C(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement, first clause
7.526. In this section we provide an overview of the legal test applicable to the first clause of
subparagraph (a) of Annex C(1).
"Undertaken and completed"
7.527. The terms of Annex C(1)(a) require the Panel to ascertain whether the procedures at issue
were "undertaken and completed wit hout delay". The terms "undertaken" and "completed" are
distinct, and the obligations flowing from these distinct terms are susceptible to being interpreted
separately. The term "undertake" refers to the beginning 732 or commencement733 of the approval
procedure, while the term "complete" indicates that "approval procedures are not only to be
undertaken, but are also to be finished, or concluded". 734 Accordingly, "undertaken and completed
without undue delay" includes not only no undue delay in the commencement of the procedure
and its completion, but also in the intervening process that leads from commencement to
completion.735 It is important to distinguish between the obligation to initiate, conduct and
conclude a procedure (which is envisaged by this provision), and any requirement to come to a
particular outcome (which is not envisaged by this provision): the requirement embodied in Annex
C(1)(a) is simply to issue a final determination regardless of whether it be positive or negative.736
Without undue delay
7.528. Annex C(1)(a) requires that the procedures at issue are undertaken and completed
"without undue delay". The analysis of an "undue delay" claim under Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a)
requires two steps.
7.529. First, the complainant must establish that there has been a dela y. We recall that the panel
in US – Animals opined that "an inaction or an inability to proceed on the substance of the
application would constitute something outside the normal course of the procedure and should be
considered a delay within the meaning of Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a)." 737 The panel in US –
Animals viewed Annex C(1)(a) as requiring competent authorities to actively engage with the
applicant Member on the substance of the application. That panel further highlighted that a
determination of "dela y" must be made in light of the nature and complexity of the procedure to
be undertaken and completed.738 With these considerations in mind, in our examination of whether
there have been delays, we consider whether there have been periods of inaction or inab ility to
proceed on the substance of the application.
7.530. Second, the complainant must establish that the delay was undue. 739 The panel in EC —
Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products found that based on its ordinary meaning the phrase
"without undue delay" i n Annex C(1)(a), first clause, requires that "approval procedures be
undertaken with no unjustifiable loss of time".740 The Appellate Body in Australia — Apples referred
to the dictionary meanings of the words "undue" and "delay" in establishing the meaning of the
phrase "without undue delay". The Appellate Body stated:
Annex C(1)(a) contains an obligation that relevant procedures be undertaken and
completed "without undue delay". In this regard, the ordinary meaning of the word
"delay" relates to "(a period of) time lost by inaction or inability to proceed". The term
"undue" means something "that ought not to be or to be done, inappropriate,

732 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1494.
733 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 438.
734 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1494.
739 We find support for this approach in Panel Report, US - Animals, para 7.115.
740 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1495. See Panel Reports,

unsuitable, improper, unrightful, unjustifiable", or "going beyond what is warranted or
natural; excessive, disproporti onate". Thus, Annex C(1)(a) requires Members to
ensure that relevant procedures are undertaken and completed with appropriate
dispatch, that is, they do not involve periods of time that are unwarranted, or
otherwise excessive, disproportionate or unjustifiable.741
7.531. In Australia — Apples, the Appellate Body concluded that "[w]hether a relevant procedure
has been unduly delayed is therefore not an assessment that can be done in the abstract, but one
which requires a case -by-case analysis as to the reasons for th e alleged failure to act with
appropriate dispatch, and whether such reasons are justifiable".742
7.532. The panel in US – Animals relied on the guidance provided by the panel in EC – Approval
and Marketing of Biotech Products on the types of circumstances that mig ht justify a delay. 743
First, delays attributable to action or inaction of an applicant cannot be held against the Member
carrying out the procedure. 744 Second, delays which "are justified in their entirety" by the
Members' need "to determine with adequate con fidence whether their relevant SPS requirements
are fulfilled" should not be considered undue. 745 Third, if "new or additional information becomes
available at a late stage in an approval procedure" and that information may reasonably be
considered to "have a potential impact on a Member's determination", it "might be justifiable for
the Member concerned to delay the completion of the procedure" in order to assess the
information.746
7.533. Moreover, the panel in EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products noted that:
[A] Member which finds it appropriate to follow a prudent and precautionary approach
in assessing and approving applications concerning GMOs or GMO -derived products,
might, for instance, be justified in requesting for further information or clarific ation of
an applicant in a situation where another Member considers that the information
available is sufficient to carry out its assessment and reach a decision on an
application.747 Whether a particular request is a reflection of genuine caution and
prudence or whether it is a pretext to delay the completion of a procedure would need
to be determined in the light of all relevant facts and circumstances.748
7.534. The Panel in EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products also referred to situations
where the time to complete an approval procedure might entail an undue delay. A first example
would be when a Member exceeds the time that is reasonably needed to check and ensure the
fulfilment of its relevant SPS requirements, for instance because that Member did not proceed as
expeditiously as could be expected in the circumstances. 749 A second situation would be when
there are delays caused by measures which, absent other causes for delay (such as natural
disasters or unexpected sharp increase in workload), are not bas ed on scientific evidence. 750 In
addition, the panel found that if a "Member causes undue delay at any stage in an approval
procedure, this would constitute a breach of the provisions of Annex C(1)(a), first clause" .751
Where information requested is unnecessary or irrelevant, an applicant cannot be held responsible
for any delays in relation to the gathering of such information.

741 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 437.
742 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 437.
744 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1497; and US- Poultry
(China), para. 7.354.
745 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1498.
746 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1498.
747 (footnote original) We recall that pursuant to Annex C(1)(c) of the SPS Agreement information
requirements must be limited to what is necessary for appropriate approval procedures.
748 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1522.
749 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1499.
750 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1500.
751 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1502.

7.535. Mindful of this guidance, w e consider that a delay is undue if it is "unwarranted, or
otherwise excessive, disproportionate or unju stifiable".752 In considering whether the European
Union's allegation of "delay" can be considered to be "undue delay", we will examine whether the
delay is unwarranted, or otherwise excessive, disproportionate or unjustifiable.
7.536. The panel in US – Animals disagreed with the responding Member that the need to "re -
confirm and update" pre -existing information constitutes, in and of itself, a justification for the
delay in the completion of a control, inspection or approval procedure. 753 In its explanation, the
panel in US – Animals referred to the panel report for EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech
Products which found that when " new or additional" relevant information becomes available, a
Member may reasonably "delay the completion of the procedure" in order to assess it. However,
the panel in US – Animals further explained that "taking time to assess relevant new or additional
information is not the same as taking time to re -confirm and update information already
received".754 The panel further determined that "[i]t is inevitable that the situation in any Member
or region will change and cannot remain static; the longer the evaluation process takes, the more
likely the need to 're -confirm and update' the submitted information." 755 In that panel's view, to
accept the respondent's argument as justifying the delay in that case "would seriously undermine
the obligations in Annex C(1)(a), for if a WTO Member could indefinitely postpone the completion
of a procedure by invoking the need to reconfirm information that had become outdated by virtue
of its own inaction, this would create a dangerous loophole in the disciplines of that provision and
would reward behaviour opposite to the diligence called for by Annex C(1)".756
Distinction between undue delay and a refusal to take SPS action
7.537. Although the Panel in EC — Approval and Marketing of Biotech Product declined to settle
on a definitive meaning of what constitutes "undue delay", it did determine that Members cannot
justify refusing to take substantive SPS decisions because of evolving science, scientific
complexity, uncertainty, or limited available scientific information or data.757 In EC — Approval and
Marketing of Biotech Products , the panel acknowledged that, in cases where scientific discoveries
are likely to occur in a g iven field, delays could allow decisions that take into account latest
evidence or fill the existing gaps in the scientific justification of the measure. However, the Panel
took the view that the SPS Agreement, in Articles 5.1 and 5.7, offers the possibili ty to grant time-
limited approvals or refuse approvals at any stage of scientific knowledge, without occasioning
undue delays.758
Delay as a means of avoiding risk assessment
7.538. Moreover, the panel in EC — Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products observed that a
Member may deliberately use delays as an instrument to manage or control risks: the Member
would postpone the adoption of a measure which is at odds with the present legal framework,
awaiting occurrence of better legislative conditions. The panel comme nted that this attitude would
be inconsistent with Annex C(1)(a) and the SPS provisions addressing the risk assessment
regime.759
Annex C(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement, second clause
7.539. The second clause of Annex C(1)(a) requires that the procedures are undertaken and
completed in no less favourable manner for imported products than for like domestic products. In
order to establish an inconsistency with Annex C(1)(a) second clause, a complainant must
establish that the imported products have been treated in a "less favourable manner" than

752 Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.129. With reference to the Appellate Body Report, Australia –
Apples, para. 437 (referring to Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1495).
754 Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.143 (emphasis original).
757 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1526.
758 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1527.
759 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1517.

domestic products with respect to the undertaking and completion of approval procedures. 760 As
Annex C(1)(a) second clause sets out a "national treatment obligation", the panel in EC —
Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products referred to the past panel and Appellate Body rulings
on Article III:1 and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. The panel concluded that differential treatment
of like products does not by itself demonstrate less favourable treatment. Additionally, an
unfavourable result for an application for placing an imported product on the market would not be
sufficient to establish less favourable treatment.761
Annex C(1)(b) of the SPS Agreement
Introduction
7.540. Annex C(1)(b) sets out five separate, but related, procedural obligations to be observed by
Members in the operation of their control, inspection and approval procedures:
i. the publication or communication to applicants of the processing period of each
procedure;
ii. the examination of the completeness of the documentation and the communication
to applicants of deficiencies;
iii. the transmission of the results of the procedure;
iv. the processing of applications which have deficiencies; and
v. the provision of information about the stage of a procedure and the provision of an
explanation of any delay.762
Annex C(1)(b)(i): Publication or communication of processing period
7.541. Annex C(1)(b)(i) requires that "the standard processing period of each procedure is
published or that the anticipated processing period is communicated to the applicant upon
request".763 The words "upon request" indicate that the applicant must have formally asked the
Member to communicate the information before a claim can be brought alleging the Member's
breach of the provision.764
Annex C(1)(b)(ii): Completeness of documentation
7.542. Annex C(1)(b) also requires that the competent body of a Member, when receiving an
application, promptly examines the completeness of the documentation and informs the applicant
in a precise and complete manner of all deficiencies.
7.543. In EC — Approval and Ma rketing of Biotech Products , the United States argued that
because of the general moratorium on approvals, the European Communities did not promptly
examine the completeness of documentation and inform applicants of any deficiencies. The Panel

760 We find support for this approach in Panel Reports, EC - Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products,
para. 7.2400. We note that that panel set out a two-step test, with the second element being that the products
at issue and the domestic products are "like" in nature. In this dispute, the parties have not disagreed that the
products at issue are "like". We proceed on the basis that the products at issue are "like" for the purposes of
our analysis here.
761 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.2408.
762 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, paras. 7.1574 and 7.1582. Similar
to the panel's findings in EC - Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, the panel in US – Animals confirmed
that Annex C(1)(b) contains five procedural requirements to be observed by Members in carrying out control,
inspection or approval procedures. Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.181.
763 In EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, the United States argued that as a result of its
general moratorium on approvals, the European Communities did not follow the standard processing periods
which are published in its applicable approval legislation, the Panel ruled that the lack of publication was not a
result of the measure at issue. Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, paras. 7.1575-
7.1576 and 7.1585-7.1590.
764 We find support for this approach in Panel Report, US – Animals, paras. 7.188 and 7.193.

rejected this argument observing that the United States' challenge was not supported by evidence.
The Panel concluded that the alleged lack of completed documentation was not the result of the
measure at issue.765
Annex C(1)(b)(iii): Transmission of results
7.544. Annex C(1)(b ) provides that the competent body of a Member transmits as soon as
possible the results of the procedure in a precise and complete manner to the applicant so that
corrective action may be taken if necessary.
7.545. In EC — Approval and Marketing of Biotech Produ cts, the United States raised the
contention that under the measure at issue, the results of procedures were not promptly
communicated to applicants so that corrective action could be taken. The Panel considered that the
United States had failed to establish its claim under the third obligation contained in Annex C(1)(b)
as it did not identify the results that were to be transmitted.766
Annex C(1)(b)(iv): Processing of deficient applications
7.546. Annex C(1)(b) also provides that in a situation where the applicatio n has deficiencies, the
competent body of a Member is expected to proceed as far as practicable with the procedure if the
applicant so requests.
7.547. In EC — Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products , the United States complained that
under the general moratorium, the respondent in that dispute did not proceed as far as practicable
in the approval process. The panel disagreed with this view and commented that the complainant
did not provide evidence of the applicant making such request and had the applicant mad e such
request, the European Communities failure to proceed with procedures would not be a result of the
measure at issue.767
Annex C(1)(b)(v): Explanation of delay
7.548. Lastly, pursuant to Annex C(1)(b), upon request, the applicant is informed of the stage of
the procedure, with any delay being explained.
7.549. The panel in EC — Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products , dismissed the United
States' argument that the respondent did not comply with the fifth obligation under Annex C(1)(b).
The panel found that the United States did not submit any evidence that it had made a request for
an explanation of the delay.768
7.550. The panel in US – Animals carried out its analysis on the fifth obligation of the provision
stating that the requirement of Annex C(1)(b) is qualified by th e words "upon request", which
indicate that the applicant must have formally asked the Member to communicate the information
before a claim can be brought alleging the Member's breach of the provision. 769 In that dispute,
the panel found that the complaining Member had contacted the responding Member repeatedly
requesting explanations as to the state of progress of its import requests. On this basis, the panel
in US – Animals determined that the responding Member was under an obligation to explain the
delays in its approval processes in light of the inquiries by the complainant. In this regard, the
panel concluded that the responding Member had violated Annex C(1)(b) by failing to inform the
complainant of the precise stage of procedures or the reasons for the delays.770
Annex C(1)(c) of the SPS Agreement
7.551. Annex C(1)(c) necessitates that information requirements are limited to what is necessary
for appropriate control, inspection and approval procedures, including for approval of the use of

765 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1592.
766 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1595.
767 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1598.
768 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1601.
769 Panel Report, US – Animals, paras. 7.188 and 7.193.

additives or for the es tablishment of tolerances for contaminants in food, beverages or
feedstuffs.771
7.5.4.3.5 Whether the procedure at issue is consistent with Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a),
C(1)(b) and C(1)(c)
7.5.4.3.5.1 Introduction
7.552. As we have indicated, we consider that it is most appropriate for us to begin our
examination of the European Union's claims under Article 8 and Annex C(1) with an assessment of
the consistency of the procedure at issue with Annex C(1)(c). We thus begin with such assessment
and then proceed with our examination pursuant to Annex C(1)(a) and C(1)(b).
7.5.4.3.5.2 Whether the procedure at issue is inconsistent with Annex C(1)(c)
7.553. The European Union posits that Russia's information requirements were not limited to what
was necessary for the assessment of the European Union's regionalization measures in respect of
ASF, thus breaching Annex C(1)(c). 772 In support of this contention, the European Union referred
to specific information requests that we examine below. Russia argues that the European Union did
not make a prima facie case and faile d to meet its burden of demonstrating that Russia violated
Annex C(1)(c).773
7.554. In particular, the European Union claims that Russia made certain requests of unnecessary
information. Such requests are reflected in the letters that FSVPS sent to DG SANCO on 5
February and 12 March 2014. Regarding the letter of 5 February 2014 774, the European Union
identifies the following information as unnecessary and irrelevant: (i) swine population in personal
subsidiary farming with detailed density by region; (ii) production volume of different farms and
factories; (iii) volumes of exported wild boar meat and trophies; and, (iv) detailed information
about foreign hunters. In its arguments, the European Union claims that the aforementioned
requests were unnecessary to assess th e European Union's regionalization measures. 775 In
addition, the European Union contests the relevance of Russia's requests for information, done
through the letter of 5 February 2014, which pertains to (i) pig farms and meat processing
factories, including information about the suppliers and production volumes; and (ii) rough
estimation of enterprises attested to ship animal products, by level of zoosanitary condition.776 The
European Union argues that while this information might be relevant for compartmental ization, it
is not relevant for regionalization. The European Union further claims that not only was Russia
already in possession of the information with regard to attested pig farms and processing factories,
but also that the requested information on the level of sanitary condition was also irrelevant for
regionalization, as all farms in the free-regions are ASF-free.777
7.555. Regarding the letter of 12 March 2014 778, the European Union considers that Russia
requested the following unnecessary and irrelevant informa tion: (i) absence of any proof of non -
existence of ASF in the territory of other EU member States; and (ii) absence of any proof of

771 Panel Report, Australia – Salmon (Article 21.5 – Canada), paras. 7.154–7.157. This is the only panel
ruling to date on Annex C(1)(c). The panel in Australia – Salmon (Article 21.5 – Canada) ruled that only
"procedures to check and ensure the fulfilment of sanitary or phytosanitary measures" fall under the scope of
paragraph 1(c) of Annex C and not "substantive sanitary measures in their own right". Panel Report,
772 European Union's second written submission, para. 184.
773 Russia's first written submission, para. 441.
774 Russia's letter to the European Union of 5 February 2014, FS-SD 8/1640 (Exhibit EU–84).
775 European Union's second written submission, paras. 168-169.
776 European Union's second written submission, para. 172. See also first written submission, para. 339.
777 European Union's second written submission, paras. 172 – 173. The European Union referred to
similar information requests formulated through the letter of 16 May 2014, see second written submission,
paras. 177-178 (referring to Russia's letter to the European Union of 16 May 2014, FS-EN-8/7999
(Exhibit EU-93)).
778 Russia's letter to the European Union of 12 March 2014, FS-SD-4/3620 (Exhibit EU-90/RUS-135).

impossibility of getting meat of animals infected by ASF virus in the production cycle of pork from
other EU member States.779
7.556. The European Union also claims that Russia, through the letter from FSVPS to DG SANCO
dated 16 May 2014, requested answers to questions where the European Union had already
provided exhaustive replies. 780 Furthermore, the European Union contends that this letter also
requested unnecessary information, such as that referring to (i) zoo sanitary status of small farms
(due to the big number of them in the territories of the infected/high risk zones with regard to
ASF) and measure of their bio protection (possi bility of free range, feed base, the regime of
introducing the newly arrived animals in the herd, etc.); and (ii) cartographical visual ization of the
establishments attested to supply live pigs and swine products from the EU member States
(Poland and Lithu ania, in particular) to the Russia with indication of the raw material bases of
these establishments.781
7.557. Moreover, the European Union argues that it has made clear to Russia that "no [infected]
establishment is allowed to supply pig meat or pig meat products to the establishments authorised
to export to the Russian Federation." 782 On this basis, the European Union posits that it has
provided abundant evidence to substantiate its claims under Annex C and Article 8 of the SPS
Agreement.783
7.558. In turn, Russia has argue d that these information requests are justified. According to
Russia, the experts have confirmed that there has been an objective basis for Russia's requests.784
7.559. Among the questions that the Panel addressed to the experts, the Panel asked them to
comment on the relevance of the questions included in some of Russia's information requests for
the purposes of assessing the relevant risks. 785 The communications to which the Panel's question
referred are those sent by Russia to the European Union or certain EU memb er States, dated

779 European Union's first written submission, para. 339; and second written submission, para. 176.
780 European Union's first written submission, para. 339 (referring to Russia's letter to the European
Union of 16 May 2014, FS-EN-8/7999 (Exhibit EU-93)).
781 European Union's second written submission, paras. 177-181.
782 European Union's second written submission, para. 182.
783 In its response to Panel Question 194, the European Union identified information requested by Russia
in March 2014 that had already been provided or which was not relevant for the purposes of Russia's
assessment of the European Union's regionalization measures:
– proof that the historically ASF-free regions all over the EU are actually free, contrary to the provisions
of the OIE Terrestrial Code;
- information about swine population in the industry sector and personal subsidiary farming with
detailed density by region; detailed information about pig farms, pork processing factories and semi-finished
products, graded by production volume; regulatory acts, providing for wild boar hunting and further utilization
of killed animals (for food, as trophies); regulations on export of wild boar meat and trophies, number of killed
animals and exported meat and trophies during 2013-2014; detailed information about foreign hunters, who
entered the EU member States to hunt wild boar during the period 2013-2014, detailed by region (including
information about the number and the country of origin); detailed information about pig farms and meat
processing factories attested to ship animals and products to the territory of the Customs Union, including
information about the suppliers (number, country, region) and production volumes, detailed by region; rough
estimation of enterprises attested to ship animal products to the territory of the Customs Union, by level of
zoosanitary condition, equivalent to the previously conducted evaluation of the Russian and Belarusian
enterprises, detailed by regions and graded by production volumes.
784 Russia's closing statement at the second meeting with the Panel, para. 4. See also Russia's
comments to the European Union's response to Panel question No. 322; and Russia's comments to the experts'
responses to Panel questions Nos. 12 and 13.
785 Panel question No. 13 to the experts.

5 February 2014 786, 12 March 2014 787, 10 April 2014 788, 16 May 2014 789, 31 July 2014 790, and
1 December 2014.791
7.560. In his response to this question, Dr Brückner noted that the "intention and the magnitude
of the information required is unclear." Dr Brückner further observed that
The information normally required from an exporting country would be restricted to
the pathogen concerned and the potential hazards related to that pathogen and from
the area under dispute (ASF affected area) and would in general require information
that are not yet available from the exporting country (which in the case of exports
from the EU to the Russian Federation would by default already be available for other
animal and animal product exports). However, the information requ ested in Exhibit
RUS-131, is in my opinion "an overkill" of which many of the questions are not relative
or needed to conduct either a sensible quantitative or qualitative risk analysis.792
7.561. In her response to this question, Professor Penrith indicated that s uch information
"appears to be the information that the EU might use to perform a very detailed risk assessment
for spread of the virus in the EU". 793 Professor Penrith further explained that all of the EU member
States "cannot be considered to pose an equal risk of ASF for Russia". Therefore, some information
requested by Russia is irrelevant for certain areas in the European Union (i.e. wild boar
populations and their movement in insular territories; and stamping out policies in territories which
have never experienced ASF or haven't done so in more than 20 years). 794 Moreover, Professor
Penrith indicated that the information required by Russia should be limited to a list of items she
identified, and mentioned that more detail might be required from countries that have experienced
outbreaks.795 Professor Penrith concluded her response by indicating that the "great majority of
the information required is not relevant or necessary for a risk assessment by Russia".
7.562. In respect of the letter dated 5 February 2014 (Ex hibit EU-84), Dr Thomson noted that
some of the questions contained in this exhibit are variations of other questions posed elsewhere
by Russia, and indicated that for a country "that is not itself free of ASF this strikes me as an
overkill and possibly an attempt to 'muddy the water'."796 Regarding the letter dated 10 April 2014
(Exhibit RUS-240), Dr Thomson noted that the three questions posed are of doubtful relevance,
partly because "it would be reasonable to ask the EU for the results and conclusions dra wn from
surveys conducted in its territory generally", not so asking for the surveys themselves from
Poland.797 Regarding the letter dated 16 May 2014 (Exhibit EU -93) Dr Thomson noted that, with
the exception of the information regarding the presence of ASF vector in the EU member States,

786 Russia's letter to the European Union of 5 February 2014, FS-SD 8/1640 (Exhibit EU-84).
787 Russia's letter to the European Union of 12 March 2014, FS-SD-4/3620 (Exhibit EU-90/Exhibit
RUS-135).
788 Russia's letter to Poland of 10 April 2014, FS-NV-8/5827 (Exhibit RUS-240).
789 Russia's letter to the European Union of 16 May 2014, FS-EN-8/7999 (Exhibit EU-93).
790 Russia's letter to the European Union of 31 July 2014, EH-8/14006 (Exhibit RUS-157).
791 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to DG SANCO, No. FS-AS-8/23743, 1 December 2015
(Exhibit RUS-131).
792 Dr Brückner's response to Panel question No. 13, Compilation of the experts' responses, para. 2.123.
793 Professor Penrith's response to Panel question No. 13, Compilation of the experts' responses, para.
2.125.
794 Professor Penrith's response to Panel question No. 13, Compilation of the experts' responses, para.
2.125.
795 Professor Penrith's response to Panel question No. 13, Compilation of the experts' responses, para.
2.125. The list of information Professor Penrith referred to was provided in her response to Panel question No.
12. Such list comprises the following information: (i) Whether the disease is notifiable throughout the country
and what means are used to ensure that this is known; (ii) if diagnostic capacity for ASF is available in the
country (veterinary personnel and pig value chain actor trained in field diagnosis and laboratory capacity for
confirmation of a field diagnosis); (iii) legislation in place for prevention and management of serious disease
outbreaks including ASF; (iv) veterinary knowledge of and authority over all domestic pigs in the country or
zone; (v) veterinary knowledge of the species, population, distribution and habitat of wild pigs in the country
or zone; (vi) the epidemiological basis for recognition of a zone including all relevant topographical features;
and (vii) the scope and extent of active surveillance for ASF undertaken in the country or zone to support the
contention that the country or zone is free of ASF. Professor Penrith's response to Panel question No. 12,
Compilation of the experts' responses, para. 2.114.
796 Dr Thomson's response to Panel question No. 13, Compilation of the experts' responses, para. 2.131.
797 Dr Thomson's response to Panel question No. 13, Compilation of the experts' responses, para. 2.130.

the questions posed appear to be relevant. 798 Regarding the letter dated 31 July 2014 (Exhibit
RUS-157) Dr Thomson indicated that this "request seems to me relevant and justified". 799 Lastly,
in respect of the letter dated 1 Dec ember 2014 (Exhibit RUS -131), Dr Thomson indicated that he
could find relevance and therefore justification for the questions pertaining to (i) ASF early
detection and contingency plans for each EU member State; (ii) detailed information regarding
monitoring and surveillance of wild boars in each EU member State; (iii) detailed information
regarding the measures taken by each EU member State to prevent trans -boundary spread of ASF
in the European Union (excluding data demonstrating their effectiveness); and (iv) information
regarding the role of ticks in the spread of ASF in the EU member States. Dr Thomson added,
referring to the other questions in that letter, that they "strike me either as repetition or as
questions which few if any countries in the world , including the RF, would be able to provide
satisfactory answers to. It needs to be remembered that Russia is not an ASF-free country".800
7.563. In our view, the expert's responses indicate that some of the information requested by
Russia through its communication requests is excessive for what would be necessary for Russia to
perform a risk analysis of the spread of ASF from the European Union into Russia. To our mind this
links directly with the issue before us.
7.564. As we have described in paragraph 7.516 above, the immediate objective of the procedure
at issue is to assess whether there are ASF-free areas in the territory of the European Union. In
respect of the EU-wide ban, we examine this assessment as related to such areas in the E uropean
Union that are outside the territory of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. We thus consider that
the information requirements that would be necessary for the procedure at issue, are those
directed at the verification of the ASF-free character of the territories under scrutiny.
7.565. We recall that in section 7.5.2.3.5 above we examined in detailed the necessary evidence
that the European Union should provide to Russia to objectively demonstrate that there are ASF-
free areas within its territory.
7.566. In our view, the type of information that the European Union was required to provide to
Russia to objectively demonstrat e the existence of ASF-free areas within the European Union,
pursuant to Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, is aimed at demonstrating exactly what the
procedure at issue seeks to verify.
7.567. Against this backdrop we consider that Russia's information requirements, in respect of the
verification of the existence of ASF -free areas within the European Union outside Esto nia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland should be limited to (i) ASF surveillance measures (including whether the
disease was notifiable) ; (ii) measures adopted to prevent introduction and spread of ASF (i.e.
control measures); (iii) measures foreseen in case t here is an outbreak of ASF (i.e. contingency
plans), and (iv) information on the domestic and wild pig population. In our view, the information
requests made by Russia between February and July 2014 go beyond these areas. As indicated by
the experts, some of the information requested by Russia seems unnecessary and unjustified.
7.568. In particular, excessive information requests were made through the letter of
5 February 2014 in respect of (i) detailed information about pig farms, pork processing factories
and semi- finished products, graded by production volume; (ii) regulatory acts, providing for wild
boar hunting and further utilization of killed animals (for food, as trophies); (iii) regulations on
export of wild boar meat and trophies, number of killed anim als and exported meat and trophies
during 2013 -2014 (for regions adjacent to the infected zone); (iv) detailed information about
foreign hunters, who entered the country to hunt the wild boar during 2013 -2014 (including
information about the number and the country of origin), detailed by country and region;
(v) detailed information about pig farms and meat processing factories approved to ship animals
and products to the territory of the C ustoms Union (CU), including information about the suppliers
(number, country, region) and production volumes, detailed by country and region; and (vi) rough
estimation of enterprises approved to ship animal products to the territory of the CU, by level of
zoosanitary condition, equivalent to the previously conducted evalua tion of the Russian and
Belarusian enterprises, detailed by regions and graded by production volume. Furthermore, the

798 Dr Thomson's response to Panel question No. 13, Compilation of the experts' responses, para. 2.132.
799 Dr Thomson's response to Panel question No. 13, Compilation of the experts' responses, para. 2.129.
800 Dr Thomson's response to Panel question No. 13, Compilation of the experts' responses, para. 2.128.

degree of details requested in respect of certain other information seems to be excessive, in
particular (i) detailed density by region of wild boar population; (ii) detailed density by region of
swine population in the industry sector and subsidiary farming; and (iii) number of swine and wild
boars monitoring researches carried out during 2013-2014, detailed by region.801
7.569. In addition, through the letter of 12 March 2014, Russia indicated that exchanges that had
taken place up to that time had not yet provided information in respect of (i) absence of any proof
of non-existence of ASF in the territory of other EU member States; and (ii) absence of any proof
of impossibility of getting meat of animals infected by ASFV in the production cycle of pork from
other EU member States. 802 Requesting information in this regard beyond that related to the
surveillance and control programmes, which by that tim e had already been provided by the
European Union to Russia seems excessive. The Panel notes, in particular, the virtual impossibility
of "proving" the non -existence or impossibility of the potential occurrence of an event, however
unlikely that occurrence may be.
7.570. Moreover, through the letter dated 16 May 2014, Russia requested the following
information, which seems excessive in respect of the assessment of ASF-free areas in the
European Union outside Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland: (i) cartographi cal visualization of
the establishments approved to supply live pigs and swine products from the EU member States
(Poland and Lithuania, in particular) to Russia with indication of the raw material bases of these
establishments; (ii) zoo sanitary status of small farms (due to the big number of them in the
territories of the infected/high risk zones with regard to ASF) and measure of their bio protection
(possibility of free range, feed base, the regime of introducing the newly arrived animals in the
herd, etc.); (iii) data on internal evaluation by the veterinary services of the EU member States of
resources (human, technical, financial ones) needed for the creation and maintenance of
abovementioned ASF-free zones; (iv) data on functional isolation of sub -populations of domestic
and wild animals in zones with the proofs of the absence of migration/seasonal movements of wild
boars between the zones; and (v) data on the presence of the ASF vector in the EU member
States.803 We recall that some of this information is irrelevant in light of the particular geographical
distance between the places where ASF outbreaks have occurred and other areas in the European
Union.
7.571. Based on the foregoing, we consider that Russia formulated information requirements that
were not limited to what was necessary for the procedure at issue, thus breaching Annex C(1)(c).
7.5.4.3.5.3 Whether the procedure at issue is inconsistent with Annex C(1)(a)
7.572. The European Union argues that through the request of unnecessary information, as well
as through certain actions, Russia failed to undertake and complete the procedure at issue without
undue delay. 804 Furthermore the European Union contends that, based on the discriminatory
treatment provided by Russia to the products at issue imported from the European Unio n as
compared with the like domestic products, Russia conducted the procedure with respect to the
products at issue from the European Union in a less favourable manner than for the like domestic
products.805
7.573. Russia refers to the panel report in EC - Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products which
observed that "not every delay" caused by a Member is contrary to Annex C(1)(a), and that a
Member is not liable for delays not attributable to it. 806 In addition, Russia highlighted that this
panel found that the nee d for additional information does not amount to an undue delay, but that
the determination of whether a procedure has been unduly delayed requires a case -by-case
analysis taking into account all of the relevant facts and circumstances. On this basis, Russi a
argues that the evidence the European Union provided distorts the overall picture of the constant

801 Russia's letter to the European Union of 5 February 2014, FS-SD 8/1640 (Exhibit EU-84).
802 Russia's letter to the European Union of 12 March 2014, FS-SD-4/3620 (Exhibit EU-90/RUS-135).
803 Russia's letter to the European Union of 16 May 2014, FS-EN-8/7999 (Exhibit EU-93).
804 European Union's first written submission, paras. 338-339; and second written submission, paras.
185-186.
805 European Union's second written submission, para. 186.
806 Russia's first written submission, para. 434 (referring to Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing
of Biotech Products, paras. 7.1495 and 7.1497).

information exchange and intensive negotiations concerning regionalization, including the
numerous explanations provided by Russia in relation to the insufficiency of submitted information.
Russia also argues that it made several offers to resume trade with the European Union on the
condition that trade would be conducted in an ASF -free manner. 807 Russia concludes that the
European Union has merely asserted a v iolation of Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a) by pointing to
alleged delays in evaluating requests for regionalization without demonstrating that these delays
were "undue". On the contrary, Russia argues that it has taken reasonable time to assess the
European Union's regionalization requests, especially in light of the deteriorating ASF situation in
the European Union. 808 In this regard, Russia contends that the European Union has not put
forward sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case and failed to meet it s burden of proof in
demonstrating that Russia violated Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a).809
7.574. We recall that a determination of whether a delay in an approval, control or inspection
procedure is undue, for the purposes of Annex C(1)(a) has to be examined in light of the
circumstances of a particular case.810 The Appellate Body has also indicated that:
[T]he obligation to ensure that relevant procedures are undertaken and completed
without undue delay may be infringed through measures other than the control,
inspection, and approval procedures themselves, such as actions that prohibit,
prevent, or impede undertaking and completing such procedures "without undue
delay", or omissions in the form of a failure to act "without undue delay". 811 Such
measures, even when they are not, themselves, procedures, could equally give rise to
a violation of Annex C(1)(a) and Article 8.812
7.575. In paragraph 7.535 above we noted that mindful of the guidance provided by previous
panels and the Appellate Body, w e cons ider that a delay is undue if it is "unwarranted, or
otherwise excessive, disproportionate or unjustifiable." 813 In considering whether the European
Union's allegation of "delay" can be considered to be "undue", we will examine whether the delay
is unwarranted, or otherwise excessive, disproportionate or unjustifiable.
7.576. As part of this examination, we consider whether there were any periods of inaction or
inability to proceed on the substance of the application which would constitute delays within the
meaning of Annex C(1)(a). 814 This entails not only a consideration of the total period of time
during which Russia, as the importing Member, conducts the procedure, but also requires an
overall assessment of the facts and circumstances in this case. The absolute le ngth of time
required for a Member to evaluate a particular request – and the time needed for any interim
series of steps required in order to ascertain the comprehensiveness, accuracy and pertinence of
the information – will depend on the specific circums tances of the case.815 We agree with the view
of the panel in US – Animals on the importance of having a point of reference in order to gauge
the reasonableness of the length of time of the review process, referring to such indicators like the

807 Russia's first written submission, paras 435 – 436.
808 Russia's first written submission, para 437.
809 Russia's first written submission, para 438.
810 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 437.
811 (footnote original) We note that, in previous disputes involving claims under Annex C(1)(a) and
Article 8, panels have been faced with measures other than procedures. In EC – Approval and Marketing of
Biotech Products, the panel dealt with a general de facto moratorium consisting of the suspension of
consideration of applications for approval, and a failure to consider specific applications for approval.
(Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.47) In US – Poultry (China), the
measure at issue was a legislative provision prohibiting any use of funds to allow for the importation of poultry
products from China that, thereby, impeded the undertaking and completion of a procedure that was "a
prerequisite for the importation of [poultry] products". (Panel Report, US – Poultry (China), paras. 7.92 and
7.152)
812 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 438.
813 Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.129. With reference to the Appellate Body Report, Australia –
Apples, para. 437 (referring to Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1495).
814 Using the order analysis by the panel in US – Animals, para. 7.127.
815 Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.114. That panel observed that applicant Members present
different SPS circumstances that "may also be affected by law, policy, governance, and veterinary
infrastructures".

standard proce ssing time reflected in the policy and practice of the Member carrying out the
procedure, as well as guidelines provided by the OIE.816
7.577. Furthermore, we recall our observations in section 7.3.6 above on the importance of
temporal considerations in this case. We note that the panel in US – Animals identified an end -
date for the period of time it would take into account for the purpose of assessing the alleged
undue delays in the conduct of the responding Member's procedures. 817 With r eference to the
Appellate Body ruling in EC – Chicken Cuts and the panel ruling in EC – Approval and Marketing of
Biotech Products, the panel in US – Animals determined that the appropriate end-date for which to
examine the complainant's claims would be the date of the establishment of the Panel.818
7.578. The European Union's request for recognition of ASF-free areas in the European Union was
initially presented through the letter dated 31 January 2014. 819. At that time, there had only been
two outbreaks in wild boar s in Lithuania. The record shows that Russia only provided a negative
response to this request through the letter dated 29 July 2014 (after the date of the establishment
of the Panel), after the outbreaks in Poland and Latvia had already occurred. Russia's letter
indicated that:
The worsening epizootic situation in the EU, as well as the absence of conclusive
evidence of efficient supervision and proper functioning of the determined zones ,
complying with the provisions of Articles 1.4.6 and 4.3.3 of the OI E Terrestrial Animal
Health Code (as amended 2013) currently preclude the Russian Federation from
accepting the EU regionalization terms, proposed by the European Commission at the
meeting held on 4 July 2014 in Moscow, as well as from pronouncing the enti re EU
territory free from AFS [ASF].820 (emphasis added)
7.579. Russia sent another communication to the European Union in connection with this
procedure on 1 December 2014. In that communication Russia indicated that the process of
discussion of veterinary certificates and resumption of trade in breeding pigs and pork products is
getting "protracted" due to the European Union's failure to provide sufficient information required
for the objective assessment of risks associated with the spread of ASF in the EU member States.
The letter also referred to the European Union's unwillingness to follow compartmentalization as
provided in the Terrestrial Code. Moreover, the letter requested that the European Union provide
detailed information in respect of a particular list of questions.821
7.580. The European Union replied to this letter on 23 December 2014. The letter refers to the
communications sent by DG SANCO to FSVPS on 7 February, 6 and 13 March, 21 May, and
13 June of 2014. The letter observed the following in respect of the first three of these five
communications, "I am confident that this information is more than sufficient to allow your
services to conclude on the safety of pigs and their products, originating in unaffected areas of the
EU". The letter concluded that it w as surprising that Russia had submitted a new set of questions
despite the fact that during the last five months they had not provided any feedback on the
European Union's latest responses as requested by Russia, and that Russia was claiming once
again that the European Commission had not provided all the information needed to carry out a
risk assessment.822
7.581. Against this background, we need to determine whether the procedure at issue, aimed at
the recognition of ASF-free areas in the European Union, was under taken and completed without
any undue delay.

819 European Union's letter to Russia of 31 January 2014, ARES(2014)226547, SANCO
G7/JP/mh(2014)241111 (Exhibit EU-64).
820 Russia's letter to the European Union of 29 July 2014, C-EH-8/13771 (Exhibit RUS-263).
821 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to DG SANCO, No. FS-AS-8/23743, 1 December 2015
(Exhibit RUS-131).
822 Letter from DG SANCO to the Russian Veterinary Service, SANCO/G7/PD/mh (2014) 4703183, 23
December 2014 (Exhibit RUS-132).

7.582. As we have indicated in our analysis of the European Union's claims pursuant to
Annex C(1)(c), Russia made a number of information requests that went beyond the information
that was necessary for the procedure at issue. We underline that this was the case in respect of
those areas located in the EU member States not affected with ASF outbreaks.
7.583. In our view, 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, a Member would be acting in a manner that impedes undertaking and
completing the respective procedures. In the instant case, Russia's excessive and unjustified
information requests in respect of the surveillance and control measures in non -ASF affected EU
member States amount to that situation. In light of the Appellate Body's guidance quoted
above823, such situation may constitute an infringement of the obligation to undertake and
complete a procedure without undue delay.
7.584. Based on the foregoing we conclude that the procedure at issue was undertaken and
completed with undue delay, thus breaching Annex C(1)(a)'s first clause.
7.585. We now turn to the European Union's claim in respect of th e second clause in Annex
C(1)(a), this is, that the procedure at issue was undertaken and completed in a manner less
favourable for imported products than for like domestic products.
7.586. Regarding this claim, the Panel will examine whether the European Union has established
that the products at issue from the European Union have been treated in a "less favourable
manner" than domestic products with respect to the undertaking and completion of the procedure
at issue.
7.587. In response to the Panel's question invitin g the European Union to elaborate on the less
favourable treatment it alleged in the context of this provision, the European Union responded:
The EU has already explained [in the answer to question 194] that the Russian
authorities repeatedly requested mor e information, including information already
submitted or information irrelevant to the case.
This clearly results in a less favourable treatment of the imported products, which are
subject to a ban, in comparison to the domestic products, which can freely circulate
from non-affected areas of Russia. In order to reach a regionalization decision with
regard to its own territory Russia clearly did not need more than one year and the
type and quantity of evidence it required from the EU.824
7.588. We understand the rat ionale behind the European Union's argument to be that the
unnecessary and excessive information requests addressed by Russia to the European Union in
respect of the recognition of ASF-free areas within the European Union were not requested in
respect of trade of the like products originating in ASF-free areas within Russia.
7.589. We recall that the Appellate Body has concluded that generally accepted canons of
evidence (in civil law, common law, and, in fact, in most jurisdictions) apply in WTO dispute
settlement, i.e. that the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending,
who asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. 825 To make a prima facie case, a
complaining party must present sufficient evidence that, "in the absence of effective refutation by
the defending party, requires a panel, as a matter of law, to rule in favour of the complaining party
presenting the prima facie case."826 Pursuant to this understanding, it is the European Union who
bears the burden of demonstrati ng that the procedure at issue provides less favourable treatment
to imported products than for like domestic products.827

823 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 438.
824 European Union response to Panel Question 196, paras. 386-387.
825 Appellate Body Report, Canada – Dairy (Article 21.5 – New Zealand and US II), para. 66; see also
Appellate Body Report, US – Wool Shirts and Blouses, p. 14, DSR 1997:I, 323 at 335-337.
826 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 104.
827 Appellate Body Report, US – Wool Shirts and Blouses, p. 14.

7.590. We address in detail the European Union's arguments in respect of its discrimination claims
pursuant to Articles 2.3 and 5.5 of the SP S Agreement in section 7.7 below. In our view, the
European Union has not provided sufficient evidence that would support its contention that this
type of information is not required by Russia in order to determine which areas within Russia are
ASF-free. In addition, the European Union has not clearly explained the internal process in Russia
to determine the recognition of ASF -free areas in Russia, beyond stating that there is no ban on
internal trade of the products at issue originating from ASF-free areas within Russia. The European
Union only refers to the limited nature of bans of intra Russia trade. 828 Without further
information, we are not in a position to ascertain whether Russia took more than one year or
which type and quantity of evidence Russia required from its regional authorities to determine the
existence of ASF-free areas in Russia. We consider therefore, as explained in the previous
paragraph, that the European Union has not satisfied its burden of demonstrating th at Russia's
procedure does not comply with the second clause of Annex C(1)(a).
7.591. In light of our finding above with respect to the first clause of Annex C(1)(a), we find that
to the extent Russia undertook and completed the procedure at issue with undue del ay, the
procedure at issue is inconsistent with Annex C(1)(a).
7.5.4.3.5.4 Whether the procedure at issue is inconsistent with Annex C(1)(b)
7.592. The European Union contends that Russia violates all five of the obligations contained in
Annex C(1)(b). 829 Russia argues that t he European Union merely recites the obligations of the
provisions, without explaining how the specific procedural obligations were breached.830
7.593. In the present dispute, t he European Union contends that Russia did not publish or
otherwise communicate to the E uropean Union the standard processing period and did not comply
with any of the other requirements in Annex C(1)(b) of the SPS Agreement. 831 The European
Union further argues that despite the repeated requests from Russia for more evidence with regard
to the European Union's regionalization measures, Russia never provided any information as to the
anticipated period of time for the approval proceedings. 832 The Panel833 requested the European
Union to indicate whether it had requested information from Russia regarding the anticipated
processing period of the European Union's regionalization request, and to indicate the relevant
evidence in support of the presentation of such request. The European Union responded as follows:
The EU stressed on several occasions tha t the information provided should enable
Russia to assess and accept the EU ASF regionalisation measures.834
Despite the unprecedented amount of information provided to Russia, it insisted on
not having received sufficient information so as to enable it to p erform a risk
assessment.
Given Russia's refusal to acknowledge it received all relevant information, the EU's
efforts were focused on the provision of the supplementary information requested.

828 See European Union's first written submission, paras. 54-55. The Panel has identified the scope of
the limits to intra Russia trade of the products at issue as foreseen in Article 5 of the 1980 Instructions, pp. 7-
10 (Exhibit EU-18).
829 In US - Animals, the panel first examined whether the challenged measures fell under its term of
reference. Panel Report, US – Animals, paras. 7.188 and 7.190. The panel opined that in order for it to comply
with Article 6.2 of the DSU, a complainant was required to specify in a sufficiently clear manner which of the
five obligations in the provision it was challenging in its panel request. In this case, we consider that the
European Union has indicated that it is challenging all five obligations in Annex C(1)(b). See European Union's
panel request, p.5, cited above.
830 Russia's first written submission, para. 439.
831 European Union's second written submission, para. 187.
832 European Union's response to Panel question No. 197, para. 388.
833 Panel Question 289, seeking clarification of paragraph 342 of the European Union's first written
submission.
834 (footnote original) Letters of 20 February 2014 (Exhibit EU-175), 6 March 2014 (Exhibit EU-86) and
of 13 March 2014 (Exhibit EU-91).

Under those circumstances a specific request on the anticipated processing period of
the EU's request was not addressed to Russia.835
7.594. We therefore find that the European Union did not make a request within the meaning of
this provision, and thus did not trigger an obligation on the part of Russia to communicate the
anticipated processing period.836
7.595. Furthermore, we recall that a prima facie case "is one which, in the absence of effective
refutation by the defending party, requires a panel, as a matter of law, to rule in favour of the
complaining party presenting the prima facie case."837
7.596. The European Union has not attempted to provide any sort of argument or evidence in
support of its claim that the procedure at issue is inconsistent with Annex C(1)(b) of the SPS
Agreement. We therefore consider that the European Union has fai led to make a prima facie case
in respect of the alleged inconsistency of the procedure at issue with Annex C(1)(b).
7.5.4.4 Conclusion
7.597. As explained in the previous sections, we find that Russia's process of consideration of the
European Union's request for recogn ition of ASF-free areas within the European Union falls within
the scope of Article 8 and Annex C(1) of the SPS Agreement. We also find that Russia formulated
information requirements that were not limited to what is necessary for the procedure at issue,
thus breaching Annex C(1)(c). Moreover we find that Russia undertook and completed the
procedure at issue with undue delay, thus rendering the procedure at issue inconsistent with
Annex C(1)(a). In light of these findings, we also find that the procedure at issue is inconsistent
with Article 8 of the SPS Agreement. We consider that the European Union has failed to make a
prima facie case in respect of the alleged inconsistency of the procedure at issue with Annex
C(1)(b).
7.5.5 Claims under Articles 2.2, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.7 of the SPS Agreement
7.5.5.1 Main arguments of the parties
7.5.5.1.1 European Union
7.598. The European Union argues that because Russia 's measures do not "conform to" and are
not "based on " the OIE recommendations, it is necessary to establish whether there is a solid
scientific basis for their imposition.838
7.599. The European Union highlights that an analysis under Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement
entails addressing two issues: whether there is a "risk assessment" within the meaning of the SPS
Agreement and whether the SPS m easures at issue are "based on " the mentioned risk
assessment.839
7.600. The European Union argues that Russia did not provide any risk assessment in support of
its EU-wide ban, although such a risk assessment was requested during the numerous contacts
that took place between the Russian and the EU competent veterinary authorities.840
7.601. The European Union points out that Article 5.2 of the SPS Agreement contains a list of
factors that have to be taken into account while performing a risk assessment. 841 The European

835 European Union's response to Panel Question 289, paras. 135-137.
836 We note that the panel in EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products considered that the
anticipated processing period is to be provided to applicants upon request and in that dispute, no evidence of
applicants' requests was provided. Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products,
paras. 7.1587–7.1589.
837 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 104.
838 European Union's first written submission, para. 153.
839 European Union's first written submission, para. 154.
840 European Union's first written submission, para. 165.
841 European Union's first written submission, para. 168.

Union argues that in adopting, maintaining and/or applying the measures at issue, Russia did not
and does not take into account those factors.842
7.602. The European Union posits that because Russia did not provide any risk assessment for the
measures at issue, Russia th erefore violates the provisions of Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement,
and that it follows that the provisions of Article 2.2 are also breached.843
7.603. The European Union points out that while solely Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement may still
shelter a Member's measure in such circumstances, Russia does not fulfil any of the requirements
of such provision.844
7.5.5.1.2 Russia
7.604. Russia argues that the European Union has failed to make a prima facie case with respect
to the existence of an EU -wide ban because it has not provided evidence and arguments sufficient
to identify an EU -wide ban. 845 Russia posits that there is no such EU -wide ban because the
perceived restrictions on pigs and pork products are a result of the inability of the veterinary
officials of the EU member States to deliver veterinary certificates to EU producers in accordance
with the requirements previously agreed to by the parties.846
7.605. Russia argues that in the alternative, what it considers to be Russia's provisional
compliance with the veterinary certificates, is justified under Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement. 847
Russia argues there is insufficient scientific evidence to conduct a risk assessment regarding the
entry of ASF into the Russian Federation from the importation of uncertified pigs and pork products
from other EU Member States. 848 Russia also argues that its decision to provisionally comply with
the terms of the veterinary certificates was based on available pertinent information.849
7.5.5.2 Main arguments of the third parties
7.5.5.2.1 Australia
7.606. Australia emphasizes that Russia does not appear to have conducted a risk assessment in
relation to trade in relevant products from those areas affected by ASF, whether within the four
affected EU member States or EU-wide.850
7.607. Australia highlights that it is necessary for the Panel to consid er whether the level of
scientific information was insufficient so as to justify Russia's provisional adoption of SPS measures
not based on a risk assessment in accordance with Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement.851
7.608. Australia stresses that the insufficiency of evidence must relate to information that is
relevant to the risk assessment in question. Australia also notes that the reasonable period of time
requirement has to be established on a case -by-case basis, and that, as in the present case,
where, in its view, the apparent uncertainty relates to containment zones for ASF, the Panel may
wish to take into account related rules and guidelines on regionalization.852
7.5.5.2.2 Brazil
7.609. Brazil argues that there is no fixed or rigid reference for the determination of what means
"sufficient scientific evidence" for the purpose of this provision, and the amount of scientific

842 European Union's first written submission, para. 170.
843 European Union's first written submission, para. 176.
844 European Union's second written submission, para. 68.
845 Russia's first written submission, para. 339.
846 Russia's first written submission, para. 346.
847 Russia's second written submission, para. 185.
848 Russia's second written submission, para. 186.
849 Russia's second written submission, para. 197.
850 Australia's third-party submission, para. 10.
851 Australia's third-party submission, para. 11.
852 Australia's third-party submission, para. 14.

evidence may vary according to the circumstances of the case. Brazil however highlights that while
amount of scientific evidence considered sufficient to justif y a provisional measure in the context
of Article 5 may vary, the ruling by the Appellate Body in Japan – Apples where the Appellate Body
considered that there was a large quantity of scientific evidence when it verified the existence "of
scientific studies as well as practical experience having accumulated for the past 200 years ", may
serve as a reference.853
7.5.5.2.3 Norway
7.610. Norway highlights that while under Article 2.1 of the SPS Agreement, Members have the
right to take SPS measures "necessary for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health,
provided that such measures are not inconsistent with provision of the [..] Agreement ", such right
carries with it certain obligations, including those in Article 5 of the SPS Agreement.854
7.611. Norway asserts that Arti cle 5.1 of the SPS Agreement is viewed as a "specific application"
of the basic obligation set out in Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement and that the Appellate Body has
clarified that where a measure is not based on a risk assessment in accordance with Artic le 5.1, it
will be presumed to be inconsistent with the second and third prongs of Article 2.2 of the
SPS Agreement.855
7.612. Norway stresses that with respect to Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement, the Appellate Body
has identified four cumulative requirements that must be fulfilled for a Member to have recourse to
Article 5.7: (i) it must be imposed in respect of a situation where "relevant scientific information is
insufficient"; (ii) it must be adopted "on the basis of available pertinent information "; (iii) the
Member must "seek to obtain the additional information necessary for a more objective
assessment of risk "; and (iv) the Member must "review the […] measure accordingly within a
reasonable period of time".856
7.613. Norway emphasizes that the threshold condition for the application of Article 5.7 of the
SPS Agreement is that evidence is insufficient, and that the main question will be whether the
available scientific evidence permits, in quantitative or qualitative terms, an assessment of risks
within the meaning of Article 5.1.857
7.614. Norway highlights that "insufficient" in the context of Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement
refers to both situations where there is not enough scientific evidence (in quantitative terms) and
to situations where there is enough evidence, but it does not give reliable results (in qualitative
terms).858
7.615. Norway posits that with respect to the second element, the "available pertinent
information" must equate to "some evidence of a risk", even if it is not enough to perform a proper
risk assessment. In addition, there must be a rational relationship between the evidentiary basis
and the provisional measure, and that even if the rigorous standards of Article 5.1, together with
Articles 5.2 and 5.3 and Annex A(4), do not apply under Article 5.7, those stan dards must be
considered as relevant context, and thus indicate what types of information may be considered as
"available pertinent information".859
7.616. With respect to the third element which is to "seek to obtain the additional information
necessary for a more objective assessment of risk ", Norway emphasizes that this reflects the
temporary nature of the provisional measures within the meaning of Article 5.7 of the
SPS Agreement, and that while the "the information sought must be germane to conducting 'a
more objective assessment of the risk', i.e. the evaluation of the likelihood of entry, establishment
or spread of, in casu, a pest, according to the SPS measures that might be applied ", a Member "is

853 Brazil's third-party submission, para. 21 (citing Appellate Body Report, Japan – Apples, paras. 180,
186, and 188).
854 Norway's third-party submission, paras. 3-4.
855 Norway's third-party submission, para. 5.
856 Norway's third-party submission, para. 8.
857 Norway's third-party submission, paras. 10-12.
858 Norway's third-party submission, para. 14 (citing Appellate Body Report, Japan – Apples, para. 185).
859 Norway's third-party submission, para. 19.

not expected to guarantee specific results […] [n]or is it e xpected to predict the actual results of
its efforts to collect additional information at the time when it adopts the SPS measure".860
7.617. With respect to the requirement of review within a reasonable period of time, Norway
highlights that what constitutes a "reasonable period of time " should be conducted on a case -by-
case basis, and that it will depend "upon the specific circumstances of each case, including the
difficulty of obtaining the additional information necessary for the review and the characteristics o f
the provisional SPS measure".861
7.5.5.3 Analysis by the Panel
7.5.5.3.1 Introduction
7.618. The European Union framed its claims under Articles 2.2, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.7 of the
SPS Agreement in the same manner for both the EU -wide ban and the bans on imports of the
products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. The European Union argues that the
measures at issue are not based on a risk assessment conducted in accordance with Articles 5.1
and 5.2. 862 Furthermore, the European Union contends that because it concludes that Russia
violated Article 5.1 by not providing a risk assessment for the measures at issue, consequentially,
Russia also violated Article 2.2.863 In respect of Article 5.7, the European Union argues this is not a
situation where scientific evidence is insuffi cient and that Russia has failed to comply with any of
the conditions of Article 5.7. 864 According to the European Union, the sufficiency of scientific
evidence should be assessed at the time of adoption of the measure. Furthermore, following the
measure's adoption, the Member is obliged to seek to obtain the additional information necessary
for a more objective assessment of risk. According to the European Union, the moment a Member
asks for information that is not necessary for a more objective assessment o f risk, including the
type of information characterized by the individual experts in the present proceedings as an
"overkill" or as an attempt to "muddy the water", that Member can no longer benefit from the
provisional shelter of Article 5.7. Such informa tion requests are a clear warning sign that the
Member is not genuinely seeking to perform a more objective risk assessment (objective in the
sense of being based on the pertinent information available). Russia has not performed and has
not provided any risk assessment in support of the measures at issue.865
7.619. In respect of the EU -wide ban, Russia argues that, should the Panel find that the EU -wide
ban exists866, it is justified under Article 5.7.867
7.620. In light of the parties' arguments, this section cites the releva nt legal provisions and then
addresses the relationship between Articles 5.1, 5.2, 2.2 and 5.7 with a view to determining the
Panel's order of analysis. The Panel will then present the legal test that will guide its assessment
under the respective provisio ns. Lastly, the Panel will address the application of the cited
provisions to the EU-wide ban.
7.5.5.3.2 Relevant legal provisions
7.621. Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement provides:
Article 2

860 Norway's third-party submission, para. 20 (citing Appellate Body Report, Japan – Agricultural
Products II, para. 92).
861 Norway's third-party submission, para. 21.
862 European Union's first written submission, paras. 165 and 170.
863 European Union's first written submission, para. 176. See also opening statement at the first meeting
with the Panel, paras. 78-80; response to Panel question No. 122, paras. 255-257; and second written
submission, para. 65.
864 European Union's first written submission, para. 202; opening statement at the first meeting of the
Panel, paras. 81-95; and second written submission, para. 68.
865 See European response to Panel question No. 309, para. 161 and European Union's comments to
Russia's response to Panel question No. 309, para. 172.
866 Russia's first written submission, paras. 339-349. In its second written submission, paras. 171-174,
the Russian Federation sustains that the EU-wide ban is not an SPS measure.
867 Russia's first written submission, paras. 352-354; second written submission, paras. 185-203.

Basic Rights and Obligations
2. Members shall ensure that any sanitary or phytosa nitary measure is applied only to
the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health, is based on
scientific principles and is not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence, except
as provided for in paragraph 7 of Article 5.
7.622. The relevant paragraphs of Article 5 of the SPS Agreement provide:
Article 5
Assessment of Risk and Determination of the Appropriate Level
of Sanitary or Phytosanitary Protection
1. Members shall ensure that their sanitary or phytosanitary measures are based on
an assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances, of the risks to human, animal or
plant life or health, taking into account risk assessment techniques developed by the
relevant international organizations.
2. In the assessment of risks, Members sha ll take into account available scientific
evidence; relevant processes and production methods; relevant inspection, sampling
and testing methods; prevalence of specific diseases or pests; existence of pest - or
disease-free areas; relevant ecological and en vironmental conditions; and quarantine
or other treatment.
…
7. In cases where relevant scientific evidence is insufficient, a Member may
provisionally adopt sanitary or phytosanitary measures on the basis of available
pertinent information, including that from the relevant international organizations as
well as from sanitary or phytosanitary measures applied by other Members. In such
circumstances, Members shall seek to obtain the additional information necessary for
a more objective assessment of risk and review the sanitary or phytosanitary measure
accordingly within a reasonable period of time.
7.623. Paragraph 4 of Annex A of the SPS Agreement provides the following definition of a risk
assessment:
The evaluation of the likelihood of entry, establishment or s pread of a pest or disease
within the territory of an importing Member according to the sanitary or phytosanitary
measures which might be applied, and of the associated potential biological and
economic consequences; or the evaluation of the potential for adverse effects on
human or animal health arising from the presence of additives, contaminants, toxins
or disease-causing organisms in food, beverages or feedstuffs.
7.5.5.3.3 Relationship between Articles 5.1, 5.2, 2.2 and 5.7 and the order of analysis
7.624. Articles 2.2, 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement are "intimately related".868 They deal with
the scientific foundation of SPS measures.869 This does not mean that they are identical
provisions.870 In its relevant part, Article 2.2 refers to scientific principles and sufficien t scientific
evidence. With respect to the specific obligation that SPS measures be based on scientific
principles and not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence, Article 2.2 directly focuses on
the necessary link that must exist between the SPS measure and the scientific principles and
evidence, while Articles 5.1 and 5.2 concern the assessment of risk. Under Articles 5.1 and 5.2,

868 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, paras. 7.281.
869 Panel Report, US – Poultry (China), para. 7.167.

such link is still necessary, but it rests on the requirement for a risk assessment. 871 Prior panels
have found that A rticles 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement directly inform each other because
Article 5.2 sheds light on the elements that are of relevance in the assessment of risks as foreseen
in Article 5.1.872
7.625. As for the relationship between Articles 2.2 and 5.1, the Appe llate Body has explained that
Article 5.1 constitutes "a specific application of the basic obligations contained in Article 2.2" of the
SPS Agreement873, and that Article 2.2 informs Article 5.1 because "the elements that define the
basic obligation set out in Article 2.2 impart meaning to Article 5.1".874 Thus the Appellate Body
stated that "Articles 2.2 and 5.1 should constantly be read together".875
7.626. Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement allows Members to provisionally adopt SPS measures in
cases where relevant scie ntific evidence does not allow performance of an adequate risk
assessment.876 Article 5.7 becomes applicable when the body of available scientific evidence does
not allow, in quantitative or qualitative terms, the performance of an adequate assessment of risks
as required under Article 5.1 and as defined in paragraph 4 of Annex A. 877 As the panel in US –
Animals noted: "[t]he Appellate Body has explained that Article 5.7 operates as a 'qualified
exemption' from the obligation under Article 2.2 'not to maintain SPS measures without sufficient
scientific evidence'.878 In turn, Article 5.1 is 'a specific application of the basic obligations contained
in Article 2.2'.879 Thus, if a measure meets all the requirements of Article 5.7, Articles 2.2 and 5.1
do not apply."880
7.627. The Appellate Body and past panels have found that where a measure is not based on a
risk assessment pursuant to Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, it can be presumed not to be based
on scientific principles or to be maintained without sufficient scientific evidence within the meaning
of Article 2.2. 881 The Appellate Body has further clarified that such a presumption is rebuttable,
since although a finding of violation of Articles 5.1 and 5.2 may give rise to a presumption of
inconsistency with Article 2.2, it might not invariably lead to a finding of inconsistency with
Article 2.2.882 The Appellate Body has also observed that:
[E]ven though the presumption of inconsistency under Article 2.2 flowing from a
violation of Articles 5.1 and 5.2 is rebuttable, establish ing that there exists a rational
or objective relationship between the SPS measure and the scientific evidence for
purposes of Article 2.2 would, in most cases, be difficult without a Member
demonstrating that such measure is based on an assessment of the risks, as
appropriate to the circumstances.883

874 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 180.
876 Appellate Body Report, US/Canada – Continued Suspension, para. 701.
877 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Apples, para. 179.
878 (footnote original) Appellate Body Report, Japan – Agricultural Products II, para. 80. We note that
the panel in EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products referred to it as a "qualified right". Panel Reports,
EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, paras. 7.2939, 7.2945, and 7.2969 (finding that Article 5.7 is
a "right" to maintain a measure otherwise inconsistent with Article 2.2) and paras. 7.2996-7.2998 (finding that
Article 5.7 is a right to maintain a measure otherwise inconsistent with Article 5.1), and para. 7.3004.
879 (footnote original) Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 180.
881 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Salmon, para. 138. The panel in EC – Approval and Marketing of
Biotech Products, followed this approach. See Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products,
para. 7.3396.
882 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.24.
883 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.29. In fn 305 to paragraph 5.29, the
Appellate Body in India – Agricultural Products further added: "[i]n cases where an SPS measure is found to be
inconsistent with Articles 5.1 and 5.2 for reasons relating to the scientific basis underlying the relevant risk
assessment, it would be all the more difficult for a Member to establish that such a measure is nonetheless
based on scientific principles and is not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence, within the meaning of
Article 2.2."

7.628. This means that, having found a measure is inconsistent with Article 5.1 of the
SPS Agreement, panels need to determine whether the presumption of inconsistency with Article
2.2 would arise in the particular cas e and whether such presumption has been rebutted by the
respondent. Thus, a panel's finding of inconsistency with Article 2.2 cannot be solely based on the
presumption arising from a finding of inconsistency with Articles 5.1 and 5.2.884
7.629. The Panel is faced w ith claims under both Article s 5.1 and 5.7 of the SPS Agreement.
Accordingly, the Panel will first determine the applicability of Article 5.7. 885 As part of this
examination, the Panel will assess the sufficiency of the scientific evidence.886 Moreover, if Article
5.7 is found to be applicable, due to the insufficiency of scientific evidence, but any of its other
three conditions, as enumerated 7.632 below, is not met, the Panel would need to further examine
the consistency of the measure with Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 2.2.887
7.630. If the Panel finds Article 5.7 is inapplicable to the measure, the Panel would then examine
whether the EU-wide ban is inconsistent with Article 5.1. The Panel would examine the measure's
compliance with Article 5.2 in the context of its examination of the measure's consistency with
Article 5.1.888 If the Panel finds the measure to be inconsistent with Articles 5.1 and 5.2, the Panel
would then need to determine whether Russia has rebutted the presump tion of the measure's
inconsistency with Article 2.2.
7.631. Bearing in mind that order of analysis the Panel proceeds to examine the legal test in
respect of Articles 5.7, 5.1, 5.2 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.
7.5.5.3.3.1 Legal test
Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement
7.632. Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement sets out four cumulative requirements that must be met
for a Member to justify its measure on the basis of this article: (i) it is imposed in respect of a
situation where relevant scientific evidence is insufficient; (ii) it is p rovisionally adopted on the
basis of available pertinent information; (iii) the Member maintaining the measure seeks to obtain
the additional information necessary for a more objective assessment of risk; and (iv) the Member
reviews the measure within a re asonable period of time.889 The Appellate Body has explained that
the first two requirements relate to the adoption of the measure while the latter two requirements
"relate to the maintenance of a provisional SPS measure and highlight the provisional nature of
measures adopted pursuant to Article 5.7."890 As these four requirements are cumulative in nature
and are equally important for the purpose of determining consistency with this provision,
whenever one of these four requirements is not met, the measure at issue is inconsistent with
Article 5.7.891 However, following the logic for the application of Article 5.7, it is the first condition,
namely the existence of a situation where relevant scientific evidence is insufficient, that initially
triggers its applicability.892
Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement
7.633. Article 5.1 obliges Members to ensure that their SPS measures are based on an
assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances, of the risks to human, animal or plant life or

884 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, paras. 5.24, 5.37 and 5.39.
885 Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.264 (referring to Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of
Biotech Products, paras. 7.3005-7.3007).
886 Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.264 (referring to Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of
Biotech Products, paras. 7.3005-7.3007).
888 See Panel Reports, US – Animals, para. 7.320; India – Agricultural Products, paras. 7.307-7.308; US
889 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Agricultural Products II, para. 89. See also Appellate Body Report,
890 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Apples, fn 318 to para. 176 (emphasis original).
891 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Agricultural Products II, para. 91. Panel Report, US – Animals, para.
7.290.
892 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Apples, para. 184; and Panel Reports, EC – Marketing and Approval
of Biotech Products, para. 7.2939.

health, taking into account ris k assessment techniques developed by the relevant international
organizations. Article 5.2 contains an illustrative list of elements to be taken into account in the
assessment of risks: available scientific evidence; relevant processes and production metho ds;
relevant inspection, sampling and testing methods; prevalence of specific diseases or pests;
existence of pest - or disease -free areas; relevant ecological and environmental conditions; and
quarantine or other treatment.
7.634. Furthermore, Articles 5.1 and 5. 2 are "inextricably interlinked". 893 These two provisions
directly inform each other because Article 5.2 sheds light on the relevant elements in the
assessment of risks as foreseen in Article 5.1.894 As noted by the panel in US – Animals, the
elements of Article 5.2 should be assessed when examining compliance with Article 5.1.895
7.635. The following steps need to be examined in order to determine whether SPS measures are
consistent with Articles 5.1 and 5.2: (i) whether there is a risk assessment within the meaning o f
paragraph 4 of Annex A of the SPS Agreement; (ii) whether that risk assessment is appropriate to
the circumstances; (iii) whether the science supports the conclusions in the risk assessment; and
(iv) whether the measure is based on that risk assessment.896
7.636. Regarding the first step, and guided by previous panel and Appellate Body reports, we
understand that a risk assessment is a scientific process aimed at establishing the scientific basis
for a Member's sanitary measures, both based on laboratory methods as well as on the situation of
the particular area where the risk is being assessed.897
7.637. Regarding the second step, that is, the appropriateness of a risk assessment to the
circumstances, at least two considerations should be taken into account. The first is the type of
risk assessment (as identified in paragraph 4 of Annex A) 898 that should be performed depending
on what risks the measure is seeking to avoid (i.e. entry, establishment or spread of pest,
diseases, etc. or arising from additives, contaminants, t oxins or disease -causing organisms in
foods, beverages or feedstuffs). 899 The second is whether the risk assessment was undertaken in
line with the relevant elements set out in Articles 5.1 (i.e. taking into account risk assessment
techniques developed by the relevant international organizations), 5.2 and 5.3. The Appellate Body
has stated that the appropriate level of protection of the importing Member may affect the scope
or method of the risk assessment.900
7.638. The third step entails assessing the quality of sci entific information relied on by the
Member imposing the SPS measure and whether that scientific information supports the
conclusions in the risk assessment.901 When evaluating the quality of scientific information used in
the risk assessment, panels should review whether it constitutes "legitimate science according to
the standards of the relevant scientific community". 902 Assessing the latter element, panels are

893 Panel Report, Australia – Apples, para. 7.211. See also Panel Report, US – Poultry (China),
para. 7.172.
895 Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.320 (referring to Panel Report, Australia – Apples, para. 7.211).
897 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 187. See also Appellate Body Reports, Australia –
Apples, para. 207; US/Canada – Continued Suspension, paras. 527; and Panel Report, India – Agricultural
Products, para. 7.311.
898 The Appellate Body in Australia – Salmon found that, in respect of the two types of risk assessments
contemplated in paragraph 4 of Annex A, while the first type of risk assessment demands an evaluation of the
likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of a disease, and of the associated potential biological and
economic consequences, the second requires only the evaluation of the potential adverse effects on human or
animal health. Appellate Body Report, Australia – Salmon, para. 123 and fn 69.
899 Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.322 (where the Panel considered that an element to be taken
into account when determining if a risk assessment is appropriate to the circumstances is which type of risk
assessment is required). See also Appellate Body Report, Australia – Salmon, fn 67.
900 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 129 and Panel Report, Australia – Salmon, para. 8.57.
See also Appellate Body Reports, Australia – Salmon, para. 130; US/Canada – Continued Suspension,
para. 562 and Australia – Apples, paras. 237 and 244.
901 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 215.
902 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 215.

required to examine "whether the reasoning of the risk assessor is objective and coherent, that is ,
whether the conclusions find sufficient support in the scientific evidence relied upon."903
7.639. After examining the preceding three steps, a panel should then determine whether the
specific SPS measure is based on that risk assessment. This entails verifying i f there is a "rational
or objective relationship that persists and is observable" between the SPS measure and the risk
assessment.904 In this context, "a measure that contradicts the conclusions of a risk assessment
cannot be said to be based upon it."905 In addition, the Appellate Body has clarified that Article 5.1
requires SPS measures be based on a risk assessment, which does not mean that they have to
"conform to" that risk assessment.906
Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement
7.640. If a breach of Articles 5.1 and 5.2 i s found, the presumption of a measure's inconsistency
with the Article 2.2 obligation will arise. This obligation requires that measures are based on
scientific principles and not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence. If this is the case, the
Panel would have to further consider whether there are any arguments and evidence that would
indicate that the importing Member has rebutted this presumption.
7.641. According to Article 2.2, an SPS measure must: (i) be applied only to the extent necessary
to protect human, animal or plant life or health; (ii) be based on scientific principles; and (iii) not
be maintained without sufficient scientific evidence, except as provided for in Article 5.7. 907 In
assessing whether SPS measures are consistent with these requ irements, panels must consider:
the particular circumstances of the dispute, including the characteristics of the challenged
measures and the quality and quantity of the scientific evidence 908; and the relationship of that
evidence to the specific risks against which the measures seek to protect.909
7.642. In assessing the parties' arguments relating to Article 2.2, the Panel derives guidance from
the approach of the panel in Japan – Apples which found that the scientific evidence to be
considered, "should be evidence gathered through scientific methods, excluding by the same token
information not acquired through a scientific method." This "may include evidence that a particular
risk may occur (e.g., the entry, establishment or spread of the bacteria that causes fire blight
disease) as well as evidence that a particular requirement may reduce or eliminate that risk (e.g.,
the effectiveness of chlorine treatment in eliminating the bacteria)." 910 That panel also noted that
"requiring 'scientific evidence' does not limit the field of scientific evidence available to Members to
support their measures. 'Direct' or 'indirect' evidence may be equally considered. The only
difference is not one of scientific quality, but one of probative value within the legal meaning of the
term, since it is obvious that evidence which does not directly prove a fact might not have as much
weight as evidence directly proving it, if it is available."911
7.5.5.3.4 Whether Article 5.7 applies to the EU-wide ban
7.5.5.3.4.1 Introduction
7.643. In terms of the burden of proof, we recall that the panel in EC – Approval and Marketing of
Biotech Products, operating under the premise that Article 5.7 is a "qualified right", concluded that
because Article 5.1 is only applicable if Article 5.7 is not, "when a complaining party presents a

903 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 215. See also Panel Report, US – Animals, para.
7.324 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, paras. 193-194).
904 Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.324 (quoting Appellate Body Reports, Japan – Agricultural
Products II, para. 84 and EC – Hormones, para. 189). See also Appellate Body Report, Japan – Apples, paras.
162 – 163.
906 Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.324 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US/Canada – Continued
Suspension, para. 528).
907 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1424.
908 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.26 (referring to Appellate Body Reports,
909 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.26.
910 Panel Report, Japan – Apples, paras. 8.92-8.93.
911 Panel Report, Japan – Apples, paras. 8.92-8.93 and 8.98.

claim of violation under Article 5.1, the burden is on the complaining party to establish a prima
facie case of inconsistency with both Articles 5.1 and 5.7." 912 The panel in US – Animals observed
that " nothing in the case law on Article 5.7 or other provision s which establish exemptions or
provide the ability to derogate from certain WTO obligations supersedes the basic premise that the
party asserting something bears the burden of proving it. 913"914 Accordingly, the Panel finds that
the initial burden was on the European Union as part of its case under Article 5.1 to raise the
inapplicability of Article 5.7 – which it did in its Panel request and first written submission.915 As
Russia has asserted that its EU -wide ban falls within the scope of Article 5.7, it carries the burden
to prove that each of the four cumulative requirements has been satisfied.916
7.644. In this dispute, in respect of Article 5.7, the European Union argues that this is not a
situation where scientific evidence is insufficient and that Russia has failed to comply with any of
the conditions of Article 5.7.917
7.645. Russia maintains that the EU -wide ban (referred to as provisional compliance with the
veterinary certificates) is justified under Article 5.7. Russia claims that the scientific information is
insufficient for it to perform a risk assessment within the meaning of Article 5.1 and that it
complies with all conditions of Article 5.7.918
7.646. The parties have addressed all four requirements in their arguments. The European Union's
concerns relate both to the adop tion and to the continued application, or maintenance, of the
measure at issue. Most of the evidence cited by the European Union in support of its assertions
under Article 5.7 relates to the period following adoption of the measure, including material that
the European Union sent to Russia on its own initiative and in response to Russia's requests. 919
Therefore, the Panel finds it appropriate to begin by examining the sufficiency of scientific
evidence. The Panel will then examine the extent to which the EU -wide ban is based on available
pertinent information; followed by an assessment of whether Russia has sought to obtain
additional information necessary for a more objective assessment of risk. Lastly, the Panel will
assess whether Russia has reviewed the EU -wide ban accordingly within a reasonable period of
time. As these requirements are cumulative, if we find that Russia has failed to comply with any of
these four requirements Russia would be precluded from relying on Article 5.7 to exclude the
applicability of other provisions of the SPS Agreement. We consider this approach to be appropriate
in order to provide sufficient findings in respect of the parties' claims.
7.5.5.3.4.2 Whether relevant scientific information was insufficient at the time the
EU-wide ban was adopted
7.647. The first condition for the application of Article 5.7 is insufficiency of scientific evidence. As
we have noted, according to the Appellate Body in Japan – Apples, this is the case when the body
of available scientific evidence does not allow, in quantitative or qualitative terms, the performance

912 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.3000. Like the Panel in US –
Animals, para. 7.292, we note that the panel in EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products based its
reasoning on the Appellate Body decision in EC – Tariff Preferences on similar language in the Enabling Clause,
which was issued later in time than the Appellate Body decision that discussed Article 5.7 of the SPS
Agreement. The Appellate Body in EC – Tariff Preferences stated that where the permissive provision
constitutes a right rather than an exception, "the complaining party bears the burden of establishing that a
challenged measure is inconsistent with the provision permitting particular behaviour." Appellate Body Report,
EC – Tariff Preferences, para. 88.
913 (footnote original) See e.g. Appellate Body Report, Japan – Apples, para. 157 ("the party that asserts
a fact is responsible for providing proof thereof."). Appellate Body in Canada – Renewable Energy / Canada –
Feed-in Tariff Program (where the Appellate Body concluded that "the characterization of [a] provision as a
derogation does not pre-determine the question as to which party bears the burden of proof with regard to the
requirements stipulated in the provision".) (Appellate Body Report, Canada – Renewable Energy / Canada –
Feed-in Tariff Program, para. 5.56 (referring to Appellate Body Report, China – Raw Materials, para. 334)).
915 European Union's panel request (WT/DS475/2), p. 3; first written submission, paras. 177-202; and
second written submission, paras. 66-83.
916 We find additional support for this approach in Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.293.
917 European Union's first written submission, para. 202; opening statement at the first meeting of the
Panel, paras. 81-95; and second written submission, para. 68.
918 Russia's first written submission, paras. 351, 352, 354, 374, 379, 381.
919 For a detailed account of such exchanges see Appendix 1 below.

of an adequate assessment of risks as required under Article 5.1 and as defined in paragraph 4 of
Annex A.920 Russia has argued that the sufficiency of scientific evidence should be examined in an
ongoing manner. Russia refers to the observation made by the panel in Japan – Apples regarding
the time-frame for the examination of the sufficiency of scientific evidence under Article 5.7. 921 In
Japan – Apples, the panel was faced with the question of whether the SPS measure was
maintained without sufficient scientific evidence. 922 In this case, we are faced with a question that
touches upon the sufficiency of scientific evidence in respect of the adoption of the measures and
the maintenance of the challenged measures. W e agree with the view expressed by the panel in
EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products that the (in)sufficiency of the relevant scientific
evidence should be assessed with respect to the time when the SPS measure is adopted. 923
Accordingly, we will focus our examination on the date of adoption of the EU -wide ban in
January 2014.
7.648. Paragraph 4 of Annex A defines a "risk assessment" as "[t]he evaluation of the likelihood
of entry, establishment or spread of a pest or disease within the territory of an im porting Member
according to the sanitary or phytosanitary measures which might be applied, and of the associated
potential biological and economic consequences; or the evaluation of the potential for adverse
effects on human or animal health arising from t he presence of additives, contaminants, toxins or
disease-causing organisms in food, beverages or feedstuffs." Accordingly, we will examine whether
there is (in)sufficient scientific evidence for Russia to adequately assess the risks of the likelihood
of entry, establishment or spread of ASF within the territory of Russia, as the importing Member,
according to the sanitary or phytosanitary measures which might be applied, and of the associated
potential biological and economic consequences. We recall our ea rlier observations that ASF is
already present in parts of Russia 924, particularly in areas that border the territories of Estonia,
Latvia and Belarus. The risks to be assessed in this case, therefore, are those of the potential re -
entry or further spread of ASF into Russia, and especially into the ASF-free regions of Russia.
7.649. According to Russia, the type of risk assessment under Annex A, paragraph 4, relevant to
the situation at hand is the "evaluation of the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of a pest
or disease within the territory of an importing Member according to the SPS measure which might
be applied, and of the associated potential biological and economic consequences". 925 It claims
that, consistently with Article 5.1, it follows the approach and methodologies suggested by the
Terrestrial Code's risk assessment provisions in Chapter 2.1. and Articles 2.1.3. and 2.1.4., which
list four sequential components of risk assessment: (a) entry assessment; (b) exposure
assessment; (c) consequence asses sment; and (d) risk estimation. 926 The final component of risk
assessment consists of integrating the results from the first three components to produce overall
measures of risks associated with the hazards identified.927
7.650. According to Russia, the estimation of the ASF risk related to the importation of uncertified
pigs and pork products from non -affected EU member States must begin with an entry
assessment, which within the meaning of Article 2.1.4. of the Terrestrial Code:
[C]onsists of describing the biological pathway(s) necessary for an importation activity
to introduce pathogenic agents into a particular environment, and estimating the
probability of that complete process occurring, either qualitatively (in words) or
quantitatively (as a numerical estimate ). The entry assessment describes the
probability of the 'entry' of each of the hazards (the pathogenic agents) under each

920 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Apples, para. 179.
921 Russia's response to Panel question No. 309, para. 265 (referring to Panel Report, Japan – Apples,
para. 7.10).
922 Panel Report, Japan – Apples, Section VII.D.
923 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.3253. We recall our general
comments on the Panel's temporal framework in section 7.3.6 above.
924 See para. 7.208 above.
925 Russia's first written submission, para. 357 (citing Annex A, paragraph 4, to the SPS Agreement).
926 Russia's first written submission, para. 363.
927 Russia's first written submission, para. 363.

specified set of conditions with respect to amounts and timing, and how these might
change as a result of various actions, events or measures.928
7.651. Russia, therefore, argues that to conduct an entry assessment with respect to the
importation of uncertified pigs and pork products from non -affected EU member States, Russia
must assess and have access to information regarding "the pathways nec essary for the
importation of ASF and the probability of an importation event occurring in relation to each
exporting country and each imported pig and pork product".929 Russia further elaborates:
Such an assessment would involve many key factors, including the ASF control regime
in the exporting EU Member States (e.g. surveillance mechanisms; preparedness to
implement a contingency plan in the event of ASF outbreaks, including zoning and
movement control, stamping out, etc.; product identification and tracea bility systems;
level of biosecurity measures in place etc.); the incidence of ASF in the EU Member
States; the quantity of pigs and pork products imported from the EU Member States
into the Russian Federation; the movement of wild boar across borders and the
density of wild boar populations in the EU Member States; the levels of legal and
illegal trade of pigs and pork products in the EU Member States, and evaluations of
the EU Member States' veterinary services, and diagnostic laboratories.930
7.652. Russia asserts that much of this information was, and still is, not available to it. 931 Russia
further claims that the European Union's responses Russia's questions provided on 24 March 2015
"should be given little, if any, weight by the Panel in its analysis of the SPS Agreement Article 5.7
issue" since, in its view, the insufficiency of scientific evidence must be assessed at the time the
relevant provisional SPS measure was adopted. 932 It adds that the provided information is anyway
incomplete.933
7.653. Furthermore, relying on t he European Commission Working Document of January 2014
and several statements made in the EFSA 2010 Opinion, Russia points out uncertainty or
insufficiency of scientific data regarding: the role of wild boar in the epidemiology of the
disease934; whether wild boar could have a reservoir role or are only infected in areas where there
are ongoing outbreaks in domestic pigs, and potential involvement of other biological vectors 935;
and the role of ticks in spreading the disease. 936 Russia, in addition, refers to th e epidemiological

928 Russia's first written submission, para. 364 (citing Terrestrial Code, Article 2.1.4. (emphasis
original)).
929 Russia's first written submission, para. 365.
930 Russia's first written submission, para. 365. See also Russia's first written submission, para. 367
(referring to Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to DG SANCO, FS-AS-8/23743, 1 December 2014
(Exhibit RUS-131))
931 Russia's first written submission, para. 365 (referring to Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service
to DG SANCO, FS-SD-8/1640, 5 February 2014 (Exhibit EU-84) ("Preliminary estimates suggest that the ASF
control and containment measures implemented by DG SANCO are inconsistent with the OIE procedures. To
build up a more accurate picture for further decisions on ASF regionalisation, CU experts are now compiling an
extensive list of questions, including an update on the ASF epizootic situation in the EU after the occurrence of
the disease in Lithuanian wild boar, implemented and envisaged ASF monitoring measures, and a
comprehensive assessment of the risk of this dangerous animal disease spreading to unaffected areas in the
EU."); Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to DG SANCO, FS-SD-8/4168, 19 March 2014 (Exhibit
RUS-130) ("Regrettably we could find no common ground on the process of ASF regionalisation in the EU, and
the issue of sufficiency of the EU reply and of conclusive evidence that the rest of the EU is not affected by the
disease."); Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to DG SANCO, FS-EN-8/5084, 2 April 2014 (Exhibit
RUS-54) ("Regrettably Russian experts are still waiting to receive detailed information on ASF-control
measures, which are being taken by EU veterinary authorities, particularly arrangements for localisation of the
disease in the affected countries as well as preventing the introduction of the ASF virus in other
EU countries."). See also Appendix 1 below for a detailed account of the information requested through these
communications.
932 Russia's second written submission, para. 194 (referring to Panel Reports, EC – Approval and
933 Russia's second written submission, para. 194.
934 Russia's second written submission, para. 187 (referring to European Commission,
Working Document SANCO/G2/SB (14.01.2014), "Guidelines on surveillance and control of African swine fever
in feral pigs and preventative measures for pig holdings," 14 January 2014 (Exhibit RUS-89).
935 Russia's second written submission, para. 188 (2010 EFSA Scientific Opinion, p. 8 (Exhibit EU-24).
936 Russia's second written submission, para. 189 (2010 EFSA Scientific Opinion, p. 4 (Exhibit EU-24)).

uncertainty with respect to the distance in which wild boar may carry the disease and the absence
of scientific evidence regarding the level of contagion of the disease, in particular the degree of
survival of wild boar. 937 Furthermore, Russia argues that it is prevented from conducting a risk
assessment of the ASF spread to the non-affected EU member States because of "only limited data
on the disease situation in the other [non-affected] EU Member States".938
7.654. Moreover, Russia alleges that t he European Union failed to provide proof that the non -
infected EU member States are historically ASF free, which links to the alleged failure of the
European Union to provide data regarding the affected EU member States, such as information on
the density of the swine population and personal subsidiary farming, necessary to determine the
risk of ASF spread from the affected countries to the rest of the European Union.939
7.655. Russia maintains that each of the categories of information it requested is highly relev ant.
Given the key role of wild boar and backyard farms in the spread of ASF, Russia requested the EU -
wide data and control measures relating to wild boar and backyard farms in order to assess the
likelihood of continued spread of ASF within the European Union. Likewise, given free movement of
goods in the European Union, Russia considers it relevant to have information about control
measures regarding the movement of pork and pork products to processing plants, as well as the
location of the processing pla nts exporting products to Russia. With reference to what Russia
describes as instances of falsified certificates and other problems relating to veterinary control
services, it considers it appropriate to request information about factors relating to veteri nary
services performance.940
7.656. Since the European Union did not provide the requested information, and in view of the
mentioned epidemiological uncertainties, Russia concludes that there is insufficient scientific
evidence available to Russia to perform a ris k assessment with respect to the non -affected
EU member States.941
7.657. In response to Russia's arguments, the European Union maintains that the relevant
scientific information is sufficient and asserts that such information was provided by it to Russia.942
In sup port of this assertion, the European Union refers to letters, emails, faxes, meetings and
inspections through which such information was provided.943
7.658. We note that Russia refers to the potential risks associated with the importation of
uncertified pigs and po rk products from the unaffected EU member States. The European Union,
however, has made no claim with regard to uncertified pigs and pork products. Rather, the
European Union takes issue with Russia's EU-wide ban which Russia con siders as its provisional
compliance with the current wording of the veterinary certificates.944
7.659. We bear in mind that insufficiency of scientific evidence does not extend to situations of
"scientific uncertainty" (i.e. when there is unresolved scientific uncertainty) 945, nor to situations of
scientific controversy.946 Moreover, the possibility to supplement the underlying scientific evidence
does not, by itself, render it insufficient.947
7.660. Mindful of these elements and the parties' arguments, the Panel will review whether the
qualitative and quantitative aspects of the available scientific evidence, including information the
European Union has provided to Russia, is of the type and scope that is (in)sufficient for Russia to
conduct a risk assessment appropriate to the circumstances.

937 Russia's second written submission, paras. 190 - 191.
938 Russia's second written submission, para. 192.
939 Russia's second written submission, paras. 193 and 83 – 88.
940 Russia's second written submission, para. 196.
941 Russia's second written submission, para. 196.
942 European Union's second written submission, para. 68.
943 European Union's second written submission, para. 68 (referring to Exhibits EU-62, EU-64, EU-65,
EU-89, EU-91, EU-92, EU-94, EU-132 to EU-148). See Appendix I below.
944 See sections 7.3.2.3.1 and 7.3.2.3.2 above.
945 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Apples, paras. 183-184.
946 Appellate Body Reports, US/Canada – Continued Suspension, para. 677.
947 Appellate Body Reports, US/Canada – Continued Suspension, para. 702.

7.661. On the record we note that there are three main sources of scientific evidence that we
need to examine. First, there is the general scientific evidence available in respect of ASF which
has been exhibited by the parties or referred to in those exhibits. Second, ther e is the scientific
evidence referred to in the written responses of the experts consulted by the Panel to the Panel's
questions. Third, there is the scientific evidence available in respect of the relevant international
standards. Before examining each of these categories, we recall that our analysis in respect of the
availability of this information is focused on January 2014. Based on that time -frame, we have
excluded relevant scientific evidence submitted by the parties which was published after the end of
January 2014.948
7.662. Regarding the first source of scientific evidence, we note that ASF is a well -known disease
in respect of which many scientific studies have been pursued. The parties have referred to a
number of scientific reports or opinions produced by international organizations and by domestic
veterinary authorities, which in our view reflect clear scientific evide nce in respect of ASF. In
Table 5 below we provide an overview of the documents containing such information.

Table 5 List of scientific reports or publications from international organizations
Reference Exhibit No.
FAO report entitled "EMPRES Watch … African swine fever spread in the
Russian Federation and the risk for the region" dated December 2009949
EU-23
EFSA scientific opinion on ASF, published on 19 April 2010950 EU-24
FAO report entitled "EMPRES Watch … African swine fever spread in the
Russian Federation: risk factors for Europe and beyond" dated May
2013951
RUS-3
OIE presentation on "The OIE International standards on CSF and ASF –
recent developments", TAIEX Workshop on CSF and ASF, Vilnius,
Lithuania, 3-4 September 2013.
RUS-78 and RUS-205
Finnish veterinary authority (EVIRA) Research Report on "Possible routes
of entry into the country for African swine fever – Risk profile", published
on September 2011.
RUS-140

7.663. Also in the context of this first category of information, the parties have referred to specific
scientific articles published in diverse academic journals. These include the following:
Table 6 List of scientific articles published in journals referred to by the parties
Reference Exhibit No.
Rosell, C., Navàs, Fl, & Romero, S, 2012. Reproduction of wild boar in a EU-130

948 Such information includes 2014 EFSA scientific report (Exhibit EU-25); EFSA Scientific Opinion on
African Swine Fever, EFSA Journal 2014 12(4):3628 (2014 EFSA Scientific Opinion) (Exhibit EU-26); Standing
group of experts on ASF in the Baltic and Eastern European region, December 2014 (Exhibit EU-108); EU
Veterinary Emergency Team, Vilnius, 8 – 10 October 2014 (Exhibit EU-109); J.M. Sánchez-Viscaíno et al,
published on January 2015 (Exhibit RUS-1); Presentation on ASF: Biosecurity in the pig breeding sector by
Professor Mary Louise Penrith, on 30 October 2014 (Exhibit RUS-7); Species information on sus scrofa from the
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Exhibit RUS-8); Morelle et al., "Towards understanding wild boar Sus
scrofa movement: a synthetic movement ecology approach", Mammal Review, (2014) (Exhibit RUS-99); C.
Gallardo et al, "Experimental Infection of Domestic Pigs with African Swine Fever Virus Lithuania 2014
Genotype II Field Isolate", Transboundary and Emerging Diseases (2015) (Exhibit RUS-172); L. Mur et al,
"Detection of African Swine Fever Antibodies in Experimental and Field Samples from the Russian Federation:
Implications for Control (2014) (Exhibit RUS-175); D. Gavier-Widen et al, "African swine fever in wild boar in
Europe: a notable challenge", Veterinary Record, Vol. 176, No. 8 (2015), 199-200 (Exhibit RUS-277); German
Federal Research Institute for Animal Health (Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut), Qualitative Risk Analysis on the
Introduction of African swine fever from Eastern Europe into Germany, 2 April 2014 (Exhibit RUS-291).
949 This report contains references to a number of scientific reports and articles. See FAO report entitled
"EMPRES Watch … African swine fever spread in the Russian Federation and the risk for the region" dated
December 2009 (Exhibit EU-23), p. 9.
950 This report contains references to a number of scientific reports and articles. See FAO report entitled
"EMPRES Watch … African swine fever spread in the Russian Federation and the risk for the region" dated
December 2009 (Exhibit EU-23), pp. 81-91.
951 This report contains references to a number of scientific reports and articles. See EMPRES Watch Vol.
28 (May 2013), "African swine fever in the Russian Federation: risk factors for Europe and beyond",
(Exhibit RUS-3), p. 13.

Reference Exhibit No.
cropland and coastal wetland area: implications for manag ement. Animal
Biodiversity and Conservation, 35.2:209-217.
B.V. Boev et al, "The wild boar. Modelling and prognosis for cylvatic
African swine fever", Журнал Ветеринария (Veterinary Journal) ,
December 2010.
RUS-5
K. Jerina et al., "First evidence of long -distance dispersal of adult female
wild boar ( Sus scrofa ) with piglets", European Journal of Wildlife
Research, Vol. 60, No. 2 (2014), pp. 367-370.
RUS-9
O. Keuling et al., "How does hunting influence activity and spatial usage
in wild boar Sus scrofa L.?", European Journal of Wildlife Research ,
Vol. 54, No. 4 (2008), 729.
RUS-10
L. Mur et al., "Risk of African swine fever introduction into the Europea n
Union through transport -associated routes: returning trucks and waste
from international ships and planes", BMC Veterinary Research , Vol. 8,
No. 149 (2012)
RUS-11
T.G. Burrage "African Swine Fever virus infection in Ornithodoros ticks",
Virus Research 173 (2013), 131-139.
RUS-12
A.Dors, E. Czyzewska et al., "Effect of various husbandry conditions on
the production parameters of swine herds in Poland", Polish Journal of
Veterinary Sciences, Vol. 16, No. 4 (2013), 707-713.
RUS-65
A. Thiermann, "Practical Application of OIE standards and guidelines on
compartmentalisation", 2008.
RUS-83
R. Leaper et al., "The feasibility of reintroducing Wild Boar ( Sus scrofa)
to Scotland", Mamal Review, Vol. 29, No. 4, (1999)
RUS-98
M.L. Penrith et al. , "An investigatio n into natural resistance to African
swine fever in domestic pigs from an endemic area in Southern Africa",
Scientific and Technical Review of the OIE , Vol. 23, No. 3 (2004), 965 -
977
RUS-173
E. Okoth et al., "Comparison of African swine fever virus preval ence and
risk in two contrasting pig -farming systems in South -west and Central
Kenya", Preventive Veterinary Medicine, Vol. 110, No. 2, 198-205
RUS-174
S. Costard et al., "Epidemiology of African swine fever virus", Virus
Research, Vol. 173, No. 1 (2012), 191-197
RUS-176
O. Keuling et al. , "Commuting, shifting or remaining? Different spatial
utilisation patterns of wild boar Sus scrofa L. in forest and filed crops
during summer", Institute of Forest Botany and Forest Zoology, Dresden
University of Technology, 2008.
RUS-182
M.L. Penrith and W Vosloo, "Review of African swine fever: transmission,
spread and control", Journal of the South African Veterinary Association ,
Vol. 80, No. 2 (2009), 58-62.
RUS-200

7.664. The second category of scientific evidence is the expert studies referred to by the experts
in their written responses to the Panel's questions. Dr Brückner, Professor Penrith, and
Dr Thomson provided with their responses a list of references. Together, those references include
a significant number of scientific studies in respect of ASF which predate the cut -off date of our
analysis.952
7.665. The third category of scientific evidence relates to the Terrestrial Code. We recall our
findings in section 7.5.3 above, relative to Article 3.1, that the EU -wide ban, in respect of non -
treated products, is not "based on" the relevant international standard, as it imposes a ban in
respect of the entire territory of the European Union, whereas the relevant provisions of the
Terrestrial Code envis age trade from ASF -free countries, zones and compartments. On the
question of whether the relevant scientific evidence may be insufficient when an international
standard exists, we note the Appellate Body's clarification that:
There is no indication in Art icle 5.7 that a WTO Member may not take a provisional
SPS measure wherever a relevant international organization or another Member has
performed a risk assessment. Information from relevant international organizations
may not necessarily be considered "sufficient" to perform a risk assessment, as it may
be part of the "available pertinent information" which provides the basis for a
provisional SPS measure under Article 5.7. Moreover, scientific evidence that may

952 Section 5 of the Compilation of the experts' responses.

have been relied upon by an international bod y when performing the risk assessment
that led to the adoption of an international standard at a certain point in time may no
longer be valid, or may become insufficient in the light of subsequent scientific
developments.953
7.666. The Appellate Body added that whi le it is reasonable for a Member challenging the
inconsistency of an SPS measure with Article 5.7 to argue that the risk assessment supporting
international standards demonstrates the existence of sufficient relevant scientific evidence to
perform a risk a ssessment, this evidence is not dispositive and may be rebutted by the Member
adopting the provisional SPS measure.954
7.667. In this context, the Appellate Body further explained that "[t]he 'insufficiency' requirement
in Article 5.7 does not imply that new scient ific evidence must entirely displace the scientific
evidence upon which an international standard relies. It suffices that new scientific developments
call into question whether the body of scientific evidence still permits of a sufficiently objective
assessment of risk".955
7.668. In this case, Russia has claimed from the outset that the EU -wide ban is "based on the
OIE standard to the extent possible". 956 In our view, this implies a clear recognition by Russia of
the scientific basis of the international standard re levant for this dispute. In this respect, we
consider that the Appellate Body's guidance regarding the relationship between the existence of an
international standard and the sufficiency of scientific evidence for the purposes of Article 5.7 does
not apply to the situation before us. Rather, we see that Russia has consistently relied on the
scientific basis in the Terrestrial Code to adopt and justify its measures.
7.669. Moreover, the parties have provided certain exhibits in connection with the scientific
evidence related with the relevant international standard. These include the OIE ASF General
Disease Information Sheets957 and the OIE Technical Disease Card on ASF.958 We consider that the
existence of international standards enshrined in Chapter 15.1 of the Terre strial Code, and their
respective scientific basis, further confirms our view that by January 2014 there was ample
scientific evidence in respect of ASF.959
7.670. Further reinforcing the extent to which the preceding scientific evidence was available to
Russia by January 2014, we recall that Russia has experienced ASF outbreaks as of 2007 960 and
has expressed on various occasions its broad scientific knowledge of ASF.961 In this respect, we are
of the view that Russia is well placed to manage any potential risk of the further entry and spread
of ASF through imports of the products at issue from the European Union, excluding the four
affected EU member States.

953 Appellate Body Reports, US/Canada – Continued Suspension, para. 695.
954 Appellate Body Reports, US/Canada – Continued Suspension, para. 696.
955 Appellate Body Reports, US/Canada – Continued Suspension, para. 725.
956 Russia's first written submission, para. 385.
957 OIE General Disease Information Sheets: African Swine Fever (Exhibit RUS-4) and OIE Disease
Information Sheet, African Swine Fever. Available at: http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D13953.PDF (Exhibit RUS-
171) (updated on May 2013).
958 OIE, African Swine Fever, available at:
http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Animal_Health_in_the_World/docs/pdf/Disease_cards/AFRICAN_SWIN
E_FEVER.pdf. OIE ASF Technical Disease Card (Exhibit RUS-186) (last updated on April 2013; last accessed
23 October 2015).
959 We note that the Terrestrial Code's edition in place at the time of our cut-off date for the analysis of
(in)sufficiency of scientific evidence was the 22nd edition of the Terrestrial Code. In our view, this in no way
affects our analysis in this section, because the OIE explained that Chapter 15.1 only underwent editorial
changes from the 22nd to the 23rd edition. In that respect there is no modification in the scientific basis of the
standards contained in Chapter 15.1. See OIE response communication to the Panel dated 26 August 2015.
960 Russia's first written submission, para. 23 (referring to Exhibit RUS-144); response to Panel question
No. 132, paras. 263-264; and second written submission, paras. 146-147.
961 Russia's first written submission, paras. 32-33, 252-273; and second written submission, paras. 143-
153.

7.671. Moreover, we consider that the European Union provided information to Russia in the
course of January 2014, that includes further relevant scientific evidence in respect of ASF. 962 This
information includes the reports on surveillance activities in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Poland963 and a detailed annex on surveillance activities in Poland964 sent on 29 January 2014.
7.672. After examining the information mentioned above, we consider that the body of scientific
evidence available to Russia was abundant. In our view, this information includes knowledge of the
epidemiology of the disease, the potential vectors for the tra nsmission and spread of the disease
(including behavioural ecology of wild boars), potential risks of spread of the disease in the
Baltic region, and the type of control measures that could be applied.
7.673. We recall that the Appellate Body has found that ther e will be insufficient scientific
evidence when the body of available scientific evidence does not allow, in quantitative or
qualitative terms, the performance of an adequate assessment of risks as required under
Article 5.1 and as defined in paragraph 4 o f Annex A of the SPS Agreement. 965 We consider that
the evidence in respect of ASF on record, existing in January 2014, amounts to that which would
be sufficient for Russia to conduct an assessment appropriate to the circumstances in respect of
the potential risk of the re -introduction and further spread of ASF associated with imports of the
products at issue from the non-affected EU member States.
7.674. Moreover, we note that Article 5.2 refers to the information that a Member shall take into
account in the asses sment of risks. This constitutes available scientific evidence; relevant process
and product methods; relevant inspection, sampling, and testing methods; prevalence of specific
diseases or pests; existence of pest- or disease- free areas; relevant ecological and environmental
conditions; and quarantine or other treatment. In our analysis in the context of Article 6, we
concluded that a considerable amount of such information is available to Russia.966
7.675. Based on the foregoing , we find that in January 2014 the r elevant scientific evidence was
sufficient for Russia to conduct an assessment appropriate to the circumstances in respect of the
potential risk of the re-introduction and further spread ASF associated with imports of the products
at issue from the non-affected EU member States.
7.676. While the preceding finding is sufficient to conclude that the EU -wide ban does not fall
within the scope of Article 5.7 and the qualified exemption to the obligations in Articles 5.1, 5.2
and 2.2 is not available to Russia , the Panel deems it prudent to examine the EU -wide ban in the
context of the other three elements of Article 5.7.
7.5.5.3.4.3 Whether the EU -wide ban was adopted on the basis of available pertinent
information
7.677. With respect to the second condition of Article 5.7 — that the measure should be adopted
on the basis of available pertinent information — we consider that information is pertinent when
there is a rational and objective relationship between the information concerning the risk and the
measure.967 The Appellate Body in US/Canada – Continued Suspension explained how this
requirement should be assessed:
WTO Members' right to take provisional measures in circumstances where the relevant
scientific information is "insufficient" is also subject to the requirement that such
measures be adopted "on the basis of available pertinent information". Such
information may include information from "the relevant international organizations" or

962 See Appendix 1 below for a detailed account of additional information provided by the European
Union to Russia throughout 2014 and the beginning of 2015.
963 European Union's letter to Russia of 29 January 2014, ARES(2014)209377, SANCO
G7/RF/mh(2014)219959 (Exhibit EU-62). Also on the record are presentations of the State Food and
Veterinary Service of Lithuania on the protective measures against ASF in Lithuania, made on 7 October 2013
(Exhibit EU-114).
964 Excel spreadsheet on Poland, Annex to the Letter of 29 January 2014 (pp. 6-8) (Exhibit EU-63).
965 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Apples, para. 179.
966 See section 7.5.2 above.
967 See Appellate Body Reports, US/Canada – Continued Suspension, para. 678.

deriving from SPS measures applied by other WTO Members. Thus, Article 5.7
contemplates situations where there is some evidentiary basis indicating the possible
existence of a risk, but not enough to permit the performance of a risk assessment.
Moreover, there must be a rational and objective relationship between the information
concerning a certain ris k and a Member's provisional SPS measure. In this sense,
Article 5.7 provides a "temporary 'safety valve' in situations where some evidence of a
risk exists but not enough to complete a full risk assessment, thus making it
impossible to meet the more rigorous standards set by Articles 2.2 and 5.1".968
7.678. The European Union also posits that a measure being manifestly unnecessary and
disproportionate would be pertinent to determining whether such a measure is based on pertinent
information or whether it is rather a disguised restriction on international trade. 969 In this respect,
the European Union sustains that in "case of a well -known disease like ASF, if there is only one
case in wild boar only a few kilometres from the border with Belarus, Russia should have not
banned, even provisionally, the products at issue from the whole territory of the European Union,
including areas thousands of kilometres away, given the robustness of the EU measures and the
epidemiology of the disease."970
7.679. Russia argues that the European U nion has failed to make a prima facie case that Russia
does not comply with Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement. In its view, the available pertinent
information indicates a high risk that the currently non ASF -infected countries may become
ASF infected. Russia describes the situation as where there is "some evidentiary basis indicating
the possible existence of a risk, but not enough to permit the performance of a risk
assessment."971
7.680. Russia maintains that scientific research, dated July 2014, on domestic pigs and wild boar
suggests that ASF may easily spread within regions of the European Union. 972 Russia refers to the
studies that have reported that some domestic pigs and wild boar have been found in the field with
antibodies to ASF, which, according to Russia, may mean that they have survived the infection. 973
In the view of Russia, this could expand the period of time during which the infected animals can
infect other animals. 974 Russia also mentions the possibility that recovered animals will remain
persistently infected and transmit the disease through tissues.975 Finally, according to Russia, long-
distance movements of long term carrier wild pigs would likely lead to further spread of ASF across
the European Union's territory, which is most likely via a northern ro ute through the
Baltic countries and Poland, due to the dense, large population of wild boar in Northeast Europe.976
7.681. Russia refers to the estimation made by the German Federal Research Institute for Animal
Health that the risk of entry of ASF into Germany th rough illegal transportation and disposal of
contaminated material is estimated as high; and the risk of entry of contaminated pork meat and

968 Appellate Body Reports, US/Canada – Continued Suspension, para. 678 (footnote omitted).
969 European Union's response to Panel question No. 148, paras. 305-307; and second written
submission, para. 77.
970 European Union's second written submission, para. 78.
971 Russia's second written submission, para. 197 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US/Canada –
Continued Suspension, para. 678).
972 Russia's first written submission, para. 376 (referring to 2014 EFSA Scientific Opinion, at 18 (citing
Mur et al., personal communication, 2014) (Exhibit EU-26) and B.V. Boev et al., "The wild boar. Modeling and
prognosis for sylvatic African swine fever" (Exhibit RUS-5)).
973 Russia's first written submission, para. 376.
974 Russia's first written submission, para. 376 (referring to 2014 EFSA Scientific Opinion (Exhibit EU-26)
p. 17).
975 Russia's first written submission, para. 376 (referring to 2014 EFSA Scientific Opinion (Exhibit EU-26)
p. 18, citing PJ. Wilkinson, "The persistence of African swine fever in African swine fever in Africa and the
Mediterranean", Preventive Veterinary Medicine, Vol. 2 (1984), pp. 71-82).
976 Russia's first written submission, para. 377 (referring to EFSA, "Evaluation of possible mitigation
measures to prevent introduction and spread of African swine fever virus through wild boar", EFSA Journal
(2014),12(3):3616, (Exhibit EU-25), p. 6).

from pork derived products by vehicles or people along the main traffic routes is as high in the
context of a "worst case scenario".977
7.682. Similarly, Russia relies on an academic publication that allegedly supports its arguments.
In particular, it refers to the study by Gallardo and others who concluded that the fact that nearly
501 ASF cases or outbreaks have occurred in w ild boar and domestic pigs in Latvia, Lithuania, and
Poland, combined with the uncertain situation in Belarus, "represents a permanent risk for ASF
spreading into new regions of the EU".978
7.683. According to Russia, the existence of the risk of ASF spread into no n-affected EU member
States was also highlighted during negotiations between Messrs. Dankvert (head of FSVPS) and
Van Goethem (head of DG SANCO).979
7.684. Russia argues that the high risk of ASF spread into new regions and countries in the
European Union can furth er be derived from the fact that there is evidence of wild boar moving
from the four ASF-affected EU member States to Western Europe .980 Based on evidence regarding
Classical swine fever in the European Union, Russia stresses that the high density of wild bo ar
population in Europe can easily sustain viruses. 981
7.685. Russia also argues that the insufficiency of the European Union's zones to contain and
control ASF demonstrates that the risk that ASF will spread further westwards or northwards is
high.982 Additionally, it points to the absence of any guarantees from the European Union that the
products originating in its ASF -affected EU member States do not end up in the stream of
commerce in the European Union.983
7.686. Russia thus concludes that the evidence indicates that significant risk exists with respect to
allowing imports from the non-affected EU member States but that such evidence is not enough to
conduct a risk assessment under Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement.984
7.687. With these considerations in mind, the Panel will examine whether there is a rational and
objective relationship between the available pertinent information concerning the risks arising from
the potential re-entry and further spread of ASF within Russia through the imports of the products
at issue from the entire European Union, excluding the four affected EU member States.
7.688. We recall that, pursuant to the 2006 Memorandum, the wording of the bilateral veterinary
certificate that had been agreed between the European Union and Russia allows importation of the
products concerned accompanied by an attestation that the products at issue "…originate from
premises and/or administrative territory of the EU Member State that are officially free from the
following contagious diseases: African swine fever - during the last 3 years in the territory of the
EU excluding Sardinia". 985 Up to and until the first outbreak of ASF in Lithuania in January 2014,
the entire EU territory (with the exception of Sardinia) had been recognized by Russia as free of
ASF for at least t he "last 3 years". Following the outbreak of ASF in Lithuania, Russia banned
certain products from all member States of the European Union, including all other European Union
member States who had not themselves experienced an outbreak of ASF. Pertinent in formation
available to Russia included the fact that the initial situation in Lithuania was limited in scope, and

977 Russia's second written submission, para. 198 (referring to Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, "Qualitative
Risikobewertung zur Einschleppung der Afrikanischen Schweinepest nach Deutschland aus Osteuropa," 2 April
2014 (Exhibit RUS-291), pp. 1-2).
978 Russia's second written submission, para. 199 (referring to C. Gallardo et al., "Experimental Infection
of Domestic Pigs with African Swine Fever Virus Lithuania 2014 Genotype II Field Isolate," in Transboundary
and Emerging Diseases (2105) (Exhibit RUS-172), p. 1).
979 Russia's second written submission, para. 199 (referring to Rosselkhoznadzor news, "Negotiations
between Dankvert and DG SANCO," 6 July 2014 (Exhibit RUS-251).
980 Russia's second written submission, para. 199 (referring to the Society for Applied Microbiology
(SfAM), "Restrictions In Place As African Swine Fever Hits Lithuania," 31 January 2014 (Exhibit RUS-292)).
981 Russia's second written submission, para. 199 (referring to 2010 EFSA Scientific Opinion, p. 28
(citing EFSA 2009c) (Exhibit EU-24)).
982 Russia's second written submission, para. 200.
983 Russia's second written submission, para. 201.
984 Russia's second written submission, para. 203.
985 See fn 117 above.

that the European Union had in place a regionalization regime for surveillance and control of ASF,
and was also obliged to comply with its obl igations flowing from the relevant international
standards in the Terrestrial Code. Furthermore, pertinent information available on the
epidemiology of ASF, potential vectors for the transmission and spread of the disease (including
the behavioural ecology of wild boars), and potential risks of spread of the disease in the Baltic
region, indicated that, in terms of geography, wild boar ecology and epidemiology, the likelihood of
ASF entry and spread to non-adjacent countries, let alone countries or zones lo cated much further
away within the large expanse of the European Union's territory, was remote. 986 We recall our
examination of the relevant information in the context of our consideration under Article 6 of the
SPS Agreement, which addressed similar matters and which we found to be sufficient.987
7.689. We consider it also relevant to recall that the ASFV is already present and widespread
within the territory of Russia. In fact, it could be that ASF was introduced into the territory of the
four affected EU member States by infected wild boar originating in Russia and Belarus. Russia has
described in some detail the various measures it has in place to attempt to control ASF within its
territory.988 Given that Russian authorities clearly have extensive knowledge of this d isease and
procedures in place to address potential risks relating to the further spread of ASF, we are of the
view that Russia is well placed to manage any potential risk of the further entry and spread of ASF
through imports of the products at issue from the European Union, excluding the four affected
EU member States. Accordingly, we are unable to find, on the basis of evidence on the record, a
rational and objective relationship between the EU -wide ban and the available pertinent
information concerning the risks arising from the potential further entry and spread of ASF within
Russia through the imports of the products at issue from the entire European Union, excluding the
ASF-affected EU member States. W e therefore find that the EU -wide ban was not adop ted by
Russia on the basis of available pertinent information.
7.5.5.3.4.4 Whether Russia has sought to obtain the additional information necessary
for a more objective assessment of risk in respect of the EU-wide ban
7.690. The third requirement of Article 5.7 is that the i mporting Member applying the measure
seeks to obtain the additional information necessary for a more objective assessment of risk.989
7.691. The European Union argues that Russia "abused the process instead of seeking information
germane for the risk assessment" be cause the information that Russia claims to seek was either
already provided by the European Union or was irrelevant for the purposes of the
European Union's ASF regionalization measures. 990 Following the adoption of a provisional
measure, the respective Member is under an obligation to seek to obtain additional information for
a more objective assessment of risk. According to the European Union, the moment a Member is
asking for information which is not necessary for a more objective assessment of risk, incl uding
the type of information characterized by the individual experts in the present proceedings as an
"overkill" or as an attempt to "muddy the water", that Member can no longer benefit from the
provisional shelter of Article 5.7. The European Union argue s that such information requests are a
clear warning sign that the respective Member is not genuinely seeking to perform a more
objective risk assessment (objective in the sense of being based on the information available).
7.692. Russia argues that it is requesting additional information from the European Union in order
to perform a proper risk assessment based on a complete picture of the epizootic situation of ASF
in each EU member State, with a view to better understanding the likelihood of entry of ASF into
Russia "from the importation of uncertified pigs and pork products from other [non -affected]
EU member States."991 Russia asserts that it has repeatedly requested from the European Union
and member State officials information germane to conducting a risk assessment.992

986 See paras. 7.445- 7.447 above.
987 See section 7.5.2.3 above.
988 See fn 1048 below.
989 Article 5.7 places the burden of seeking to obtain the additional scientific information necessary to
perform a more objective risk assessment on the importing Member. See e.g. Appellate Body Report,
990 European Union's first written submission, para. 196.
991 Russia's first written submission, para. 379.
992 Russia's first written submission, para. 380.

7.693. Article 5.7 does not impose explicit prerequisites regarding the additional information to be
collected or a specific collection procedure .993 Nevertheless, the Appellate Body has concluded
that:
[T]he WTO Member adopting a provisional SPS measure should be able to identify the
insufficiencies in the relevant scientific evidence, and the steps that it intends to take
to obtain the additional information that will be necessary to address these
deficiencies in order to make a more objective assessment and review the provisional
measure within a reasonable period of time. The additional information to be collected
must be "germane" to conducting the assessment of the specific risk.994
7.694. The obligation in the second sentence of Article 5.7 requires that the Member adopting a
provisional SPS measure "must make best efforts to remedy the insufficiencies in the relevant
scientific evidence with additional scientific research or by gathering information from relevant
international organizations or other sources.995"996 However, this does not mean that the Member
is expected to guarantee specific results, nor is it expected to predict the actual results of its
efforts to collect additional information at the time when it adopts the SPS measure.997
7.695. Mindful of these consi derations, we recall that, f ollowing the outbreak of ASF in Lithuania,
Russia banned certain products from all EU member States, including the EU member States that
had not experienced an outbreak of ASF. We note that the scope of the requested information in
contention between the parties relates largely to the situation in the entire territory and all
EU member States, over and above the four ASF-affected member States.998
7.696. In our analysis in respect of Russia's compliance with Annex C(1)(c), we found that Russia
requested information that went beyond what was necessary for undertaking and completing the
procedure for the verification of the presence of ASF in the territory of the non -affected
EU member States.999 We recall that such unnecessary requests inclu de particular proof that each
and every one of the non -affected EU member States are historically ASF free 1000 as well as other
categories of information which Russia claimed was necessary to determine the risk of ASF spread
from the affected countries to the rest of the European Union.1001
7.697. We also recall that, pursuant to the 2006 Memorandum, the wording of the bilateral
veterinary certificate agreed between the European Union and Russia allows importation of the
products concerned accompanied by an attestation that the products at issue "originate from
premises and/or administrative territory of the EU Member State that are officially free from the
following contagious diseases: African swine fever - during the last 3 years in the territory of the
EU excluding Sardinia".1002 Up to and until the first outbreak of ASF in Lithuania in January 2014,
the entire EU territory (with the exception of Sardinia) had been recognized by Russia as free of
ASF for at least the "last 3 years".
7.698. In light of this, and given that the European Union had in place a regionalization regime for
surveillance and control of ASF and that all EU member States were obliged to respect their
obligations flowing from the Terrestrial Code, and that, in terms of geography, wild boar ecology
and epidemiology, the likelihood of ASF entry and spread to non -adjacent countries — let alone

993 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Agricultural Products II, para. 92, Panel Report, US – Animals, para.
7.295.
994 Appellate Body Report, US/Canada – Continued Suspension, para. 679 (original footnote omitted);
995 (footnote original) Pursuant to Article 10.1 of the SPS Agreement, due account shall be taken of the
special needs of developing country Members in respect of their ability to procure the additional information for
a more objective assessment of risk.
996 Appellate Body Reports, US/Canada – Continued Suspension, para. 679.
997 Appellate Body Reports, US/Canada – Continued Suspension, para. 679. See also Panel Report, US –
Animals, paras. 7.295-7.297.
998 See Appendix 1 below.
999 See paras. 7.563 - 7.571 above.
1000 The letter of 12 March 2014 refers to "absence of any proof of non-existence of ASF in the territory
of other [non-affected] EU member states" (Exhibit EU-90).
1001 See para. 7.563 above.
1002 See fn 117 above.

countries or zones located far away in the westernmost parts of the European Union's territory —
was remote, we find no basis in the evidence on record to support Russia' s assertion that all of the
information it requested was "germane" to conducting a more objective assessment 1003 of the
specific risk within the meaning of this element of Article 5.7. As we have already noted, the
experts consulted by the Panel characterized certain of the information requested by Russia as
"overkill" or as an attempt to "muddy the water". 1004 While Article 5.7 requires that a Member
must actively make best efforts to remedy the insufficiencies in the relevant scientific evidence
with additional scientific research or by gathering information from relevant international
organizations or other sources, it does not envisage that a Member will use this process to seek
information that is not germane to the specific risk involved.
7.699. We therefore find t hat Russia did not seek to obtain additional information that was
"necessary" for a more objective assessment of risk within the meaning of Article 5.7.
7.5.5.3.4.5 Whether Russia has reviewed the EU-wide ban within a reasonable period of
time
7.700. The fourth condition un der Article 5.7 is that the Member applying the measure reviews it
within a reasonable period of time. What constitutes a reasonable period of time has to be
established on a case -by-case basis1005, based upon the particular facts and circumstances of a
given case. In Japan – Agricultural Products II, the Appellate Body stated that what constitutes a
"reasonable period of time" within the meaning of Article 5.7 depends, inter alia, on the difficulty
of obtaining the information necessary for a more objective assessment of risk.1006
7.701. We recall that the panel in EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products interpreted
the term "reasonable period of time" in Article 5.7 in a manner similar to the term "undue delay"
in Annex C(1)(a). 1007 This concept is not dependent on the length of the delay, but rather on
whether any delay is legitimate and justifiable as opposed to unwarranted or excessive.1008
7.702. The European Union argues that Russia has failed to review its measures within a
reasonable period of time. The European Unio n identifies the six months from the date of the first
outbreak in Lithuania, at the end of January 2014, to the date of the establishment of the Panel,
on 22 July 2014 and the period from the time the European Union provided additional information
in June 2014 until the time Russia contacted the European Union again, at the beginning of
December 2014.1009 Russia posits that its measure is subject to an on-going process of review that

1003 By this we refer to the distinction in degree of objectivity, based on available scientific evidence,
drawn from the situations covered by Articles 5.7 and 5.1. Article 5.7 requires Members applying a provisional
SPS measure on the basis of pertinent available information to "seek to obtain the additional information
necessary for a more objective assessment of risk" (emphasis added). In our view, this refers to the type of
risk assessment required pursuant to Articles 5.1 and 5.2, as defined in Annex A(4) of the SPS Agreement.
1004 Dr Brückner's response to Panel question No. 13 (who stated "the information requested in Exhibit
RUS-131 [Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to DG SANCO, No. FS-AS-8/23743, 1 December 2014], is
in my opinion 'an overkill' of which many of the questions are not relative or needed to conduct either a
sensible quantitative or qualitative risk analysis"); and Dr Thomson's response to Panel question No. 13 (who
stated in respect of the questions asked through Letter of 5 February 2014 from Russia to the EU, FS-SD
8/1640 (Exhibit EU-84) "[t]hese questions are mostly variations on other questions posed by the RF. For a
country that is not itself free of ASF this strikes me as an overkill and possibly an attempt to 'muddy the
water'").
1005 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Agricultural Products II, para. 93.
1006 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Agricultural Products II, para. 93. Panel Report, US – Animals, para.
7.300.
1007 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, paras. 7.1495-7.1497 (concerning
Annex C(1)(a)) and 7.3245 (concerning Article 5.7). Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.301.
1008 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 437; Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.301.
Additionally, the panel in US – Animals looked to the context of Article 21.3(c) arbitrations – which determine
the reasonable period of time for Members to implement the rulings and recommendations of the DSB– in
which arbitrators have interpreted the term "reasonable period of time" to mean "the shortest period possible
within the legal system of the [implementing] Member". Award of the Arbitrator, EC – Hormones (Article
21.3(c)), para. 26. That panel observed that, while not directly applicable in these circumstances, it does
suggest an understanding that when WTO Members must take legislative or regulatory actions involving
complex legal processes to bring their measures into conformity with their WTO obligations reasonableness can
be understood to mean as quickly as legally possible while accepting legitimate reasons for delay.
1009 European Union's first written submission, para. 201.

will be completed in a reasonable period of time .1010 In Russia's view, the per iod of time has been
reasonable, taking into consideration the difficulty of obtaining the additional information
necessary to conduct a review.1011
7.703. With these considerations in mind, we examine whether Russia has reviewed the measure
within a reasonable peri od of time, in light of the particular facts and circumstances of this case,
and taking into account the timeframe for the Panel's analysis (i.e. from January to the date of
Panel establishment on 22 July 2014, also encompassing the dates of adoption of th e measures in
respect of Estonia and Latvia (September 2014)).
7.704. The panel in US – Animals examined the question of whether the United States reviewed
the measures at issue in that dispute within a reasonable period of time. In its analysis, that panel
relied on its findings under Annex C(1)(a) in respect of whether the United States had incurred
undue delays in its review of Argentina's application for Northern Argentina. 1012 We agree with the
approach of the panel in US – Animals. We consider that our assessme nt of this matter is closely
linked with our examination of Russia's compliance with its obligations under Annex C(1)(a). In
that respect, we found that Russia's excessive and unjustified information requests in respect of
the surveillance and control meas ures in non-ASF affected EU member States amount to acting in
a manner that impedes undertaking and completing the procedure for the verification of the
existence of ASF-free areas. In light of the Appellate Body's guidance, 1013 we found that situation
to con stitute an infringement of the obligation to undertake and complete a procedure without
undue delay. We therefore found that Russia undertook and completed the procedure at issue with
undue delay.
7.705. Our findings in respect of Annex C(1)(a) inform our analys is of Russia's compliance with
the last requirement under Article 5.7. In particular, we consider that Russia's excessive
information requests led to continued delays in considering the information that the
European Union provided. We do not ignore that a Member may require certain time to process
detailed and complex information. A Member may even need to translate such information in order
to properly assess it. However, we consider that in the situation before us concerning the non-
affected EU member Sta tes, where Russia has been in possession of information for several
months (from January 2014 to September 2014) and insisted on the insufficiency of such
information in an unjustified manner, Russia is not reviewing its SPS measures within a reasonable
period of time.
7.706. We therefore find that the fourth requirement for the application of Article 5.7 is not
satisfied in the present case, because Russia did not review the EU -wide ban within a reasonable
period of time.
7.5.5.3.4.6 Conclusion
7.707. We have found that there was s ufficient scientific evidence for Russia to conduct a risk
assessment of the ASF situation in the non -affected EU member States, as appropriate to the
circumstances. Moreover, we found that Russia did not provisionally adopt the measure on the
basis of available pertinent information, did not seek to obtain additional information, and did not
review the EU -wide ban within a reasonable period of time. Having found that Russia did not
satisfy any of the four requirements for the application of Article 5.7, we find that the EU-wide ban
does not fall within the scope of Article 5.7 and the qualified exemption to the obligations in
Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 2.2 is not available to Russia. Thus, we now turn to assess the conformity of
Russia's measures with Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.

1010 Russia's first written submission, para. 381.
1011 Russia's first written submission, para. 381 (citing Appellate Body Report, Japan – Agriculture
Products, para. 93). See also Russia's comments to the European Union's response to Panel question No. 236,
paras. 29 and 31.
1013 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 438.

7.5.5.3.5 Whether Russia's measures are based on a risk assessment
7.708. In EC – Hormones, the Appellate Body referred to the importance of basing an
SPS measure on a risk assessment, in the context of the SPS Agreement:
The requireme nts of a risk assessment under Article 5.1, as well as of "sufficient
scientific evidence" under Article 2.2, are essential for the maintenance of the delicate
and carefully negotiated balance in the SPS Agreement between the shared, but
sometimes competing, interests of promoting international trade and of protecting the
life and health of human beings".1014
7.709. In our view, this same balance holds true in respect of measures adopted for the
protection of animal life and health. We are mindful that the introduct ion of a highly contagious
disease like ASF into a previously disease -free area or into an area where the spread of the
disease is subject to control measures, may have devastating economic and social effects on
animal health and on human communities. Also , the presence of the disease may be highly
disruptive to the ecosystem and the domestic and wild species that may be affected by such
disease. In this context, we note the paramount importance of satisfying the requirements related
to scientific evidence set out in Articles 2.2 and 5.1. We note that it may be the case that in a
particular situation, a risk assessment that satisfies the requirements of Articles 5.1 and 5.2 and
paragraph 4 of Annex A of the SPS Agreement can serve as a basis for a measure wh ich restricts
trade of certain products. However, such a determination can only be made through the
examination of the corresponding measures in light of the risk assessment on which it is based.
7.710. In this dispute, Russia has argued that it is under no obli gation to provide a risk
assessment in respect of the EU-wide ban, because it is a measure that, if found to be attributable
to Russia, was adopted on the basis of Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement.1015
7.711. As indicated in paragraph 7.707 above, we have found that the conditions required under
Article 5.7 have not been met in respect of the EU -wide ban. Therefore, the foundation of Russia's
justification for not having a risk assessment on which the EU -wide ban is based does not have
merit. In light of this, we need to examine whether there is a risk assessment within the meaning
of paragraph 4 of Annex A.
7.712. We recall that we found in paragraph 7.249 above that the EU -wide ban pursues the
objectives enshrined in both Annex A(1)(a) and A(1)(b). The first type of risk assessment required
under paragraph 4 of Annex A (i.e. "evaluation of the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread
of a pest or disease") is appropriate for measures seeking the objective in An nex(1)(a). The
second type of risk assessment required under paragraph 4 of Annex A (i.e. "evaluation of the
potential adverse effects on human or animal health arising from the presence of … disease -
causing organisms in … feedstuffs") is appropriate for m easures seeking the objective in Annex
(1)(b).1016 Therefore, Russia's risk assessment should encompass both types of risk assessment
referred to in paragraph 4 of Annex A.
7.713. Throughout these proceedings , Russia has not argued that it has conducted a risk
assessment in the sense of Article 5.1 and paragraph 4 of Annex A. 1017 We therefore find that the
first requirement for our enquiry under Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement is not satisfied. As we
have indicated above, our analysis of the European Union's claims und er Article 5.2 should be
done together with the one corresponding to Article 5.1. In a situation where there is no risk
assessment, it is clear that a Member does not comply with any of the requirements of Article 5.2.
7.714. Based on the foregoing, we find that the EU-wide ban is inconsistent with Articles 5.1 and
5.2 of the SPS Agreement.

1014 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 177.
1015 Russia's second written submission, paras. 185-203.
1016 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Salmon, para. 123, fn 69. See also Appellate Body Report,
Australia – Salmon, para. 120, and Panel Report, Australia – Salmon, paras. 8.72 and 8.116.
1017 Russia rather explains why it was under no obligation to conduct a risk assessment.

7.5.5.3.6 Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement
7.715. We recall that according to the Appellate Body in India – Agricultural Products, a finding of
inconsistency with Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the S PS Agreement raise a rebuttable presumption of
inconsistency with Article 2.2. 1018 Therefore, we need to examine whether Russia has put forward
any arguments or adduced any evidence in to rebut this presumption.
7.716. Russia's arguments in respect of the lack of a risk assessment have focused on the
applicability of Article 5.7 to the EU -wide ban, and the corresponding justification in respect of
Articles 5.1, 5.2, and 2.2.
7.717. Russia argues that a holistic view of the available pertinent information indicates a high
risk that the currently non ASF -infected countries may become ASF infected .1019 Russia points out
that European scientists opine that there is a continuing risk of ASF spread to other
EU member States, for instance Germany.1020 According to Russia, the high risk of ASF spread into
new regions in the European Union can further be derived from the fact that there is evidence of
wild boar moving from the four ASF -infected EU Member States to western Europe. 1021 Russia also
argues that significant number of outbreaks th at continue to take place in the ASF -infected
EU Member States, indicating that the infection remains very active. 1022 Russia further argues that
the European Union has not provided Russia with guarantees that the products originating in its
ASF-infected EU M ember States do not end up in the stream of commerce in the
European Union.1023 Russia also asserts that Article 5.7 operates as an autonomous right of the
importing Member to provisionally deviate from certain disciplines of the SPS Agreement,
particularly from Articles 2.2 and 2.3.1024
7.718. We have found that the EU-wide ban is not based on pertinent available information under
Article 5.7 and that there is no risk assessment on which the EU -wide ban is based. This confirms
our view that the measure is neither based on scientific principles nor maintained with sufficient
scientific evidence. Russia has not raised any arguments that would rebut such findings. In our
view Russia has failed to rebut the presumption of inconsistency raised by our findings of
inconsistency with Articles 5.1 and 5.2.
7.719. Based on the foregoing, we find the EU -wide ban is inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the
SPS Agreement.
7.5.5.4 Conclusion
7.720. We have found that there was sufficient scientific evidence for Russia to conduct a risk
assessment of the ASF si tuation in the non -affected EU member States, as appropriate to the
circumstances. Moreover, we found that Russia did not provisionally adopt the measure on the
basis of available pertinent information, did not seek to obtain additional information, and di d not
review the EU -wide ban within a reasonable period of time. Having found that Russia did not
satisfy any of the four requirements for the application of Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement, we
find that the EU-wide ban does not fall within the scope of A rticle 5.7 and the qualified exemption
to the obligations in Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement is not available to Russia. We
have also found that Russia did not base the EU-wide ban on a risk assessment within the meaning
of paragraph 4 of An nex A of the SPS Agreement, thus breaching Articles 5.1 and 5.2. We have
also found that Russia has not rebutted the presumption of inconsistency that our findings raised
in respect of Article 2.2. Therefore, the EU-wide ban is also inconsistent with Article 2.2.

1018 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.24.
1019 Russia's second written submission, para. 197.
1020 Russia's second written submission, para. 198, citing Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, "Qualitative
Risikobewertung zur Einschleppung der Afrikanischen Schweinepest nach Deutschland aus Osteuropa," 2 April
2014, p. 1-2 (Exhibit RUS-291)
1021 Russia's second written submission, para. 199, citing Society for Applied Microbiology (SfAM),
"Restrictions In Place As African Swine Fever Hits Lithuania," 31 January 2014 (Exhibit RUS-292).
1022 Russia's second written submission, para. 200.
1023 Russia's second written submission, para. 201.
1024 Russia's response to Panel question No. 154, para. 276 (citing Panel Reports, EC – Approval and
Marketing of Biotech Products, paras. 7.2962-7.2983).

7.5.6 Claims under Articles 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement
7.5.6.1 Relevant legal provisions
7.721. Annex A(5) of the SPS Agreement defines the appropriate level of sanitary or
phytosanitary protection (ALOP) as:
The level of protection deemed appropriate by the Member establishing a sanitary or
phytosanitary measure to protect human, animal or plant life or health within its
territory.
NOTE: Many Members otherwise refer to this concept as the "acceptable level of risk".
7.722. The European Union makes claims in respect of four provisions in Article 5 of the
SPS Agreement that relate to the ALOP: Articles 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6. The European Union frames
its claims in respect of Article 5.5 together with those under Article 2.3 in connection with the
alleged discri minatory treatment arising from the measures at issue. We acknowledge that our
examination of the claims under Article 5.5 is contingent upon our determination of what is
Russia's ALOP. In addition, we are mindful of the analytical convenience to group our analysis of
the claims raised in respect of Articles 2.3 and 5.5. Therefore we address the European Union's
claims under Articles 2.3 and 5.5 in section 7.6.6 below. In this section we will focus on the
European Union's claims under Articles 5.3, 5.4 and 5.6.
7.723. An analysis of the European Union's claims under Articles 5.3, 5.4 and 5.6, and the alleged
consequential breach of Article 2.2, in respect of both the EU -wide ban and the bans on the
imports of the products at issue from the four affected EU member States, requires the
identification of the level of protection that Russia has set as appropriate for ASF. The Appellate
Body has reasoned that a first step in the analysis of claims under Article 5.6 is the identification of
the Member's ALOP. 1025 Because of the close relationship between Articles 5.6 and 2.2, the
identification of a Member's ALOP also becomes relevant for making findings under Article 2.2. 1026
In addition, we agree with the Panel in US – Animals, which considered that it would be difficult to
make a finding as to what a Member took into account in determining its ALOP if we do not know
what that Member's ALOP is.1027 In a similar vein, Russia's ALOP may inform our assessment of
whether Russia took into account certain ec onomic factors in determining the measures it would
apply to achieve its ALOP, pursuant to Article 5.3.
7.724. Article 5 of the SPS Agreement states in the relevant part:
Article 5
Assessment of Risk and Determination of the Appropriate Level
of Sanitary or Phytosanitary Protection
…
3. In assessing the risk to animal or plant life or health and determining the measure
to be applied for achieving the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary
protection from such risk , Members shall take into account as relev ant economic
factors: the potential damage in terms of loss of production or sales in the event of
the entry, establishment or spread of a pest or disease; the costs of control or
eradication in the territory of the importing Member; and the relative cost -
effectiveness of alternative approaches to limiting risks. (emphasis added)

1025 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 344 (referred to in Panel Report, US – Animals,
para. 7.368).
1026 Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.368 (referring to Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of
Biotech Products, para. 7.1433).
1027 With respect to the importance of determining a Member's ALOP for an assessment of its measures
under Article 5.4 see Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.368.

4. Members should, when determining the appropriate level of sanitary or
phytosanitary protection, take into account the objective of minimizing negative trade
effects.
…
6. Withou t prejudice to paragraph 2 of Article 3, when establishing or maintaining
sanitary or phytosanitary measures to achieve the appropriate level of sanitary or
phytosanitary protection, Members shall ensure that such measures are not more
trade-restrictive th an required to achieve their appropriate level of sanitary or
phytosanitary protection, taking into account technical and economic feasibility.3
3 For purposes of paragraph 6 of Article 5, a measure is not more trade -restrictive
than required unless there is another measure, reasonably available taking into
account technical and economic feasibility, that achieves the appropriate level of
sanitary or phytosanitary protection and is significantly less restrictive to trade.
7.725. Before turning to the substance of the European Union's claims, the Panel will first
determine what Russia's ALOP is in respect of ASF as relevant for the assessment of both the
EU-wide ban and the bans on the imports of the products at issue from the four affected
EU member States. Subsequ ently, we will examine whether the European Union has established
the elements of its claims under Articles 5.3, 5.4, and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement in respect of the
EU-wide ban. At the end of this section the Panel will examine the alleged consequential br each of
Article 2.2 through the EU -wide ban. In section 7.6.6 below, we will examine the consistency of
the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland with
Articles 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, and 2.2.
7.5.6.2 Russia's appropriate level of protection for ASF
7.5.6.2.1 Main arguments of the parties
7.5.6.2.1.1 European Union
7.726. In the European Union's opinion, the ALOP, as defined in Annex A(5) of the
SPS Agreement, is a political choice of each government and cannot be questione d by the
WTO adjudicating bodies.1028 However, once a Member has chosen its desired level of protection, it
should calibrate the measures according to that level.1029
7.727. The European Union maintains that Russia has not expressly stated its ALOP, and hence
requests that the panel infer Russia's ALOP from the SPS measures applied in practice. 1030 The
European Union further suggests that the evidence on record indicates that Russia has "a rather
low ALOP", which cannot support an inference of "a zero-risk policy".1031
7.728. The Eu ropean Union submits that the present case is significantly similar to India –
Agricultural Products, where the panel made findings regarding India's ALOP. 1032 According to the
European Union, in that dispute, India did not clearly identify its ALOP and imposed a country-wide
ban for the disputed imported products. The European Union adds that the panel in that case has
found that it could not be implied from the ban that India pursued a zero -risk policy, in part
because Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza (LPAI) c an be transmitted through wild birds and the

1028 European Union's first written submission, paras. 238 and 239. The ALOP is also referred to as the
acceptable level of risk (European Union's first written submission, para. 239, citing Appellate Body Report,
Australia – Apples, para. 369).
1029 European Union's first written submission, para. 239.
1030 European Union's first written submission, paras. 242 and 243 (citing Appellate Body Report,
Australia – Salmon, para. 207).
1031 European Union's first written submission, para. 248.
1032 European Union's first written submission, para. 245.

trade ban was not apt to restrict wildlife movements. The European Union notes that the panel
thus concluded that India's ALOP was very high or very conservative, but not zero risk.1033
7.729. The European Union argues th at Russia imposed a country -wide ban with regard to the
products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland , as well as an EU -wide ban, despite
the fact that parts of these four member States, and the entirety of the rest of the European
Union's territory are not affected by ASF. The European Union, however, notes that these bans are
not combined with a Russia -wide ban, as the products associated with the risk of ASF from the
non-affected zones of Russia are allowed to be traded.1034 In addition, the European Union asserts,
these bans are not able to achieve restrictions in wildlife movements.1035
7.730. The European Union contends that the ASF measures undertaken by Russia — whereby
pig products from the non -infected areas of Russia are allowed to be traded i n the rest of the
country — failed to contain the spread of ASF within Russia. 1036 Furthermore, the European Union
mentions that an important factor of ASF transmission is the wild boar population. 1037 As explained
by the European Union, more ample movements of wild boars, normally non -migratory species,
could be triggered during mating season, as a result of a lack of sufficient food or by their
displacement as a result of hunting. 1038 According to the European Union, wild boars seeking to
escape hunters in Russia are the most probable vector for the spread of ASF to the European
Union, via Belarus, in 2014.1039
7.5.6.2.1.2 Russia
7.731. Russia asserts that its ALOP with respect to imports from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Poland is high, and explains it seeks to accomplish what the O IE requires through that high
ALOP.1040 Russia adds that in determining the meaning and scope of a defending Member's ALOP,
a panel should have recourse to all relevant evidence, including the substance of the text of the
relevant import and domestic measures . It adds that there should be no particular limits on the
evidence used to determine that ALOP.1041
7.732. Russia asserts that its ALOP with respect to imports of live pigs and pork products from the
European Union is high, and it is the same ALOP it applies for pi gs and pork products traded within
its territory.1042 In its own words, Russia stresses that it has the "important objective of preventing
the introduction of ASF into areas of the Russian Federation that are not infected with ASF. It has
the further objective of eradicating and controlling ASF outbreaks in areas of Russia where ASF has

1033 European Union's first written submission, para. 244 (citing Panel Report, India – Agricultural
Products, paras. 7.550- 7.575).
1034 European Union's first written submission, para. 245. The European Union adds that the poor
effectiveness of Russia's measures is confirmed by scientific assessments (European Union's first written
submission, para. 246, referring to 2014 EFSA Scientific Opinion (Exhibit EU-26), pp. 11-15).
1035 European Union's first written submission, para. 245.
1036 European Union's first written submission, para. 246.
1037 European Union's first written submission, para. 245
1038 European Union's first written submission, para. 247 (referring to 2010 EFSA Scientific Opinion,
(Exhibit EU-24), p. 29, quoting Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage (ONCFS), 2004, La gestion
Benoist).
1039 European Union's first written submission, para. 247. In fn 201 to para. 247, the European Union
noted: "The ASF virus strain in the EU MS concerned matches 100% the virus strain in Belarus. ASF diagnosis
and molecular characterization Lithuania, EURL-ASF, CISA-INIA, 1317, 28/10/2014 (Exhibit EU-27); ASF
diagnosis and molecular characterization Poland, EURL-ASF, CISA-INIA, 1145, 30/09/2014 (Exhibit EU-28);
ASF diagnosis and molecular characterization Latvia, EURL-ASF, CISA-INIA, 1232, 17/10/2014 (Exhibit EU-29);
ASF diagnosis and molecular characterization Estonia, EURL-ASF, CISA-INIA, 1375, 7/11/2014 (Exhibit EU-
30)." See also first written submission, paras. 48 and 56-58.
1040 Russia's response to Panel question No. 159, para. 298. See also second written submission,
paras. 7, and 12-19.
1041 Russia's response to Panel question No. 160, para. 302.
1042 Russia's first written submission, para. 250. See also, response to Panel question No. 159,
para. 298; second written submission, paras. 1, 7, 12-19, and 143; response to Panel question No. 297,

occurred, but is in the process of being eradicated." 1043 Russia posits that this reflects the
application of a "high" ALOP domestically.1044
7.733. Russia submits extensive evidence in sup port of its assertion that it applies a domestically
high ALOP. That evidence includes reference to Russia's domestic legal framework and
administrative plans for surveillance, monitoring, control and eradication of ASF. 1045 Russia also
provided evidence in respect of the measures it applied to control and eradicate ASF in the regions
of Voronezh1046, Krasnodar1047 and Belgorod.1048
7.734. Russia specifically identifies certain sections of its domestic legislation as confirmation of
its high ALOP domestically applied. Accordi ng to Russia "the ASF Instructions aim to 'prevent . . .
and eradicate . . . African Swine Fever' 1049 in the Russian Federation, a goal also shared by the
2012 ASF Plan which aims to 'prevent spreading and eradicate a virus of African swine fever (ASF)
in the territory of the Russian Federation.'1050"1051

1043 Russia's first written submission, para. 251.
1044 Russia's first written submission, para. 251.
1045 See Russia's first written submission, paras. 24-35 and 251-261; responses to Panel questions No.
29 and 30; and the following Exhibits: ASF Instructions (Exhibit EU-18); 2012 Plan (Exhibit RUS-13); Russian
Federal Ministry of Natural Resources, Plan regarding the organizational and specific measures of monitoring,
depopulation and reduction of migration activities of wild boar in the territory of the RF, including specially
protected natural areas of regional and federal importance, 21 November 2013 (Wild Boar Plan) (Exhibit RUS-
20); Russian Veterinary Service, Guidelines for prevention of distribution of African swine fever among wild
boars (Exhibit RUS-127); Russian Federal Government Decree on the Seizure of Animals and Animal Products
in case of Eradication of Highly Dangerous Animal Disease Outbreaks, No. 310, 26 May 2006 (Exhibit RUS-21);
Order by the Russian Federal Ministry of Agriculture on Approval of Guidelines to Determine Animal Health
Status of Pig Holdings and Organizations Involved in Pig Slaughter, Pork Product Processing and Storage, No.
258, 23 July 2010 (Exhibit RUS-22); Order by the Russian Federal Ministry of Agriculture on the Confirmation
of the List of Contagious Animal Diseases That Require Containment Measures, No. 476, 19 December 2011
(Exhibit RUS-18); Order by the Russian Federal Ministry of Agriculture on the Confirmation of the Rules for
Veterinary Transport Certificates and the Order of Issuance of Veterinary Transport Certificates, No. 281,
17 July 2014 (Exhibit RUS-19).
1046 See Russia's first written submission, paras. 262-263. The following exhibits were submitted in
support of the measures applied to control and eradicate ASF in Voronezh: Report by Voronezh Veterinary
Service, No. 1418, 22 July 2014, pp. 1-2. (Exhibit RUS-108); Decree by the Governor of Voronezh region of
the Russian Federation on the Imposition of ASF-related Quarantine on the Territory of Anninsky municipal
district of Voronezh region, No. 237-y, 17 July 2014. (Exhibit RUS-109); Report by Voronezh Veterinary
Service, No. 1443, 25 July 2014, p. 3. (Exhibit RUS-110); Order by the Governor of Voronezh Region on
Compensation, No. 236, 17 July 2014. (Exhibit RUS-111); and Rosselkhoznadzor News, "To continue
controlling of ASF, Voronezh Administration of Rosselkhoznadzor arrested a pork consignment from Ukraine"
23 January 2015. (Exhibit RUS-112).
1047 See Russia's first written submission, paras. 264-268. The following exhibits were submitted in
support of the measures applied to control and eradicate ASF in Krasnodar: G. A. Dzhailidi, R.A. Krivonos,
A.A. Shevchenko, O. Yu. Chernykh, Measures for prevention and eradication of African Swine Fever in
Krasnodar Territory (Exhibit RUS-113); Resolution of the Head of Krasnodar Territory Administration
(Governor), 16 August 2012 (Exhibit RUS-114); Pig Progress, "Russian Vet service: More African Swine Fever
in Krasnodar region", 30 July 2012. (Exhibit RUS-115); and Declaration of Dzhailidi, para. 13. (Exhibit
RUS-116).
1048 See Russia's first written submission, paras. 269-272. The following exhibits were submitted in
support of the measures applied to control and eradicate ASF in Belgorod: Letter from Anisimov to Vlasov
report (Measures Belgorod), 10 June 2014. (Exhibit RUS-117); Pig Progress, "New ASF outbreak in Belgorod
Oblast, Russia", 11 June 2014. (Exhibit RUS-118); Letter from Aleinik (Chairman of Belgorod Government) to
Petrikov (Deputy Minister of Agriculture of the Russian Federation) on Implementing the Plan of ASF Measures,
(Letter from Aleinik to Petrikov (Measures Belgorod)), 4 July 2014. (Exhibit RUS-119); Resolution of Governor
of Belgorod Oblast to Eliminate and Prevent Further Spread of African Swine Fever within the Infected Area,
i.e. Grafskiy Les Stow of Agrotekhgarant "Alekseevsky" OOO Hunting Farm in Alekseevksy District of Belgorod
Oblast, 4 June 2014, No. 56 (Exhibit RUS-120); Resolution of the Government of Belgorod Oblast on
Implementing the "Preventing the Introduction and Spread of the African Swine Fever (ASF) virus in Belgorod
Oblast for 2014-2016" long term target program, 5 May 2014. (Exhibit RUS-121); Letter from Anisimov to
Vlasov (Measures in Belgorod), 27 August 2014. (Exhibit RUS-122). See also Exhibits RUS-307 and RUS-308.
1049 (footnote original) Russian instructions on ASF prevention and eradication measures of 21
November 1980 (Exhibit EU-18).
1050 (footnote original) 2012 Plan of Measures (Exhibit RUS-13).
1051 Russia's second written submission, para. 143.

7.735. In addition, Russia argues that its ALOP, in respect of imported goods (including those
from the European Union), is expressed through the objective of the Customs Union Decision No.
317 which is to "ensure protection of the customs union territory of the Customs Union against the
import and spread of contagious disease pathogens, including diseases common to both animals
and humans, and goods which do not comply with the Common Veterinary Requirements."1052
7.736. Russia also asserts that when faced with the "deadly" combination of high density in wild
boar and high percentages of low -biosecurity backyard farms, import measures based on
compartmentalization are the least trade -restrictive measures that would achieve Russia's
ALOP.1053 Russia posits that it has communicated to the European Union that it has applied a high
ALOP in accordance with the provisions set out in the Terrestrial Code.1054
7.737. Russia further explains that the European Union's failure to demonstrate the establishm ent
of ASF-free zones or compartments in a manner consistent with the Terrestrial Code or compliance
with conditions for safe trade of treated products 1055, render the bans on imports of the products
at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland consistent with the provisions of the Terrestrial
Code.1056
7.5.6.2.2 Analysis by the Panel
7.738. We recall that Annex A(5) of the SPS Agreement defines the ALOP as "[t]he level of
protection deemed appropriate by the Member establishing a sanitary or phytosanitary measure to
protect human, animal or plant life or health within its territory". The note to Annex A(5) further
states that "[m]any Members otherwise refer to this concept as the 'acceptable level of risk'".
7.739. The Appellate Body in India – Agricultural Products indicated t hat Members have the
prerogative and the obligation to specify their appropriate level of protection.1057 It also highlighted
that in the context of WTO dispute settlement proceedings, a responding Member is generally
better placed than the complainant to kno w what objective it has set in terms of its ALOP.
Therefore, the Appellate Body stated that a panel "would be expected to accord weight to the
respondent's articulation of its appropriate level of protection ", especially when it has been
specified in advan ce of the adoption of the SPS measure, with sufficient precision, and has been
consistently expressed by the responding Member. However, "this does not mean that a panel
must defer completely to a respondent's characterization of its own" ALOP, rather, "a panel is
required to ascertain the respondent's appropriate level of protection on the basis of the totality of
the arguments and evidence on the record".1058
7.740. To ascertain Russia's ALOP, we need to examine whether Russia has articulated an ALOP,
within the m eaning of Annex A(5) of the SPS Agreement, in respect of ASF. We also need to
determine whether Russia has defined its ALOP "'with sufficient precision to apply Article 5.6' 1059;
that is without 'such vagueness or equivocation that the application of the rele vant provisions of
the SPS Agreement, such as Article 5.6, becomes impossible'. 1060".1061 In this respect we will
examine the manner in which Russia identified its ALOP and the supporting evidence it has
submitted. We will also examine the European Union's objec tions to Russia's formulation of its

1052 Russia's response to Panel question No. 297, para. 165 (referring to Customs Union Decision No.
317 (Exhibit RUS-25)). See also second written submission, para. 143.
1053 Russia's response to Panel question No. 159, para. 300.
1054 Russia's second written submission, paras. 12-18 and 143.
1055 See fn 247 above.
1056 Russia's comments to the European Union's response to Panel question No. 286, para. 149.
1057 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.221 (referring to Appellate Body
Reports, Australia – Salmon, paras. 199 and 205-206; and Australia – Apples, para. 343).
1058 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.221. The Appellate Body has provided
additional guidance on how to identify a Member's ALOP in: Appellate Body Reports, India – Agricultural
Products, para. 5.226; and Australia – Salmon, paras. 203-204, 207. See also Panel Reports, US – Animals,
paras.7.377-7.381; and India – Agricultural Products, paras. 7.583-7.586.
1059 (footnote original) Appellate Body Report, Australia – Salmon, para. 207.
1060 (footnote original) Appellate Body Reports, Australia – Salmon, para. 206; and US – Continued
Suspension, para. 523.
1061 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.556.

ALOP. After reviewing the parties' views and their supporting evidence, we will provide our views
on what we consider to be Russia's ALOP.
7.741. Russia argues that its ALOP, in respect of imported goods (including those from the
European Union), is expressed through the objective of the Customs Union Decision No. 317 to
"ensure protection of the customs union territory of the Customs Union against the import and
spread of contagious disease pathogens, including diseases common to both animals and humans,
and goods which do not comply with the Common Veterinary Requirements."1062
7.742. The European Union argues that the Panel should infer Russia's ALOP from the measures
applied in practice 1063 and it further suggests that the evidence on th e record indicates that
Russia's ALOP is "rather low". 1064 According to the European Union, the ineffectiveness of Russia's
domestic measures for the control and eradication of ASF support its view that Russia applies a
rather low ALOP.1065
7.743. The European Union adds that it does not agree with Russia's argument that if an ALOP is
derived from the challenged measure, then the ALOP can never be more trade restrictive than
required to achieve the ALOP. According to the European Union a measure could reveal purely
protectionist objectives, in which case the ALOP would be inferred only from those elements that
are not overtly protectionist. 1066 The European Union considers that bans on imports of the
products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland as well as the EU-wide ban reveal
purely protectionist objectives. Therefore, the European Union could not identify non-protectionist
elements on the basis of which to correctly infer Russia's ALOP. 1067 The European Union also
considers that a conclusion about necessity can only be reached on the basis of a consideration of
the alternatives.1068
7.744. We recall that the Appellate Body in Australia – Salmon reasoned that the ALOP "is an
objective, and that the SPS measure is an instrument chosen to attain or implement that
objective."1069 In this respect, the panel in US – Animals observed that "[a]s expressions of a
general objective, ALOPs are often set forth in a qualitative and generic manner."1070
7.745. As we have examined in section 7.4.4 above, among the ob jectives of the measures at
issue is to ensure protection of Russia's territory from the further entry and spread of ASF and
ASFV. Russia seems to argue this to be the level of protection it applies to the imports of the
products at issue. 1071 In our view thi s formulation is rather broad. However, it provides an
indication of what level of protection is being sought.
7.746. It may or may not be the case that the measures at issue are protectionist. The Panel will
only address that issue as necessary for its substant ive assessment of the European Union's
claims. However, the European Union's argument that because of their protectionist nature such
measures should not be considered when ascertaining Russia's ALOP in respect of ASF, seems to
run contrary to the Appellat e Body's guidance. Accepting the European Union's argument would

1062 Russia's response to Panel question No. 297, para. 165 (referring to Customs Union Decision
No. 317 (Exhibit RUS-25)). See also second written submission, para. 143.
1063 European Union's first written submission, paras. 242 and 243 (citing Appellate Body Report,
Australia – Salmon, para. 207).
1064 European Union's first written submission, para. 248.
1065 European Union's first written submission, paras.9 and 245-248; response to Panel question
1066 European Union's opening statement at the first meeting with the Panel, para. 125.
1067 European Union's response to Panel question No. 152, para. 317; second written submission,
paras. 82 and 152; response to Panel question No. 287, paras. 127-130, comments to Russia's response to
Panel question No. 304, para. 141..
1068 European Union's opening statement at the first meeting with the Panel, para. 125.
1069 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Salmon, para. 200.
1071 Russia's response to Panel question No. 297, para. 165 (referring to Customs Union Decision No.
317 (Exhibit RUS-25)). See also second written submission, para. 143.

bar this Panel from examining Russia's ALOP on the basis of the totality of arguments and
evidence on the record.1072
7.747. We are mindful of the Appellate Body's caution against a circular analysis of determining a
Member's ALOP through the SPS measures it applies. However, as noted by the Appellate Body,
there may be circumstances in which it may be necessary to adopt this approach. 1073 We consider
the measures at issue to be an important element in su pporting the determination of what is
Russia's ALOP in respect of ASF. In particular, we consider that an examination of the measures at
issue will provide an indication of the risk that Russia is willing to accept in respect of the entry
and further sprea d of ASF in its territory, especially in respect of those areas not yet affected by
ASF.
7.748. Refusing imports of the products at issue from the European Union, irrespective of whether
they come from areas that may be free of ASF, reflects a stringent standard to ensure protection
of Russia's territory from the entry and further spread of ASF. This is further confirmed by the
refusal of treated (through thermal treatment, fermentation or maturation) products from Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
7.749. We also note that according to the evidence on record, despite the measures that Russia
has put in place, ASF remains present in certain areas of Russia's territory. 1074 Such measures
include standstill of the products at issue from areas surrounding the epizootic ho t-bed where ASF
outbreak occurred, but do not include a blanket ban on the movement of susceptible products
from other areas within Russia itself. This calls into doubt that Russia's ALOP could be considered
as zero risk. Moreover, Russia has not claimed that it is seeking a zero risk policy.
7.750. We further note that Russia states that as it has "consistently expressed in its
communication with the European Union … [that] the Russian Federation has applied a high ALOP
in accordance with the provisions set out i n the OIE Terrestrial Code." 1075 In our view, this seems
to confirm that Russia acknowledges that its ALOP for ASF, as applied to imports of the products at
issue, could be achieved by measures that conform to the standards enshrined in the Terrestrial
Code. As examined in detail in paragraphs 7.825 -7.826 below, those standards do not purport to
set a zero risk, but they are designed to avoid the spread of ASF, hence could be described as
setting a high level of protection.
7.751. The objective of Customs Union Decision No. 317 , which Russia claims reflects its ALOP in
respect of ASF, read in conjunction with the stringent measures applied to imports from the
European Union and the existence of some control m easures on the movement of susceptible
products within its own territory, confirms that Russia's ALOP is high. However, it does not support
a conclusion that Russia's ALOP is zero risk or tolerance.
7.5.6.2.3 Conclusion
7.752. We find that Russia's ALOP applied to the impo rts of the products at issue from the
European Union in respect of ASF is high or conservative. This general finding in respect of
Russia's ALOP for ASF, as applicable to the imports of the products at issue from the
European Union, will be relevant in our analysis in respect of the European Union's claims under
Article 5.5, which we address in section 7.7.4 below. This finding is also relevant for our analysis of
the European Union's claims under Articles 5.3, 5.4, 5.6 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement. We
examine these claims in turn.

1072 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.221.
1073 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.226.
1074 See paras. 7.208-7.209 above.
1075 Russia's second written submission, para. 143.

7.5.6.3 Whether the EU-wide ban is inconsistent with Article 5.3 of the SPS Agreement
7.5.6.3.1 Main arguments of the parties
7.5.6.3.1.1 European Union
7.753. The European Union notes that the existence of unknown and uncertain elemen ts does not
justify a departure from the requirements under Article 5.3 (as read together with Articles 5.1 and
5.2 and paragraph 4 of Annex A) for a risk assessment.1076
7.754. According to the European Union, Russia's measures at issue do not conform to the
requirements of Article 5.3 due to the fact that in assessing the risk to animal health and
determining the measures to be applied for achieving the appropriate level of sanitary protection,
Russia failed to take into account the relative cost effectiveness of a lternative approaches to
limiting risks, as well as all other relevant economic factors referred to in Article 5.3 of the
SPS Agreement.1077
7.5.6.3.1.2 Russia
7.755. Russia argues that the measures with respect to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are
presumed to be consi stent with Articles 5.3, 5.4 and 5.6 because they conform to the relevant
standards of the Terrestrial Code.1078
7.756. Regarding the EU-wide ban, Russia asserts that it has complied with the obligation to take
into account the relevant economic factors in adopting the EU -wide ban, as it did examine the
potential damages in terms of loss of production, the costs of control and the relative
cost-effectiveness of alternative approaches, as illustrated in the Declaration of V. Maslov.1079
7.5.6.3.2 Analysis by the Panel
7.757. Article 5. 3 of the SPS Agreement identifies a number of relevant economic factors that
Members "shall" take into account in assessing the risk to animal or plant life or health and
determining the measure to be applied for achieving the ALOP from such risk.
7.758. In light of the parties' arguments, the question we need to address is whether Russia took
into account all relevant economic factors listed in Article 5.3, including the relative cost
effectiveness of alternative approaches, when assessing the risk to animal hea lth and determining
the measure to be applied for achieving Russia's ALOP.
7.5.6.3.2.1 Scope of a Member's obligation under Article 5.3 of the SPS Agreement
7.759. We consider that Article 5.3 refers to two different situations. The first situation is when a
Member is "assessing the risk to animal or plant life or health". The second is when a Member is
"determining the measure to be applied for achieving the appropriate level of sanitary or
phytosanitary protection". Pursuant to Article 5.3, in both these situations Members "shall take
into account" as relevant economic factors, those listed at the end of this provision. We observe
that there is no indication in the text that the factors listed are only by way of example, rather this
is presented as a complete list. In order to interpret the scope of a Member's obligation under
Article 5.3, we first need to address the meaning of the expression "shall take into account".
7.760. No previous panel has addressed claims under Article 5.3. However, previous panels have
examined the meaning of expressions similar to "shall take into account", in the context of other
provisions of the Multilateral Trade Agreements.

1076 European Union's first written submission, para. 261 (citing Appellate Body Report, Australia –
Salmon, para. 130).
1077 European Union's first written submission, para. 262.
1078 Russia's first written submission, para. 216.
1079 Russia's response to Panel question No. 154, para. 279 (referring to the Declaration by Vladimir
Maslov on the ASF Outbreak that Occurred at One of the Enterprises of the AGROECO Group in the Voronezh
Region of the Russian Federation (Exhibit RUS-148)).

7.761. For instance, the panel in Japan – Apples examined a Member's obligation, under Article
5.1 of the SPS Agreement, to take int o account risk assessment techniques of international
organizations. In this respect the panel reasoned that this obligation does not impose that a risk
assessment be "based on" or "in conformity with" such risk assessment techniques. Rather, "such
techniques should be considered relevant, but a failure to respect each and every aspect of them
would not necessarily, per se, signal that the risk assessment on which the measure is based is
not in conformity with the requirements of Article 5.1". 1080 This approach was confirmed by the
panels in Canada – Continued Suspension and in US – Continued Suspension when referring to the
same obligation under Article 5.1.1081
7.762. Similarly, the panel in US – Continued Suspension referred to a Member's obligation,
pursuant to Article 5.2 of the SPS Agreement, to take into account available scientific information
as well as other criteria listed therein when performing an assessment of risks. The panel reasoned
that "taking available scientific evidence into account does not require that a Member conform its
actions to a particular conclusion in a particular scientific study."1082
7.763. The panel in US – Animals examined the meaning of the expression "should take into
account" in the context of Article 5.4 of the SPS Agreement. The panel confi rmed the
interpretation of the expression "take into account" provided by the Appellate Body and a previous
panel. According to such guidance, to take into account means to "take into consideration, notice"
and does not require any particular result of that consideration.1083
7.764. Other panels have addressed the scope of the obligation "shall take account of" in other
provisions of the Multilateral Trade Agreements that refer to the special needs of developing
country Members. Although the expression "shall take a ccount of" is not identical to "shall take
into account", the dictionary refers to both verbal phrases as having the same meaning. 1084 Those
phrasal verbs mean: "to take into consideration". 1085 We thus consider that previous decisions in
respect of provisions t hat contain the obligation to "take account of" may provide additional
support to our interpretation of the obligation contained in Article 5.3 of the SPS Agreement.
7.765. The panel in EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products referred to Members'
obligation, pursuant to Article 10.1 of the SPS Agreement, to take account of the special needs of
developing country Members in the preparation and application of SPS measures. Regarding the
scope of this obligation, the panel reasoned that "[t]he dictionary def ines the expression 'take
account of' as 'consider along with other factors before reaching a decision'. 1086 Consistent with
this, Article 10.1 does not prescribe a specific result to be achieved."1087
7.766. The panels in US – Cool and US – Clove Cigarettes examined a Member's obligation,
pursuant to Article 12.3 of the TBT Agreement, to take into account the special needs of
developing country Members in preparing and applying technical regulations, standards and
conformity assessment procedures. 1088 The panel in US – Clove Cigarettes agreed with the
reasoning of the panel in EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products cited above.1089 The
panel in US - Cool concluded that Article 12.3 does not amount to a requirement for Members to

1081 Panel Reports, Canada – Continued Suspension, paras. 7.452-7.459; and US – Continued
Suspension, paras. 7.462-7.469.
1082 Panel Report, US – Continued Suspension, para. 7.480.
1083 Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.401 (quoting Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures
1084 Online Oxford English Dictionary, "account (verbal phrases P2.g(a) to take account of and P2.g(c) to
take into (the) account)",
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/1194?redirectedFrom=take+into+account#eid36657016 (accessed 26
January 2016)
1085 Online Oxford English Dictionary, "account (verbal phrases P2.g(a) to take account of) ",
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/1194?redirectedFrom=take+into+account#eid36657016 (accessed 26
January 2016).
1086 (footnote original) The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 10th edn., J. Pearsall (ed.) (Clarendon Press,
1999), p. 8.
1087 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1620.
1088 Panel Reports, US – Cool, paras. 7.775-7.788; and US – Clove Cigarettes, paras. 7.610- 7.649.
1089 Panel Report, US – Clove Cigarettes, paras. 7.632-7.634.

conform their actions to the special needs of developing countries but merely to give consideration
to such needs along with other factors before reaching a decision.1090
7.767. We agree with the interpretation of the expression "shall take into account" provided by
the panels described above. In the context of Article 5.3, we consider that a Member has the
obligation to give consideration to the relevant economic factors listed therein when either
assessing the risk to animal or plant life or health or determining the measure to be applied for
achieving the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection, and not to other economic
factors. This obligation does not imply, however, that consideration of the relevant economic
factors will require a particular course of action from the Member imposing an SPS measure.
7.768. The panels mentioned above also concluded that the complainant bears the burden of
demonstrating that the responding Member did not take into account the particular aspect
mandated in the relevant provision. 1091 We consider that under Ar ticle 5.3 it is the complaining
party who bears the burden to demonstrate that the responding party did not take into account
the relevant economic factors listed therein.
7.769. In our view, the second aspect that we need to consider is the role of this obligat ion within
the SPS Agreement. The text of Article 5.3 refers to the obligation of taking into account the
relevant economic factors listed therein when (i) assessing the risk to animal or plant life and
health, and (ii) determining the measure to be applie d to achieve the appropriate level of sanitary
of phytosanitary protection.
7.770. The first situation is informed by the obligations that a Member imposing an SPS measure
has pursuant to Articles 2.2, 5.1, and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement. These include the obligat ion to
base SPS measures on scientific principles (Article 2.2), through an assessment of risk appropriate
to the circumstances (Articles 5.1 and 5.2). In this respect, the obligation to take into account
relevant economic factors when assessing the risk t o animal life and health is contingent upon the
obligation to base an SPS measure on a risk assessment pursuant to Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the
SPS Agreement. If a Member does not base its measures on a risk assessment it has performed or
that is otherwise available to it, unless such Member is justified in not doing so (due to conformity
to an international standard or adoption of a provisional measure pursuant to Article 5.7), it would
not be in conformity with Article 5.3.
7.771. The second situation is informed by the text of Articles 2.2, 5.4 and 5.6 of the
SPS Agreement. Among other aspects, Article 2.2 provides that Members shall ensure that their
SPS measures are applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or
health. Pursuant to Article 5.4, when determining their ALOP, Members should take into account
the objective of minimizing negative trade effects. In addition, according to Article 5.6, Members
shall ensure that their SPS measures are not more trade -restrictive than required to achieve their
ALOP. It is in the context of complying with these other obligations that a Member shall take into
account the relevant economic factors listed in Article 5.3 when determining the measure it will
apply to achieve its ALOP.
7.772. The Panel notes that if a measure is adopted pursuant to Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement,
a Member does not have the obligation to base its provisional measure on an assessment of risk
pursuant to Article 5.1. As a consequence, a Member in such situation will not hav e to take into
account the relevant economic factors listed in Article 5.3 for the purposes of assessing the risk to
animal or plant life and health. However, even when a Member has adopted a provisional
SPS measure pursuant to Article 5.7, it will still h ave the obligation to take into account, in

1091 Panel Reports, US – Animals, para. 7.406 (referring to the complaining party's burden to
demonstrate that the responding party did not take into account the objective of minimizing negative trade
effects when determining its ALOP); US – Clove Cigarettes, para. 7.633 (referring to the complaining party's
burden of proving that the Member adopting the technical regulation did not "take account of" developing
country Member's needs, pursuant to Article 12.3 of the TBT Agreement); US – Cool, para. 7.774 (referring to
the complaining party's burden of proving that the Member adopting the technical regulation did not "take
account of" developing country Member's needs, pursuant to Article 12.3 of the TBT Agreement); and EC –
Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1622 (referring to Argentina's burden to adduce evidence
and argument sufficient to raise a presumption that the European Communities has failed to take into account
its special needs as a developing country Member pursuant to Article 10.1 of the SPS Agreement).

determining the measure it will apply to achieve its ALOP, the relevant economic factors listed in
Article 5.3.
7.773. Based on the foregoing, we need to determine whether the European Union adduced
sufficient evidence and arguments to make a prima facie case that Russia did not take into account
the relevant economic factors listed in Article 5.3 in respect of either of the situations provided
therein.
7.5.6.3.2.2 Whether Russia took into account relevant economic factors when ass essing
the risk to animal or plant life and health
7.774. We will first examine the European Union's arguments and evidence in respect of Russia's
non-compliance with its obligation under the first situation. The European Union has systematically
argued that Russ ia has failed to comply with its obligation to perform an assessment of risk. In
respect of Article 5.3 of the SPS Agreement, it suggests that the obligation under Article 5.3 with
respect to the assessment of risk to animal life and health should be made in conjunction with the
obligations under Articles 5.1 and 5.2. This seems to imply that if a Member had an obligation to
perform a risk assessment pursuant to those provisions, it also has the obligation to take into
account the relevant economic factors listed in Article 5.3 when assessing those risks, and only
those economic factors identified as being relevant.
7.775. As noted above, we consider that if there is sufficiency of scientific evidence but there is
non-conformity with the relevant international stan dard, by not basing its SPS measures on a risk
assessment, as defined in Article 5.1 and Annex A(4) of the SPS Agreement, a Member would not
be in a position to act in manner consistent with Article 5.3.
7.776. We have found that the EU -wide ban is not based on t he relevant international
standard1092 and is not based on a risk assessment as appropriate to the circumstances, in a
situation where there was sufficient scientific evidence for Russia to conduct an assessment of
risks as appropriate to the circumstances. 1093 Based on these findings and on the reasoning
explained above, we find that the EU-wide ban is inconsistent with Article 5.3.
7.5.6.3.2.3 Whether Russia took into account relevant economic factors when
determining the measure to be applied to achieve the appropriate l evel of sanitary or
phytosanitary protection
7.777. We now turn to the second situation. This is, when a Member is determining the measure
to be applied for achieving the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection. In this
respect, we consider that the obligation under Article 5.3 in respect of the determination of the
measure to be applied is triggered once a Member has set its ALOP in respect of a disease or a
disease-causing organism and normally after having assessed the risks related therewith.
However, as we observed in paragraph 7.772 above even when a measure is adopted pursuant to
Article 5.7, without a risk assessment, the obligation under Article 5.3 still applies with respect to
the choice of the measure to be applied. In any event, as mentioned above, the obligation to take
into account the relevant economic factors does not require a Member to adopt a particular SPS
measure; rather a Member has to give consideration to those relevant economic factors in
determining such a measure, and only to those factors.
7.778. In this dispute, the European Union has not provided evidence or arguments in support of
its claim that Russia did not consider the relevant economic factors listed in Article 5.3, and only
those factors, when determining that it would impose the measures at issue. In this respect, the
European Union limited its argument to a single paragraph in its first written submission, where it
states without further explanation that "[i]n assessing the risk to animal health and determining
the measures to be applied for achieving the appropriate level of sanitary protection, Russia failed
to take into account all relevant economic factors referred to in Article 5.3 of the SPS Agreement,
including the relative cost-effectiveness of alternative approaches to limiting risks."1094

1092 See para. 7.718 above.
1093 See para. 7.719 above.
1094 European Union's first written submission, para. 262.

7.779. The Panel has noted that the complaining party bears the burden to adduce sufficient
evidence and arguments to raise a prima facie case that the responding party did not take into
consideration the relevant economic factors listed in Article 5.3. In our view, the European Union
has not met this burden in respect of its claim that Russia did not consider those relevant
economic factors, including the relative cost -effectiveness of alternative approach es to limiting
risks.
7.780. The European Union seems to infer that the adoption of stringent SPS measure on its
exports of the products at issue necessarily entails a lack of consideration of the relevant economic
factors listed in Article 5.3. In our view, this does not suffice to support such a claim.
7.781. In addition, the Panel notes Russia's assertion that it did take into account the potential
damages in terms of loss of production, the costs of control and the relative cost -effectiveness of
alternative approaches.1095 The European Union did not challenge this statement during the course
of the proceedings.
7.782. Based on the foregoing, we consider that the European Union failed to meet its burden of
making a prima facie case that the EU -wide ban is inconsistent with Arti cle 5.3 of the SPS
Agreement, in respect of Russia taking into account the relevant economic factors when
determining the measure to be applied for achieving the appropriate level of sanitary or
phytosanitary protection.
7.5.6.3.3 Conclusion
7.783. We find that the EU -wide ban is inconsistent with Article 5.3 of the SPS Agreement,
because by not basing that measure on a risk assessment in circumstances in which Article 5.7 is
not applicable, Russia could have not taken into account the relevant economic factors listed in
Article 5.3 when assessing the risks of entry and spread of ASF in accordance with Article 5.1 and
paragraph 4 of Annex A of the SPS Agreement. However, the European Union failed to make a
prima facie case of inconsistency of the EU -wide ban with Russia's ob ligation to take into account
relevant economic factors listed in Article 5.3 when determining the measure to be applied for
achieving the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection in respect of ASF.
7.5.6.4 Whether Russia took into account the obj ective of minimizing negative trade
effects when determining the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection
7.5.6.4.1 Main arguments of the parties
7.5.6.4.1.1 European Union
7.784. The European Union refers to the statement of the panel in EC – Hormones that Article 5.4
does not impose an obligation on the Members but it has to be taken into account when
interpreting other provisions of the SPS Agreement.1096
7.785. The European Union notes that the SPS Agreement contains an implicit obligation that
WTO Members determine their A LOP.1097 Because Russia did not expressly specify its ALOP, the
European Union deduces from an analysis of Russian domestic measures that Russia's ALOP is
"rather low".1098
7.786. Because Russia applies an EU -wide ban and four individual country -wide bans, the
European Union submits that Russia has not taken into account the objective of minimizing

1095 Russia's response to Panel question No. 154, para. 279 (referring to the Declaration by Vladimir
Maslow on the ASF Outbreak that occurred at One of the Enterprises of the AGOECO group in the Voronezh
Region of the Russian Federation (Exhibit RUS-148)).
1096 European Union's first written submission, para. 264 (referring to Panel Report, EC – Hormones
(Canada), para. 8.169).
1097 European Union's first written submission, para. 265 (citing Appellate Body Report, Australia –
Salmon, paras. 205–207).
1098 European Union's first written submission, para. 265.

negative trade effects when determining its ALOP, and has thus breached the provisions of Article
5.4 of the SPS Agreement.1099
7.5.6.4.1.2 Russia
7.787. Russia argues that the measures with resp ect to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are
presumed to be consistent with Articles 5.3, 5.4 and 5.6 because they conform to the relevant
legal standards in the Terrestrial Code. 1100 Furthermore, Russia contends that the European Union
failed to support claims against the EU -wide ban, which Russia considers to be justified under
Article 5.7, and therefore consistent with any other provision of Article 5.1101
7.788. Russia submits that Article 5.4 does not impose any obligation and that, bearing in mind
the objective of minimizing negative trade effects as set out in both Articles 5.4 and 5.6, it offered
the European Union to put in place less trade restrictive measures, such as trade from ASF -free
compartments or amendment to the requirements of the veterinary cert ificates. However, the
failure of the EU member States to take adequate ASF-control and eradication measures led to the
impossibility to adopt such alternative measures.1102
7.5.6.4.2 Analysis by the Panel
7.789. Article 5.4 of the SPS Agreement stipulates that Members "shou ld" take into account the
objective of minimizing negative trade effects when determining their ALOP.
7.790. The panels in EC – Hormones and in US – Animals, have concluded that Article 5.4 does
not impose a positive obligation on Members, because of its hortato ry nature. 1103 However, they
also found this provision to be relevant for the interpretation of other provisions of the SPS
Agreement.1104 Moreover, the Appellate Body in US/Canada – Continued Suspension, considered
that a Member should respect the disciplines of Article 5.4 when choosing its ALOP.1105
7.791. The European Union seems to agree with this interpretation. However, it requests the
Panel to make findings that the measures at issue are inconsistent with Russia's obligations under
Article 5.4.1106
7.792. In light of the hortatory nature of Article 5.4, the Panel will not make findings with respect
to whether Russia took into account the objective of minimizing negative trade effects when
determining its ALOP. However, this is without prejudice to the Panel considering the objective of
minimizing negative effects on international trade in its interpretation of other provisions of the
SPS Agreement in light of the European Union's claims.
7.5.6.5 Whether the EU -wide ban is more trade restrictive than required pursuant to
Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement
7.5.6.5.1 Main arguments of the parties
7.5.6.5.1.1 European Union
7.793. Referring to the factual evidence on the record, the European Union concludes that Russia
has "a rather low ALOP".1107 At the same time, the European Union alleges that even if one were to

1099 European Union's first written submission, para. 266.
1100 Russia's first written submission, para. 216.
1101 Russia's response to Panel question No. 154, para. 277.
1102 Russia's response to Panel question No. 154, para. 280.
1103 Panel Reports, US - Animals, para. 7.404; EC – Hormones (Canada), para. 8.169; and EC –
Hormones (US), para. 8.166. The panel in US – Animals provided a detailed explanation of why Article 5.4
does not provide for a positive obligation. See Panel Report, US – Animals, paras. 7.397-7.404.
1104 Panel Reports, EC – Hormones (Canada), para. 8.169; and EC – Hormones (US), para. 8.166.
1105 Appellate Body Report, US/Canada – Continued Suspension, fn 1088.
1106 European Union's, first written submission, para. 358; and second written submission, para. 194.
1107 European Union's first written submission, para. 248.

assume that Russia has a very high or conservative ALOP, there is an alternative measure that
cumulatively meets the conditions of footnote 3 of the SPS Agreement.1108
7.794. The European Union argues that Russia's measures at issue are more trade restrictive than
required because, in the European Union's view, the application of the Terrestrial Code standards
is an alternative SPS measure which:
(1) is reasonably available, taking into account technical and economic feasibility,
(2) achieves the Member's appropriate level of SPS protection and
(3) is significantly less trade restrictive than the contested measure.1109
7.795. The European Union submits that the application of the Terrestrial Code, which
recommends regionalization and trade from the ASF -free countries/zones or f rom any part of a
country notifying ASF if the products underwent specific treatments, is an alternative measure that
fulfils all the legal requirements in Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.1110
7.796. The European Union maintains that the adoption of the Terrestrial Code recommendations
is a reasonably available measure because it will not impose on Russia an additional economic
burden so as to make it unfeasible.1111 The control measures are the responsibility of the European
Union, as an exporting country, and verification of the sanitary certificates for trade in different pig
products from the European Union into Russia is already carried out by the competent Russian
authorities.1112
7.797. The European Union also holds that applying regionalisation as recommended in the
Terrestrial Code will achieve Russia's ALOP. 1113 The OIE standards are based on the most recent
scientific and technical information and, if correctly applied, protect animal health and welfare and
veterinary public health during production and trade in animals an d animal products.1114 According
to the European Union, the application of the Terrestrial Code, in particular regionalisation, will
satisfy both "a rather low" and "a very high" ALOP.1115
7.798. The European Union also states that its control measures have proven high ly effective to
contain ASF. Being one of the largest exporters of pig products in the world, there is no evidence
that any of the European Union's trade partners has suffered ASF outbreaks due to exports from
the European Union after January 2014.1116
7.799. The Eu ropean Union argues that applying regionalisation as recommended in the
Terrestrial Code is significantly less trade restrictive than Russia's measures. The European Union
elaborates that the Terrestrial Code allows trade from ASF -free zones within countri es notifying
ASF, while Russia's measures at issue are the most trade restrictive option possible – a ban on
such trade.1117
7.800. In the European Union's opinion, a country -wide ban on the products at issue that may
come from areas thousands of kilometres distant from an infected zone is "blatantly

1108 European Union's first written submission, para. 249.
1109 European Union's first written submission, para. 250, footnote omitted (citing Appellate Body
252.
1110 European Union's first written submission, para. 252; and second written submission, para. 134.
1111 European Union's first written submission, para. 253 and 254.
1112 European Union's first written submission, paras. 254.
1113 European Union's first written submission, para. 255.
1114 European Union's first written submission, para. 256 (quoting User's Guide to the Terrestrial Code,
paras. A.2 and A.3 (Exhibit EU-2).
1115 European Union's first written submission, para. 255.
1116 European Union's first written submission, para. 257.
1117 European Union's first written submission, para. 258.

disproportionate", as long as the necessary containment measures are taken in the limited areas
where ASF outbreaks have occurred.1118
7.801. The European Union concludes that because of the reasons explained in the previous
paragraphs, the measures at issue are inconsistent with the provisions of Article 5.6.1119
7.5.6.5.1.2 Russia
7.802. Russia argues that the European Union has failed to establish a prima facie case that there
is an alternative measure that meets all three requirements of Article 5.6 .1120 According to Russia,
there are no less trade-restrictive alternative measures available to achieve Russia's ALOP, which
is based on the relevant international standard.1121
7.803. Russia submits the Panel should dismiss the European Union's claim under Article 5 .6.
First, to the extent the European Union derives Russia's ALOP from the measures applied to
imports, such measures, in Russia's view, cannot logically be more trade -restrictive than required
to achieve their ALOP. 1122 Second, Russia contends that to the ex tent the European Union derives
a different ALOP from the measures applied by Russia domestically, the European Union re -asserts
a claim of allegedly distinct ALOPs that falls under Article 5.5 and should therefore be dismissed by
the Panel in its consideration under Article 5.6.1123
7.804. Russia further elaborates that, if the exporting country fails to discharge its burden to
establish, and to objectively demonstrate that it has established, containment zones in accordance
with the OIE guidelines, the importing co untry may reject the exporting country's proposed zones,
which do not reflect the same ALOP, and impose country -wide import restrictions. 1124 Russia
asserts it acted accordingly and in compliance with the Terrestrial Code.1125
7.805. Russia also asserts that when faced with what it considers to be the "deadly" combination
of high density of wild boar and high percentages of low -biosecurity backyard farms, import
measures based on compartmentalization are the least trade -restrictive measures that would
achieve Russia's ALOP.1126 Later in the proceedings Russia also stated that as it has "consistently
expressed in its communication with the European Union … , the Russian Federation has applied a
high ALOP in accordance with the provisions set out in the OIE Terrestrial Code." 1127 We
understand this to mean that Russia acknowledges that measures that conform to the
recommendations (i.e. on regionalization, compartmentalization or treatment to ensure destruction
of ASFV) provided in the Terrestrial Code for safe trade of the produc ts covered by Chapter 15.1
would meet Russia's ALOP.
7.5.6.5.2 Analysis by the Panel
7.5.6.5.2.1 Legal test
7.806. Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement requires Members to ensure that their SPS measures are
not more trade -restrictive than necessary to achieve that Member's ALOP, taking in to account
technical and economic feasibility.

1118 European Union's first written submission, para. 258.
1119 European Union's first written submission, para. 259.
1120 Russia's first written submission, para. 337.
1121 Russia's first written submission, para. 334.
1122 Russia's first written submission, para. 336.
1123 Russia's first written submission, para. 336. Russia notes that it does not apply distinct ALOPs for
domestic live and imported live pigs and pork products (Russia's first written submission, fn 637 to para. 336
referring to Russia's first written submission, paras. 275-287).
1124 Russia's first written submission, para. 337; and comments to the European Union's response to
Panel question No. 286, para. 149.
1125 Russia's first written submission, para. 337; and comments to the European Union's response to
Panel question No. 286, para. 149.
1126 Russia's response to Panel question No. 159, para. 300.
1127 Russia's second written submission, para. 143.

7.807. Pursuant to footnote 3 of Article 5.6, in order for a measure to be considered more trade
restrictive than necessary, the complainant has to demonstrate 1128 that there is an alternative
measure that: (i) is reaso nably available taking into account technical and economic feasibility;
(ii) achieves the Member's ALOP; and (iii) is significantly less trade restrictive than the contested
measure.1129 The Appellate Body has observed that these three requirements are cumula tive in
nature such that, in order to establish an inconsistency with Article 5.6, all the elements must be
demonstrated.1130
7.808. We recall that the Appellate Body has observed that "[t] he alternative measure proposed
by a complainant contesting another Member's SPS measure is a 'conceptual tool' to be used for
the purpose of the analysis under Article 5.6.1131 Consequently, a demonstration that an
alternative measure meets the relevant Member's appropriate level of protection does not imply
that the Member whose SP S measure is found to be inconsistent with Article 5.6 must adopt that
alternative measure or that the alternative measure is the only option that would achieve the
desired level of protection.1132"1133
7.809. The European Union claims the measures at issue are incons istent with Article 5.6 because
applying regionalization pursuant to the Terrestrial Code is an alternative measure reasonably
available to Russia, which does not involve technical difficulties or an unfeasible economic burden,
while achieving Russia's ALOP and being significantly less trade-restrictive.1134 The European Union
posits that following the Terrestrial Code (i.e. allowing trade from disease free areas consistent
with regionalization) and recognizing regionalization would constitute a significantly less
trade-restrictive alternative.1135
7.810. In respect of the EU -wide ban, Russia argues that Article 5.7 "obviates" the need to
comply with other provisions of Article 5, including 5.6.1136
7.811. The Panel would be required to address the issue whether Article 5.7 "obv iates" the need
to comply with Article 5.6 only in case it finds that Russia complies with Article 5.7. 1137 In
paragraph 7.707 above we found that the EU -wide ban is not subject to Article 5.7. We therefore
find no need to address Russia's argument in respect of the relationship between Articles 5.7 and
5.6.
7.812. We recall that in paragraph 7.494 above, we found that the EU -wide ban is not based on
the international standards articulated in the Terrestrial Code.
7.813. Based on the foregoing, the Panel needs to determine whether the European Union has
identified one or more alternative measures. Then the panel needs to examine whether the
alternative measures submitted by the European Union: (i) are reasonably avai lable to Russia
taking into account technical and economic feasibility; (ii) achieve Russia's ALOP; and (iii) are

1128 The complainant has the burden of demonstrating each of the three elements. Panel Report, US –
Animals, para. 7.431 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Japan – Agricultural Products II, para. 126, and
Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.525).
1129 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.203.
1130 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.203. See also Appellate Body Reports,
Australia – Salmon, para. 194; and Japan – Agricultural Products II, para. 95; as well as Panel Reports, US –
Animals, paras. 7.430-7.431; India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.521-7.522; US – Poultry (China),
1131 (footnote original) Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 363.
1132 (footnote original) Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 363.
1133 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.203.
1134 European Union's first written submission, para. 259.
1135 European Union's second written submission, para. 134.
1136 Russia's first written submission, para. 409 (citing Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of
Biotech Products, para. 7.2969 finding that "Article 2.2 excludes from its scope of application the kinds of
situations covered by Article 5.7"). Russia asserts that this exclusion extends to the provisions under Article 5
invoked by the European Union. See also Russia's response to Panel question No. 154, paras. 276-278;
comments to the European Union's response to Panel question No. 286, para. 148.
1137 This reflects the approach taken in US – Animals whereby the panel, having found the United States'
measures were not covered by the exemption in Article 5.7, decided not to consider the United States'
argument that the maintenance of a provisional measure under Article 5.7 would preclude the applicability of
Article 5.6 (Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.439).

significantly less trade restrictive than the EU -wide ban.1138 We turn to examine the alternative
measures identified by the European Union.
7.5.6.5.2.2 Whether the European Union has identified one or more alternative
measures
7.814. The measures that the European Union submits as an alternative are those derived from
the application of the Terrestrial Code, which recommends regionalization and trade from the
ASF-free countries/zones or from any part of a country notifying ASF if the products underwent
specific treatments.1139 In particular, the European Union argues that instead of an EU -wide ban,
Russia should allow trade of certain products according to specific pro visions of Chapter 15.1 of
the Terrestrial Code. Table 7 below contains the alternative measures identified by the European
Union, as relevant for the EU -wide ban, on the basis of the specified provisions of the Terrestrial
Code.
Table 7 Alternative measures identified by the European Union1140
Product Terrestrial Code provision Recommendation
Live pigs Article 15.1.5 Allow trade from the ASF free
zones in the EU.
Semen of domestic pigs and in
vivo derived embryos of
domestic pigs
Articles 15.1.8 and 15.10 Allow trade from the ASF free
zones in the EU.
Fresh meat of domestic pigs
and of wild boar
Articles 15.1.12. and 15.1.13 Allow trade from the ASF free
zones in the EU.

7.815. In our view, the European Union has clearly identified the alternative measures for the
products at issue. We now proceed to examine whether the measures based on the
recommendations of the Terrestrial Code identified by the European Union meet the three
cumulative elements of Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.
7.5.6.5.2.3 Whether measures based on the recommendations on regionalization in the
Terrestrial Code are reasonably available, taking into account technical and economic
feasibility
7.816. Having determined the alternative measures identified by the European Union, we first
need to examine whether such alternative measures are reasonably available to Russia, taking into
account technical and economic feasibility. Regarding the first requirement, panels have noted that
the examination of technical and economic feasibility should be done in light of the circumstances
in the real world. 1141 In addition, the panel in India – Agricultural Products found that "measures
based on the recommendations of the Terrestrial Code are technically and economically feasible,
and reasonably available alternatives to" India's (the defending party's) AI measures.1142
7.817. Russia has not challenged the technical and economic availability of measures in line with
the Terrestrial Code. On the contrary, Russia has claimed that its measures on imports of the
products at issue from the European Union are "based to the extent possible" on the international
standards articulated in the Terrestrial Code, hence implying that it considers these standards to
be technically and economically available.
7.818. As indicated by the Eu ropean Union, the alternative measures arising from the
Terrestrial Code include accepting the imports of the products at issue originating from ASF -free
areas, in line with the Terrestrial Code. In our view, accepting such imports from the European
Union does not entail a high technical or economic burden. Rather, it requires appropriate
cooperation between the European Union's and Russia's veterinary services in order to recognize

1138 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.203.
1139 European Union's first written submission, para. 252; and second written submission, para. 134.
1140 This table is prepared on the basis of the European Union's opening statement at the second
meeting of the Panel, paras. 72-76.
1141 Panel Report, Japan – Apples (Article 21.5 – US), para. 8.171. This approach was endorsed in Panel
1142 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.546.

which areas are ASF -free and take the necessary steps for trade of the prod ucts at issue from
those areas to resume. We recall that a primary element in permitting such trade would be
modification of the text in the veterinary certificates required by Russia. According to the evidence
on record, Russia has done this in the past 1143, including in respect of the acceptance of treated
products at issue from the non-affected EU member States.1144
7.819. Examining these elements, we consider that the recommended measures under the
Terrestrial Code in respect of regionalization are reasonably availa ble to Russia, because they are
technically and economically feasible.
7.5.6.5.2.4 Whether measures based on the recommendations on regionalization in the
Terrestrial Code achieve Russia's ALOP
7.820. Regarding the second requirement that the proposed alternative measure ach ieves
Russia's ALOP, the Panel recalls that it has found Russia's ALOP to be high or conservative.1145
7.821. We recall that Russia asserts that the European Union's failure to demonstrate the
establishment of ASF-free zones or compartments in a manner consistent with the Terrestrial Code
or compliance with conditions for safe trade of treated products renders the bans on imports of the
products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland in compliance with the provision of
the Terrestrial Code. 1146 In our vie w, this confirms Russia's statement that if it were to apply
measures in accordance with the recommendations provided in the Terrestrial Code, such
measures would achieve Russia's ALOP.
7.822. Referring to the obligation of a Member to accept products that meet one or more of the
alternatives contemplated in a relevant international standard, the European Union argues that
contrary to what Russia seems to believe, a country may not choose ASF -free zones or
compartments according to its ALOP. 1147 The European Union a rgues that the alternatives
described in the Terrestrial Code (ASF -free country, zone or compartment) are related to the
objective characteristics of the ASF situation and not to a subjective choice of the importing
Member.1148 The European Union considers th is to be supported by the rejection of the panel in
India – Agricultural Products of India's contention that it could choose which recommendation of
the Terrestrial Code to apply in respect of Avian Influenza. 1149 We now turn to the application of
the legal test to the facts of this case.
7.823. While referring to the second requirement – particularly to identifying the level of
protection that would be achieved by the alternative measure – the panel in India – Agricultural
Products examined the level of protection of an alternative measure based on the relevant
international standards. The panel found that the Terrestrial Code provides for an optimal level of
security, under which safe trade may be facilitated in order to prevent Avian Influenza from being
introduced into an importing country.1150
7.824. We find it appropriate to follow a similar approach as the panel in India – Agricultural
Products. In this dispute, Russia does not claim that its measures seek to achieve an ALOP higher
than the one that would be achieved th rough the application of the recommendations of the

1143 See exhibits EU-159 and EU-160.
1144 See exhibits EU-162 and RUS-324.
1145 See para. 7.752 above.
1146 Russia's comments to the European Union's response to Panel question No. 286, para. 149.
1147 European Union's second written submission, para. 131.
1148 European Union's second written submission, para. 132.
1149 European Union's second written submission, para. 133 (quoting Panel Report, India – Agricultural
1150 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, paras. 7.580 – 7.581. The Appellate Body noted that
this approach was not appealed, however the Appellate Body considered it to reflect an assessment of the
proposed alternative measures meeting India's ALOP. Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products,
para. 5.224.

Terrestrial Code. Rather, Russia posits that its measures are in conformity with or based on the
Terrestrial Code.1151
7.825. In its responses to the Panel's questions , the OIE refers to the Terrestrial Code Forew ord,
which indicates that "the Code sets out standards for the improvement of terrestrial animal health
and welfare and veterinary public health worldwide, including through standards for safe
international trade in terrestrial animals". 1152 The OIE also obse rved that "[a]ll the various
combinations of testing, treatment and certification identified in Chapter 15.1 provide for safe
trade of animals and animal products". 1153 Furthermore, the OIE concludes that "[r]egardless of a
country's policy on the ALOP, the OIE considers that the application of the measures recommended
in the Terrestrial Code provide conditions for safe trade in animals and animal products."1154
7.826. In our view, the OIE's responses confirm that the provisions in Chapter 15.1 would provide
an optimal level of security 1155 for trade in the products at issue. Based on the foregoing , we
consider that the level of protection that would be achieved by the alternative measures, that is,
those resulting from the application of the recommendations on regionalizat ion in the Terrestrial
Code is high or conservative.
7.827. On that basis, we need to examine whether the level of protection that would be achieved
by the alternative measures suggested by the European Union meets Russia's ALOP in respect of
ASF.1156 We recall that we have found that both Russia's ALOP and the level of protection achieved
through the alternative measures suggested by the European Union are high. We also recall that
Russia acknowledges that its ALOP for ASF, as applied to imports of the products at issue, could be
achieved by means of measures that conform to the standards enshrined in the Terrestrial
Code.1157 We therefore conclude that the level of protection achieved through measures in line
with the provisions of Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code meets Russia's ALOP.
7.828. We thus move on to make the comparison between the trade restrictiveness of the
EU-wide ban and the alternative measures identified by the European Union.
7.5.6.5.2.5 Whether the measures based on the recommendations on regionalization in
the Terrestrial Code are significantly less trade-restrictive than the EU-wide ban
7.829. Previous panels have examined the third requirement through comparing the alternative
measures proposed by the complaining party with the challenged measures. 1158 The panel in
India – Agricultural Products, agreeing with the panel in Australia – Salmon, observed that "any
measure imposing conditions upon importation, even if stringent, 'would still be significantly less
restrictive to trade than an outright prohibition'".1159
7.830. With this in mind, we move on to analyse whether measures applied pursuant to the
recommendations on regionalization in Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code are significantly less
trade restrictive than the EU-wide.
7.831. In paragraph 7.494 above we found that the EU-wide ban is not based on the international
standards articulated in the Terrestrial Code. Moreover, we recall that the European Union has
demonstrated that the EU -wide ban is a composite measure which reflects Russia's refusal to

1151 This is different situation than the one in US – Animals, where the panel examined whether the
alternative measure suggested by Argentina, which was different from an international standard, would
achieve the United States' ALOP in respect of FMD. Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.454-7.548. See also
paras. 7.435-7.437 and 7.442.
1152 OIE response to Panel question No. 19.
1153 OIE response to Panel question No. 19.
1154 OIE response to Panel question No. 19.
1155 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, paras. 7.580 – 7.581.
1156 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 344.
1157 See paras. 7.750 and 7.805 above.
Australia -Salmon, para. 8.182
1159 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.590 (quoting Panel Report, Australia – Salmon,
para. 8.182).

accept certain imports of the products at issue from the European Union. 1160 As we have
explained, this means an import ban of the non -treated products at issue from the territory of the
non-affected EU member States.
7.832. In our assessment of the relevant provision s in the Terrestrial Code, we have explained
that certain provisions in Chapter 15.1 provide for safe trade from ASF -free areas. In our findings
under Article 6.3, we found that the European Union provided to Russia the necessary evidence to
objectively demonstrate that there are ASF -free areas, which are likely to remain so, within the
European Union's territory outside the four affected EU member States.
7.833. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the alternative proposed by the European Union,
namely that R ussia base the EU -wide ban on the recommendations on regionalization in the
Terrestrial Code, which allows for safe trade of certain products at issue from ASF -free areas
covered by Articles 15.1.5, 15.1.12, and 15.1.13, is significantly less restrictive t o trade than a
ban on the same products.
7.5.6.5.3 Conclusion
7.834. We have found that the European Union identified measures based on the
recommendations on regionalization in the Terrestrial Code as a reasonably available alternative to
the EU-wide ban as applied to products covered by Articles 15.1.5, 15.1.12, and 15.1.13. We have
also found that the alternative is technically and economically feasible, would achieve Russia's
ALOP, and is significantly less restrictive to trade than the EU -wide ban. Therefore, we conclu de
that the EU-wide ban is inconsistent with Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreements, with respect to non -
treated products covered by Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code , because it is significantly more
restrictive to trade than required to achieve Russia's ALOP.
7.5.6.6 Whether the measures at issue are more than is necessary for the protection of
animal health pursuant to Article 2.2
7.5.6.6.1 Main arguments of the Parties
7.5.6.6.1.1 European Union
7.835. The European Union argues that Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement is a more general
provision and that Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 5.6 are more specific provisions. 1161 According to the
European Union , it follows that a finding of a violation of Article 5.6 with regard to risk
management will consequentially result in a violation of Article 2.2 of the SP S Agreement, more
precisely with regard to the necessity requirement.1162
7.836. The European Union argues that Russia does not comply with the requirements in
Article 5.6 and footnote 3 of the SPS Agreement.1163
7.5.6.6.1.2 Russia
7.837. Russia argues that what it considers as Russia's provisional compliance with the terms of
the veterinary certificates is justified under Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement.1164 Russia also points
out that Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement excludes from its scope of application the kinds of
situations covered by Article 5.7.1165

1160 See paras. 7.83-7.84 above.
1161 European Union's second written submission, para. 129.
1162 European Union's second written submission, para. 130.
1163 European Union's second written submission, para. 134.
1164 Russia's first written submission, para. 382.
1165 See Russia's first written submission, fn 697, referring to Panel Reports, EC – Approval and

7.5.6.6.2 Analysis by the Panel
7.5.6.6.2.1 Relevant legal provision
7.838. Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement provides:
Members shall ensure that any sanitary or phytosanitary measure is applied only to
the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or h ealth, is based on
scientific principles and is not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence, except
as provided for in paragraph 7 of Article 5.
7.839. According to Article 2.2, an SPS measure must: (i) be applied only to the extent necessary
to protect human, animal or plant life or health; (ii) be based on scientific principles; and (iii) not
be maintained without sufficient scientific evidence, except as provided for in Article 5.7. 1166 The
European Union's claims relative to Article 5.6 pertain solely t o (i): the SPS measure being applied
only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health.
7.840. The Appellate Body has found that the basic obligations set out in Article 2 inform, impart
meaning to, and are made operative in other pro visions of the SPS Agreement, including through
certain of the more specific obligations set out in Article 5. The obligation that a Member shall
ensure that an SPS measure is applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or
plant life or health is closely linked to the obligation set out in Article 5.6.1167
7.841. This close relationship has been interpreted to mean that a finding of inconsistency with
Article 5.6 may lead to a presumption of inconsistency with the obligation in Article 2.2 to ensure
that an SPS measure is applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life
or health. This means that a panel should verify if such presumption has been rebutted in order to
confirm a breach of Article 2.2 after finding an inconsistency under Article 5.6.1168
7.842. The panel in India – Agricultural Products examined the "necessity" requirement in the
context of other relevant provisions of the covered agreements and concluded that, similarly to the
requirements of Article 5.6, they focus on the trade restrictiveness of a measure, its contribution
to the purported objective, and whether that contribution may be made by a less trade -restrictive
alternative.1169 The panel also found that "a finding that a measure is inconsistent with Article 5.6
may lead to a presumption that the same measure is inconsistent with the obligation in Article 2.2
to ensure that an SPS measure is applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or
plant life or health". 1170 We agree with the panel in India – Agricultural Products that the
"necessity" requirement in Article 2.2 is closely linked to the determination under Article 5.6.
7.843. The European Union argues that, based on the relationship between Articles 2.2 and
5.61171, a finding of violation of Article 5.6 wi th regard to risk management will consequentially
result in a violation of the necessity requirement enshrined in Article 2.2. 1172 The Appellate Body
has been clear in endorsing the analysis provided by the panel in India – Agricultural Products in
considering that a breach of Article 5.6 does not result in a consequential violation of Article 2.2.
Rather, such a finding may lead to a rebuttable presumption.1173
7.844. In our view, Russia has not provided any arguments or evidence that would rebut the
presumption raised from a finding of inconsistency with Article 5.6. Rather, it has focused its
arguments on the consistency of the measures at issue with its obligations under Article 5.6.

1166 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1424.
1167 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.208. See also Panel Report, US –
1168 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, paras. 5.37-5.38.
1169 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, paras. 7.607-7.613.
1170 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.614.
1171 European Union's second written submission, para. 129 (referring to Panel Report, EC – Hormones
(Canada), para. 8.99).
1172 European Union's second written submission, para. 130.
1173 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, paras. 5.37-5.38.

7.845. We recall our finding that the EU-wide ban is significantly more restrictive to trade than the
alternative measures identified by the European Union. The Panel also found that the alternative
measures are available to Russia and met Russia's ALOP in respect of ASF.
7.5.6.6.2.2 Conclusion
7.846. In light of our findings under Article 5.6 and the arguments and evidence raised by Russia
in order to rebut the presumption of inconsistency with Article 2.2 raised by a finding of
inconsistency of the EU-wide ban with Article 5.6, we find that the EU-wide ban is inconsistent with
Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement be cause it is applied beyond the extent necessary to protect
human and animal life or health.

7.6 Claims relating to the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
7.6.1 Claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the SPS Agreement
7.6.1.1 Main arguments of the parties
7.6.1.1.1 European Union
7.847. The European Union asserts that Russia's measures do not "conform to" and are not
"based on" any relevant international standards within the meaning of Articles 3.2 and 3.1 of the
SPS Agreement, respectively, but rather, they go against the relevant international standards.1174
7.848. The European Union posits that a measure that actually contradicts the international
standards cannot be said to be based on the respective standards.1175
7.849. The European Union argues that whil e the relevant international standards recommend
trade from ASF -free areas in several products at issue, or trade in products which have been
treated so as to ensure the destruction of the ASFV, Russia does exactly the contrary and bans
trade from ASF-free areas in the EU.1176
7.6.1.1.2 Russia
7.850. Russia focuses its arguments on conformity of bans on imports of the products at issue
from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, with the relevant international standards under Article
3.2, which would create a (rebuttable) pre sumption of consistency with relevant provisions of the
SPS Agreement.1177 In the alternative, Russia asserts that its measures in respect of imports from
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are "based on" the relevant international standards within
the meaning of Article 3.1.1178
7.6.1.2 Main arguments of the third parties
7.6.1.2.1 Australia
7.851. Australia argues that in light of Article 3.2 of the SPS Agreement, the Panel will have to
determine, as a matter of fact, whether Russia's measures conform to, or are based on, the
Terrestrial Code, noting that only measures which conform to international standards enjoy the
presumption of consistency with the SPS Agreement.1179

1174 European Union's first written submission, paras. 113 and 122.
1175 European Union's oral statement at the second substantive meeting, para. 56.
1176 European Union's oral statement at the second substantive meeting, para. 57.
1177 Russia's first written submission, paras. 215 – 217.
1178 Russia's first written submission, para. 214.
1179 Australia's third-party submission, para. 7.

7.852. Australia asserts that with the foregoing supposition in mind, it would be appropriate for
the Panel to commence its analysis with the claims under Article 3, followed by consideration, if
necessary, of the subsequent claims under Articles 5 and 6 of the SPS Agreement.1180
7.6.1.2.2 Brazil
7.853. Brazil emphasizes that while Members are allowed to deviate from the use of international
standards and to adopt a higher level of protection than those recognized by the OIE, Articles 3.2
and 3.3, together with Articles 5.1 and 6 of the SPS Agreement, require that such a higher level of
protection in the context of the principle of regionalizat ion should only be adopted based upon a
risk assessment.
7.854. Brazil stresses that the Terrestrial Code also establishes recommendations for importation
from countries or zones considered infected with ASF and that consequently, if a Member decides
to deviate from these standards and/or recommendations, then such decision should be based on
scientific evidence, consubstantiated in a risk assessment.1181
7.6.1.3 Analysis by the Panel
7.6.1.3.1 Introduction
7.855. The questions before the Panel are: whether Russia's measures in respect of imports of the
products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland "conform to" the relevant provisions
of the Terrestrial Code within the meaning of Article 3.2 of the SPS Agreement; and/or whether
they are more simply "based on" such relevant int ernational standards for the purposes of Article
3.1 of the SPS Agreement. In the case of the bans on imports of the products at issue from
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland , the "based on" and "conform to" assessments are
alternatives.
7.856. In section 7.5.1.3.2 above, we have examined the text of Article 3 of the SPS Agreement.
To avoid unnecessary repetition, we will not replicate the text of Article 3.
7.857. We recall that the parties' evidence and argumentation have focused on the issue of
whether Russia's bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Poland are "based on" and/or "conform to" the relevant international standard within the meaning
of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the SPS Agreement. We thus centre our analysis on these provisions.
7.858. In section 7.5.1.3.2 above, we referred to the manner in which the Appellate Body and
previous panels have understood the meaning of Articles 3.1 and 3.2, and focused on the legal
standard that needs to be met for a measure to be considered to be based on the relevant
international standards pursuant to Article 3.1.
7.859. We note that Article 3.2 of the SPS Agreement provides that SPS measures that conform
to international standards, guide lines, or recommendations shall be deemed to be necessary to
protect human, animal or plant life or health, and presumed to be consistent with the relevant
provisions of the SPS Agreement and the GATT 1994. If a Member promulgates an SPS measure
that confo rms to an international standard, such a measure would embody the international
standard completely and, for practical purposes, convert it into a municipal standard. Such a
measure thus enjoys the benefit of a presumption (albeit a rebuttable one) that it is consistent
with the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement and of the GATT 1994.1182
7.860. We further note that Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement establishes that Members shall base
their SPS measures on international standards, guidelines, or recommendations , where they exist.
In EC – Hormones, the Appellate Body stated that "[a] thing is commonly said to be 'based on'
another thing when the former 'stands' or is 'founded' or 'built' upon or 'is supported by' the

1180 Australia's third-party submission, para. 9.
1181 Brazil's third-party submission, para. 14.
1182 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 170.

latter".1183 The Appellate Body considered that, to be "based on" an international standard, a
measure "may adopt some, not necessarily all, of the elements of the international standard". 1184
The Member imposing this measure does not benefit from the presumption of consistency set up in
Article 3.2, but th e Member is not penalized by exemption of a complaining Member from the
normal burden of showing a prima facie case of inconsistency with Article 3.1 or any other relevant
article of the SPS Agreement or of the GATT 1994. That is, the burden of proof would still lie on a
complainant to make a prima facie case of violation of Article 3.1.1185 In EC – Sardines, the
Appellate Body remarked that "there must be a very strong and very close relationship between
two things to be able to say that one is 'the basis for ' the other". 1186 The Appellate Body thus
stated that, where a technical regulation and the relevant international standard contradict each
other, it cannot properly be concluded that the international standard has been used "as a basis
for" the technical regulation.1187 As the Appellate Body recognized in EC – Sardines, the term "as a
basis for" in Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement is similar to the language used in Article 3.1 of the
SPS Agreement. 1188 Furthermore, the panel in India – Agricultural Products concluded that a
fundamental departure from the relevant international standard amounts to a contradiction of such
a standard.1189
7.861. In respect of the relationship between the obligations in Articles 3.1 and 3.2, the Appellate
Body and previous panels have found that a measure that is "based on" a standard does not
necessarily conform to that same standard, as some of the elements of the standard may not be
present in the measure at issue. 1190 Following this approach, the panel in India – Agricultural
Products observed that failure to meet the "based on" threshold in Article 3.1 would also result in
not meeting the more rigorous "conform to" threshold in Article 3.2.1191
7.862. In paragraph 7.256 above, we explained that there may be sit uations where a departure
or deviation of one element of a measure from a certain aspect of a standard may not necessarily
constitute an outright contradiction of that aspect of the standard. For example, in cases where a
standard applies for a particular set or subset of products, part of a measure pertaining to one
product may be based on the international standard while another part of the measure pertaining
to a different product, may not be based on the international standard. Furthermore, distinction s
may exist between standards. There may be standards that are conditional on the exporting
Member undertaking particular actions, whether on a one -off basis or as part of an ongoing,
continuous and dynamic SPS situation that may introduce temporal conside rations or may require
additional action.
7.863. In this case, the parties have agreed on the products that are subject to the bans on the
imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Those include live
pigs; pig genetic material (excluding Latvia); finished products containing pork; products from
slaughter of wild boar; raw pork raw products (excluding Lithuania and Poland); horn -hoofed
materials, leather and intestinal materials; bristles; feed for pigs 1192; and hunting trophies not
subjected to full taxidermy treatment.1193

1183 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 163.
1184 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 171.
1185 The Appellate Body has clarified that there is no "general rule – exception" relationship between the
three relevant paragraphs of Article 3. Accordingly, these three alternative scenarios are equally available to
WTO Members. The Appellate Body explained that "this right of a Member to establish its own level of sanitary
protection under Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement is an autonomous right and not an 'exception' from a
'general obligation' under Article 3.1". (emphasis original) Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 172.
1186 Appellate Body Report, EC – Sardines, para. 245.
1187 Appellate Body Report, EC – Sardines, para. 248.
1188 Appellate Body Report, EC – Sardines, para. 242. The panel in India – Agricultural Products referred
to this Appellate Body jurisprudence at paragraphs 7.265-7.269 of its Report.
1189 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.271.
1190 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 163.
1191 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.202.
1192 Heat-treated ready-made feedstuffs (minimum temperature: 70 degrees in Celsius, minimum
treatment time: 20 minutes) are excluded from the ban on the products at issue from Estonia. See Exhibits
EU-13 and RUS-37.
1193 See Exhibits EU-7, EU-8, EU-10, EU-11, EU-168 and RUS-28 (regarding the measures in respect of
Lithuania); Exhibits EU-9, EU-10, EU-11, EU-168 and RUS-29 (regarding the measures in respect of Poland);
Exhibits EU-12 and EU-169 (regarding the measures in respect of Latvia); and Exhibits EU-13 and RUS-37

7.864. In light of their product coverage, the bans on the imports of the products at issue from
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland trigger different Terrestrial Code Chapter 15.1
recommendations for the import of liv e pigs (both domestic and wild); semen of domestic pigs; in
vivo derived embryos of domestic pigs; fresh meat (of domestic and wild pigs); meat products of
pigs (either domestic or wild); products of animal origin (from fresh meat of pigs) intended for use
in animal feeding, for agricultural or industrial use, or for pharmaceutical or surgical use; trophies
derived from wild pigs; products of animal origin (from pigs, but not derived from fresh meat)
intended for use in animal feeding and for agricultural o r industrial use; and bristles (from pigs).
As we have already observed1194, Articles 15.1.5 – 15.1.17 are each tailored to a particular subset
of the relevant products. Some of those recommendations refer to imports from ASF-free
countries, zones or compartm ents, and from countries or zones considered infected with ASF.
Some of the mentioned articles also provide for trade of products that have been processed so as
to ensure destruction of the ASFV, and that the necessary protections were taken after processi ng
to avoid contact of the product with any source of ASFV. Likewise, as the experts confirmed,
numerous horizontal Terrestrial Code provisions including, but not limited to, Chapter 4.3 and
Article 5.3.7, are relevant in determining whether the exporting country has established an OIE -
consistent ASF-free zone.1195
7.865. In paragraph 7.260 above we explained that certain of the Terrestrial Code's provisions
contain clear proscriptive standards, which are more conducive to a clear -cut det ermination of
"based on" in light of whether the standard has been implemented. On the other hand, other
Terrestrial Code provisions contain standards that allow considerable flexibility as to the means by
which Members may base their measures on, and/or offer a range of options to a Member in order
to be based on the relevant international standard, sometimes on the basis of certain defined
exhaustive or non -exhaustive criteria or factors. Such more flexible standards recognize the
inherent discretion of M embers to exercise judgment in a particular set of circumstances, and a
panel's review must take the particular nature of the provision of the relevant international
standard at issue into account in light of the specific facts and circumstances of the dis pute.1196
Moreover, standards calling for interactive processes, where certain steps may be contingent upon
the satisfaction of other steps, may require a panel to examine the actions of both the importing
and exporting Members. The extent to which an importi ng country's obligation to adhere to the
international standard, guideline, or recommendation is excused or limited by the exporting
country's actions or inactions must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
7.866. With this approach in mind, we proceed to exami ne whether the bans on the imports of
the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are "based on" and/or "conform
to" the relevant international standards in the Terrestrial Code.
7.867. Having ascertained the precise measures under review a nd the applicable legal test, in our
analysis under Article 3 of the SPS Agreement , we will proceed as follows: (i) identifying the
relevant international standards; (ii) discerning the meaning of such international standards;
(iii) assessing the measures at issue in light of these international standards in order to determine
whether the measures "conform to" and/or are "based on" the standards.

(regarding the measures in respect of Estonia). See also European Union's response to Panel question No. 77,
paras. 148-151; response to Panel question No.271, paras. 83-89; and Russia's response to Panel question No.
77, para. 127; response to Panel question No. 271, paras. 95-98.
1194 See section 7.5.1.3.3 above.
1195 See e.g. Dr Thomson's response to Panel Question 31, para. 4.19 of Compiled Experts' Replies,
referring to Chapters 4.3 and 4.4 of the Terrestrial Code; Dr Brϋckner's response to Panel Question 34, para.
4.31 of Compiled Experts' Replies, referring to Article 5.3.7 of the Terrestrial Code; and Dr Brϋckner's response
to Panel Question 55, para. 4.151 of Compiled Experts' Replies, referring to Chapters 4.3 and 15.1 of the
Terrestrial Code.
1196 For example, Article 5.1.1 of the Terrestrial Code provides that "[b]ecause of differences between
countries in their animal health situations, various options are offered by the Terrestrial Code." (OIE,
Terrestrial Animal Health Code 23rd edn (2014), Vol. I, p. 171) Article 4.3.1 of the Terrestrial Code provides
that "[i]n most cases, the import regulations developed will rely in part on judgments made about the
effectiveness of sanitary procedures undertaken by the exporting country, both at its borders and within its
territory." (OIE, Terrestrial Animal Health Code 23rd edn (2014), Vol. I, p. 116)

7.6.1.3.2 Identifying the relevant international standards
7.868. In section 7.5.1.3.3 above, we referred to the manner in which the Appellate Body and
panels have indicated that a panel should identify the relevant international standards in a
particular dispute. Based on that guidance we endorse the parties' shared view that the relevant
international standards for the purpose of this dispute are articulated in the 23 rd edition of the
Terrestrial Code.1197
7.869. We considered above that while the parties agree that the Terrestrial Code contains the
relevant international standards, the parties have differing vie ws on the precise provisions of the
Terrestrial Code that are relevant in this dispute, and in particular the hierarchy and
interrelationships between and among the Terrestrial Code's zoning and regionalization
(Chapters 4.3, 4.4 and 5.4) provisions and its ASF-specific provisions (Chapter 15.1).
7.870. In sections 7.5.1.3.3 and 7.5.1.3.4 above, we have described in detail our understanding
of the structure and content of the Terrestrial Code and recalled the parties' arguments in that
respect. In paragraph 7.271 above, we also observed in this respect that the difference in the
situations covered by the provisions of Chapter 15.1 (i.e. those related to goods originating in
ASF-free countries zones or compartments and processed products processed to ensure
destruction of ASFV) warrants an independent examination of the standards applicable to the
categories of products subject to each situation. In other words, we consider that t he structure of
Chapter 15.1 provides a clear identification of two sets of standards that a measure could be based
on. Those categories include standards for (i) trade in pig products originating from ASF-free
countries, zones or compartments; and (ii) tr ade in pig products subject to processing to ensure
destruction of ASFV.
7.871. In light of the parties' comments and the structure of the recommendations in Chapter
15.1 of the Terrestrial Code, we will pursue an independent analysis in respect of the two
categories of standards applicable in respect of ASF. We will therefore first discern the meaning of
the relevant international standards contained in Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code applicable to
non-treated products, which refers to those pig products ori ginating from ASF-free countries,
zones or compartments. We will then discern the meaning of the relevant international standards
contained in Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code applicable to treated products. We now turn to
that examination.
7.6.1.3.3 Discerning the meaning of the relevant international standards
7.872. Table 8 below sets out the product -specific provisions in Chapter 15.1 of the
Terrestrial Code that pertain to the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
that are subject to the bans.

1197 See paras. 7.263-7.264 above.

Table 8 Product-specific provisions of Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code relevant to each product category covered by the measures
at issue1198
Lithuania
1199
Poland1200 Latvia1201 Estonia
1202
Relevant international standard (relevant product-specific provisions of
Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code)
live pigs live pigs live pigs live pigs Article 15.1.5.
Recommendations for importation from ASF-free countries, zones or
compartments
For domestic pigs
Veterinary Authorities should require the presentation of an international
veterinary certificate attesting that the animals:
1) showed no clinical sign of ASF on the day of shipment;
2) were kept in an ASF-free country, zone or compartment since birth or for at
least the past 40 days.

genetic
material
genetic
material
N/A pig genetic
material
Article 15.1.8.
Recommendations for importation from ASF-free countries, zones or
compartments
For semen of domestic pigs
Veterinary Authorities should require the presentation of an international
veterinary certificate attesting that:
1) the donor animals:
a) were kept in an ASF-free country, zone or compartment since birth or for at
least 40 days prior to collection;
b) showed no clinical sign of ASF on the day of collection of the semen;
2) the semen was collected, processed and stored in conformity with the
provisions of Chapters 4.5 and 4.6.

Article 15.1.10
Recommendations for importation from ASF-free countries, zones or
compartments
For in vivo derived embryos of domestic pigs

1198 This Table contains the relevant product-specific provisions in Chapter 15.1 of Terrestrial Code and the products as identified in Russia's measures. As the
European Union does not practice "compartmentalization", and has not sought to rely on this concept in its argumentation under Article 3 of the SPS Agreement, Article
15.1.6 and other compartment-specific provisions are excluded from Table 8.
1199 See Exhibits EU-7, EU-8, EU-10, EU-11, EU-168 and RUS-28.
1200 See Exhibits EU-9, EU-10, EU-11, EU-168 and RUS-29.
1201 See Exhibits EU-12 and EU-169.
1202 See G/SPS/N/RUS/76 (Exhibit EU-13) and Russia's letter to the European Union of 11 September 2014, FS-NV-8/17431 (Exhibit RUS-37).

Lithuania
1199
Poland1200 Latvia1201 Estonia
1202
Relevant international standard (relevant product-specific provisions of
Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code)
Veterinary Authorities should require the presentation of an international
veterinary certificate attesting that:
1) the donor females:
a) were kept in an ASF-free country, zone or compartment since birth or for at
least 40 days prior to collection;
b) showed no clinical sign of ASF on the day of collection of the embryos;
2) the embryos were collected, processed and stored in conformity with the
provisions of Chapters 4.7. and 4.9., as relevant.

finished
products
containing
pork1203
finished
products
containing
pork
finished
products
containing
pork1204
end
[finished]
products
containing
pork1205
Articles 15.1.14 and 15.1.15

Article 15.1.14
Recommendations for the importation of meat products of pigs (either
domestic or wild), or for products of animal origin (from fresh meat of
pigs) intended for use in animal feeding, for agricultural or industrial use,
or for pharmaceutical or surgical use, or for trophies derived from wild
pigs;
Veterinary Authorities should require the presentation of an international
veterinary certificate attesting that the products:
1) have been prepared:
a) exclusively from fresh meat meeting the conditions laid down in Articles
15.1.12. or 15.1.13., as relevant;
b) in a processing establishment:
i) approved by the Veterinary Authority for export purposes;
ii) processing only meat meeting the conditions laid down in Articles 15.1.12. or
15.1.13., as relevant;
OR
2) have been processed in an establishment approved by the Veterinary Authority
for export purposes so as to ensure the destruction of the ASFV, and that the
necessary precautions were taken after processing to avoid contact of the product
with any source of ASFV.

1203 Through Letter of the Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision No. FS-EN-8/5081, of 2 April 2014 (Exhibit EU-168), products
excluded from the bans on imports from Lithuania and Poland were limited to cats and dogs' feeds which are thermally treated (temperature not lower than 70ºC for not
less than 20 minutes).
1204 Excluding cats' and dogs' feeds which are thermally treated (temperature not lower than 70ºC for not less than 20 minutes).
1205 Excluding feed additives resulted from chemical or microbiological synthesis and heat-treated ready-made feedstuffs (minimum temperature: 70 degrees in
Celsius, minimum treatment time: 20 minutes).

Lithuania
1199
Poland1200 Latvia1201 Estonia
1202
Relevant international standard (relevant product-specific provisions of
Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code)

Article 15.1.15.
Recommendations for the importation of products of animal origin (from
pigs, but not derived from fresh meat) intended for use in animal feeding
and for agricultural or industrial use
Veterinary Authorities should require the presentation of an international
veterinary certificate attesting that these
products:
1) have been prepared:
a) exclusively from fresh meat meeting the conditions laid down in Articles
15.1.12. or 15.1.13., as relevant;
b) in a processing establishment:
i) approved by the Veterinary Authority for export purposes;
ii) processing only meat meeting the conditions laid down in Articles 15.1.12. or
15.1.13., as relevant;
OR
2) have been processed in an establishment approved by the Veterinary Authority
for export purposes so as to ensure the destruction of the ASFV, and that the
necessary precautions were taken after processing to avoid contact of the product
with any source of ASFV.

products
from
slaughter
of wild
boar
products
from
slaughter
of wild
boar
N/A meat of
wild boar
Articles 15.1.13. and 15.1.14.

Article 15.1.13
Recommendations for importation from ASF-free countries or zones
From fresh meat of wild pigs
Veterinary Authorities should require the presentation of an international
veterinary certificate attesting that:
1) the entire consignment of fresh meat comes from animals which:
a) have been killed in an ASF-free country or zone;
b) have been subjected to a post-mortem inspection in accordance with Chapter
6.2. in an approved examination centre, and have been found free of any sign
suggestive of ASF;
and, if the zone where the animal has been killed is adjacent to a zone with
infection in wild pigs:
2) a sample has been collected from every animal killed and has been subjected to
a virological test and a serological test for ASF, with negative results.

N/A N/A pork pork Articles 15.1.12 and 15.1.14

Lithuania
1199
Poland1200 Latvia1201 Estonia
1202
Relevant international standard (relevant product-specific provisions of
Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code)
raw pork
products

raw port
products

Article 15.1.12.
Recommendations for importation from ASF-free countries, zones or
compartments
For fresh meat of domestic pigs
Veterinary Authorities should require the presentation of an international
veterinary certificate attesting that the entire
consignment of fresh meat comes from animals which:
1) have been kept in an ASF-free country, zone or compartment since birth or for
at least the past 40 days, or which have been imported in accordance with Article
15.1.5. or Article 15.1.6.;
2) have been slaughtered in an approved abattoir, have been subjected to ante-
and post-mortem inspections in accordance with Chapter 6.2., and have been
found free of any sign suggestive of ASF.

horn-
hoofed
materials,
leather,
intestinal
materials
horn-
hoofed
materials,
leather,
intestinal
materials
N/A horn-
hoofed
materials,
leather,
intestinal
materials
We note that although the European Union and Russia agree that Articles 15.1.1-
15.1.4 are the relevant standard for this product (European Union's response to
Panel question No.272; Russia's response to Panel question No. 272), we consider
that there is no Article in Chapter 15.1 which directly or specifically deals with
these categories of products. As such, we consider them not to be subject to an
international standard.
bristles bristles N/A hair coat Article 15.1.16.
Recommendations for the importation of bristles (from pigs)
Veterinary Authorities should require the presentation of an international
veterinary certificate attesting that these
products:
1) come from an ASF-free country, zone or compartment; or
2) have been processed in an establishment approved by the Veterinary Authority
for export purposes so as to ensure the destruction of the ASFV, and that the
necessary precautions were taken after processing to avoid contact of the product
with any source of ASFV.

feed for
pigs
feed for
pigs

N/A all types of
feed stuffs
and feed
additives
for pigs
Article 15.1.14.
hunting
trophies
hunting
trophies
N/A hunter's
trophies
Article 15.1.14

Lithuania
1199
Poland1200 Latvia1201 Estonia
1202
Relevant international standard (relevant product-specific provisions of
Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code)
not
subjected
to full
taxidermy
treatment
not
subjected
to full
taxidermy
treatment
derived
from
sensible
animal
species
without full
taxidermy
treatment

7.6.1.3.3.1 Non-treated products
7.873. In section 7.5.1.3.4.2 above we pursued an inquiry into the meaning of t he relevant
international standards in the Terrestrial Code applicable to certain categories of non -treated
products originating from ASF-free countries, zones or compartments. In particular, we examined
the provisions applicable to live pigs (piglets for fattening and pigs for breeding), pork meat, and
raw meat preparations. These include Articles 15.1.5, 15.1.12 and 15.1.14.
7.874. Acceptance of non -treated products covered by the articles in Chapter 15.1 listed in
Table 8 above, is contingent upon the determina tion that the products in question come from
ASF-free countries, zones, or compartments.
7.875. Articles 15.1.2, 15.1.3, and 15.1.4 provide the conditions that should be met for a country,
zone or compartment to be considered free of ASF. In paragraphs 7.288-7.326 above, we
examined in detail the meaning of those provisions in the Terrestrial Code. We will rely on our
analysis provided above for our assessment of whether the bans on the imports of the prod ucts at
issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland "conform to" or are "based on" the standards
articulated in those provisions.
7.6.1.3.3.2 Treated products
7.876. The second category of products covered by the standards contained in the Terrestrial
Code is treated products. In particular, Articles 15.1.14 (meat products of pigs), 15.1.15 (products
of animal origin (from pigs, but not derived from fresh meat) intended for animal feeding and for
agricultural or industrial use), and 15.1.16 (bristles from pigs) contain the standards applicable for
trade in certain pig products that have been processed so as to ensure destruction of ASFV,
regardless of whether they originate from animals in ASF-free countries, zones or compartments.
7.877. The specific conditions required by th e standards applicable to treated products, as
enshrined in Articles 15.1.14, 15.1.15 and 15.1.16, are that such pig products "have been
processed in an establishment approved by the Veterinary Authority for export purposes so as to
ensure the destruction of the ASFV, and that the necessary precautions were taken after
processing to avoid contact of the product with any source of ASFV."
7.878. These standards lay down two cumulative requirements. The first has to do with the
processing of the pig products concerne d. Such processing should be done in an establishment
approved by the veterinary authority for export purposes and it should be so as to ensure the
destruction of the ASFV.
7.879. Chapter 15.1 does not indicate how the destruction of the ASFV can be achieved. Thi s
being a matter of science, we see the need to rely on certain elements on record of a scientific
nature. Among them, we have reference to the responses from the OIE to the Panel questions, the
responses from the experts to the Panel questions, experts' i nterventions during the meeting with
the Panel, and the relevant exhibits submitted by the parties.
7.880. The OIE explained that Chapter 15.1 does not contain specific recommendations on the
processing required to "ensure the destruction of the ASFV". 1206 While the Terrestrial Code does
not currently contain specific recommendations on the inactivation of ASFV, there is some
guidance in the OIE Technical Disease Card on ASF, which states that the virus may be inactivated
by heat at 56°C for 70 minutes or 60°C for 2 0 minutes. 1207 The OIE explained that these
recommendations are based on a 1977 study carried out in the United States, which is cited in the
EFSA report, 2010. 1208 The OIE cautioned that the OIE Technical Disease Cards are not adopted
standards. Rather, they ar e short summaries of scientific evidence. Attention must be paid to

1206 OIE responses to Panel's questions No. 8 and 9.
1207 OIE, ASF Technical Disease Card (Exhibit RUS-186).
http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Animal_Health_in_the_World/docs/pdf/Disease_cards/AFRICAN_SWIN
E_FEVER.pdf (last updated on April 2013, last accessed on 20 November 2015).
1208 OIE response to Panel questions No. 8 and 9.

scientific information that is published subsequent to the publication of a Technical Disease
Card.1209
7.881. The experts advising the Panel indicated that studies undertaken using both the classi cal
swine fever virus and the ASF virus concluded that both require similar times and temperatures for
inactivation. Chapter 15.2 on classical swine fever provides details that are proposed for inclusion
in the updated version of Chapter 15.1 that is curre ntly in progress. 1210 More specifically,
Drs Bruckner and Thomson stated that it is accepted that heating virus -containing material to an
internal temperature of 70° C will inactivate most animal pathogens including ASF virus. 1211 Thus,
while the relevant intern ational standards do not precise the time and duration of heat treatment
that would ensure ASFV destruction, the Panel's experts have indicated that an internal
temperature of 70° C would achieve this and should lead to acceptance of such heat -treated
products.
7.882. This statement is in line with what is expressed in the 2010 EFSA scientific opinion,
according to which ASFV "is inactivated by heat treatment at 60 °C for 30 min and by many
solvents that disrupt lipid bilayers and by commercial disinfectants." 1212 Furthermore, the cited
scientific opinion indicates that "In products prepared by curing, such as Parma ham, viral
infectivity was not demonstrated in ham 300 days after processing and curing. … The virus
survived for 140 days in Iberian and Serrano hams and for 112 days in loin." 1213 The scientific
opinion concludes that no "infectious ASFV has been found in cooked or canned hams when
processed at 70°C."1214
7.883. We further note that based on the evidence on record, Russia accepted certain forms of
processing for allowi ng the imports of specific products originating from the European Union's
territory outside the four affected EU member States, and, for the period between
6 February 20141215 and 7 April 2014, 1216 also from areas within Lithuania and Poland. Such
categories of processing are (i) thermal treatment in a hermetically sealed container with index
F0 3,001217; (ii) thermal treatment at a minimum temperature of 80°C which should be provided
over the entire layer of the meat; (iii) thermal treatment in a hermetically seale d container at
60°C during minimum of 4 hours, while the temperature in the centre should be kept during
30 minutes at a minimum of 700C; (iv) natural fermentation and maturation within the time of not
less than 9 months for boneless meat, thereby achievin g the following indicators: Aw not more

1209 OIE response to Panel questions No. 2, 8 and 9.
1210 Expert responses to Panel Questions 16 and 17. The OIE indicated that the OIE had decided to
update Chapter 15.2 Classical swine fever (CSF) then use this revised text as a model for the review of Chapter
15.1, taking account of the similarities in the epidemiology of the two diseases while respecting the specific
features of each one. Chapter 15.2 contains specific articles on the requirements for the inactivation of CSF in
swill (Article 15.2.22), in meat (Article 15.2.23), in casings and in skins and trophies (19). Consistent with this
approach and recognising the need for Chapter 15.1 to contain more specific information on the inactivation of
ASFV by processing, the ad hoc expert Group on African swine fever, which met in April 2014 recommended
certain modifications and a draft revised text was distributed to Member Countries by the TAHSC in February
2015 (submitted to the Panel as Annex 1 to the OIE responses). The OIE clarified that this draft text is a
proposal of an elected Commission but does not have the status of a standard at this time. Member Countries
submitted extensive comments on the draft and the final wording of the adopted text cannot be predicted.
However, the OIE indicated, it is expected that the revised Chapter 15.1 will contain specific recommendations
on the inactivation of African swine fever virus, including in swill and in meat. The ad hoc Group on African
swine fever reported that there is limited scientific information on the inactivation of the virus and that more
research is needed on this topic. Information from a 2010 report of the European Food Safety Agency was used
in the development of these recommendations (20). OIE Member Countries are encouraged to provide
additional scientific evidence to assist in refining the proposals in the draft revised text circulated in February
2015.
1211 Dr Thomson, Transcript, paras. 1.387 and Dr Brückner, Transcript, para. 1.388.
1212 2010 EFSA Scientific Opinion (Exhibit EU-24), p. 11.
1213 2010 EFSA Scientific Opinion (Exhibit EU-24), p. 12.
1214 2010 EFSA Scientific Opinion (Exhibit EU-24), p. 12.
1215 Russia's letter to the European Union of 5 February 2014, FS-EN-8/1642 (Exhibit EU-162).
1216 Exhibits EU-10, EU-11 and EU-168.
1217 (F0 – calculated damaging effect on bacterial spores. F0 = 3 means that the coldest point of the
product was heated enough to get the same damaging effect achieved with the help of immediate heating and
cooling (1210C (2500F) in 3 minutes).

than 0,93 or pH not more than 6 .0; and (v) for ham and fillets, treatment using natural
fermentation and maturing during minimum 190 days for ham and 140 days for fillets.1218
7.884. The second requirement laid down by the standards is that the necessary precautions were
taken after processing to avoid contact of the product with any source of ASFV.
7.6.1.3.4 Whether the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland "conform to" the relevant international standards
7.885. We recall that the panel in India – Agricultural Products examined first whether India's
measures were "based on" the international standard before going into the question of whether
they conformed to such a standard. That panel consi dered this to be the appropriate order of
analysis under Article 3 of the SPS Agreement because the "based on" threshold in Article 3.1 is
lower than the "conform to" threshold in Article 3.2. 1219 In our view, this approach is not
appropriate in these proceedings.
7.886. We consider that it is appropriate for us to first examine the more stringent "conform to"
threshold. As we have explained above, a challenged measure may be "based on" the international
standard with respect to one element, but not with respect to a nother element. This, however,
does not hold true in respect of a challenged measure "conforming to" the same international
standard. The Appellate Body's guidance is very clear in indicating that a measure that conforms
to an international standard would embody the international standard completely, and, for
practical purposes, convert it into a municipal standard.1220
7.887. We therefore consider that it is most appropriate for us to first examine whether the
import bans on the products at issue from Estonia, Latv ia, Lithuania, and Poland "conform to" the
international standards contained in the Terrestrial Code . If they are found not to conform to the
standards, we would proceed to examine whether such measures are "based on" those standards.
We turn to the first of these questions.
7.888. Prior panels and the Appellate Body have not been called upon to delve in detail into the
meaning of "conform[ity] to" the relevant international standard for the purposes of Article 3.2 of
the SPS Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of A rticle 3.2, a finding that Russia's measures
"conform to" relevant international standards would establish a presumption of consistency of
Russia's measures with its relevant SPS obligations, and thus would have implications for this
Panel's disposition of other claims in this dispute. Should we find "conformity to", as we
understand that this presumption is "rebuttable" 1221, we would further need to consider how to
assess whether or not this presumption has been rebutted in respect of each of the relevant
provisions. In this respect, Russia asserts that, as the bans on the products at issue from Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland conform to the Terrestrial Code, they benefit from a presumption of
consistency with the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreemen t pursuant to Article 3.2, which
Russia identifies as Articles 2.2, 2.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3. 1222 The European Union
posits that the relevant provisions, closely related to the subject in an appropriate way, are those
related to risk assessme nt and scientific evidence, but not to discrimination. 1223 The parties thus
agree that SPS provisions relating to discrimination would not be classified as "relevant" in this
context.
7.889. On their face, none of the bans on the imports of the products at issue fro m Estonia1224,
Latvia1225, Lithuania1226, and Poland 1227 embody the relevant international standards contained in

1218 Russia's letter to the European Union of 5 February 2014, FS-EN-8/1642 (Exhibit EU-162).
1219 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.203.
1220 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 170. See Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products,
paras. 7.197 and 7.202.
1221 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 170.
1222 Russia's first written submission, para. 216.
1223 European Union's response to Panel question No. 118, paras. 237 – 239.
1224 G/SPS/N/RUS/76 (Exhibit EU-13) and Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to DG SANCO, FS-
NV-8/17431, 11 September 2015 (Exhibit RUS-37).
1225 G/SPS/N/RUS/64 (Exhibit EU-12) and Russia's letter of instruction of 27 June 2014, FS-NF-8/11315
(Exhibit EU-169).

the Terrestrial Code applicable to both treated and non -treated pig products. While the provisions
of Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code contain specifi c recommendations as to how safe trade can
happen in respect of certain pig products, the measures applicable to the four affected
EU member States provide bans on the imports of most of those products. For example, whereas
Article 15.1.15 would permit im ports of pig products for use in animal feeding if these have been
processed so as to ensure the destruction of the ASFV, Russia applies an unconditional ban on
these products. Similarly, Article 15.1.16 would permit imports of bristles from an ASF -free zone
subject to processing to destroy the ASFV, but these are unconditionally banned by Russia. In our
view, the challenged measures cannot be construed as embodying the relevant international
standards.
7.890. Based on the foregoing, we find that the import bans on the products at issue from
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland do not conform to the relevant international standards
contained in the Terrestrial Code, and thus are inconsistent with Article 3.2 of the SPS Agreement.
7.6.1.3.5 Whether the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland are "based on" the relevant international standards
7.6.1.3.5.1 Introduction
7.891. We recall the distinction that we have identified in Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code in
respect of the standards applicable to treated and non-treated products. Based on that distinction,
we will undertake an independent examination on whether the bans on the imports of the products
at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are "based on" the standards applica ble to
each of those categories of products.
7.6.1.3.5.2 Treated products
7.892. In respect of the measures applied to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland , for treated
products, the European Union asserts that the relevant Terrestrial Code provisions
(Articles 15.1.14 th rough 16) permit trading of pork products that have been processed in an
approved establishment so as to ensure the destruction of the ASFV. To the extent that Russia's
measures ban the importation of products addressed in Articles 15.1.14 through 16 from Estonia,
Latvia Lithuania and Poland, regardless of whether they have been subject to any form of
treatment, they are in contradiction of the relevant international standards contained in the
Terrestrial Code. Thus, they are not in conformity with these standards.1228
7.893. According to Russia, its measures "conform to" the Terrestrial Code. The exporting country
bears the burden of demonstrating that the necessary precautions were taken, which the European
Union has failed to do in respect of exports from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.1229 Russia
further asserts that it is able to accept products from ASF -infected countries that meet
OIE-consistent regionalization, compartmentalization and/or heat-treated standards.1230
7.894. The issue before the Panel is whether Rus sia's bans on treated products from Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland , are "based on" the relevant international standard in respect of
products processed so as to ensure destruction of ASFV.
7.895. When discerning the meaning of the international standards articulated in the relevant
Terrestrial Code provisions (Articles 15.1.14-.16),1231 we noted that those Articles envisage trading

1226 G/SPS/N/RUS/48 (Exhibit EU-7), G/SPS/N/RUS/48/Add.1 (Exhibit EU-8), G/SPS/N/RUS/48/Add.2
(Exhibit EU-10), Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to DG SANCO, FS-EN-8/1023, 25 January 2015
(Exhibit RUS-28) and OIE WAHIS interface (Exhibit RUS-168).
1227 G/SPS/N/RUS/49 (Exhibit EU-9), G/SPS/N/RUS/49/Add.1 (Exhibit EU-11), Letter from Russian
Veterinary Service, FS-NV-8/2972, 27 February 2014 (Exhibit RUS-29) and OIE WAHIS interface
(Exhibit RUS-168).
1228 European Union's first written submission, paras. 132-135 and 140.
1229 Russia's opening statement at the first meeting of the Panel, para. 37; and second written
submission, para. 29.
1230 Russia's response to Panel question No. 115, para. 206;
1231 See section 7.6.1.3.3.2 above.

of pork products that have been processed in an approved establishment so as to ensure the
destruction of the ASFV. The provisio ns of the Terrestrial Code relating to the processing of
products indicate that the import recommendations are not related to the ASF status of a
particular country, zone, or compartment, but rather to the certification that an adequate
processing method h as been undertaken to ensure destruction of ASFV. These provisions foresee
that importation should be permitted if requisite processing has been undertaken and certified. As
mentioned above, the Panel's experts have indicated that an internal temperature o f 70° C would
achieve this and should lead to acceptance of such heat-treated products.1232
7.896. In contrast, Russia imposed general import bans on treated products from Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland.1233 Furthermore, Russia exempts from the import ban "finished feed for cats
and dogs" (Latvia, Lithuania and Poland) and synthesized feed additives and heat treated ready -
made feedstuffs (Estonia).1234.
7.897. Russia has questioned the effectiveness of the processing plants within the four affected
EU member States in ens uring the destruction of ASFV and in taking the necessary precautions
after processing to avoid contact of the product with any source of ASFV. 1235 The European Union
has rejected Russia's claim and provided certain information in that respect through a letter dated
4 April 2014.1236
7.898. We note that Article 15.1.14 of the Terrestrial Code established the processing
requirement to ensure destruction of ASFV of products made from fresh pork that are intended for
animal feeding (i.e. cat and dog food) and does not diff erentiate between these and heat -treated
products for human consumption with regard to virus inactivation. The same is true with respect to
Article 15.1.15 for products not made from fresh pork. Dr Brückner and Professor Penrith
confirmed that there would be no reason for the heat treatment to differ in respect of pet feed. 1237
Russia has provided no justification for accepting the adequacy of the heat -treatment for certain
products, while at the same time excluding the importation of the other heat -treated products at
issue. Moreover, we recall that between 6 February 2014 and 7 April 2014, Russia accepted the
imports of treated products from Lithuania and Poland, even when there had been ASF outbreaks
in the territory of these EU member States.1238
7.899. Processing ad equate to ensure the destruction of ASFV should permit safe international
trade in the products concerned pursuant to the relevant international standards, rather than the
imposition of an import ban. However, to the extent that Russia's measures at issue ban the
products addressed in Articles 15.1.14 through 16, they depart fundamentally from the relevant
international standards. In our view, this constitutes a contradiction, which according to the
applicable legal test would lead to the conclusion that the international standard has not been used
"as a basis for" the challenged measures.
7.900. Based on the foregoing we find that the bans on the imports of the products at issue from
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, to the extent they apply to treated products, are not "based
on" the relevant international standards and are thus inconsistent with Article 3.1 of the
SPS Agreement.
7.6.1.3.5.3 Non- treated products
7.901. The European Union argues that the bans imposed on the products at issue contradict the
relevant provisions of the Terrestrial Code, and therefore do not conform to the relevant
international standards.1239

1232 Transcript, paras. 1.387 – 1.388.
1233 See para. 7.889 above. Also note that, as described in para. 7.883, in the period between
6 February 2014 and 7 April 2014, Russia accepted imports of treated products from Lithuania and Poland.
1234 As indicated in Tables 1 and 4 above.
1235 Russia's second written submission, para. 29. See also Exhibit RUS-209.
1236 See Exhibit RUS-56.
1237 Reference to Expert responses to Panel question 17.
1238 See para. 7.871 above. See Exhibits EU-162 and EU-10, EU-11, and EU-168.
1239 European Union’s first written submission, paras. 126, 131, 133-138, and 140.

7.902. Russia argues that it has objectively rejected the ASF -free zones claimed by the
European Union to exist, relying on the relevant provisions of the Terrestrial Code. Russia argues
that its measures at issue are based on the relevant international standards.1240
7.903. As a result of our examination of the meaning of the relevant international standards
applicable to non-treated products, we come to the conclusion that bef ore comparing the bans on
the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland with those
standards for the purposes of determining whether those measure are "based on" them, we
consider that it is appropriate and instructive fo r us to turn to our examination of the European
Union's claims under Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.
7.904. We consider this approach to be appropriate in the circumstances of the present case,
where our conclusions under Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement will hav e no impact on the
complainant's burden of proof in respect of claims brought under other provisions of the SPS
Agreement (i.e. Article 6). We recall our finding that the bans on the imports of the products at
issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Pol and do not "conform to" the relevant international
standards. In that context, we are not barred from following this approach. That would not be the
case when a panel is examining a justification that the challenged measures "conform to" the
relevant inter national standard pursuant to Article 3.2, because an affirmative finding of such
justification would raise a presumption of consistency with the relevant provisions of the
SPS Agreement and of the GATT 1994.1241
7.905. Therefore, we will suspend our analysis of the parties' claims under Article 3 in respect of
the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, to the
extent they apply to non-treated products, being "based on" the international standards applicable
to non -treated products, with a view to informing our analysis through an examination of such
measures under Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. Following our analysis of the consistency of the
bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuani a, and Poland with
Article 6, we will resume our analysis of whether those measures, to the extent they apply to non -
treated products, are "based on" the relevant international standards applicable to non -treated
products and provide our findings in that r espect. We now turn to examine the European Union's
claims under Article 6 in respect of the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
7.6.2 Claims under Articles 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 of the SPS Agreement
7.6.2.1 Main arguments of the parties
7.6.2.1.1 European Union
7.906. The European Union claims that the bans on the imports of the products at issue from
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are inconsistent with Articles 6.1 and 6.2, because Russia
has not ensured, and does not ensure, th at the measures at issue are adapted to the sanitary
characteristics of the area from which the products at issue originate and to which they are
destined. The European Union further contends that these measures fail to take into account, inter
alia, the level of prevalence or absence of ASF, the existence of eradication and control programs
(immediately implemented in accordance with international standards laid down by the OIE), and
appropriate criteria or guidelines developed by the relevant international organizations.1242
7.907. Regarding the first sentence of Article 6.2, the European Union argues that Russia failed to
recognize the concepts of disease -free areas with respect to ASF in the European Union. 1243 The
European Union claims that this is evidenced by Russ ia's application of four indiscriminate bans on
the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. 1244 With respect to the second
sentence of Article 6.2, the European Union further argues that these bans were applied without
taking into accou nt relevant factors such as geography, ecosystems, epidemiological surveillance

1240 Russia's first written submission, paras. 78-79, and 214.
1241 See Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, paras. 102 and 170.
1242 European Union's first written submission, para. 216.
1243 European Union's first written submission, para. 215.
1244 European Union's first written submission, para. 210.

and the effectiveness of sanitary controls. 1245 The European Union claims that given its large
geographical territory, the geographical factor must be taken into account and highl ights its
control measures in this regard. The European Union outlines the various steps taken to control
ASF in live pigs and wild boars.1246
7.908. The European Union submits that with respect to Article 6.3, it has provided Russia with
information beyond what is necessary for objectively demonstrating that disease -free areas or
areas of low disease prevalence are and are likely to remain disease -free areas or areas of low
disease prevalence, respectively.1247
7.6.2.1.2 Russia
7.909. Russia's defence in respect of the bans on the impo rts of the products at issue from
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland is premised on compliance with Articles 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 1248
because of its objective decision not to recognize the various European Union zones, based on the
appropriate Terrestrial Code benchmarks and the more general criteria outlined in Article 6 of the
SPS Agreement. 1249 According to Russia, the Panel should examine if Russia's decision not to
recognize the European Union's zones is objectively justifiable, rather than engaging in a de novo
examination of that decision. 1250 Russia argues that the conformity of the bans on the imports of
the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland with the Terrestrial Code (as
provided for under Article 3.2) vests them with a presumptio n of consistency, which the European
Union has failed to rebut.1251
7.910. In the alternative, Russia argues that the European Union failed to act consistently with
the provisions set out in Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement in relation to the requested recognition
of zones, and as a consequence is unable to establish that Russia acted inconsistently with
Articles 6.1 and 6.2 of the SPS Agreement.1252
7.911. Russia also posits that independently of Article 6.3, the European Union failed to
demonstrate that Russia violates Art icle 6.2, because, among other things, Russia has in place
laws (e.g. CU Decision No. 317 and the 2006 Memorandum) that explicitly recognize the concept
of regionalization.1253
7.6.2.2 Main arguments of the third parties
7.6.2.2.1 Australia
7.912. Australia asserts that it agrees wit h Russia that the first sentence of Article 6.2 of the
SPS Agreement requires only the recognition of the concept of "pest- or disease-free areas and
areas of low pest or disease prevalence". Australia however, also stresses that the
"Appellate Body [sic] in India - Agricultural Products went on to find '… in our view, to comply with
Article 6.2, SPS measures adopted by WTO Members must at a minimum not deny or contradict
the recognition of the concepts of such areas when these concepts are relevant with re spect to the
disease at issue'".1254

1245 European Union's first written submission, para. 210.
1246 European Union's first written submission, paras. 211-214.
1247 European Union's first written submission, para. 218.
1248 Russia's second written submission, paras. 50-56. Russia contends that any objective assessment of
an ASF-free zone, consistent with the factors identified in Articles 6.1 and 6.2 of the SPS Agreement, would
have to include the assessment of the zoning principles as set out in the Terrestrial Code Article 4.3.3 as well
as the related principles in Article 5.3.7.
1249 Russia's second written submission, para. 127.
1250 Russia's second written submission, para. 49.
1251 Russia's second written submission, paras. 128-129. See also response to Panel question No. 118,
paras. 215-224.
1252 Russia's second written submission, paras. 130-132.
1253 Russia's second written submission, paras. 133-141.
1254 Australia's third-party submission, para. 19 (citing Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para.
7.698 (not yet adopted at the time of the filing of the submission)).

7.913. Australia emphasizes that it will be necessary for the Panel to determine whether Russia's
measures, notified or otherwise, operate in a manner such as to deny or contradict the recognition
of such areas. Such a finding may be informed by the Panel 's other findings under Article 3 and
Article 5 of the SPS Agreement.1255
7.6.2.2.2 Brazil
7.914. Brazil argues that the main question under discussion in this topic is whether it is possible
to rightfully impose an import prohibition (country and/ or EU-wide ban) if the importing Member
considers that the measures adopted by the exporting Member were not sufficient to establish
disease- or pest-free zones or compartments.1256
7.915. Brazil asserts that adaptation to regional conditions in the context of Artic le 6.1 of the
SPS Agreement entails taking into account, inter alia, appropriate criteria or guidelines which may
be developed by the relevant international organizations.1257
7.916. Brazil argues that a Member has the right to consider that the measures adopted by
another Member are not satisfactory for the determination of the containment zone, if (i) there
was no conformity with the standard in the sense of Article 3.2 or (ii) the level of protection sought
by the importing Member is higher than the one establishe d by the standard. In Brazil's view, if an
importing Member considers that the measures adopted by the exporting Member do not conform
to the international standard in the sense that the measures adopted do not "embody the
international standard completely", then there could be a basis for the establishment of an import
prohibition. On the other hand, a Member may choose to adopt a higher level of protection and
decide that the mechanism established by the exporting country is not sufficient according to it s
own appropriate level of protection. Brazil points out that if this is the case, a risk assessment to
provide scientific justification must be elaborated to justify the SPS measure.1258
7.6.2.2.3 Norway
7.917. Norway argues that in examining the claims relating to regionali zation, the Panel should
first assess whether Russia properly has recognized the concepts of pest - or disease-free areas
and areas of low pest or disease prevalence, and whether any determination of such areas is
based on relevant factors, including geogra phy, ecosystems, epidemiological surveillance, and the
effectiveness of sanitary and phytosanitary control. Second, the panel should assess whether
Russia has ensured that the measures at issue in this case are adapted to the SPS characteristics
of the affected area, as set out in Article 6.1. According to the second sentence of this provision, it
should be considered whether Russia in its assessment of the SPS characteristics of a region has
taken into account relevant factors, such as the level of prevale nce of African Swine Fever, the
existence of eradication and control programmes, and appropriate criteria or guidelines developed
by the relevant international organizations.
7.918. Norway emphasized that that a finding that the respondent party has not recognize d the
concepts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence, will lead to a
finding that this party has not ensured that its measures are adapted to the SPS characteristics of
the those areas pursuant to the first sentence of Article 6.1, and that conversely, where there is a
finding that the respondent party has recognised these concepts, a consideration must be
undertaken, of whether this party has ensured that its measures are adapted to the
SPS characteristics of the affect ed areas and whether it took into account relevant factors when
assessing the SPS characteristics of a region, consistent with Article 6.1.1259
7.6.2.2.4 United States
7.919. The United States argues that the provisions of Article 6 contain separate but inter -related
obligations that must be read together in context. The United States emphasizes that while the

1255 Australia's third-party submission, para. 20.
1256 Brazil's third-party submission, para. 4.
1257 Brazil's third-party submission, para. 5.
1258 Brazil's third-party submission, paras. 7-9.
1259 Norway's third-party submission, paras. 27-30.

first sentence of Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement imposes an obligation with respect to measures,
the first sentence of Article 6.2 requires recognition of concepts, i. e. pest- or disease-free areas
and areas of low pest or disease prevalence.1260
7.920. The United States highlights that neither the obligations in the first sentence of Article
6.2 of the SPS Agre ement, nor those in Article 6.1, arise only following a request under Article
6.3 to recognize a specific area as a pest - or disease -free area or area of low pest or disease
prevalence.1261
7.6.2.3 Analysis by the Panel
7.6.2.3.1 Introduction
7.921. The issues before the Panel are whether Russia's bans on the imports of the products at
issue from Esto nia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are consistent with Articles 6.1 and 6.2 of the
SPS Agreement, and whether the European Union has satisfied the requirements of Article 6.3 of
the SPS Agreement.
7.922. In section 7.5.3.2 above, we h ave examined the text of Articles 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 of the
SPS Agreement, the relationship between these provisions, the order in which to analyse them,
and the legal test corresponding to each of these provisions. We then examined the EU -wide ban
in light of the guidance identified in those sections. To avoid unnecessary repetition, we will not
replicate the general guidance on which we will base our assessment of the bans on the imports of
the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Rather, we will include cross -
references to the relevant sections and findings, when necessary.
7.923. We recall that as explained i n paragraph 7.365 above that it may be difficult for any
exporting country to seek recognition of a disease-free area in the absence of a regulatory scheme
in the importing country that permits the recognition of such a concept. Similar to the analytical
process the Panel undertook in that section of the report , the Panel will first examine whether
Russia recognizes the concept of disease -free areas within the meaning of Article 6.2 of the
SPS Agreement. Should we find that Russia recognizes such a concept, we will proceed to examine
whether the European Union provided the necessary evidence thereof in ord er to objectively
demonstrate to Russia that such areas are, and are likely to remain, pest - or disease -free in
accordance with Article 6.3. Informed by the Panel's findings on this issue, we will continue by
considering whether Russia complied with the ob ligation in Article 6.1 to ensure the adaptation of
its measures to the SPS characteristics of the area from which the products originated and to
which they are destined.
7.6.2.3.2 Whether Russia recognizes the concept of pest – or disease -free areas and
areas of low pest or disease prevalence pursuant to the first sentence of Article 6.2
7.924. In section 7.5.2.3.4 above we examined this question in respect of the EU -wide ban. Our
reasoning in that section is grounded on the recognition of the concepts foreseen in the first
sentence of Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement. As part of our analysis, we addressed the European
Union's argument that the recognition of such concepts may not be done in the abstract, but
rather that it requires such recognition in the application of the challenged SPS measure.
7.925. The result of our analysis led us to find that Russia recognizes the concepts mentioned in
Article 6.2 in respect of ASF, and as a consequence the EU -wide ban is not inconsistent with
Russia's obligat ions under Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement. We consider that such finding is
equally applicable with respect to the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. We therefore find that such measures are not inco nsistent with
Russia's obligations under Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement.

1260 United States' third-party submission, paras. 3-6.
1261 United States' third-party submission, paras. 7-11.

7.926. Following this finding we turn to examine the European Union's compliance with the
provisions of Article 6.3 in order to have findings that will inform our analysis of Russia's
obligations under Article 6.1.
7.6.2.3.3 Whether the European Union objectively demonstrated that there are disease -
free areas or areas of low disease prevalence within the territory of Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland, pursuant to Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement
7.6.2.3.3.1 Introduction
7.927. The European Union argues that since the detection of ASF in wild boar in Lithuania in
January 2014 the European Union has provided Russia information which it considers as beyond
what is necessary for objectively demonstrating that disease -free areas or areas of low disease
prevalence are, and are likely to remain , disease-free areas or areas of low disease prevalence,
respectively.1262 The European Union contends that it has provided in a timely manner all the
necessary information with respect to its ASF regionalization measures in Lithuania, Poland, Latvia
and Estonia, to objectively demonstrate to Russia that the rest of these EU member States and the
rest of the European Union, except Sardinia, are and are likely to remain disease-free areas; and
that reasonable access has been given to Russia for inspection, testing and other relevant
procedures. The European Union asserts that Russia failed to conclude its recognition process
without undue delays, in violation of its obligations under Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.1263
7.928. The European Union opines that under Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, an importing
Member is under no obligation to automatically accept a regionalization proposal from the
exporting Member. However, its decision must take int o account objective factors such as those
enunciated in the second sentence of Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement: geography, ecosystems,
epidemiological surveillance and the effectiveness of sanitary controls, and that in case of
disagreement between the importing and the exporting Members, the exporting Member can refer
the dispute to the WTO adjudicating bodies. According to the European Union, a Panel presented
with such a case has the duty to make an objective assessment of the matter before it according
to Article 11 of the DSU.1264
7.929. Russia argues that the European Union has failed to objectively demonstrate to Russia that
the alleged ASF-free areas in the four affected EU m ember States " are, and are likely to remain,
pest- or disease-free areas", in accord ance with Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement. 1265 In Russia's
view, the European Union has failed to effectively establish ASF containment zones in accordance
with the OIE guidelines and as such, the European Union has failed to demonstrate that ASF-free
regions "are and are likely to remain, pest - or disease-free areas," and the entirety of the four
affected EU m ember States should be considered ASF -infected.1266 Russia argues that the
European Union failed to provide timely, comprehensive and accurate information relevant for
assessing its zones and its ASF -control measures, in a manner inconsistent with Article 6.3 of the
SPS Agreement and Terrestrial Code Article 5.3.7. Russia also indicates that the European Union's
legal framework is relevant as a theoretical matter and is similar to Russia's legislation, however, it
does not contain information about the effectiveness or the extent to which the ASF control
measures described therein have been implemented. 1267 Furthermore, the European Union
withheld national erad ication plans from Russia, until March 2015 and May 2015 despite
acknowledging that these reports contained highly relevant information.1268
7.6.2.3.3.2 Legal test
7.930. In section 7.5.2.3.5.2 above we explained the legal test applicable to our exa mination of
the European Union's claims under A rticle 6.3 of the SPS Agreement. As explained below, we will
follow the same legal test in our examination of the European Union's claims under Article 6.3 in

1262 European Union's first written submission, paras. 218 and 219 - 232.
1263 European Union's first written submission, para. 236.
1264 European Union's response to Panel question No. 112, paras. 219-220.
1265 Russia's first written submission, para. 236.
1266 Russia's first written submission, para. 237.
1267 Russia's comments to the European Union's response to Panel question No. 322, para. 193.
1268 See Russia's second written submission, paras. 58-77.

respect of the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Poland. We recall that this examination referred to the assessment of what is the necessary
evidence to objectively demonstrate both the existence of ASF -free areas and that those areas are
likely to remain so . In our view, the differences in the ASF situation in each of the four affected
EU member States, as well as in the type of information that the European Union provided in
respect of each of the affected EU member States, justify that we examine the infor mation
provided by the European Union to Russia separately in respect of each of the four affected
EU member States. We recall that some of the categories of information are common to the four
affected EU member States. Therefore, we will address the categ ories of common information
where relevant and indicate when we will pursue our assessment specific to each of the four
EU member States.
7.6.2.3.3.3 Information provided by the European Union to Russia from January 2014
7.931. In section 7.5.2.3.5.3 above we provide a detailed account of the information, according to
what is on record, which the European Union provided to Russia from January 2014. This
information, together with other relevant exhibits on record, is the basis for the assessment that
we undertake in respect of whether the European Union provided to Russia the necessary evidence
to objectively demonstrate that there are areas within Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland free
of ASF and likely to remain so. In the next section we undertake such an examination.
7.6.2.3.3.4 Panel's assessment of the evidence provided by the European Union to
Russia
Introduction
7.932. In paragraph 7.395 above, we indicated that among the "necessary evidence" required to
"objectively demonstrate" the disease status in a particular area, pursuant to Article 6.3 of the
SPS Agreement, a Member should provide evidence of (i) geography; (ii) ecosystems; (iii)
epidemiological surveillance; (iv) effectiveness of sanitary or phytosanitary 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. We also noted that t his is an illustrative list, and that these elements
are not cumulative. Furthermore, some of these elements are interrelated. For example,
geography may not be a relevant factor in the spread of all pests or diseases, and control and
eradication programmes are relevant only when a particular disease is known to exist within an
area. At the same time, the level of prevalence of a specific disease can only be established
through effective surveillance programmes.
7.933. We recall that the preceding categories and t he amount of evidence that a Member should
present in support of the disease status of a particular area needs to be determined on a case -by-
case basis. Therefore, before examining to what extent the European Union provided evidence in
respect of each of these categories, we will review certain aspects relevant to this dispute that will
enable us to identify in a manner more specific to this dispute the clusters of information the
European Union should have provided to Russia in order to objectively demonst rate that there are
areas within its territory free of ASF and likely to remain so.
7.934. A particularly relevant aspect of what categories of evidence are germane to a particular
dispute has to do with the nature of the disease and the type of characteristics that an exporting
Member is claiming to prevail within an area of its territory. The European Union claims that it has
objectively demonstrated that an area within its territory is free of ASF and is likely to remain
so.1269 In section 7.5.2.3.5.4 we analysed the information that the European Union provided in
support of the absence of ASF in those areas of the European Union outside Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland (those EU member States affected with ASF outbreaks througho ut 2014). In
this section we will focus our examination on the alleged ASF-free character of certain areas within
those EU member States affected with ASF.

1269 European Union's opening statement at the second meeting of the Panel, paras. 46-54.

7.935. The difference in approach is primarily based on the distinct geographic scope of
application of the challenged measures. In our view, the EU -wide ban, following the imposition of
the ban on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland, is not
applicable to the imports of the products at issue from those territories. In this vein, we consider
that the most appropriate analytical approach in considering the situation as at 11 September
2014, is to separately examine the "necessary evidence" that the European Union should have
submitted to Russia to "objectively demonstrat e" that there are areas within the four affected
EU member States that are disease -free and likely to remain so. To do this, we will take into
account that among the SPS characteristics of certain parts in the countries where the areas under
examination are located is the presence of ASF.
7.936. We recall that according to the definition of pest - or disease-free area in paragraph 6 o f
Annex A of the SPS Agreement
a pest- or disease-free area may surround, be surround ed by, or be adjacent to an
area – whether within part of a country or in a geographic region which includes parts
of all of several countries – in which a specific pest or disease is known to occur but is
subject to regional control measures such as the establishment of protection,
surveillance and b uffer zones which will confine or eradicate the pest or disease in
question.
7.937. We will keep in mind in pursuing our examination of whether the European Union provided
to Russia the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate the existence of ASF-free areas within
each of the affected EU member States and that those areas are likely to remain ASF -free. In
particular, we note that pursuant to this definition of a disease-free area, the presence of a disease
in the territory of a country does not imply the im possibility of establishing disease free areas that
surround, are surrounded by, or are adjacent to an area in which a specific disease is known to
occur but is subject to control measures.
7.938. In paragraph 7.404 above, we describe d the type of evidence that the European Union
should provide to Russia in respect of demonstrating two aspects of the ASF -status of areas within
its territory. The first type of evidence refers to those areas being ASF -free. The second refers to
the likel ihood of those areas remaining free of ASF. We find guidance in those observations to
engage in our assessment of what is the necessary evidence the European Union should have
provided to Russia to objectively demonstrate the existence of ASF-free areas, which are likely to
remain so, within the territories of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
7.939. Based on the foregoing, we consider that the European Union should have provided to
Russia necessary evidence in respect of (i) geography; (ii) epidemiological surveillance of ASF;
(iii) the effectiveness of sanitary or phytosanitary controls in respect of ASF; (iv) regarding
ecosystems, in particular the presence of ASF in wildlife and the patter ns of behavioural ecology in
wildlife; (v) the level of prevalence of ASF; and (vi) the existence of eradication or control
programmes. Furthermore, the information provided by the European Union to Russia in respect of
these categories should objectively demonstrate that there are ASF -free areas within each of the
four affected EU member States.
7.940. In paragraphs 7.412 and 7.413 above we identified the categories of necessary evidence
that the European Union should have provided to Russia to objectively demonstrate tha t ASF-free
areas are likely to remain so. These categories include the necessary evidence in respect of the
effectiveness of its control measures on ASF (including information on their effectiveness in the
real world). For this purpose, we will address the information provided on: (i) the surveillance
programme; (ii) diagnostic analysis; (iii) measures for early detection and response , including
movement control; and (iv) eradication of the disease.
7.941. We are mindful of the difference in time in respect of the occurrence of ASF outbreaks in
the four affected EU member States. We recall that the first outbreak in Lithuania was confirmed
on 24 January 20141270, the first outbreak in Poland was confirmed on 17 February 20141271, the

1270 Communication of 24 January 2014: African swine fever (ASF) in two wild boars in Lithuania, in
Salcininkai and Varena Regions, at the border with Belarus (Exhibit EU-132). See also ASF cases in the

first outbreak in Latvia was confirmed on 26 June 20141272, and the first outbreak in Estonia was
confirmed on 8 September 2014.1273 We also recall our observation in respect of our analysis of
the European Union's obligation under Article 6.3 with respect to the EU -wide ban, that we would
examine the European Union's obligation in the time -frame between the adoption of the EU -wide
ban and the cut-off date of 11 September 2014.1274 We have examined each measure individually.
Moreover, in the particular circumstances of this case and in light of the tem poral considerations
we have outlined above 1275, we have decided to undertake a composite and progressive
examination of the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
and Poland. Where relevant, we will refer to particular information pertaining to each one of the
four affected EU member States.
Assessment of common evidentiary elements regarding the ASF -free areas within
the four affected EU member States
7.942. The first type of information relates to geography. In our view, this category includes
information relative to the place where the outbreaks of ASF have occurred, as well as to any
other relevant geographic features of the territories which are claimed to be free of ASF.
7.943. According to the evidence on record, between 24 Janu ary 2014 and 27 June 2014, the
European Union sent Russia's Permanent Mission in Brussels communications reporting the
occurrence of new ASF outbreaks in the affected EU member States. 1276 Attached to those
communications, the European Union usually sent the reports received from the national
veterinary authorities of the respective EU member State. Most of those reports included detailed
geographic information in respect of the site where the outbreaks occurred.
7.944. In addition, the European Union informed Russia 's Permanent Mission in Brussels of the
Commission Implementing Decisions that were adopted to adjust the existing protection and
surveillance zones to the geographical scope of the new outbreaks that occurred within each of the
four affected EU member States.1277
7.945. Attached to the letter of 7 February 2014, the European Union provided Russia with the
2010 EFSA scientific opinion on ASF. This document contains information relevant to
understanding the geographic situation of the four affected EU member States.1278
7.946. Moreover, as we have already explained 1279, the veterinary authorities in the EU member
States constantly report the occurrence of any outbreak to the OIE in order for such information to
be included in the weekly follow up reports of the OIE WAHIS database. The information published

European Union notified to the OIE (Exhibit EU-118) and Data from OIE WAHIS Interface, as of 31 August
2015 (Exhibit RUS-296 revised).
1271 Communication of 17 February 2014: African swine fever (ASF) confirmed in Poland in a wild boar
found 900 meters from the border with Belarus (Exhibit EU-136). See also ASF cases in the European Union
notified to the OIE (Exhibit EU-118) and Data from OIE WAHIS Interface, as of 31 August 2015 (Exhibit
RUS-296 revised). The report to the OIE indicates that the event started on 13 February 2014 and was
confirmed on 17 February 2014. See Follow-up report No.6, Reference OIE: 15045, Report Date: 31/03/2014,
Country: Poland (Exhibit EU-152).
1272 Communication of 26 June 2014: African swine fever (ASF) detection in Latvia (Exhibit EU-147). See
also ASF cases in the European Union notified to the OIE (Exhibit EU-118) and Data from OIE WAHIS Interface,
as of 31 August 2015 (Exhibit RUS-296 revised). The report to the OIE indicates the event started on 25 June
2014 and was confirmed on 26 June 2014. See Follow-up report No.34, Reference OIE: 17579, Report Date:
22/04/2015, Country: Latvia (Exhibit EU-153).
1273 See also ASF cases in the European Union notified to the OIE (Exhibit EU-118) and Data from OIE
WAHIS Interface, as of 31 August 2015 (Exhibit RUS-296 revised). The report to the OIE indicates the event
started on 2 September 2014 and was confirmed on 8 September 2014. See Follow-up report No.43,
Reference OIE : 17604, Report Date: 28/04/2015, Country: Estonia (Exhibit EU-155).
1274 See section 7.3.6 above.
1275 See section 7.3.6 above.
1276 See Exhibits EU-132, EU-133, EU-134, EU-135, EU-136, EU-137, EU-138, EU-139, EU-140, EU-141,
EU-142, RUS-30, EU-143, EU-144, EU-145, EU-146, EU-147, EU-148, EU-206, EU-186, EU-207, EU-208, EU-
209, EU-210, EU-187, RUS-326, RUS-327, RUS-328, EU-177, EU-211, and EU-212.
1277 See Exhibits EU-33-EU-44. See also Appendix 1 below for a description of other communications.
1278 2010 EFSA Scientific Opinion (Exhibit EU-24).
1279 See para. 7.425 above.

in this database includes information on the place where the reported outbreaks have occurred, as
well as maps on the location of these sites.1280
7.947. The European Union also provided to the Panel and to Russia, as an exhibit to its fir st
written submission, a compilation of maps indicating the changes in the ASF situation in the
European Union from 2007 to 2014. 1281 Furthermore, some of the other pieces of evidence
referred to below provide relevant information on the geographic si tuation in the four affected
EU member States.1282
7.948. In our view, the European Union provided ample evidence in respect of the geographic
situation of the disease in each of the four affected EU member States . This information included
constant updates that provided an understanding of the situation on the ground as it was evolving.
7.949. We have already examined evidence provided by the European Union to Russia in respect
of the second category of information, that is, epidemiological surveillance of ASF. Such
information refers to (i) the legal framework contained in Articles 3 and 18 of Council Directive
2002/60/EC; (ii) the European Union's ASF diagnostics manual (contained Commission Decision
2003/422/EC); (iii) an indication of the reliability of the European Union's no tifications through the
WAHIS information system to verify the ASF situation in the EU member States at any given point
in time; (iv) surveillance programmes approved for 2013 for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Poland; and (v) an indication of the type of active surveillance applied in the designated risk areas
in 2013 covering the four affected EU member States. 1283 After examining this evidence, we
concluded that the explanations and information provided by the European Union, sufficiently
demonstrate that the European Union has had in place appropriate ASF monitoring and
surveillance mechanisms. To further reinforce this conclusion, we recall that the European Union
complemented the information on the monitoring investigations conducted in the four affected
EU member States throughout 2014, through its letters to FSVPS 6 March 2014 1284,
13 March 20141285 and 13 June 2014.1286
7.950. The third category of evidence concerns the effectiveness of sanitary or phytosanitary
controls in respect of ASF. Regarding this cluster of in formation we have already referred to the
measures that the European Union adopted to prevent the introduction of ASF both in the affected
and the non -affected EU member States. 1287 Such measures include identification of pigs and
oversight of their movement (pursuant to Directive 2008/71/EC); regulations applicable to feeding
of animal products to pigs (including the prohibition of swill feeding); limitations on intra -EU trade
in live pigs; measures on the introduction into the European Union of personal cons ignments of
animal products; surveillance and inspection of food hygiene, including pig and wild boar products;
specific rules upon occurrence of ASF in EU member States (as provided in Council Directive
2002/60/EC); and measures to mitigate the risk of in troduction of ASF from neighbouring
countries. We also noted that in addition to these measures, the European Union provided
information in respect of contingency plans for infectious diseases and audits thereof. 1288 Finally,
we also noted that the European U nion has been keen to clarify and address situations that have
caused Russia concern in respect of the prevention of ASF.1289

1280 See Exhibits EU-152-156.
1281 African Swine Fever from 2007 to 2014, compilation by the European Commission of maps from OIE
(http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/docs/presentation_asf_en.pdf) (Exhibit EU-21).
1282 See, e.g. the eradication plans for Estonia (Exhibit EU-117), Latvia (Exhibit EU-116), Lithuania
(Exhibit EU-101) and Poland (Exhibit EU-102), which were provided to Russia in the course of the first months
of 2015.
1283 See paras. 7.430-7.435 above.
1284 European Union's letter to Russia of 6 March 2014, ARES(2014)601346,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh/(2014)630598 (Exhibit EU-86).
1285 European Union's letter to Russia of 13 March 2014, ARES(2014)709435,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014)745829 (Exhibit EU-91)
1286 European Union's letter to Russia of 13 June 2014, ARES(2014)1941949,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014)2038505 (Exhibit EU-94).
1287 See paras. 7.422-7.425 above.
1288 See para. 7.442 above.
1289 See para. 7.443 above.

7.951. In addition to such information, the European Union provided to Russia copies of the
contingency plans for Estonia 1290, Latvia 1291, Lithuan ia1292, and Poland 1293 through the letter of
21 May 2014.1294 Russia objects to the usefulness of these plans, as Russia argues that they are
not exclusively applicable to ASF but to other infectious diseases as well, and that they are not
updated.1295 Moreover, Russia considers the substance of the control measures described in the
contingency plans inadequate, as they fail to make reference to a wild boar reduction strategy and
a backyard farm elimination/reduction strategy. 1296 Russia also objects to the usefulness of these
plans as they do not constitute evidence of implementation of the measures in a timely, complete,
and effective manner in the event of an ASF outbreak. 1297 In this regard, Russia points to the
European Union's own audit reports regarding countries' prep aredness to implement contingency
plans, which raise significant doubts about the veterinary services' preparedness and capacity to
implement the measures set out in the contingency plans. 1298 Despite this objection, in our view,
these documents provide a clear indication of the measures that would be applied in each of these
four affected EU member States in case of an outbreak of ASF. Furthermore, the European Union
provided information, in respect of Lithuania, in support of the legal orders at the national level
requiring the application of those measures. 1299 Although this could be useful to further support
the effectiveness of the control measures in Estonia, Latvia, and Poland, we do not consider
provision of similar information for these three EU member St ates as essential in light of the
general exchange of information in this respect.
7.952. Russia challenges the effectiveness of the control measures that the European Union has in
place. Russia's main argument is that because of the continued ASF outbreaks and the geographic
spread of these outbreaks in the territory of the four affected EU member States , the continuous
redrawing of the contours of the infected zones and the numerous outbreaks occurring outside the
infected zones, the European Union's control mea sures are ineffective. 1300 Russia examines these
measures from the comments that its experts provided throughout 2014 on their scepticism in
respect of the positive outcomes that the European Union measures might achieve. In Russia's
view, the European Union system is flawed.1301
7.953. In our view, the experts consulted by the Panel provided a valuable explanation as to the
manner in which it would be best to understand the current situation in the
eastern European region. The experts noted that controlling and eradica ting ASF is very difficult
because of its highly contagious and virulent nature, and its presence in wild boar. In that context,
the experts indicated that ASF is very hard to control. 1302 In these circumstances, it is hard for us
to assess the effectiveness of the measures exclusively based on the extent of the spread of the
disease following the initial outbreaks. Given that this dispute concerns measures imposed by
Russia in 2014, it does not seem to be appropriate to rely solely on an examination made with the
benefit of hindsight. Thus, we consider and take into account the structure and design of the
control measures, together with the rest of the relevant necessary evidence, including the level of
prevalence of the disease, in order to examine the Europe an Union's compliance with its obligation
under Article 6.3. We assign particular importance to these considerations in the context of our
assessment of whether the European Union provided to Russia the necessary evidence to

1290 Code of Conduct for Control of African Swine Fever of Estonia, 11 April 2013 (Exhibit EU-77).
1291 Plan for Combating Very Dangerous Infectious Animal Diseases of the Republic of Latvia, 28
February 2013 (Exhibit EU-76).
1292 Contingency Plan for Classical Swine Fever (CSF) and African Swine Fever (ASF) of Lithuania, 30
December 2011 (Exhibit EU-74).
1293 Polish Veterinary African Swine Fever Contingency Plan, January 2014 (Exhibit EU-75).
1294 European Union's letter to Russia of 21 May 2014, ARES(2014)1658269,
SANCO/G6/AB(2014)1782253 (Exhibit EU-92).
1295 See Russia's comments to the European Union's response to Panel question No. 322, para. 198.
1296 See Russia's response to Panel question No. 322, paras. 293-298.
1297 Russia's responses to Panel question No. 322, para. 292.
1298 Russia's responses to Panel question No. 322, paras. 299-310.
1299 Order on Measures to Control African Swine Fever No B1-49 of 24 January 2014 (Exhibit EU-71) and
Order on the Slaughter of Pigs as Part of the Measures to Prevent the Spread of African Swine Fever, 30
January 2014, No B1-60 (Exhibit EU-72).
1300 Russia's opening statement at the second meeting of the Panel, paras. 8-29.
1301 Russia's response to Panel question No. 279, para. 137.

objectively demonstrate that AS F-free areas within each of the four affected EU member States
are likely to remain ASF-free.
7.954. The next type of evidence that we consider necessary for the European Union to
objectively demonstrate that certain areas in the four affected EU member States ar e ASF-free,
concerns the relevant ecosystems. The first aspect that we will examine in this respect is whether
there is knowledge of ASF not being established in wildlife in the areas claimed to be free of ASF.
7.955. The evidence on record indicates that ASF ou tbreaks in the four affected
EU member States have occurred in wild boars. 1303 In our view, this is a risk factor that needs to
be considered in light of the information we have examined in respect of wild boar behavioural
ecology. In this regard, we noted that the 2010 EFSA scientific opinion on ASF indicated that"[w]ild
boar do not migrate, at least according to the classic definition of migration. Some small seasonal
movements are registered but always inside the usual individual home range that varies from 20-
100 km2. Infections can spread between larger regions, however, where there is continuity in the
geographical distribution of the wild boar, as observed for CSF (EFSA, 2009c). In this respect,
Ukraine (Crimea), Poland and Romania may be at risk due to the continuous distribution and the
high density of wild boar. Possible corridors may also exist from the infected Russian areas into
Lithuania or Latvia. Where wild boar are absent or natural/artificial barriers prevent direct contact
between infected and susceptible populations, infections usually fade out spontaneously (Artois et
al., 2002); for ASF, this pattern has been observed in Sardinia only (Firinu and Scarano,
1988)."1304 This was further confirmed through the explanation provided in the attach ment to the
letter sent by DG SANCO to FSVPS on 13 June 2014, where the European Union explained the
criteria used to identify the borders of the infected/free/high risks zones in the territories of Poland
and Lithuania.1305 The Panel's experts confirmed the scientific merit of this fact.1306
7.956. Another important category of information to consider relates to the prevalence of the
disease. The European Union has provided almost daily information to Russia in respect of every
new ASF outbreak in the four affected EU mem ber States. Whenever such information has not
been made directly available, it was provided through the information reports done by each
EU member State to the OIE to be published through the WAHIS database. This information,
together with the estimates of the wild boar population in the four affected EU member States
provided by the European Union to Russia, would allow Russia to know the level of prevalence of
ASF in the territory of the four affected EU member States.1307
7.957. The final type of information that we will examine relates to the existence of eradication or
control programmes for ASF. According to the overarching European Union's legal framework on
ASF, following an ASF outbreak EU member States should ensure that eradication and control
programmes are put in place. However, as explained below, it was not until March and May 2015
that the European Union provided to Russia the approved ASF eradication programmes for Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Russia acknowledged in the course of these proc eedings, such
programmes provided valuable information in order to substantiate a claim that certain areas are
ASF-free, and likely to remain so. 1308 Russia also argues that the type of information set out in
Lithuania's, Poland's, Latvia's, and Estonia's eradication plans was not previously provided by the
European Union to Russia, specifically with respect to the borders of Lithuania's initial zones.1309
7.958. Article 16 of Council Directive 2002/60/EC 1310 requires EU member States to submit to the
Commission, within 90 days of the confirmation of a primary case of ASF in wild boar, a written
plan of measures taken in order to eradicate African swine fever in wild boar. The plan must
contain a description of the measures taken to eradicate the disease in wild boar in the infected
area, and the measures applied on the pig holdings in the above -mentioned infected area.
According to Article 16, the EU Commission shall then examine the plan in order to determine

1303 Pig Progress, "New ASF outbreak in Belgorod Oblast, Russia", 11 June 2014 (RUS-118).
1304 2010 EFSA Scientific Opinion (Exhibit EU-24), p.29
1305 European Union's letter to Russia of 13 June 2014, ARES(2014)1941949,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014)2038505 (Exhibit EU-94), p. 4.
1306 See fn 636 above.
1307 See fn 588 above.
1308 Russia's comments to the European Union's response to Panel question No. 236, para. 59-60.
1309 Russia's second written submission, para. 67.
1310 Council Directive of 27 June 2002, 2002/60/EC (Exhibit EU-31).

whether it permits the desired objectives to be attained. The pl an, if necessary with amendments,
shall be approved in accordance with the accelerated regulatory procedure contained in
Article 24(2) of Council Directive 2002/60/EC.
7.959. In response to the Panel's questions, the European Union indicated that Lithuania initia lly
submitted its eradication plan to the European Commission on 22 April 2014; Poland on
14 May 2014; Latvia on 26 September 2014, and Estonia on 12 December 2014. 1311 The
European Commission formally approved the submitted plans by Decision 2014/442 on
7 July 2014 (Lithuania and Poland) 1312 and by Decision 2015/570 on 7 April 2015 (Estonia and
Latvia)1313. Poland submitted a modification of the plan that was accepted formally by means of a
letter on 24 November 2014.1314
7.960. The Panel notes with some bewilderment, howeve r, that the European Union sent the
Polish and Lithuanian eradication plans to Russia only on 24 March 2015 1315; the Estonian and
Latvian plans were provided to Russia in the context to the European Union's answers to the
Panel's questions on 19 May 2015.1316 The European Union provides no explanation for the delay in
sending the Lithuanian and Polish plans, and explains that the Estonian and Latvian plans were not
sent at that time (March 2015) as they were not yet formally approved. 1317 No explanation was
provided either for the delays in the approval of the various eradication plans, especially for that
submitted by Latvia.
7.961. The Panel is cognizant of the fact that the development of an eradication plan, while
required by the European Union legislation, is not nece ssarily required in order to recognize an
area as free of a pest - or disease and likely to remain so. Article 6.1 refers, inter alia , to the
existence of eradication or control programmes, and we are aware that many animal diseases,
especially those affect ing wildlife may be impossible to fully eradicate. However, the existence of
effective control programmes should nonetheless make it possible to establish disease-free areas.
7.962. In the present case, as eradication plans were indeed dev eloped for the four affe cted
EU member States, the Panel has examined each of these plans to determine to what extent they
provide evidence that was not previously made available to Russia and that would have been
necessary for Russia to assess whether the European Union could de monstrate that areas within
each one of these four EU member States were free of ASF. The result of this examination , as
explained in detail below with respect to each affected EU member State, is that although these
eradication plans provided the informat ion in a more organized and readily accessible manner,
they generally do not include information which had not yet been provided by the European Union
to Russia.
7.963. Based on the foregoing, we consider that the European Union provided to Russia the
necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that, at any given point in time, there were
ASF-free areas within each of the four affected EU member States.
7.964. However, it is more difficult for the Panel to determine whether the information provided
by the European Union was sufficient to objectively demonstrate that the disease-free areas within
each of the four affected EU member States were "likely to remain" so. As we have indicated
above1318, our assessment of this matter will be focused on whether in addition to the necessary
evidence to objectively demonstrate that there are ASF -free areas within each of the affected
EU member States, the European Union provided to Russia the necessary evidence in respect of
the effectiveness of its control measures.

1311 European Union's response to Panel question No. 19.
1312 Exhibits EU-50, EU-101 and EU-102.
1313 Exhibits EU-103, EU-116 and EU-117.
1314 Letter of 4 November 2014, Ref. Ares(2014)3660850 (Exhibit EU-129).
1315 Letter of 24 March 2015 from the EU to Russia, Ref. Ares(2015)1284836 (RUS-154). See also
Exhibits RUS-167, EU-101, and EU-102.
1316 Eradication plan for African swine fever in wild boar in Latvia (Exhibit EU -116) and Plan for the
eradication of African swine fever from feral pig population in Estonia (Exhibit EU-117).
1317 See European Union's response to Panel question No. 19.
1318 See paras. 7.939- 7.941 above.

7.965. We are cognizant that we must make our ruling on the basis of the information that the
European Union had provided to Russia as at 11 September 2014. While both parties have
provided information regarding subsequent cases of ASF within the four affected
EU member States until the second half of 2015, neither party could have known, in
September 2014, what the situation would be almost one year later. Moreover, no previous Panel
has dealt with a complaint brought during the course of an active outbreak of a highly contagiou s
disease, at a time when the situation continued to evolve rapidly.
7.966. We have explained in our analysis of the temporal framework that the Panel needs to
pursue, that we are entitled to weight the evidence that predates and postdates the establishment
of the Panel.1319 Moreover, pursuant to our duty to examine the totality of the evidence on record
in order to make an objective assessment of the matter before us 1320, as well as in the light of the
importance of subseq uent events in the context of the present dispu te, we will examine the
evidence on record that post-date the establishment of the Panel.
7.967. In our view, one of the largest challenges in the context of the ASF outbreaks within the
four affected EU member States is the constantly shifting situation and freq uent expansion of the
protection and surveillance zones. 1321 The European Union has explained that this is not at all
problematic because the ASF control system applied in the European Union is designed to
continually adjust in order to be a step ahead of the disease.1322 The European Union noted that
whenever an outbreak occurred near to or within the buffer zone (which is ASF -free), the buffer
zone was further enlarged to ensure a safety margin around the designated ASF -free zone. This
view is to a certain exte nt endorsed by Dr Brückner who described the process of adaptation of
measures to the spread of ASF. 1323 In our view, the provision of information in this context should
be detailed and efficient. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to consider that such ev idence
amounts to what is necessary to objectively demonstrate that there are ASF -free areas, which are
likely to remain so.
7.968. With th ese considerations in mind we turn to examine whether the European Union
provided to Russia the necessary evidence to objec tively demonstrate that ASF-free areas within
each of the four affected EU member States are likely to remain ASF -free. We will examine this
question in respect of each of the four affected EU member States, following the chronological
order of the outbreaks (i.e. Lithuania, Poland, Latvia, and Estonia).

1319 See para. 7.177 above (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC – Selected Customs Matters, para.
188.
1320 See, e.g. Appellate Body Reports, EC – Hormones, para. 133; Japan – Apples, para. 221; EC –
Asbestos, para. 161; Australia – Salmon, para. 266; EC – Bed Linen (Article 21.5 – India), paras. 170, 177,
and 181; EC – Sardines, para. 299; EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings, para. 125; Japan – Agricultural Products II,
paras. 141 and 142; Korea – Dairy, para. 138; Korea – Alcoholic Beverages, paras. 161 and 162; US – Oil
Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews, para. 313; US – Gambling, para. 363; EC – Selected Customs Matters,
1321 See Exhibits EU-119, EU-120, EU-121, EU-33 to EU-44, and RUS-297 (revised). We recall that
Article 9 of Council Directive 2002/60/EC (Exhibit EU-31) refers to infected zones as protection zones and to
buffer zones as surveillance zones, where there have been ASF outbreaks in domestic pig holdings. Article 15
of Council Directive 2002/60/EC (Exhibit EU-31) provides for the establishment of disease control measures,
including the establishment of protection and surveillance zones. Throughout the report we refer to: infected
zones, as those areas where there have been ASF outbreaks and have been identified by the EU legislation as
protection zones; to buffer zones, as those areas referred to in the EU legislation as surveillance zones; and to
ASF-free areas, as those areas where ASF has not been reported, excluding both infected and buffer zones. We
further note that after the issuance of Commission Implementing Decision 2014/178/EU (Exhibit EU-37) on 27
March 2014, the protection zones in the affected EU member States were divided into those concerning
domestic pigs and wild boar (feral pigs) population, called Part III, and those concerning only wild boar
population, called Part II. Surveillance zones were identified as Part I. On 9 October 2014, Commission
Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU (Exhibit EU-44) further distinguished the areas concerning domestic and
wild boar population (Part III as per Commission Implementing Decision 2014/178/EU) between those areas
where the epidemiological situation has been established and the disease has become endemic, now called Part
IV, and those where the situation is still dynamic with uncertain evolution, now called Part III.
1322 See European Union's response to Panel question No. 19.
1323 Dr Brückner's response to Panel oral question No. 7, Transcript, para. 1.196.

Assessment of the evidence provided by the European Union to Russia to
objectively demonstrate that ASF-free areas in Lithuania are likely to remain so
7.969. We now turn to examine the extent to which the Europea n Union provided to Russia the
necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that ASF -free areas in Lithuania were likely to
remain so. As we noted in paragraph 7.940 above, the most important evidence for demonstrating
that a disease-free area is likely to remain so relates to the effectiveness of control measures. We
will thus consider the evidence provided in respect of the effectiveness of control measures applied
in Lithuania. For this purpose, we will address the informati on provided on: (i) the surveillance
programme; (ii) diagnostic analysis; (iii) measures for early detection and response; and (iv)
eradication of the disease. In undertaking this task, w e will address the information provided by
the European Union to Russia, including that contained in the eradication plan of Lithuania. We will
assess how much of the information contained therein had already been provided by the European
Union to Russia. In pursuing this examination we will focus on reviewing the necessary evidence
that the European Union provided to Russia in respect of the effectiveness of the control measures
in Lithuania. We will also examine the outbreaks that took place in Lithuania after January 2014
and until the establishment of the Panel on 22 July 2014, as well as the subsequent situation. Our
examination of this matter is also informed by our analysis in respect of the categories of
necessary evidence that we have examined in the previous section to determine the European
Union's objective demonstration of the existence of ASF-free areas in the four affected EU member
States.
7.970. Our examination of the documentation provided by the European Union to Russia shows
that information regarding the initial cases and their location was provided to Russia on
24 January 2014, the same day the disease was confirmed. 1324 Russia was informed of the
establishment of control zones, including the infected area, and the measures applied within each
of these zones to control the spread of ASF, on 27 January 2014. 1325 More information relating to
the surveillance and sampling strategy, as well as to protective measures in Lithuania, was
provided to Russia on 7 February 2014. 1326 Reports on the emergency response measures of
Lithuania were also provided in February and March 2014, and the contingency plan as well as
further information on surveillance, eradication and monitoring were provided in April, May and
June 2014.1327
7.971. As we noted above1328, the ASF eradication plan for Lithuania 1329 was approved in July
2014, but provided to Russia o nly in March 2015. The Panel notes that the plan contains:

1324 Communication of 24 January 2014: African swine fever (ASF) in two wild boars in Lithuania, in
Salcininkai and Varena Regions, at the border with Belarus (Exhibit EU-132).
1325 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/43/EU of 27 January 2014 concerning certain interim
protective measures relating to African swine fever in Lithuania, OJ L 26, p.44 (Exhibit EU-33),
(Communication of 24 January 2014: African swine fever (ASF) in two wild boars in Lithuania, in Salcininkai
and Varena Regions, at the border with Belarus (Exhibit EU-132) and Communication of 27 January 2014:
African swine fever (ASF) in Lithuania. Interim protective measures (Exhibit EU-133).
1326 African swine fever in Lithuania, presentation by the State Food and Veterinary Service of Lithuania,
6–7 February 2014 (Exhibit EU-66), Order on Measures to Control African Swine Fever No B1-49 of 24 January
2014 (Exhibit EU-71(b)), and Order on the Slaughter of Pigs as Part of the Measures to Prevent the Spread of
African Swine Fever, 30 January 2014, No B1-60 (Exhibit EU-72).
1327 Contingency Plan for Classical Swine Fever (CSF) and African Swine Fever (ASF) of Lithuania, 30
December 2011 (Exhibit EU-74), Final Report of an Audit carried out in Lithuania from 27 February to 2 March
2012 in order to Evaluate the Actions Taken during Recent Outbreaks of Classical Swine Fever and to Assess
Contingency Planning of Epizootic Disease, SANCO 2012-6386; (Exhibit EU-79), Annex, Response of the
Competent Authorities of Lithuania to the recommendations of Report ref. DG(SANCO)/2012-6386-MR of an
audit carried out from 27 February to 02 March 2012, Updated Action plan received on 9 October 2012 (Exhibit
EU-234), Response of the Competent Authorities of Lithuania to the recommendations of Report ref.
DG(SANCO)/2012-6386-MR of an audit carried out from 27 February to 02 March 2012 , Action plan received
on 14 May 2012 (Exhibit EU-235), Veterinary Control Programme on African swine fever early detection in
Lithuania and Belarus in 2014, 2013 (Exhibit EU-238), and European Commission, Final Report of an Audit
Carried out in Lithuania from 14 to 16 April 2014 in order to evaluate the implementation of animal health
controls in relation to African Swine Fever (2014 EU Veterinary Audit Report for Lithuania, 14-16 April 2014)
(Exhibit RUS-69).
1328 See paras. 7.959- 7.960 above
1329 Eradication plan of African swine fever in feral pigs in certain areas of Lithuania (communicated to
Russia on 24 March 2015) (Exhibit EU-101) and ASF Eradication plan for African swine Fever in wild boars in
the Southern part of Lithuania, June 2014 (Exhibit RUS-156).

(i) a chronology of events and recalls the EU legal requirements to develop an eradication plan;
(ii) describes the epidemiological investigations undertaken and the various hypothesis regarding
the source of the introduction of ASFV; ( iii) defines the infected and risk areas; ( iv) describes the
surveillance programmes and preventive measures applicable to wild boars; and ( v) describes the
surveillance programmes and preventive measures applicable t o pig holdings in the infected and
risk areas.
7.972. While the prompt provision of the Lithuanian eradication plan could have facilitated the
assessment by Russia of whether there was an effective establishment and maintenance of a
disease-free area within that country, a careful examination of the content of the eradication plan
reveals that most of the information contained therein was previously made available to Russia
through various different communications and their respective attachments. We are unable t o
identify any significant information in the eradication plan that was not previously made available
to Russia.
7.973. In examining the different categories of information provided to Russia, we see that even
before the first outbreak in Poland, the European Uni on had submitted to Russia on
7 February 2014, a summary report of ASF surveillance activities implemented in Lithuania,
Poland, Latvia and Estonia.1330 This report covers the period 1 November 2013 to 28 January 2014
and provides information on the surveilla nce undertaken on the basis of sampling of wild boars
and domestic pigs.
7.974. We have already examined above the information that the European Union provided to
Russia to objectively demonstrate the existence of ASF -free areas. We have concluded that, as at
22 July 2014, the European Union had provided to Russia the necessary evidence to objectively
demonstrate that there were ASF -free areas within Lithuania. In considering, in particular, the
information in respect of the effectiveness of the sanitary controls established in Lithuania, we
have examined the information regarding the evolution of ASF within Lithuania from the first case
in January 2014 until the time of establishment of the panel on 22 July 2014.1331 During this period
of time, following the first o utbreak of ASF in Lithuania, subsequent cases occurred only either
within the designated infected area or within the immediately surrounding buffer zone. It would
thus appear that until 22 July 2014, the European Union had effectively demonstrated that the
designated ASF -free area within Lithuania would remain ASF -free.1332 As at the time of
establishment of the Panel, it would appear that the European Union had effectively demonstrated
the effectiveness of the control measures to ensure that the ASF -free area of Lithuania would
remain so. We recall, however, that we have agreed to consider the information provided by the
parties until September 2014.
7.975. The Panel is aware that immediately following the establishment of the Panel, on
24 July 2014, a new outbreak occurred in a part of Lithuania that was unrelated to the first cases
and zones , in an area located outside the infected and buffer zones established through
Commission Implementing Decision 2014/178/EU of 27 March 2014 .1333 This outbreak was in a
large holdi ng of domestic pigs (19,411 pigs) 1334, and could raise concerns about whether the
control and prevention programmes were effective. In response to this outbreak, the European
Union issued Commission Implementing Decision 2014/502/EU of 24 July 2014, expanding the
infected and buffer zones. 1335 We also recall that the experts have indicated that further cases of
ASF among wild pigs and outbreaks in domestic holdings could be expected to occur , and such
occurrence does not amount to a failure of the ASF control mea sures.1336 The experts also
indicated that as long as additional outbreaks remained confined to the declared infected zone

1330 Exhibits EU-62 and EU-63.
1331 We have examined the data provided by both parties in this respect. We have focused our attention
in Exhibits EU-118 and RUS-275 and RUS-296 revised.
1332 ASF cases in the European Union notified to the OIE (Exhibit EU-118) and Data from OIE WAHIS
Interface, as of 31 August 2015 (Exhibit RUS-296 revised).
1333 Exhibit EU-37.
1334 ASF cases in the European Union notified to the OIE (Exhibit EU-118) and Data from OIE WAHIS
Interface, as of 31 August 2015 (Exhibit RUS-296 revised).
1335 Exhibit EU-40.

then there should not be any consequence for free zones .1337 Furthermore, as explained by the
experts, the purpose of a buffer zone, which is itself free of ASF, is to ensure that the designated
ASF-free areas are physically separated from ASF infection areas. A case or outbreak in a buffer
zone, therefore, does not call into question the disease -free status of the designated disease -free
area. It does, however, change the status of the buffer zone to an ASF -infected area. Also, as
according to the European Union regulation, no trade is permitted from the buffer zone, hence a
case or outbreak within the buffer zone would not affect the risk of Russia importing ASF-infected
products. An outbreak within a free zone, however, has the effect of immediately changing the
status of that zone to an ASF-infected zone.1338
7.976. The next case in Lithuania was also in a domestic holding (albeit a very small one with only
2 pigs), this time within the buffer zone. 1339 The incident began on 29 July 2014, when a pig
became sick in a farm in the Utena district in Lithuania. The pig died on 5 August 2014 and was
tested for ASF. On 6 August 2014 the test confirmed the pres ence of ASF. This is highly indicative
of an effective monitoring and surveillance programme. Moreover, as this situation evolved, on 31
July 2014 the European Union issued Commission Implementing Decision 2014/513/EU which
expanded the protection zone to include the Utena district. 1340 On 22 August 2014, there was
another incident in a domestic holding (again of only 2 pigs) which occurred outside the infected
and the buffer zones. Following this case, on 28 August 2014, the European Union issued
Commission Implement Decision 2014/673/EU which expanded the infected and buffer zones in
Lithuania.1341 Subsequently, except for one infected wild boar found in the buffer zone on 10
December 2014, all other cases in Lithuania occurred within already infected zones. 1342 Based on
the information available as at 11 September 2014, we consider that the European Union had
provided sufficient evidence to objectively demonstrate that the disease -free areas within
Lithuania were likely to remain ASF-free.
7.977. We are fully aware that, according to information provided by both parties 1343, further
cases of ASF occurred in Lithuania after September 2014. While we consider this information to be
important for Russia's consideration of the European Union's claim that it had established disease -
free areas within Lithuania that were likely to remain disease -free, it was clearly not possible for
the European Union to have provided such information as at 11 September 2014. We will thus
examine this information in the context of our consideration of Article 6.1, below.
Assessment of the evidence provided by the European Union to Russia to
objectively demonstrate that ASF-free areas in Poland are likely to remain so
7.978. We will now examine the extent to which the European Union provided to Russia the
necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that ASF -free areas in Poland were likely to remain

1337 See experts' responses to Panel question No. 32, Compilation of experts' responses, paras. 4.20-
4.24. See in particular, Professor Penrith's response.
1338 See Dr Thomson's response to Panel question No. 32, Compilation of experts' responses, para. 4.22.
See also Article 15.1.4 of the Terrestrial Code and Russia's opening statement at the second meeting of the
Panel, paras. 30-32.
1339 There is a discrepancy between the data provided by the European Union in Exhibit EU-118 and by
Russia in Exhibit RUS-296 revised in respect of the outbreak happening in Lithuania on 29 July 2014. According
to Exhibit EU-118 there were no outbreaks in Lithuania on 29 July 2014, however, one was confirmed on
6 August 2014. Exhibit RUS-296 revised identifies an outbreak happening on 29 July 2014. As reported in the
OIE WAHIS Interface, the starting date of this incident is 29 July 2014, see Exhibit EU-154, p. 1/17.
1340 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/513/EU of 31 July 2014 amending the annex to
Implementing Decision 2014/178/EU as regards the areas in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia under restriction for
African swine fever, OJ L 231, p.7 (Exhibit EU-41).
1341 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/637/EU of 28 August 2014 amending the Annex to
Implementing Decision 2014/178/EU as regards the areas under restriction for African swine fever in certain
Member States, OJ L 259, p.23 (Exhibit EU-43). We note that there is a discrepancy between the information
provided by the European Union in EU-118 and Russia in Exhibit RUS-296 (revised) on whether this incident
occurred in the infected zone. According to Exhibit EU-118 this incident occurred in an infected zone. According
to Exhibit RUS-296 (revised) this incident occurred outside the infected and the buffer zone. Comparing the
infected and buffer zones in place in Lithuania at that time (as reflected in Exhibits EU-37 and EU-41), we
conclude that this incident occurred in an area not yet designated as infected or buffer zone.
1342 ASF cases in the European Union notified to the OIE (Exhibit EU-118) and Data from OIE WAHIS
Interface, as of 31 August 2015 (Exhibit RUS-296 revised).
1343 Exhibits EU-118 and RUS-296 revised.

so. As we noted in paragraph 7.940 above, the most important evidence for demonstrating that a
disease-free area is likely to remain so relates to the effectiveness of control measures. We will
thus consider the evidence provided in respect of the effectiveness of control measures applied in
Poland. For this purpose, we will address the information provided on: ( i) the surveillance
programme; (ii) diagnostic analysis; ( iii) measures for early detection and response; and
(iv) eradication of the disease. In undertaking this task, the Panel will analyse the information
provided by the European Union to Russia, including that in the eradica tion plan of Poland. The
Panel will assess how much of the information contained therein had already been provided by the
European Union to Russia. In pursuing this examination, the Panel will focus on reviewing the
necessary evidence that the European Uni on provided to Russia in respect of the effectiveness of
the control measures in Poland. The Panel will also examine other information submitted by the
European Union to Russia , as well as examine the outbreaks that took place in Poland after
February 2014 and until the establishment of the Panel on 22 July 2014, as well as the subsequent
situation. Our consideration of this matter is also informed by our analysis in respect of the
categories of necessary evidence that we have examined in in the previous s ection to determine
the European Union's objective demonstration of the existence of ASF -free areas in the four
affected EU member States.
7.979. Our examination of the documentation provided shows that information regarding the
initial cases and their location w as provided to Russia on 17 February 2014, 1344 following the first
outbreak on 13 February 2014. Russia was informed through this communication, as well as
through subsequent ones in February, March and April 2014, 1345 of the establishment of control
zones, including the infected area, and a risk area, and the measures applied within each of these
zones to control the spread of ASF. Information relating to the surveillance and sampling strategy,
as well as to protective measures in Poland, was also provided in th ese communications. Reports
on the emergency response measures of Poland were also submitted in February and March 2014,
and the contingency plan, as well as further information on surveillance, eradication and
monitoring were provided in April, May and Ju ne 2014. 1346 The Panel further notes that the
eradication plan for Poland was not provided to Russia in a timely manner as previously discussed
in paragraph 7.960.
7.980. In particular, the Polish eradication plan 1347 contains information o n: ( i) eradication
measures; ( ii) epidemiological investigations and controls carried out in the infected area;
(iii) designation of infected area and buffer zone; and (iv) surveillance programmes and prevention
measures applicable to wild boar in the infected and buffer zone; and (v) surveillance programmes
and prevention measures applicable to pig holdings in the infected areas. While the prompt
provision of the Polish eradication plan could have facilitated the assessment by Russia of whether
there was an effective establishment and maintenance of a disease-free area within that country, a
careful examination of the content of the eradication plan reveals that most of the information
contained therein was previously made available to Russia through differ ent communications and
their respective attachments. We have been unable to identify any significant information in the
eradication plan that was not previously made available to Russia.
7.981. In examining the different categories of information provided to Russ ia, we see that even
before the first outbreak in Poland, the European Union had submitted to Russia on 7 February
2014, a summary report of ASF surveillance activities implemented in Lithuania, Poland, Latvia
and Estonia.1348 This report covers the period 1 November 2013 to 28 January 2014 and provides
information on the surveillance undertaken on the basis of risk based and statistically valid
sampling of wild boars and domestic pigs to allow for early detection of the disease in Poland,
among other countrie s. Information on the protective measures introduced in Poland against

1344 Communication of 17 February 2014: African swine fever (ASF) confirmed in Poland in a wild boar
found 900 meters from the border with Belarus (Exhibit EU-136).
1345 Exhibits EU-138, EU-139, EU-140, EU-141, EU-142, EU-143. See also Appendix 1 below.
1346 Exhibits EU-92, EU-94. See also Appendix 1 below.
1347 Eradication plan of African swine fever in feral pigs in certain areas of Poland (communicated to
Russia on 24 March 2015) Exhibit EU-102.
1348 European Union's letter to Russia of 29 January 2014, ARES(2014)209377, SANCO
G7/RF/mh(2014)219959 (Exhibit EU-62) and Excel spreadsheet on Poland, Annex to the Letter of 29 January
2014 (pp. 6-8) (Exhibit EU-63).

ASF,1349 was also submitted by the European Union on 7 February 2014, which provided
information on the risk analysis undertaken to determine the possible pathways of ASF in Europe,
and th e actions implemented to curb ASF spread, including before and after the outbreak in
neighbouring Lithuania. Further to the 17 February 2014 outbreak in Poland, the European Union
provided, at the beginning of March 2014, specific information on its monito ring and surveillance
activities to address the outbreaks, including its implementation of Directive 2002/60/EC. 1350
During March 2014 to September 2014, the Panel notes that the European Union submitted
various documents to Russia related to the adoption of additional control measures in Poland to
curb ASF spread, epidemiological updates or other surveillance related information.1351
7.982. We have already examined the measures taken by the European Union above in the
context of determination of ASF -free areas. We have concluded that, as at 22 July 2014, the
European Union had taken the appropriate measures to establish ASF -free areas within Poland. In
considering, in particular, the effectiveness of the sanitary controls established in Poland, we have
examined the info rmation regarding the evolution of ASF within Poland from the first case in
February 2014 until the time of establishment of the panel on 22 July 2014. 1352 During this period
of time, following the first outbreak of ASF in Poland, subsequent outbreaks occurre d only within
the designated infected area. It would thus appear that until 22 July 2014, the European Union
had effectively demonstrated that the designated ASF -free area within Poland would remain
ASF-free.1353 We recall, however, that we have decided to consider the information provided by the
parties until 11 September 2014.
7.983. The Panel notes that following the establishment of the Panel, there were other outbreaks
which occurred only within the designated infected area. Two of these incidents occurred in s mall
domestic holdings (maximum of 8 pigs, of which at most 5 pigs were infected) before
11 September 2014.1354
7.984. The maps provided by Russia also corroborate that there has been little expansion of the
designated infected or buffer zones in Poland, all of which correspond to a small north-eastern part
of the country.1355
7.985. Based on the information available as at 11 September 2014, we consider that the
European Union had provided to Russia the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that
the disease-free areas within Poland were likely to remain ASF-free.
7.986. While we are aware that some further ASF cases occurred in Poland after September 2014,
as noted earlier this information was clearly not available to the European Union as at
11 September 2014. We will thus consider this evidence when examining Russia's measures in the
context of Article 6.1.
Assessment of the evidence provided by the European Union to Russia to
objectively demonstrate that ASF-free areas in Latvia are likely to remain so
7.987. We now turn to exa mine the extent to which the European Union provide d to Russia the
necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that ASF -free areas in Latvia were likely to remain
so. As we noted in paragraph 7.940, the most important evidenc e for demonstrating that a
disease-free area is likely to remain so relates to the effectiveness of control measures. For this
purpose, we will consider the necessary evidence provided in respect of the effectiveness of control

1349 Protective measures introduced in Poland against the African swine fever threat, General Veterinary
Inspectorate of Poland, 6–7 February 2014 (Exhibit EU-67).
1350 Communication of 5 March 2014: African swine fever (ASF) in Lithuania and Poland – Presentations
on the situation (Exhibit EU-143).
1351 Communication of 27 March 2014: Adoption of control measures relating to African swine fever in
certain Member States (Exhibit EU-146).
1352 We have examined the data provided by both parties in this respect. We have focused our attention
on Exhibits EU-118 and RUS-275 and RUS-296 revised.
1353 ASF cases in the European Union notified to the OIE (Exhibit EU-118) and (Exhibit RUS-296
revised).
1354 ASF cases in the European Union notified to the OIE (Exhibit EU-118).
1355 Overview of updated outbreaks, zone changes, and outbreaks out of zone, as of 31 August 2015.
(Exhibit RUS-297 revised).

measures applied in Latvia b efore and after the first outbreak on 26 June 2014, namely,
information on: (i) the surveillance programme; (ii) diagnostic analysis; (iii) measures for early
detection and response; and (iv) eradication of the disease. In undertaking this task, we will
address the information provided by the European Union to Russia, including that contained in the
eradication plan of Latvia. We will assess how much of the information contained therein had
already been provided by the European Union to Russia. In pursuing this examination we will focus
in reviewing the necessary evidence that the European Union provided to Russia in respect of the
effectiveness of the control measures in Latvia.
7.988. In examining the information provided by the European Union to Russia before th e first
outbreak in Latvia, we see that the European Union had submitted to Russia on 7 February 2014, a
summary report of ASF surveillance activities implemented in Lithuania, Poland, Latvia and
Estonia. This report 1356 covers the period 1 November 2013 to 2 8 January 2014 and provides
information on the surveillance undertaken on the basis of risk based and statistically valid
sampling of wild boar and domestic pigs to allow for early detection of the disease in Latvia,
among other countries. Furthermore, the European Union provided to Russia Latvia-specific
reports on the 2013 audit of animal health contingency plans 1357 and ASF preventative measures
that were implemented in 2013 1358 in February 2014. These reports show that Latvia had
surveillance and monitoring m echanisms in place prior to the outbreaks. In regards to the early
detection programme for implementation in 2014 1359 which was provided to Russia as an
attachment to the document provided on 7 February 2014 1360, the Panel notes the document itself
indicates that the attached programme was for implementation in 2013 and that the revision for
2014 was still under discussion.
7.989. The first ASF case in Latvia occurred on 26 June 2014, and information regarding the
outbreak was provided to Russia on the same day the dis ease was confirmed. 1361 In this
communication, the European Union provided to Russia information on the location and scope of
the outbreaks, establishment of protection and surveillance zones, and confirmation that
implementation of the measures applied withi n each zone had begun. Throughout July 2014, the
European Union provided to Russia m ore information relating to the adoption and amendment of
the Commission Implementing Decision on protective measures, and updates and maps of new
outbreaks in Latvia.1362
7.990. On 22 July 2014, the European Union notified Russia about new outbreaks which occurred
in Latvia outside the designated buffer or infected areas. 1363 At this point in time, the previously
ASF-free areas were no longer ASF -free, which would call into question th e effectiveness of the
previously developed surveillance and protection zones. This situation differs from that in Lithuania
and Poland, because of the frequency of cases occurring outside the zones designated as
protection and surveillance zones, and beca use of the large distance between the new incidents.
The Panel notes that since the first outbreak until 11 September 2014, three of 31 outbreaks in
domestic holdings occurred outside of designated buffer or infected areas, including the first
outbreak, ac cording to the information provided by the European Union. 1364 Despite the low
prevalence, the large distance between the outbreaks and the distance of the new outbreaks from
the borders of the designated infected and buffer zones raise questions regarding the effectiveness
of control measures in Latvia.

1356 European Union's letter to Russia of 29 January 2014, ARES(2014)209377, SANCO
G7/RF/mh(2014)219959 (Exhibit EU-62).
1357 Final Report of an Audit carried out in Latvia from 4 to 8 March 2013 in order to Evaluate the
Implementation of Contingency Plans in relation to Animal Health, including provisions on the Protection of
Animals during Depopulation for Disease Control, SANCO 2013-6777 (Exhibit EU-80).
1358 Protective measures against African swine fever in Latvia, 6 February 2014 (Exhibit EU-68).
1359 Veterinary Programme on African swine fever early detection in Latvia in 2014, 2013
(Exhibit EU-239).
1360 European Union's letter to Russia of 7 February 2014, ARES(2014)304571,
SANCO/G7/DP/tb(2014)328578 (Exhibit EU-65) and Annotated annex to the letter of 7 February 2014, with
references to the EU exhibit numbers corresponding to each document (Exhibit EU-214).
1361 Communication of 26 June 2014: African swine fever (ASF) detection in Latvia (Exhibit EU-147).
1362 (Exhibit EU-148), (Exhibit EU-206), (Exhibit EU-207), (Exhibit EU-209), (Exhibit EU-210), (Exhibit
EU-212).
1363 Communication of 22 July 2014: African Swine Fever in Latvia (Exhibit EU-187).
1364 See Exhibit EU-118.

7.991. The European Union submitted evidence that demonstrates it promptly provided to Russia
updates and maps of new outbreaks in Latvia. However, the European Union failed to meet this
burden with respect to significant information on revised or updated control measures following
this outbreak until September 2014.
7.992. On 19 May 2015, the eradication plan of Latvia was provided to Russia 1365, almost eleven
months after the initial ASF outbreak and five weeks after the pla n was approved by the
EU Commission. The plan contains information on: ( i) the chronology of ASF outbreaks and EU
legal requirements to develop an eradication plan; ( ii) epidemiological investigations and findings
in wild boars and domestic pigs; ( iii) def inition of infected and risk areas; ( iv) surveillance
programmes and preventive measures applicable to wild boars and pig holdings in the infected and
risk areas; and (v) implementation of measures and administrative issues.
7.993. There is insufficient evidenc e on record supporting the European Union's provision to
Russia of evidence pertaining to the implementation or modification of control measures following
the first outbreak in Latvia and until September 2014. In our view, the timely provision of Latvia's
eradication plan would have amplified the information available to Russia to assess the situation in
Latvia.1366
7.994. We are aware that ASF continued to spread in Latvia after September 2014. We will
examine the information provided by both parties in this regard in the context of our analysis
under Article 6.1, below.
7.995. After examining the information regarding ASF outbreaks, protection measures,
surveillance programmes, and early detection and response plans against ASF, as well as the
evolution of ASF within Latvia before and after the first outbreak, the Panel observes that although
the European Union provided to Russia a fair amount of information in respect of the measures
applied in Latvia, including swiftly communicat ing the facts of the outbreaks to Russia, the
European Union failed to provide updated and additional information on Latvia's early detection,
surveillance and eradication plans after the outbreaks. Such information would have been
necessary for Russia to evaluate the capacity and effectiveness of Latvia's ASF control plans. We
therefore conclude that, as at 11 September 2014, the European Union had not provided sufficient
information to "objectively demonstrate" to Russia that the designated ASF free areas in Latvia
were likely to remain free of ASF, pursuant to Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement.
Assessment of the evidence provided by the European Union to Russia to
objectively demonstrate that ASF-free areas in Estonia are likely to remain so
7.996. We now turn to examine the extent to which the European Union provided to Russia the
necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that ASF-free areas in Estonia were likely to remain
so. As we noted in paragraph 7.940 above, the most important evidence for demonstrating that a
disease-free area is likely to remain so relates to the effectiveness of control measures. We will
thus consider the evidence provided by the European Union to Russia in respect of the
effectiveness of control measures applied in Estonia. For this purpose, we will address the
information provided on: (i) the surveillance programme; (ii) diagnostic analysis; (iii) measures for
early detection and response; and (iv) eradication of the disease. In undertaking this task, the
Panel will analyse the information provided by the European Union to Russia, including that in the
eradication plan of Estonia. The Panel will assess how much of the information contained therein
had already been provided by the European Union to Russia. In pursuing this examination, the
Panel will focus in reviewing the necessary evidence that the European Union provided to Russia in
respect of the effectiveness of the control measures in Estonia. The Panel will also examine other
information submitted by the European Union to Russia , as well as examine the outbreaks that
took place in Estonia. Unlike the other affected member States, the first case in Estonia occurred
only on 8 September 2014 well after the establishment of the Panel. Therefore, all of the
information regarding actual cases date s from this time. Our consideration of this matter is also

1365 Eradication plan for African swine fever in wild boar in Latvia (Exhibit EU-116).
1366 Russia claims that the following information included in Latvia's eradication plan had not been
previously provided to Russia by the European Union, and was useful for Russia's assessment of the
regionalization measures in Latvia: identification of the likely cause of ASF spread and compensation of farms
in the infected and risk areas (mostly backyard farms). Russia's second written submission, para. 69.

informed by our analysis in respect of the categories of necessary evidence that we have examined
in the preceding section to determine the European Union's objective demonstration of the
existence of ASF-free areas in the four affected EU member States.
7.997. Our examination of the documentation provided by the European Union to Russia , as
available on record, shows that unlike the case in the other three EU member States, where the
European Union offici ally communicated the existence of the first ASF outbreak in writing to
Russia, we have no indication that the European Union sent a similar letter in the case of Estonia.
However, we recall that the veterinary authorities in the EU member States regularly report the
disease outbreaks to the OIE.
7.998. The Panel observes that prior to the 8 September 2014 outbreak in Estonia, the European
Union provided to Russia, in February 2014, information on the ASF preparedness and surveillance
measures in Estonia.1367 In addition, in February 2014 the European Union submitted to Russia the
results of a 2013 audit ,1368 and a contingency plan was provided in May 2014. 1369 Given the
temporal parameters of this dispute and the fact that the first outbreak took place in September
2014, t he Panel considers that the shorter time -frame for the consideration of the necessary
evidence of the effectiveness of control measures necessitates an examination of additional
information provided by the European Union after September 2014. The Panel fur ther notes that
the eradication plan for Estonia was not provided to Russia in a timely manner as previously
discussed in paragraph 7.960.
7.999. In particular, the Estonian eradication plan 1370 contains information on: (i) epidemiolog ical
investigations and controls carried out in the infected area; (ii) surveillance programmes and
prevention measures in the infected area; (iii) coordination with hunters, wildlife services and
veterinary controls; (iv) campaigns to increase hunters' aw areness of preventive measures; and
(v) management of the wild boar population. While the prompt provision of the Estonian
eradication plan could have facilitated the assessment by Russia of whether there was an effective
establishment and maintenance of a disease-free area within that country, a careful examination
of the content of the eradication plan reveals that most of the information contained therein was
previously made available to Russia through different communications and their respective
attachments. We have been unable to identify any significant information in the eradication plan
that was not previously made available to Russia.
7.1000. In examining the different categories of information provided to Russia, we see that even
before the first outbreak in Estonia, the European Union had submitted to Russia on
7 February 2014, a summary report of ASF surveillance activities implemented in Lithuania,
Poland, Latvia, and Estonia. 1371 This report covers the period 1 November 2013 to 28 January
2014 and provide s information on the surveillance undertaken on the basis of risk based and
statistically valid sampling of wild boars and domestic pigs to allow for early detection of the
disease in Estonia, among other countries. The European Union presented information to the
Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed at the beginning of November 2014 in
relation to the surveillance and monitoring activities following the first outbreak. 1372 An
examination of the information on record shows that the European Unio n also submitted a code of
conduct for control of African swine fever in Estonia in January 2015, 1373 however, the Panel notes
that the information contained in this document does not provide updated information on the
monitoring and surveillance activities in Estonia following the outbreak.

1367 European Union's letter to Russia of 7 February 2014, ARES(2014)304571,
SANCO/G7/DP/tb(2014)328578 (Exhibit EU-65).
1368 Final Report of an Audit carried out in Estonia from 15 to 19 April 2013 in order to Evaluate the
Implementation of Contingency Plans in relation to Animal Health, including provisions on the Protection of
Animals during Depopulation for Disease Control, SANCO 2013- 6781 (Exhibit EU-82).
1369 European Union's letter to Russia of 21 May 2014, ARES(2014)1658269,
SANCO/G6/AB(2014)1782253 (Exhibit EU-92).
1370 Plan for the eradication of African swine fever from feral pig population in Estonia (Exhibit EU-117).
1371 European Union's letter to Russia of 29 January 2014, ARES(2014)209377, SANCO
G7/RF/mh(2014)219959 (Exhibit EU-62).
1372African swine fever in Estonia, Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, Brussels, 3-4
November 2014 (Exhibit EU-98).
1373 Code of Conduct for Control of African Swine Fever of Estonia, 11 April 2013 (Exhibit EU-77).

7.1001. We have already examined the measures taken by the European Union above in the
context of determination of ASF -free areas. We have concluded that, as at 22 July 2014, the
European Union had provided to Russia the necessar y evidence to objectively demonstrate that
there were ASF-free areas within Estonia on the basis of the surveillance and control measures
taken on the basis of the European Union's legal framework . In considering, in particular, the
effectiveness of the sanitary controls established in Estonia, the Panel has borne in mind that most
of the evidence available for Estonia in this respect post-dates the establishment of the Panel.
During the period of time, following the first outbreak of ASF in neighbouring Lithuania, to the time
of the establishment of the Panel, it would appear that the European Union had effectively
demonstrated that the designated ASF -free area within Estonia would remain ASF -free.1374 As
previously explained in paragraph 7.941, we decided to consider the information provided by the
parties until 11 September 2014.
7.1002. We are aware that ASF continued to spread in Estonia after September 2014. We will
examine the information provided by both parties in this regard in th e context of our analysis
under Article 6.1, below.
7.1003. All of the evidence available for Estonia post -dates the establishment of the Panel, but it
seems to demonstrate a n effective control system that has prevented movement of infected boar
into the ASF -free area and contained outbreaks in domestic pig holdings within infected zones,
with few cases affecting a small pig population. Hence this subsequent evidence does not
undermine our conclusion that as at 11 September 2014, the European Union had provided to
Russia the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that the ASF -free areas within Estonia
were likely to remain so.
Conclusion
7.1004. Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude that at least as at 11 September 2014, the
European Union failed to provide t o Russia the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate,
pursuant to Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, that there are areas within Latvia, which are likely
to remain free of ASF. We also conclude that the same does not hold true in respect of Estonia,
Lithuania, and Poland, because the European Union provided to Russia the necessary evidence to
objectively demonstrate that in these three EU member States there are ASF-free areas which are
likely to remain so. Furthermore, the evidence on the record regarding the information that the
European Union has submitted to Russia subsequent to 11 September 2014 serves to confirm and
support our findings.
7.6.2.3.4 Whether Russia, through the bans on the imports of the products at issue from
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, ensured adaptation to the SPS characteristics of
the European Union and of Russia in respect of ASF, pursuant to Russia's obligations
under Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement
7.6.2.3.4.1 Introduction
7.1005. The European Union argues that Russia fails, through the bans on the products at issue
from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, to adapt its measures to the SPS characteristics of the
European Union and of Russia in respect of ASF. This is because in assessing the sanitary
characteristics of the affected area, R ussia failed to take into account, inter alia , the level of
prevalence or absence of ASF, the existence of eradication and control programmes (immediately
implemented in accordance with international standards laid down by the OIE), and appropriate
criteria or guidelines developed by the relevant international organizations.1375 The European Union
further stresses that despite the implementation of appropriate regionalization measures within
the European Union, Russia fails to recognise the EU territory, exclu ding the restricted areas, as
disease-free areas.1376 The European Union also points out that Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement
requires that measures are adapted not only to the area from which a product originates, but also
to the area to which it is destine d. In this regard, the European Union highlights that there are

1374 ASF cases in the European Union notified to the OIE (Exhibit EU-118) and Data from OIE WAHIS
Interface, as of 31 August 2015 (Exhibit RUS-296 revised).
1375 European Union's first written submission, para. 215.
1376 European Union's first written submission, para. 215.

regions in Russia where wild boars do not occur and that to the extent to which domestic pigs do
not occur in those regions in Russia, the introduction of the products at issue would not prese nt
ASF-related sanitary risks and importation to consumers in those regions should be allowed.1377
7.1006. Russia argues that taking into consideration the very factors listed in Article 6.1 of the
SPS Agreement, it objectively and reasonably did not accept the Europ ean Union's zones. 1378
Russia asserts that in evaluating whether there is an objective basis for Russia's decision not to
recognise the proposed ASF -free zones in conformity with the applicable Terrestrial Code
standards and consistent with Article 6 of the S PS Agreement, the Panel must determine whether
Russia's decision regarding the various European Union zones was "objectively justifiable". Russia
stresses that in conducting that review, the Panel must not substitute its own judgement of the
weight to be g iven certain evidence for that given by the importing country . Rather, it must
determine whether the totality of the circumstances and evidence (or lack thereof) was sufficient
to support the objectivity of Russia's decision in light of the relevant provis ions of the Terrestrial
Code and SPS Agreement Article 6 criteria and the available information. 1379 Russia further posits
that there exist considerable parallels between the more specific zoning provisions in Terrestrial
Code Chapter 4.3 and Article 5.3.7 an d the more general relevant factors listed in Articles 6.2 and
6.1 of the SPS Agreement.1380 In this regard Russia argues that first, Article 6.1 makes mandatory
the taking into account "the appropriate criteria and guidelines which may be developed by the
relevant international organizations", meaning any objective assessment of an ASF-free zone
consistent with Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement would have to include the assessment of the
zoning "principles" set out in Terrestrial Code Article 4.3.3 as well as the related Article 5.3.7. 1381
Second, all of the general factors listed in SPS Agreement Articles 6.1 and 6.2 for importing
countries to take into account when deciding to accept regionalization are also included in the
more specific provisions of Chapter 4 .3 of the Terrestrial Code, and that regardless of whether the
Terrestrial Code provisions in Articles 4.3.3 and 4.3.3.3 are binding on the European Union in
seeking to establish an ASF -free zone, at a minimum, these provisions are relevant benchmarks
for assessing the general criteria of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. 1382 Third, Article 6.3 of the
SPS Agreement also overlaps considerably with Terrestrial Code Article 5.3.7, which addresses the
"sequence of steps to be taken in establishing a zone/compartment and having it recognized for
international trade purposes".1383 Russia concludes that the Terrestrial Code is a more detailed and
elaborated version of the general provisions set out in Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. Accordingly,
if the Panel finds that Rus sia was objectively justified in not accepting the EU zones in conformity
with the Terrestrial Code zoning/ regionalization standards, recommendations, and guideline
benchmarks, it should also find that it acted consistently with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.1384
7.1007. In light of the parties' arguments, the Panel is faced with the question of whether Russia,
in applying the bans on the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, adapted
its measures to the SPS characteristics of the European Uni on and of Russia in respect of ASF,
pursuant to Russia's obligations under Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement. To address this question,
the Panel will first examine the applicable legal test, including a review of Russia's argument of the
applicable standard of review.
7.6.2.3.4.2 Legal test and standard of review
7.1008. In section 7.5.2.3.6.2 above we examined the applicable legal test pursuant to
Article 6.1. In that section we also addressed the standard of review that we should follow in the
instant case.
7.1009. In addition to the considerations set out in that section, we consider it relevant to address
Russia's argument that according to the Appellate Body in India – Agricultural Products , "an
exporting Member claiming, for example, that an importin g Member has failed to determine a

1377 European Union's second written submission, para. 128.
1378 Russia's first written submission, para. 231.
1379 Russia's second written submission, para. 49. See also Russia's response to Panel question No. 113,
paras. 190-196.
1380 Russia's second written submission, para. 50.
1381 Russia's second written submission, para. 51.
1382 Russia's second written submission, para. 52.
1383 Russia's second written submission, para. 53.
1384 Russia's second written submission, para. 56.

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 a cted inconsistently with Articles 6.1 or 6.2, unless that exporting Member
can demonstrate its own compliance with Article 6.3."1385
7.1010. However, we note that the Appellate Body continued:
This is not to suggest, as India does, that a Member adopting or maintaini ng 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. Indeed, as noted above, 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 a reas is relevant, but such Member's regulatory regime precludes the
recognition of such concept. Moreover, as noted above, pest - or disease-free areas
and areas of low pest or disease prevalence, which are specifically addressed in
Articles 6.2 and 6.3, ar e 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. We also
observe that Article 6.1 expressly identifies "criteria or guidelines" developed by
relevant organizations as relevant for the assessment of the SPS characteristics of
regions, which suggests that, under certain circumstances, the adaptation of an SPS
measure to regional SPS characteristics may be accomplished by taking into account
relevant criteria and guidel ines developed by such organizations, if any. Finally, we
recall that the overarching requirement under Article 6.1 to ensure the adaptation of
SPS measures is an ongoing obligation that applies upon adoption of an SPS measure
as well as thereafter. All of these considerations reinforce that a Member may act
inconsistently with the obligation under the first sentence of Article 6.1 absent the
objective demonstration provided for in Article 6.3 by an exporting Member. 1386
(emphasis added)
7.1011. We understand the Appe llate 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 S PS characteristics of areas
within those affected EU member States and of Russia.
7.6.2.3.4.3 Whether the bans of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
and Poland are adapted to the relevant SPS characteristics of areas within those EU
member States and to the SPS characteristics of Russia
7.1012. We recall that pursuant to Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement Russia has the obligation to
adapt its SPS measures to the sanitary and phytosanitary characteristics of the area from which
the product originated and to which the product is destined. In this case, this means adaptation to
the SPS characteristics of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland and to the SPS characteristics of
Russia. To determine whether Russia has made such an adaptation , we will first determine and
examine the SPS characteristics in each of those areas and then analyse whether Russia's bans on
the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are indeed adapted to these
characteristics.
7.1013. In section 7.6.2.3.3 above, we examined whether the European Union provided to Russia
the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrated that there are disease -free areas, which are
likely to remain so, within the territory of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, p ursuant to
Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement. Our finding, after reviewing the evidence provided by the
European Union to Russia together with the evidence on the record , as indicated in paragraph

1385 Russia's second written submission, para. 130 (quoting Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural
Products, para. 5.156).
1386 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.157. (footnotes omitted)

7.1004 above, is in the negative with respect to Latvia; and in the positive with respect to Estonia,
Lithuania, and Poland. We recall that we found that the European Union has provided the
necessary evidence in support of its claims that there are ASF-free areas within the four affecte d
EU member States. However, t he European Union fa iled to provide the necessary evidence to
Russia to objectively demonstrate that the ASF-free areas in Latvia are likely to remain ASF-free.
7.1014. Based on our finding under Article 6.3 with respect to Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland, we
consider that the European Union has provided the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate
that there are areas within each of these three EU member States characterized as being free of
ASF and likely to remain so. In addition, based on our finding under Article 6.3 with respect to
Latvia, we consider that the European Union provided the necessary evidence to objectively
demonstrate that there are areas within Latvia characterized as being free of ASF. However,
because of the ongoing nature of the obligation to ensure adaptation pursuant to Article 6.1, we
consider that to determine the SPS characteristics in the four affected EU member States, it is
appropriate for us to further consider the most updated information on record in respect of the
ASF outbreaks. We turn to examine the SPS characteristics in each of the affected EU member
States, particularly in respect of the most updated status of the presence of ASF.
7.1015. According to the information provided by the European Union th ere were
77 incidents/cases in Lithuania between January 2014 and April 2015, the last occurring on
16 April 2015. Of these 77 cases, six occurred in domestic pig holdings – and the last of these
outbreaks was on 31 August 2014. 1387 We also note that accordin g to the more updated
information provided by Russia, an additional 38 cases of ASF outbreaks were reported between
4 June 2015 and 27 August 2015, of which only one occurred outside the designated infected area,
but within the buffer zone, in a wild boar. 11 outbreaks were reported in domestic pigs in the
infected zone within this period. Based on Russia's updated information, a total of 123 incidents
occurred in Lithuania between 24 January 2014 and 27 August 2015. 1388 Examining these figures
together with the most updated geographical information on record 1389, we consider it to be clear
that in August 2015, there were areas in Lithuania that remained free of ASF.
7.1016. According to the information provided by the European Union there were 59 incidents of
ASF reporte d in Poland between February 2014 and April 2015, the last occurring on
16 April 2015. Of these 59 cases, only three occurred in domestic pig holdings – and the last of
these outbreaks was on 31 January 2015. We also note that according to the more updated
information provided by Russia, an additional 13 cases of ASF outbreaks were reported between
29 May 2015 and 21 August 2015, of which no additional outbreaks were reported outside of the
designated infected area. Based on Russia's updated information, a total of 80 outbreaks occurred
in Poland between 13 February 2014 and 21 August 2015. 1390 Examining these figures together

1387 ASF cases in the European Union notified to the OIE (Exhibit EU-118).
1388 Exhibit RUS-296 revised. According to the data submitted by Russia on the outbreaks in Lithuania
(RUS-275), there are some differences indicated in the number of outbreaks and their location (i.e. within the
buffer, infected or disease-free zones), as compared to the information provided by the European Union in
Exhibit EU-118. Russia indicates 85 cases of ASF outbreaks in Lithuania between 24 January 2014 to
4 June 2015, of which: (i) 2 cases occurred in domestic pigs outside of the buffer and infected zones (29 July
2014 and 22 August 2014); and (ii) 2 cases occurred in wild boars in the buffer zone (10 December 2014 and
18 May 2015). The updated exhibit provided by Russia (RUS-296 Revised) provides additional information on
the number of outbreaks in Lithuania up to 27 August 2015. An additional 38 cases of ASF outbreaks are
reported between 4 Junes 2015 and 27 August 2015, of which only one related to an outbreak in wild boar in
the buffer zone. 11 outbreaks are also reported in domestic pigs in the infected zone within this period. Based
on Russia's updated information, a total of 123 outbreaks occurred in Lithuania between 24 January 2014 and
27 August 2015.
1389 According to the information available in Exhibits EU-119 and RUS-297 revised.
1390 Exhibit RUS -296 revised. According to the data submitted by Russia on the outbreaks in Poland
(RUS-275), whilst having some differences in dates, cor roborates the three incidents of outbreak in domestic
pigs in the infection zone (17 July 2014, 5 August 2014 and 30 January 2015) and one case of infected wild
boar within the buffer zone (19 March 2015) indicated in EU's exhibit (EU -118). In total, 67 in cidents are
reported for Poland between 13 February 2014 and 29 May 2015. The updated exhibit provided by Russia
(RUS-296 Revised) provides additional information on the number of outbreaks in Poland after
13 February 2014 and up to 21 August 2015. An addi tional 13 cases of ASF outbreaks are reported between
this period, of which no additional outbreaks are reported outside of the designated infected area. Based on
Russia's updated information, a total of 80 outbreaks occurred in Poland between 13 February 2014 and
21 August 2015.

with the most updated geographical information on record 1391, we consider it to be clear that in
August 2015, there were areas in Poland that remained free of ASF.
7.1017. According to the information provided by the European Union, Latvia reported a total of
251 incidents between 26 June 2014 and 17 April 2015. Ten of the cases in wild boar were found
in the ASF-free area, and seven infected boar were found within the buffer zones. According to the
information provided by Russia, five outbreaks occurred in domestic pigs outside of the designated
buffer or infected zones, between 26 June 2014 and 1 September 2015. 1392 We recall our finding
under Article 6.3 that the European Union failed to provide information to Russia that objectively
demonstrated that the ASF -free areas in Latvia were likely to remain free of the disease. This
finding was largely based on the fact that the evidence on record regarding the information in
respect of Latvia that had been provided by the European Union to Russia as at 11 September
2014 called into question the effectiveness of the ASF control measures applied in Latvia. Despite
such findings, examining the figures mentioned above together with the most updated
geographical information on record 1393, we consider that in August 2015, there were areas in
Latvia that remained free of ASF.
7.1018. According to the information provided by the European Union, there were 84 incidents of
ASF in Estonia between September 2014 and April 2015, the last occurring on 17 April 2015. Of
these 84 cases, none had occurred in domestic pig holdings and none of the infected wild boar had
been found in ASF -free zones. Seven of the infected boars (including t he first one) were found in
the buffer zone. The last one of which, was found on 16 April 2015. Based on the information
available as at 11 September 2014, we consider that the European Union had provided sufficient
evidence to objectively demonstrate that the disease -free areas within Estonia were likely to
remain ASF-free. We also note that according to the more updated information provided by Russia,
on 18 May 2015 there was a case in wild boar outside the infected and buffer zones. In addition,
the Panel observes that the first three outbreaks in domestic pigs occurred within a designated
infected zone on 18 July 2015, affecting only 4 animals. The situation in domestic pigs changed as
the summer progressed, with 14 cases in small holdings (ranging from affecting 1 to 15 animals)
in designated infected zones, between 25 July and 27 August 2015. The number of outbreaks in
wild boar grew, always occurring within the infected and buffer zones (there were only 8 cases in
the buffer zone). Based on Russia's up dated information, a total of 250 outbreaks occurred in
Estonia between 2 September 2014 and 2 September 2015. Examining these figures together with
the most updated geographical information on record 1394, we consider it to be clear that in
August 2015, there were areas in Estonia that remained free of ASF.
7.1019. It is to th ese particular characteristics in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland to which
Russia has the obligation to adapt the ban s on the imports of the products at issue from these
affected EU member States.
7.1020. In our view, imposing an outright ban on the products at issue, such as the one imposed
by Russia on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, and
failing to recognize the existence of ASF-free areas withi n these four EU member States , amount
to not adapting the measure to the sanitary and phytosanitary characteristics of each of the four
affected EU member States . Moreover, this conclusion is reinforced by our subsequent analysis in
respect of the adaptation of the bans on the imports of the products at issue from the four affected
EU member States to the SPS characteristics in Russia.
7.1021. Moreover, our examination on Russia's obligation under Article 6.1 will address whether
there are elements in the SPS chara cteristics of the area to which the products are destined to
which the challenged measures should have been adapted. We will also examine if there are
additional factors, which in the light of the circumstances of the present case, would shed light on
our examination of Russia's obligations under Article 6.1.

1391 According to the information available in Exhibits EU-119 and RUS-297 revised.
1392 Exhibit RUS-296 revised.
1393 According to the information available in Exhibits EU-119 and RUS-297 revised.
1394 According to the information available in Exhibits EU-119 and RUS-297 revised.

7.1022. We note that starting in 2007, there have been ASF outbreaks in Russia and that ASF has
not been eradicated in Russia. 1395 In our view, this forms part of the SPS characteristics of the
territory to which the products at issue from the European Union are destined and to which Russia
must adapt its measure s. The SPS experts consulted by the Panel stressed many times that it
"needs to be remembered that the RF [Russia] is not an ASF-free country". 1396
7.1023. In our examination of this matter in respect of the EU -wide ban, we have noted that the
panel in US – Animals observed, "[i]f for instance, a particular area within the territory of an
importing Member has a similar SPS status as the area of origin of a product (e .g. has the same
level of prevalence of a given disease), that Member may be required to tailor its measure by
relaxing the restrictions on imports into that area". 1397 We agree with this statement, in the sense
that the level of prevalence of a given disease in the territory of the importing Member is part and
parcel of the situation to which what that importing Member must adapt its SPS measures to. We
recall also the comment by Dr Thomson that "it seems to me that the problem under discussion is
a regional one encompassing the Caucuses, Baltic States, the Russian Federation and eastern
parts of the EU. As indicated elsewhere, from an ASF perspective, the whole region seems to be in
roughly the same position. Most of the vast surface area of the EU lies outsi de this region …" 1398
This is not to say that a country in which a disease occurs cannot impose any import restrictions to
prevent the further entry of the disease into regions in which control measures are in place, or its
spread into areas of the importing country which are free of the disease. Rather, the fact that a
disease already exists within the importing area and that control measures on in place, are factors
that affect the potential risks presented by imported products and that thus must be conside red
when determining whether a particular measure is adapted to the SPS characteristics of the region
to which a product is destined.
7.1024. In addition, pursuant to the second sentence of Article 6.1, in assessing the
SPS characteristics of a region, Members sha ll take into account, among other things, the level of
prevalence of the specific diseases, the existence of eradication or control programmes, and
appropriate criteria or guidelines which may be developed by the relevant international
organizations. In our view, because a Member needs to know which are the SPS characteristics to
which its SPS measures need to be adapted, it would be difficult for a Member to act in accordance
with its obligations under Article 6.1 if it has not pursued an assessment of the areas from where
the products at issue originate and to which they are destined.
7.1025. As we have noted in our examination of this matter in respect of the EU -wide ban, we
agree with the panel in US – Animals that "the obligation to 'take into account' the fact ors
enumerated in the second sentence [of Article 6.1] is intrinsically connected to the obligations
relating to the assessment of risks under Article 5 of the SPS Agreement. In particular, Article 5.2
requires Members conducting 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' when assessing the
risks as required by Article 5.1. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the assessment of the
SPS characteristics of an area, taking into account the factors listed in the second sentence of
Article 6.1 could be conducted as part of a Member's risk assessment.1399"1400
7.1026. It is undisputed 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. In section 7.6.5 below,
we examine the justifications raised by Russia to excuse compliance with its obligation, pursuant
to Article 5.1, to base its SPS measures on a risk assessment. Notwithstanding our examination in
section 7.6.5 below in respect of the European Union's claims under Articles 5.1, 5.2, 2.2 and 5.7 ,
we consider it relevant to our analysis under Article 6.1 that Russia has not made an assessment
of the risks arising from the imports of the products at issue from the territory of the European
Union, including Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. In particular, we consider that the lack of

1395 See Russia's first written submission, para. 23 (referring to OIE WAHIS Interface, Event summary
Reports, African swine fever, Russia (2007-2014). (Exhibit RUS-144)); response to Panel question No. 143,
para. 264; and second written submission, paras. 146-147. See also paras. 4.22-4.24 above.
1396 Dr Thomson, para. 2.128 (response to Panel question 13).
1398 Dr Thomson's response to EU Question No.5, para. 1.128.
1399 (footnote original) Our statement should not be read to preclude the possibility of other situations
where Article 6.1 could be applied in the absence of a risk assessment.

risk assessment limits a Member's ability to assess the SPS characteristics of the areas from where
the products in question originate and of the areas to which they are destined.
7.1027. In this case, we consider that rejecting the imports of goods from the entire territory of
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, and not tailoring the bans on the imports of the products at
issue from these four affected EU member States in a manner that ensures adaptation to the
presence of ASF in certain areas in Russia, constitutes a breach of Russia's o bligation under
Article 6.1. This breach is further reinforced by Russia's failure to make a risk assessment as
appropriate to the circumstances, which in this case entail an exhaustive examination, including
the corresponding scientific justification, of the regionalization measures adopted by the European
Union and the potential risks to different areas within Russia. We consider, for example, that the
risk posed by imports into those areas of Russia where ASF currently exists, including among wild
boar, may be significantly different than the risk to areas of the Russian territory that are free of
ASF. This would in particular be the case if the control and surveillance measures that Russia
applies to ASF within its territory are indeed as effective as claimed by Russia.
7.6.2.3.4.4 Conclusion
7.1028. Based on the foregoing, we find that 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 ban 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 or refer to 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. We therefore find that the ban s on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are inconsistent with Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement.
7.6.2.4 Conclusion in respect of the consistency of the bans on the products at issue
from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement
7.1029. In this section we find that 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 the
imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are not inconsistent
with Russia's obligations under Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement.1401
7.1030. We also find that at least as at 11 September 2014, the European Union failed to provide
to Russia the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate, pursuant to Article 6.3 of the
SPS Agreement, that there are areas within Latvia, which are free of ASF and are likely to remain
so. We also find that the European Union provided to Russia the necessary evidence to objectively
demonstrate, pursuant to Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, that there are areas with in Estonia,
Lithuania, and Poland that are ASF-free and are likely to remain so.1402
7.1031. Lastly we find that 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 sub ject to the ban 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 evaluation 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 6.1.1403

1401 See section 7.5.2.3.4 above.
1402 See section 7.5.2.3.5 above.
1403 See section 7.5.2.3.6 above.

7.6.3 Whether the bans on the impor ts of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland are "based on" the relevant international standards under Article
3.1 of the SPS Agreement (continued)
7.6.3.1 Assessing whether the bans on the imports of the products at issue from
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, as applicable to non-treated products, are "based
on" the international standards applicable to non-treated products
7.1032. In section 7.6.1.3.3 we discerned the meaning of the relevant international st andards in
this dispute, articulated in the Terrestrial Code. At the end of that section we observed that as a
result of our examination of the meaning of the relevant international standards applicable to
non-treated products in the light of the parties' arguments and of the circumstances in this
dispute, we concluded that before comparing the bans on the imports of the products at issue from
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland with those standards for the purposes of determining
whether those measures are "based on" them, we considered it appropriate and instructive for us
to turn to our examination of the European Union's claims under Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.
After conducting our examination of the European Union's claims under Article 6 and rea ching the
respective findings, we now resume our examination of whether the bans on the imports of the
products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are based on the relevant provisions
of the Terrestrial Code applicable to the non-treated products at issue.
7.1033. In sections 7.6.1.3.1 and 7.6.1.3.2 above, we expounded on the applicable legal standard
under Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement. For a measure to be based on a relevant internati onal
standard it should be "founded", "built upon" or "supported by" such a standard. Moreover, if a
measure is found to contradict, that is, it fundamentally departs from, the standard it cannot be
properly concluded that such an international standard ha s been used "as a basis for" the
respective measure.1404 In light of these criteria, we now turn to examine the question of whether
the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are
"based on" the relevant provisions of the Terrestrial Code.
7.1034. We recall that the provisions of the Terrestrial Code relating to ASF status provide for
recognition of ASF -free countries, zones, and compartments. Thus, Articles 15.1.2, 15.1.3 and
15.1.4 each make reference to an ASF -free "country", "zone" or "compartment" on an equal
footing,1405 without imposing any sequence, preference or hierarchy amongst the three terms.
Moreover, pursuant to certain Articles in Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code 1406, trade of certain
pig and pork product s is safe when they originate from animals located in an ASF-free country or
zone.1407 The relevant provisions of the Terrestrial Code thus require recognition of ASF-free areas,
contingent upon the proper establishment of those areas.
7.1035. In section 7.5.2.3.5 above we concluded that the European Union did not provide Russia
with the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that areas in Latvia are free of ASF and
are likely to remain so. 1408 This failure, read in the context of the information on record available
to Russia up to September 2014, would support the fact that there are uncertainties in respect of
the existence of ASF-free areas within Latvia which are likely to remain ASF-free. In this respect,
we understand that the sta ndards articulated in the Terrestrial Code for the trade of non -treated
pig products are the basis for the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Latvia.
7.1036. In section 7.5.2.3.5 above we also concluded that the European Union provided to Russia
the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that areas in Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland are
free of ASF and are likely to remain so. 1409. Given that the relevant provisions of the Terrestrial
Code call upon OIE members to allow for the possibility of recognition of ASF-free status (whether
historically or on the basis of eradication) on a country or "zone" basis, the failure of Russia to
even allow for the possibility for imports from Poland since February 2014 amounts, in our view, to

1404 See para. 7.254 above.
1405 For definitions of these concepts, see paras. 7.293-7.297 above.
1406 For a list of the Articles of Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code relevant to our examination of
non-treated products see Table 8 above.
1407 See section 7.5.1.3.4.2 above.
1408 See section 7.5.2.3.5.4 above.
1409 See section 7.5.2.3.5.4 above.

a "fundamental departure" from the provisions of the Terrestrial Code dealing with ASF -free
status, in particular, Articles 15.2 -15.4. Accordingly, we find that, the ban s on the imports of the
products at issue from Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland, as applicable to non -treated products,
contradict the relevant international standards and therefore it cannot be considered to be "based
on" that standard for the purposes of Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement.
7.1037. Based on the foregoing, we find that the bans on the imports of the products at issue
from Latvia, as applicable to non -treated products originating from ASF -free areas, are based on
the Terrestrial Code and are in consequence consistent with Russia's obligation to base its
SPS measures on international standards, pursuant to Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement.
7.6.3.2 Conclusion on whether the bans on the imports of the products at issue from
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are "based on" the relevant international
standards
7.1038. We recall that we considered it most appropriate to pursue an examination of whether the
bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland in respect
to two categories of products covered by such measures. The first relates to the scope of the
challenged measures in respect of products subject to treatment, which we examined in light of
the Terrestrial Code provisions that articulate the standards for the trade of treated pork products
(Articles 15.1.14-15.1.16). The second relates to the scope o f the challenged measures in respect
of non -treated products originating from ASF-free areas, which we examined in light of the
Terrestrial Code provisions that articulate the standards for the trade of non -treated products
(Articles 15.1.2 -15.1.4, 15.1.5, 15.1.8, 15.1.10, 15.1.12, 15.1.13, 15.1.14, 15.1.15, and
15.1.16).
7.1039. Regarding the scope of the challenged measures in respect of treated products we find
that the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
are not "based on" the relevant international standards, as articulated in Articles 15.1.14 -15.1.16
of the Terrestrial Code; and are therefore, to the extent applicable to treated products,
inconsistent with Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement.
7.1040. Regarding the scop e of the challenged measures in respect of non -treated products we
find that the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Latvia are "based on" the relevant
international standards, as articulated in the relevant articles of Chapter 15.1 of the Te rrestrial
Code; and are therefore, to the extent applicable to non -treated products, consistent with
Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement. We also find that the ban s on the imports of the products at
issue from Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland, as applicable to non-treated products, 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 applicable to non -treated products,
inconsistent with Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement.
7.6.4 Claims under Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement
7.6.4.1 Main arguments of the parties
7.6.4.1.1 European Union
7.1041. The European Union claims that Russia failed and fails to modify the measures at issue in
order to permit the resumption of imports to Russia of the products at issue from non -affected
areas in the European Union and/or with respect to appropriately treated or processed
products.1410 The European Union's claim under Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement refers
to "the acceptance of EU regionalization measures". 1411 The European Union argues that Russia
failed to ensure that procedures for checking and ensuring the fulfilment of SPS measures were
undertaken and completed without undue delays and in a manner no less favourable for importe d
products than for like domestic products under Annex C(1)(a). The European Union further
contends that Russia failed to observe its obligations in the operation of approval procedures as

1410 European Union's first written submission, para. 337.
1411 European Union's second written submission, para. 161.

embodied in Annex C(1)(b). The European Union also claims that Russ ia failed to ensure that
information requirements were limited to what was necessary for appropriate control, inspection
and approval procedures in Annex C(1)(c). In this respect, the European Union concludes that
Russia's measures are in breach of Annex C (1)(a), (b) and (c) of the SPS Agreement and,
consequently, of Article 8 of the SPS Agreement.1412
7.6.4.1.2 Russia
7.1042. Russia contends that the scope of control, inspection and approval procedures set out in
Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement does not cover the Eu ropean Union's claims and the
evidence presented. In addition, Russia submits that even if the scope of Annex C did cover the
measures subject to the European Union's claims, the European Union has not put forward
sufficient evidence and has not met its bu rden of proof to establish a prima facie case of a
violation of Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the SPS Agreement In respect of the
measures on imports from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland , Russia asserts that the record
supports the conclusion that the four European Union member States failed to provide Russia with
comprehensive, timely and adequate information of implementation of effective ASF control
measures, not only in its initial ASF -free zone regionalization request, but also sub sequently with
respect to each legislative change to the borders of the alleged ASF -free zone. Russia asserts that
it reviews its provisional measures on a regular basis, but the European Union's failure to provide
sufficient information has resulted in th e current delay. According to Russia, one or more of the
Panel's experts has considered relevant a number of the questions asked by Russia with respect to
all the EU member States.1413
7.6.4.2 Main arguments of the third parties
7.6.4.2.1 Brazil
7.1043. Brazil refers to Russia's argum ent that negotiations leading up to the adoption of a
procedure fall outside of the purview of Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. Brazil
considers that the existence of negotiations involving certain procedures is not, in itself, a decisive
criterion for the determination of the applicability of Article 8. 1414 In addition, Brazil refers to the
requirement to complete SPS procedures without undue delay, and highlights that the delay will be
undue when it is unjustified, excessive, unwarranted or disproportionate.1415
7.6.4.2.2 United States
7.1044. The United States considers that the European Union's claim under Article 8 and Annex C
of the SPS Agreement is based on the incorrect premise that the measures at issue fall under the
purview of those provisions, because they a re not control, inspection, nor approval procedures of
an existing SPS measure, but rather a request for modifying the scope of such a measure.1416
7.6.4.3 Analysis by the Panel
7.6.4.3.1 Introduction
7.1045. The European Union presents its claims under the provisions of the SPS Agre ement
related to control, inspection and approval procedures, in the following order: (i) Annex C(1), with
particular reference to subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c); and (ii) Article 8. The European Union
argues that in light of its arguments presented under Article C(1), Russia has breached the
provisions of Annex C(1) (a), (b) and (c), and, consequently, Article 8. 1417 Russia presents its

1412 European Union's first written submission, paras. 343-344; European Union's second written
submission, paras. 167-185.
1413 Russia's comment to the experts' responses to Panel questions 12-13. See also Russia's second
written submission, paras. 61-77 and 83-86, and 196.
1414 Brazil's third-party submission, paras. 22-27.
1415 Brazil's third-party submission, paras. 28-33.
1416 United States' third-party submission, paras. 12-18.
1417 European Union's first written submission, para. 344.

arguments under both Article 8 and Annex C(1), including the relevant sub -paragraphs of Annex
C(1)(a), (b) and (c).
7.1046. The Panel is called upon to examine the scope of application of Article 8 and Annex C of
the SPS Agreement, and to assess the claims of inconsistency raised by the European Union in
respect of Annex C(1)(a), (b), and (c). Before turning to the corresponding assess ment, we refer
to the relevant legal provisions.
7.6.4.3.2 Relevant legal provisions
7.1047. Article 8 of the SPS Agreement, entitled "Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures",
provides:
Members shall observe the provisions of Annex C in the operation of control,
inspection and approval procedures, including national systems for approving the use
of additives or for establishing tolerances for contaminants in foods, beverages or
feedstuffs, and otherwise ensure that their procedures are not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Agreement.
7.1048. Annex C of the SPS Agreement is entitled "Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures".
An accompanying footnote is attached to the title of Annex C, which states that:
[7] Control, inspection and approval procedures include inter al ia, procedures for
sampling, testing and certification.
7.1049. Annex C(1) provides , in relevant part, that:
1. Members shall ensure, with respect to any procedure to check and ensure the
fulfilment of sanitary or phytosanitary measures, that:
(a) such procedures are undertaken and completed without undue delay
and in no less favourable manner for imported products than for like
domestic products;
(b) the standard processing period of each procedure is published or that
the anticipated processing period is communi cated to the applicant upon
request; when receiving an application, the competent body promptly
examines the completeness of the documentation and informs the
applicant in a precise and complete manner of all deficiencies; the
competent body transmits as s oon as possible the results of the
procedure in a precise and complete manner to the applicant so that
corrective action may be taken if necessary; even when the application
has deficiencies, the competent body proceeds as far as practicable with
the proce dure if the applicant so requests; and that upon request, the
applicant is informed of the stage of the procedure, with any delay being
explained;
(c) information requirements are limited to what is necessary for
appropriate control, inspection and approva l procedures, including for
approval of the use of additives or for the establishment of tolerances for
contaminants in food, beverages or feedstuffs;
7.1050. Article 8 of the SPS Agreement requires Members to "observe the provisions of Annex C
in the operation of control, inspection and approval procedures", thereby incorporating the
disciplines of Annex C into the operative part of the SPS Agreement. This is consistent with the
language of Article 1.3 of the SPS Agreement, which states that "[t]he annexes are an integral
part of th[e] Agreement". Thus, the non -observance of the obligations in Annex C(1) "implies a

violation of Article 8".1418 Accordingly, the Panel will first determine whether Russia has breached
its obligations under Annex C(1)(a), (b) and (c). A ru ling that Russia has breached obligations
under Annex C will consequently mean that Article 8 has also been breached.
7.1051. As Russia contests that the challenged actions of Russia fall within the scope of
Article 8 and Annex C(1) of the SPS Agreement, the Panel will first address whether Article 8 and
Annex C(1) of the SPS Agreement are applicable to Russia's actions. If we find that the challenged
actions fall within the scope of these provisions, we will proceed to assess the European Union's
claims of inconsistency with Annex C(1)(a)-(c), and, consequently, Article 8.
7.6.4.3.3 Whether the challenged actions of Russia fall within the scope of Article 8 and
Annex C(1) of the SPS Agreement
7.1052. In section 7.5.4.3.3 above we summarized and addresse d the parties' arguments in
respect of whether the procedure at issue, as identified by the European Union, falls within the
scope of Article 8 and Annex C(1) of the SPS Agreement. We recall the parties' arguments and
then examine them in light of the mann er in which the procedure at issue is applied for the
purposes of the ASF areas within the four affected EU member States.
7.6.4.3.3.1 The European Union's complaint
7.1053. The European Union posits, in respect of Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement,
that the acceptance of the European Union's regionalization measures is not a negotiation between
two Members, as argued by Russia, but instead an objective exchange of information requiring the
decision of the importing Member. 1419 The European Union enumerates a series of events, dating
from early February 2014, which it argues constitutes undue delay encountered in the process,
including (i) Russia's repeated request for information previously provided; (ii) Russia's requests
for irrelevant information; and (iii) Russia's failure to reply to additional information and
explanations submitted by the European Union.1420
7.1054. Russia argues that the European Union, in its claim of Russia's undue delay in responding
to communications or meeting requests, only provides some information on the discussions and
exchanges that have taken place between Russia and the European Union. 1421 Russia argues that
the evidence the European Union provided distorts the overall picture of the constant information
exchange and intensive negotiations concernin g regionalization, including the numerous
explanations provided by Russia in relation to the insufficiency of submitted information. Russia
concludes that the European Union has merely asserted a violation of Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a)
by pointing to alleged delays in evaluating requests for regionalization without demonstrating that
these delays were "undue". Russia submits that even if the scope of the procedures covered the
measures subject to the European Union's claims the European Union has not put f orward
sufficient evidence and has not met its burden of proof to establish the prima facie case of a
violation of Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the SPS Agreement.1422
7.1055. To the extent that the European Union is challenging Russia's actual non -acceptance to
date of the European Union's request for recognition of ASF -free areas, we see no obligation in
Article 8 or Annex C(1)(a) -(c) that mandates a particular outcome in respect of the procedures

1418 Panel Report, US – Poultry (China), para. 7.394. See also Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.62.
The panel in EC - Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products found that failure to observe the provisions of
Annex C of the SPS Agreement implies a consequential breach of Article 8. Panel Reports, EC – Approval and
1419 European Union's second written submission, para. 162.
1420 European Union's first written submission, para. 339; response to Panel question No. 194, paras.
383-384; and second written submission, paras. 161, and 167-183.
1421 Russia's first written submission, paras. 432-433. With regard to Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a), Russia
highlights that the European Union in its claims refers to "non-affected areas in the EU", but does not identify
what it means by this reference. Russia indicates that it presents its arguments on the assumption that the
European Union refers to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
1422 Russia's closing statement at the second meeting with the Panel, para. 3.

they address. 1423 We understand, nevertheless, that the Eu ropean Union is challenging Russia's
process of consideration of its request for recognition of ASF -free areas, in particular, relating to
certain information requested by Russia.1424
7.1056. Accordingly, we first examine whether such a process falls within the scop e of application
of Article 8 and Annex C. In this examination, we will consider whether the identified actions of
Russia, as the responding Member, constituted "any procedures" that fall within the scope of
Article 8 and Annex C(1). If so, we will conside r whether those procedures were aimed at
"checking and ensuring the fulfilment of sanitary or phytosanitary measures."1425
7.6.4.3.3.2 Scope of control, inspection and approval procedures
"Any" procedure
7.1057. In section 7.5.4.3.3.2 above, we exam ined this issue in respect of the EU -wide ban. As
we noted, the alleged procedure at issue by the European Union concerns recognition of ASF-free
areas in the European Union. In our view, this refers both to areas within and outside Estonia,
Latvia, Lithua nia, and Poland. For the purposes of our analysis, we examine separately the
situation of how Russia considered the areas outside these four affected EU member States (which
we have assessed in section 7.5.2 above, vis-a-vis the EU-wide ban) and how Russia considered
the areas inside these four affected EU member States. In this section, we focus on the latter of
these situations. However, in our view, our examination of whether Russia's consideration of the
ASF-free areas withi n Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland amounts to "any procedure" is
common for the consideration of areas inside and outside the four affected EU member States. We
therefore rely on our analysis of this matter as explained in section 7.5.4.3.3.2 above. We now
turn to our assessment of whether Russia's consideration of the ASF-free areas within the four
affected EU-member States was to "check or ensure the fulfilment" of SPS measures."
To "check and ensure" the "fulfilment" of SPS measures
7.1058. Article 8 and Annex C(1) apply to the procedures dealing with control, inspection and
approval "which are aimed at checking and ensuring the fulfilment of SPS measures." 1426 Annex
A(1) defines "sanitary or phytosanitary measure" as any measure a pplied to achieve any of the
objectives set out therein. We consider that the phrase "to check and ensure the fulfilment of an
SPS measure" means that Article 8 and Annex C cover any procedure to make certain that a
measure applied to achieve one of the ob jectives in Annex A(1) is fulfilled, that is, fully
implemented.1427 The Appellate Body observed in this respect that "since the procedures referred
to in Annex C(1) are those that check and ensure fulfilment of SPS measures, this suggests that
such measures exist prior to the operation, undertaking, or completion of, the relevant
procedures, as the latter seek and ensure fulfilment with the former." 1428
7.1059. We therefore examine whether Russia's procedure at issue checks and ensures the
fulfilment of an SPS measure as defined in Annex A(1).

1423 We do not mean to say that there is no core obligation in these provisions to reach a decision.
Rather, these provisions foresee a requirement to conduct a procedure and reach a final determination,
whether it be positive or negative. See, for example, Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.112.
1424 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 420 ff. The Appellate Body report on Australia –
Apples clarified that a complainant enjoys discretion in identifying the measures at issue and the Panel should
not conflate the requirement to identify the measures at issue with the requirement to identify the legal basis
of the complaint. This clarification was given in the part of the report in which the Appellate Body determined
whether the panel erred in finding that the claims under Annex C(1)(a) and Article 8 of the SPS Agreement
were outside of its term of reference. Article 6.2 of the DSU does not impose any additional requirement, as
the Panel's analysis implies, that a complainant must, in its request for establishment of a panel, demonstrate
that the identified measure at issue causes the violation of, or can violate, the relevant obligation. The
question of whether the measures identified in the panel request can violate, or cause the violation of, the
obligation in Annex C(1)(a) and Article 8 is a substantive issue to be addressed and resolved on the merits.
Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 423.
1425 See, for example, Panel Report, US - Animals, para 7.71.
1426 Panel Report, US – Poultry (China), para. 7.356.
1427 We find support for this approach in Panel Report, US - Animals, para 7.73.
1428 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 436.

7.1060. We recall our findings in paragraph 7.231 above that the bans on imports of the products
at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland constitute SPS measures within the meaning of
Annex A(1), a nd, our findings in paragraph 7.517 above, that the procedures at issue - Russia's
process for considering the European Union's request for ASF regionalization - are interlinked with
the imposition and perpetuation, as well as the geographical and product scope, of the bans on the
imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
7.1061. Russia has insisted1429 that the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, were adopted in part on the basis of the 2006 memorandum 1430 and
of the bilateral veterinary certificates 1431; both of which were already in existence. Furthermore,
the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland were
clearly adopted in connection with Russia's overarching SPS regulation on animal diseases, as
contained in Customs Union Decision 317. 1432 Against this backdrop, we consider that the
procedure at issue (i.e. Russia's process of consideration of the European Un ion's request for the
recognition of ASF-free areas within the European Union including the four affected EU -member
States), is focused on determining whether the epizootic situation in the European Union warrants
an adaptation of the veterinary certificat es bilaterally agreed in 2006. In this vein, the procedure
at issue concerns checking fulfilment of a measure that is already in existence covered by Article 8
and Annex C(1) of the SPS Agreement (rather than constituting "negotiations" concerning
regionalization and revisions to certificates that would fall into the category of processes for
modifying a measure).
7.1062. We now turn to our examination of the consistency of the process at issue with
paragraphs (a) through (c) of Annex C(1).
7.6.4.3.4 Whether the procedure at issue was undertaken in accordance with
Annex C(1)(a)-(c) of the SPS Agreement
7.6.4.3.4.1 Order of analysis
7.1063. We recall that the European Union has raised claims in respect of paragraphs (a) through
(c) of Annex C(1) of the SPS Agreement. As we have already noted 1433, we are free to structure
the order of our analysis of the European Union's claims taking into account the circumstances of
the present case, in a manner that is consistent with the structure and logic of the provisions at
issue.1434 Most of the European Union's arguments and evidence have focused on the fact that
Russia has requested unnecessary evidence, which was not examined in a timely fashion, raising
alleged violations of paragraphs (c) and (a) of Annex C(1). Furthermore, the European Union, in a
summary fashion, addresses other potential violations concerning paragraph (b) of Annex C(1).
7.1064. Based on the foregoing, we will continue our analysis by addressing whether the
procedures at issue breach paragraph (c) of Annex C(1), followed by our corresponding
examination in respect of paragraphs (a) and then (b) of Annex C(1).
7.6.4.3.4.2 Legal test
7.1065. In section 7.5.4.3.4.2 above we have examined in detail the applicable legal test under
Annex C(1)(a) through (c). We will rely on our considerations pr ovided in that section when
addressing the subsequent questions concerning the manner in which Russia undertook and

1429 Russia's first written submission, paras. 343 and 345; Russia's response to Panel question No. 78,
para.129; and Russia's second written submission, paras. 172-174.
1430 European Union-Russia Memorandum of 4 April 2006 concerning principles of zoning and
compartmentalization in the veterinary field (Exhibit EU-61).
1431 Veterinary certificate for piglets for fattening (Exhibit EU-52); Veterinary certificate for pigs for
breeding (Exhibit EU-53); the Veterinary certificate for pork meat and raw meat preparations (Exhibit EU-54);
Veterinary certificate for slaughter pigs(Exhibit EU-55); Veterinary certificate for finished food products (Exhibit
EU-56); Veterinary certificate for canned meat, salamis and other ready for consumption meat products(Exhibit
EU-57).
1432 Customs Union Decision No. 317 (Exhibit RUS-25).
1433 See para 7.29 above.
1434 Appellate Body Reports, Canada – Autos, para. 151; and Canada – Wheat Exports and Grain

completed the procedure at issue in respect of the ASF-free areas the European Union claimed to
exist within Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
Whether the procedure at issue is consistent with Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a),
C(1)(b) and C.(1)(c)
Introduction
7.1066. As we have indicated, we consider that it is most appropriate for us to begin our
examination of the European Union's claims under Ar ticle 8 and Annex C(1) with an assessment of
the inconsistency of the procedure at issue, in respect of the products at issue from Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, with Annex C(1)(c). We thus begin with this assessment and then
proceed with our examination pursuant to Annex C(1)(a) and C(1)(b).
Whether the procedure at issue is inconsistent with Annex C(1)(c)
7.1067. The European Union posits that Russia's information requirements were not limited to
what is necessary for the assessment of the European Union 's regionalization measures in respect
of ASF, thus breaching Annex C(1)(c).1435 In support of this contention, the European Union
referred to specific information requests that we examine below. Russia argues that the European
Union did not make a prima facie case and failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that Russia
violated Annex C(1)(c).1436
7.1068. In particular, the European Union claims that Russia request ed unnecessary information.
Such requests are reflected in the letters that FSVPS sent to DG SANCO on 5 February and 12
March 2014.
7.1069. The European Union's arguments are formulated as generally applicable to ASF-free areas
in its entire territory, this is, including areas both inside and outside the four affected EU member
States. As we have explained above, w e consider that we need to undertake our analysis
separately in respect of the information requirements related to ASF-free areas inside and outside
EU member States where ASF outbreaks have occurred. We consider that this distinct approach is
appropriate, flowing from our understanding that there is a difference between what needs to be
demonstrated in support of the existence of an ASF-free area inside and outside a country where
an ASF outbreak has occurred. We recall that this difference is called for based on the levels of risk
posed by products originating from a territory that is close to an area affected by ASF, especially in
the light of the home range of wild boar and potential links between wild boar populations.
Moreover, in our assessment under Article 6.3 in sections 7.5.2.3.5 (in respect of the EU -wide
ban) and 7.6.2.3.3 (in respect of the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland), we expla ined the different necessary evidence that the European
Union had to provide to Russia to objectively demonstrate the existence of ASF-free areas, and the
likelihood of those areas remaining ASF-free, both inside and outside the four affected EU member
States.
7.1070. In addition, we recall that the ASF situation in the four affected EU member States
changed throughout 2014. The differences in the degree of spread of ASF in the territory of each
affected EU member State could affect the amount of information neces sary for Russia to
undertake and complete the procedure at issue. We will therefore identify the type of information
that Russia was requesting in respect of the territories affected by ASF throughout 2014 in order
to assess the extent to which such inform ation was necessary for Russia's completion of the
procedure at issue. We generally refer to the information requested in respect of the four affected
EU member States, as we consider that regardless of when the outbreaks took place in each of
those EU member States, the information requests made in respect of Lithuania in February 2014
reflected the type of information that Russia considered necessary for the completion of the
procedure at issue. Such standard of requested information, as modified througho ut the
subsequent communications of 2014, will serve as our benchmark in respect of the completion of
the procedure at issue for the four ASF affected EU member States.

1435 European Union's second written submission, para. 184.
1436 Russia's first written submission, para. 441.

7.1071. We turn to the European Union's arguments in respect of the information requested by
Russia for the assessment of ASF-free areas within Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
7.1072. Regarding the letter of 5 February 2014 1437, the European Union identifies the follow ing
information as unnecessary and irrelevant: (i) swine population in personal subsidiary farming with
detailed density by region; (ii) production volume of different farms and factories; (iii) volumes of
exported wild boar meat and trophies; and, (iv) detailed information about foreign hunters. In its
arguments, the European Union clai ms that the aforementioned requests were unnecessary to
assess the European Union's regionalization measures. 1438 In addition, the European Union
contests the relevance of Russia's requests for information, done through the letter of 5 February
2014, pertaining to (i) pig farms and meat processing factories, including information about the
suppliers and production volumes; and (ii) rough estimation of enterprises attested to ship animal
products, by level of zoosanitary condition. 1439 The European Union argues th at while this
information might be relevant for compartmentalization, it is not relevant for regionalization. The
European Union further claims that not only was Russia already in possession of the information
with regard to attested pig farms and processi ng factories, but that the requested information on
the level of sanitary condition was also irrelevant for regionalization, as all farms in the free -
regions are ASF-free.1440
7.1073. Regarding the letter of 12 March 2014 1441, the European Union considers that Russia
requested the following unnecessary and irrelevant information: (i) absence of any proof of non -
existence of ASF in the territory of other EU member states; and (ii) absence of any proof of
impossibility of getting meat of animals infected by ASF virus in th e production cycle of pork from
other EU member states.1442
7.1074. The European Union also claims that Russia, through the letter from FSVPS to DG SANCO
dated 16 May 2014, requested answers to questions where the European Union had already
provided exhaustive repli es.1443 Furthermore, the European Union contends that this letter also
requested unnecessary information, such as that referring to (i) zoo sanitary status of small farms
(due to the big number of them in the territories of the infected/high risk zones with r egard to
ASF) and measure of their bio protection (possibility of free range, feed base, the regime of
introducing the newly arrived animals in the herd, etc.); and (ii) Cartographical visual ization of the
establishments attested to supply live pigs and swine products from the EU Member States (Poland
and Lithuania, in particular) to the Russian Federation with indication of the raw material bases of
these establishments.1444
7.1075. Moreover, the European Union argues that it has made clear to Russia that "no [infect ed]
establishment is allowed to supply pig meat or pig meat products to the establishments authorised
to export to the Russian Federation." 1445 On this basis, the European Union posits that it has
provided abundant evidence to substantiate its claims under Annex C and Article 8 of the SPS.1446

1437 Russia's letter to the European Union of 5 February 2014, FS-SD 8/1640 (Exhibit EU–84).
1438 European Union's second written submission, paras. 168-169.
1439 European Union's second written submission, para. 172. See also first written submission, para.
339.
1440 European Union's second written submission, paras. 172 – 173. The European Union referred to
similar information requests formulated through the letter of 16 May 2014, see second written submission,
paras. 177-178 (referring to Russia's letter to the European Union of 16 May 2014, FS-EN-8/7999 (Exhibit EU-
93)).
1441 Russia's letter to the European Union of 12 March 2014, FS-SD-4/3620 (Exhibit EU-90/RUS-135).
1442 European Union's first written submission, para. 339; and second written submission, para. 176.
1443 European Union's first written submission, para. 339 (referring to Russia's letter to the European
Union of 16 May 2014, FS-EN-8/7999 (Exhibit EU-93)).
1444 European Union's second written submission, paras. 177-181.
1445 European Union's second written submission, para. 182.
1446 In its response to Panel Question 194, the European Union identified information requested by
Russia in March 2014 that had already been provided or which was not relevant for the purposes of Russia's
assessment of the European Union's regionalization measures:
– proof that the historically ASF-free regions all over the EU are actually free, contrary to the provisions
of the OIE Terrestrial Code;
- information about swine population in the industry sector and personal subsidiary farming with
detailed density by region; detailed information about pig farms, pork processing factories and semi-finished

7.1076. In turn, Russia has argued that these information requests are justified. According to
Russia, the experts have confirmed that there has been an objective basis for Russia's
requests.1447
7.1077. The Panel asked the experts to comme nt on the relevance of the questions included in
some of Russia's information requests for the purposes of assessing the relevant risks.1448
7.1078. In his response to this question, Dr Brückner noted that the "intention and the magnitude
of the information required is unclear". Dr Brückner further observed that
The information normally required from an exporting country would be restricted to
the pathogen concerned and the potential hazards related to that pathogen and from
the area under dispute (ASF affected area) and would in general require information
that are not yet available from the exporting country (which in the case of exports
from the EU to the Russian Federation would by default already be available for other
animal and animal product exports). However, the information requested in Exhibit
RUS-131, is in my opinion "an overkill" of which many of the questions are not relative
or needed to conduct either a sensible quantitative or qualitative risk analysis.1449
7.1079. In her response to this question, Professor Penr ith indicated that such information
"appears to be the information that the EU might use to perform a very detailed risk assessment
for spread of the virus in the EU".1450 Professor Penrith further explained that all of the EU member
States "cannot be considered to pose an equal risk of ASF for Russia". Therefore, some information
requested by Russia is irrelevant for certain areas in the European Union (i.e. wild boar
populations and their movement in insular territories; and stamping out policies in territories which
have never experienced ASF or haven't done so in more than 20 years). 1451 Moreover, Professor
Penrith indicated that the information required by Russia should be limited to the list of items she
identified, and mentioned that more detail might be required from countries that have experienced
outbreaks.1452 Professor Penrith conclude her response by indicating that the "great majority of the
information required is not relevant or necessary for a risk assessment by Russia".

products, graded by production volume; regulatory acts, providing for wild boar hunting and further utilization
of killed animals (for food, as trophies); regulations on export of wild boar meat and trophies, number of killed
animals and exported meat and trophies during 2013-2014; detailed information about foreign hunters, who
entered the EU member States to hunt wild boar during the period 2013-2014, detailed by region (including
information about the number and the country of origin); detailed information about pig farms and meat
processing factories attested to ship animals and products to the territory of the Customs Union, including
information about the suppliers (number, country, region) and production volumes, detailed by region; rough
estimation of enterprises attested to ship animal products to the territory of the Customs Union, by level of
zoosanitary condition, equivalent to the previously conducted evaluation of the Russian and Belarusian
enterprises, detailed by regions and graded by production volumes.
1447 Russia's closing statement at the second meeting with the Panel, para. 4. See also Russia's
comments to the European Union's response to Panel question No. 322; and Russia's comments to the experts'
responses to Panel question Nos. 12 and 13.
1448 Panel question No. 13 to the experts. The communications to which the Panel's question referred
are those sent by Russia to the European Union or certain EU member States, dated 5 February 2014 (Exhibit
EU-84), 12 March 2014 (Exhibit EU-90/Exhibit RUS-135), 10 April 2014 (Exhibit RUS-240) , 16 May 2014
(Exhibit EU-93), 31 July 2014 (Exhibit RUS-157), and 1 December 2014 (Exhibit RUS-131).
1449 Dr Brückner's response to Panel question No. 13, Compilation of the experts' responses, para.
2.123.
1450 Professor Penrith's response to Panel question No. 13, Compilation of the experts' responses, para.
2.125.
1451 Professor Penrith's response to Panel question No. 13, Compilation of the experts' responses, para.
2.125.
1452 Professor Penrith's response to Panel question No. 13, Compilation of the experts' responses, para.
2.125. The list of information Professor Penrith referred to was provided in her response to Panel question No.
12. Such list is comprised by the following information: (i) Whether the disease is notifiable throughout the
country and what means are used to ensure that this is known; (ii) if diagnostic capacity for ASF is available in
the country (veterinary personnel and pig value chain actor trained in field diagnosis and laboratory capacity
for confirmation of a field diagnosis); (iii) legislation in place for prevention and management of serious disease
outbreaks including ASF; (iv) veterinary knowledge of and authority over all domestic pigs in the country or
zone; (v) veterinary knowledge of the species, population, distribution and habitat of wild pigs in the country
or zone; (vi) the epidemiological basis for recognition of a zone including all relevant topographical features;

7.1080. In his response to this question, Dr Thomson expressed his views on the relevance of the
information requested through the five letters identified by the Panel. In respect of the letter dated
5 February 2014 (Exhibit EU -84), Dr Thomson noted that some of the questions contained in thi s
exhibit are variations of other questions posed elsewhere by Russia, and indicated that for a
country "that is not itself free of ASF this strikes me as an overkill and possibly an attempt to
'muddy the water'." 1453 Regarding the letter dated 10 April 2014 (Exhibit RUS-240), Dr Thomson
noted that the three questions posed are of doubtful relevance, partly because "it would be
reasonable to ask the EU for the results and conclusions drawn from surveys conducted in its
territory generally", not so asking for the surveys themselves from Poland.1454 Regarding the letter
dated 16 May 2014 (Exhibit EU -93) Dr Thomson noted that, with the exception of the information
regarding the presence of ASF vector in the EU member States, the questions posed appear to be
relevant.1455 Regarding the letter dated 31 July 2014 (Exhibit RUS-157) Dr Thomson indicated that
this "request seems to me relevant and justified". 1456 Lastly, in respect of the letter dated 1
December 2014 (Exhibit RUS -131), Dr Thomson indicated that he could find rele vance and
therefore justification for the questions pertaining to (i) ASF early detection and contingency plan
for each EU member State; (ii) detailed information regarding monitoring and surveillance of wild
boars in each EU member State; (iii) detailed i nformation regarding the measures taken by each
EU member State to prevent trans-boundary spread of ASF in the European Union (excluding data
demonstrating their effectiveness); and (iv) information regarding the role of ticks in the spread of
ASF in the E U member States. Dr Thomson added, referring to the other questions in that letter,
that they "strike me either as repetition or as questions which few if any countries in the world,
including the RF, would be able to provide satisfactory answers to. It needs to be remembered that
the RF is not an ASF-free country".1457
7.1081. In our view, the expert's responses indicate that some of the information requested by
Russia is excessive for what would be necessary for Russia to perform a risk analysis of the spread
of AS F from the European Union into Russia. To our mind this is directly relevant to the issue
before us.
7.1082. As we have described in paragraph 7.516 above, the immediate objective of the
procedure at issue is to assess whether there ar e ASF-free areas in the territory of the European
Union, including those areas in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. As explained in paragraphs
7.1069 and 7.1070 above, the information requirements that we would examine in this section are
those that would be necessary for undertaking and completing the procedure at issue, as directed
at the verification of the ASF-free character of certain areas in ASF affected EU member States.
This would incl ude the information we have already identified as constituting the necessary
evidence that the European Union should have provided to Russia in order to objectively
demonstrate the existence of ASF-free areas, which are likely to remain so, in the affected EU
member States.1458
7.1083. Against this backdrop we consider that Russia's information requirements, in respect of
the verification of the existence of ASF-free areas within ASF affected EU member States should be
limited to (i) geography; (ii) epidemiological su rveillance of ASF; (iii) the effectiveness of sanitary
or phytosanitary controls in respect of ASF; (iv) ecosystems, in particular the presence of ASF in
wildlife and the patterns of behavioural ecology in wildlife; (v) the level of prevalence of ASF; and
(vi) the existence of eradication or control programmes. 1459 In our view, some of the information

and (vii) the scope and extent of active surveillance for ASF undertaken in the country or zone to support the
contention that the country or zone is free of ASF. Professor Penrith's response to Panel question No. 12,
compilation 2.114.
1453 Dr Thomson's response to Panel question No. 13, Compilation of the experts' responses, para.
2.131.
1454 Dr Thomson's response to Panel question No. 13, Compilation of the experts' responses, para.
2.130.
1455 Dr Thomson's response to Panel question No. 13, Compilation of the experts' responses, para.
2.132.
1456 Dr Thomson's response to Panel question No. 13, Compilation of the experts' responses, para.
2.129.
1457 Dr Thomson's response to Panel question No. 13, Compilation of the experts' responses, para.
2.128.
1458 See paras. 7.935-7.936 above.
1459 See para. 7.935 above.

requests made by Russia between February 2014 and July 2014 go beyond these areas. As
indicated by the experts, some of the information requested by Russia seems to us to be
unnecessary and unjustified.
7.1084. As we have explained, the type of information that Russia was justified in requesting in
respect of EU member States where ASF outbreaks have occurred differs from that which Russia
was justified in requesting in s upport of the assessment of ASF -free areas outside affected EU
member States. We recall Professor Penrith's view that the former category of information could
be more detailed. With this in mind, we move on to identify the information that in our view is
excessive in respect of what Russia was justified in requesting for undertaking and completing the
procedure at issue in respect of the ASF-free areas within affected EU member States.
7.1085. In particular, excessive information requests were made through the lett er of
5 February 2014 in respect of (i) detailed information about pig farms, pork processing factories
and semi-finished products, graded by production volume; (ii) regulations on export of wild boar
meat and trophies, number of killed animals and exporte d meat and trophies during 2013 -2014
(for regions adjacent to the infected zone); (iii) detailed information about foreign hunters, who
entered the country to hunt the wild boar during 2013 -2014 (including information about the
number and the country of or igin), detailed by country and region; (iv) detailed information about
pig farms and meat processing factories approved to ship animals and products to the territory of
the CU, including information about the suppliers (number, country, region) and product ion
volumes, detailed by country and region; and (v) rough estimation of enterprises approved to ship
animal products to the territory of the CU, by level of zoosanitary condition, equivalent to the
previously conducted evaluation of the Russian and Belarusian enterprises, detailed by regions and
graded by production volume.
7.1086. Moreover, through the letter dated 16 May 2014, Russia requested the following
information, which seems to us to be excessive in respect of the assessment of ASF-free areas in
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland: (i) cartographical visual ization of the establishments
approved to supply live pigs and swine products from the affected EU member States (Poland and
Lithuania, in particular) to Russia with indication of the raw material ba ses of these
establishments; (ii) zoo sanitary status of small farms (due to the large number of them in the
territories of the infected/high risk zones with regard to ASF) and measure of their bio protection
(possibility of free range, feed base, the regi me of introducing the newly arrived animals in the
herd, etc.); (iii) data on internal evaluation by the veterinary services of the EU member States of
resources (human, technical, financial ones) needed for the creation and maintenance of
abovementioned ASF-free zones; (iv) data on functional isolation of sub -populations of domestic
and wild animals in zones with the proves of the absence of migration/seasonal movements of wild
boars between the zones; and (v) data on the presence of the ASF vector in the EU member
States.1460 We recall that some of the preceding information might have been relevant to assess
the situation in an affected EU member State. However, the level of detail required in respect of
these categories of information seems excessive. We rec all that the information that Russia would
be justified in asking for is the kind that would be necessary for undertaking and completing the
procedure at issue. In the instant case, Russia requested an excessive amount of detail in respect
of several categ ories of information that, in our view, go beyond what we have identified as
necessary for an objective demonstrative of the existence of ASF -free areas in an affected EU
member State.
7.1087. Based on the foregoing, we consider that Russia formulated information requirements
there were not limited to what was necessary for the procedure at issue, thus breaching Annex
C(1)(c).
Whether the procedure at issue is inconsistent with Annex C(1)(a)
7.1088. We have outlined above the parties' arguments pertaining to Annex C(1)(a), which also
relate to the affected EU member States.
7.1089. Russia argues that the evidence the European Union provided distorts the overall picture
of the constant information exchange and intensive negotiations concerning regionalization,

1460 Russia's letter to the European Union of 16 May 2014, FS-EN-8/7999 (Exhibit EU-93).

including the numerou s explanations provided by Russia in relation to the insufficiency of
submitted information. Russia also argues that it made several offers to resume trade with the
European Union on the condition that trade would be conducted in an ASF -free manner.1461 Russia
concludes that the European Union has merely asserted a violation of Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a)
by pointing to alleged delays in evaluating requests for regionalization without demonstrating that
these delays were "undue". On the contrary, Russia argues that it has taken reasonable time to
assess the European Union's regionalization requests, especially in light of the deteriorating ASF
situation in the European Union. 1462 In this regard, Russia contends that the European Union has
not put forward sufficien t evidence to make a prima facie case and failed to meet its burden of
proof in demonstrating that Russia violated Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a).1463
7.1090. We recall that a determination of whether a delay in an approval, control or inspection
procedure is undue, for the purposes of Annex C(1)(a), has to be examined in light of the
circumstances of a particular case. 1464 Moreover, "not every delay" caused by a Member is
contrary to Annex C(1)(a), and a Member is not liable for delays not attributable to it.1465
7.1091. In paragraph 7.571 above we noted that, mindful of the guidance provided by previous
panels and the Appellate Body, w e consider that a delay is undue if it is "unwarranted, or
otherwise excessive, disproportionate or unjustifiable." 1466 In c onsidering whether the European
Union's allegation of "delay" can be considered to be "undue", we will examine whether the delay
is unwarranted, or otherwise excessive, disproportionate or unjustifiable.
7.1092. As part of this examination, we consider whether th ere were any periods of inaction or
inability to proceed on the substance of the application that would constitute delays within the
meaning of Annex C(1)(a). 1467 This entails not only a consideration of the total period of time
during which Russia, as the im porting Member, conducts the procedure, but also requires an
overall assessment of the facts and circumstances in this case. The absolute length of time
required for a Member to evaluate a particular request – and the time needed for any interim
series of steps required in order to ascertain the comprehensiveness, accuracy and pertinence of
the information – will depend on the specific circumstances of the case.1468 We agree with the view
of the panel in US – Animals on the importance of having a point of refe rence in order to gauge
the reasonableness of the length of time of the review process, referring to such indicators like the
standard processing time reflected in the policy and practice of the Member carrying out the
procedure, as well as guidelines provided by the OIE.1469
7.1093. Furthermore, we recall our observations in section 7.3.6 above on the importance of
temporal considerations in this case. We note that the panel in US – Animals identified an end -
date for the period of time it would take into account for the purpose of assessing the alleged
undue delays in the conduct of the responding Member's procedures. 1470 With reference to the
Appellate Body ruling in EC – Chicken Cuts and the panel ruling in EC – Approval and Marketing of
Biotech Products, the panel in US – Animals determined that the appropriate end-date for which to
examine the complainant's claims would be the date of the establishment of the Panel.1471
7.1094. In the instant case, we recall the exchanges that took place between the parties in
connection with the European Union's request for recognition of ASF-free areas in the European

1461 Russia's first written submission, paras, 435 – 436.
1462 Russia's first written submission, para. 437.
1463 Russia's first written submission, para.438.
1464 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 437.
1465 Russia's first written submission, para. 434 (referring to Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing
of Biotech Products, paras. 7.1495 and 7.1497).
1466 Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.129. With reference to the Appellate Body Report, Australia –
Apples, para. 437 (referring to Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1495).
1467 Using the order analysis by the panel in US – Animals, para. 7.127.
1468 Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.114. That panel observed that applicant Members present
different SPS circumstances that "may also be affected by law, policy, governance, and veterinary
infrastructures".

Union was initially presented through the letter dated 31 January 2014 1472 (at that time, there had
only been two outbreaks in wild boars in Lithuania) a nd Russia's negative response to this request
through the letter dated 29 July 2014 (after the date of the establishment of the Panel and after
the outbreaks in Poland and Latvia had already occurred. We further recall the subsequent
exchanges, including R ussia's communication of 1 December 2014 and the European Union's 23
December 2014 response.
7.1095. Against this background, we need to determine whether the procedure at issue, aimed at
the recognition of ASF-free areas in the affected Member states, was undert aken and completed
without any undue delay.
7.1096. As we have indicated in our analysis of the European Union's claims pursuant to Annex
C(1)(c), Russia made a number of information requests that went beyond the information that was
necessary for the procedure at issue. We underline that this was the case in respect of those areas
located in the EU member States affected with ASF outbreaks, regardless of the moment when the
initial outbreak occurred in the respective EU member State.
7.1097. In our view, when a Member m akes unjustified and unnecessary information requests,
which go beyond what would be required to make a substantive assessment of the situation
subject to the procedure at issue, a Member would be acting in a manner that impedes
undertaking and completing the respective procedures. In the present case, Russia's excessive and
unjustified information requests in respect of detailed information on the pig sector and foreign
hunters in ASF -affected EU member States amount to that situation. In light of the Appe llate
Body's guidance quoted above 1473, such a situation may constitute an infringement of the
obligation to undertake and complete a procedure without undue delay.
7.1098. Moreover, we consider that Russia's references to its preferred tools for control and
eradication of ASF in the affected EU member States, including safe trade from compartments as
opposed to ASF -free zones (or areas) 1474, is indicative of Russia's reluctance to consider the
European Union's request in a timely fashion.
7.1099. Based on the foregoing we conc lude that the procedure at issue was undertaken and
completed with undue delay, thus breaching Annex C(1)(a)'s first clause.
7.1100. We now turn to the European Union's claim in respect of the second clause in
Annex C(1)(a), this is, the procedure at issue was un dertaken and completed in a manner less
favourable for imported products than for like domestic products. Regarding this claim, the Panel
will examine whether the European Union has established that the products at issue from the
European Union have been t reated in a "less favourable manner" than domestic products with
respect to the undertaking and completion of the procedure at issue.
7.1101. We recall and refer to our analysis above in the context of the EU -wide ban.1475 Similarly,
we understand the rationale behin d the European Union's argument here is that the unnecessary
and excessive information requests addressed by Russia to the European Union in respect of the
recognition of ASF-free areas within the affected EU member States were not made in respect of
the corresponding trade of like products in Russia.
7.1102. In our view, the European Union has not provided sufficient evidence that would support
its contention that such type of information is not required by Russia in order to determine which
areas within Russia a re ASF-free. In addition, the European Union has not clearly explained the
internal process in Russia to determine the recognition of ASF-free areas in Russia, beyond stating
that there is no ban on the internal trade of the products at issue originating f rom ASF-free areas
in Russia. Without this information, we are not in a position to ascertain whether Russia took more
than one year or which type and quantity of evidence Russia required from its regional authorities

1472 European Union's letter to Russia of 31 January 2014, ARES(2014)226547, SANCO
G7/JP/mh(2014)241111 (Exhibit EU-64).
1473 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 438.
1474 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to DG SANCO, No. FS-AS-8/23743, 1 December 2015
(Exhibit RUS-131).
1475 See paras. 7.572-7.591 above.

to determine the existence of ASF-free areas in Russia. We therefore consider that the European
Union has not satisfied the burden of demonstrating that Russia's procedure does not comply with
the second clause of Annex C(1)(a).
7.1103. In light of our finding above with respect of the first clause o f Annex C(1)(a), that Russia
undertook and completed the procedure at issue with undue delay, we conclude that the procedure
at issue is inconsistent with Annex C(1)(a).
Whether the procedure at issue is inconsistent with Annex C(1)(b)
7.1104. The European Union contends that Russia violates all five of the obligations contained in
Annex C(1)(b).1476 Russia argues that the European Union merely recites the obligations of the
provisions, without explaining how the specific procedural obligations were breached.1477
7.1105. According to the European Union, Russia did not publish or otherwise communicate to the
European Union the standard processing period and did not comply with any of the other
requirements in Annex C(1)(b) of the SPS Agreement. 1478 The European Union further argues, in
its responses to the Panel question No. 197, that despite the repeated requests from Russia for
more evidence with regards to the European Union's regionalization measures, Russia never
provided any information as to the anticipated period of time for the approval proceedings.1479 The
Panel1480 requested the European Union to indicate whether it had requested from Russia
information regarding the anticipated processing period for the European Union's regionalization
request, and to provide the relevant eviden ce in support of its presentation of this request. The
European Union responded as follows:
The EU stressed on several occasions that the information provided should enable
Russia to assess and accept the EU ASF regionalisation measures.1481
Despite the unpr ecedented amount of information provided to Russia, it insisted on
not having received sufficient information so as to enable it to perform a risk
assessment.
Given Russia's refusal to acknowledge it received all relevant information, the EU's
efforts were focused on the provision of the supplementary information requested.
Under those circumstances a specific request on the anticipated processing period of
the EU's request was not addressed to Russia.1482
7.1106. We therefore find that the European Union did not make a request within the meaning of
this provision, and thus did not trigger an obligation on the part of Russia to communicate the
anticipated processing period.1483

1476 In US - Animals, the panel first examined whether the challenged measures fell under its term of
reference. Panel Report, US – Animals, paras. 7.188 and 7.190. The panel opined that to comply with Article
6.2 of the DSU, a complainant was required to specify in a sufficiently clear manner which of the five
obligations in the provision it was challenging in its panel request. In this case, we consider that the
European Union has indicated that it is challenging all five obligations in Annex C(1)(b). See European Union's
panel request, p.5.
1477 Russia's first written submission, para. 439.
1478 European Union's second written submission, para. 187.
1479 European Union's response to Panel question No. 197, para. 388.
1480 Panel Question 289, seeking clarification of paragraph 342 of the European Union's first written
submission.
1481 (footnote original) Letters of 20 February 2014 (Exhibit EU-175), 6 March 2014 (Exhibit EU-86) and
of 13 March 2014 (Exhibit EU-91).
1482 European Union's response to Panel Question No. 289, paras. 135-137.
1483 We note that the panel in EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products considered that the
anticipated processing period is to be provided to applicants upon request and in that dispute, no evidence of
applicants' requests was provided. Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products,
paras. 7.1587–7.1589.

7.1107. Furthermore, we recall that a prima facie case "is one which, in the absence of effective
refutation by the defending party, requires a panel, as a matter of law, to rule in favour of the
complaining party presenting the prima facie case."1484
7.1108. The European Union has not attempted to provide any sort of argument or evidence in
support of its claim that the procedure at issue is inconsistent with Annex C(1)(b) of the SPS
Agreement. We therefore consider that the European Union has failed to make a prima facie case
in respect of the alleged inconsistency of the procedure at issue with Annex C(1)(b).
7.6.4.4 Conclusion
7.1109. As explained in the previous sections, we find that Russia's process of consideration of
the European Union's request for recognition of ASF -free areas within the European Union
including the four affected EU member States falls within the scope of Ar ticle 8 and Annex C(1) of
the SPS Agreement. WE also find that Russia formulated information requirements that were not
limited to what was necessary for the procedure at issue, thus breaching Annex C(1)(c). Moreover,
Russia undertook and completed the pro cedure at issue with undue delay, thus rendering the
procedure at issue inconsistent with Annex C(1)(a). We consider that the European Union has
failed to make a prima facie case in respect of the alleged inconsistency of the procedure at issue
with Annex C(1)(b). In light of these findings, we find that the procedure at issue is inconsistent
with Article 8 of the SPS Agreement.
7.6.5 Claims under Articles 2.2, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.7 of the SPS Agreement
7.6.5.1 Main arguments of the parties
7.6.5.1.1 European Union
7.1110. The European Union argues that because Russia's measures do not "conform to" and are
not "based on " the OIE recommendations, it is necessary to establish whether there is a solid
scientific basis for their imposition.1485
7.1111. The European Union highlights that an analysis under Ar ticle 5.1 of the SPS Agreement
entails addressing two issues: whether there is a "risk assessment " within the meaning of the
SPS Agreement and whether the SPS measures at issue are "based on " the mentioned risk
assessment.1486
7.1112. The European Union argues that Russia did not provide any risk assessment in support of
its EU-wide ban, although such a risk assessment was requested during the numerous contacts
took place between the Russian and the EU competent veterinary authorities.1487
7.1113. The European Union points out t hat Article 5.2 of the SPS Agreement contains a list of
factors that have to be taken into account while performing a risk assessment. 1488 The
European Union argues that in adopting, maintaining and/or applying the measures at issue,
Russia did not and does not take into account those factors.1489
7.1114. The European Union posits that since Russia did not provide any risk assessment for the
measures at issue, Russia therefore violates the provisions of Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement,
and that it follows that the provisions of Article 2.2 are also breached1490
7.1115. The European Union points out that while solely Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement may
still shelter a Member's measure in such circumstances, Russia does not fulfil any of the
requirements of such provision.1491

1484 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 104.
1485 European Union's first written submission, para. 153.
1486 European Union's first written submission, para. 154.
1487 European Union's first written submission, para. 165.
1488 European Union's first written submission, para. 168.
1489 European Union's first written submission, para. 170.
1490 European Union's first written submission, para. 176.

7.6.5.1.2 Russia
7.1116. Russia argues that its import restrictions on the four affected EU member States are in
line with international standards, and that thus, they are presumed to be consistent with the
relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement, including Article 2.2.1492
7.6.5.2 Main arguments of the third parties
7.6.5.2.1 Australia
7.1117. Australia emphasizes that Russia does not appear to have conducted a risk assessment in
relation to trade in relevant products from those areas affected by ASF, whether within the four
affected EU member States or EU-wide.1493
7.1118. Australia highlights that it is necessary for the Panel to consider whether the level of
scientific information was insufficient so as to justify Russia's provisional adoption of SPS measures
not based on a risk assessment in accordance with Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement.1494
7.1119. Australia stresses that the insufficiency of evidence must relate to information that is
relevant to the risk assessment in question. Australia also notes that the reasonable period of time
requirement has to be established on a c ase-by-case basis, and that, as in the present case,
where, in its view, the apparent uncertainty relates to containment zones for ASF, the Panel may
wish to take into account related rules and guidelines on regionalization.1495
7.6.5.2.2 Brazil
7.1120. Brazil argues that there is no fixed or rigid reference for the determination of what means
"sufficient scientific evidence" for the purpose of this provision, and the amount of scientific
evidence may vary according to the circumstances of the case. Brazil however highlights that while
amount of scientific evidence considered sufficient to justify a provisional measure in the context
of Article 5 may vary, the ruling by the Appellate Body in Japan – Apples where the Appellate Body
considered that there was a large quantity of sc ientific evidence when it verified the existence "of
scientific studies as well as practical experience having accumulated for the past 200 years ", may
serve as a reference.1496
7.6.5.2.3 Norway
7.1121. Norway highlights that while under Article 2.1 of the SPS Agreement, Me mbers have the
right to take SPS measures "necessary for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health,
provided that such measures are not inconsistent with provision of the [..] Agreement ", such right
carries with it certain obligations, including those in Article 5 of the SPS Agreement.1497
7.1122. Norway asserts that Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement is viewed as a "specific application"
of the basic obligation set out in Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement and that the Appellate Body has
clarified that where a measure is not based on a risk assessment in accordance with Article 5.1, it
will be presumed to be inconsistent with the second and third prongs of Article 2.2 of the SPS
Agreement.1498
7.1123. Norway stresses that with respect to Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreemen t, the Appellate
Body has identified four cumulative requirements that must be fulfilled for a Member to have
recourse to Article 5.7: (i) It must be imposed in respect of a situation where "relevant scientific

1491 European Union's second written submission, para. 68.
1492 Russia's second written submission, para. 296; see also Russia's second written submission, fn 664.
1493 Australia's third-party submission, para. 10.
1494 Australia's third-party submission, para. 11.
1495 Australia's third-party submission, para. 14.
1496 Brazil's third-party submission, para. 21 (citing Appellate Body Report, Japan – Apples, paras. 180,
186, and 188).
1497 Norway's third-party submission, paras. 3-4.
1498 Norway's third-party submission, para. 5.

information is insufficient "; (ii) It must b e adopted "on the basis of available pertinent
information"; (iii) The Member must "seek to obtain the additional information necessary for a
more objective assessment of risk "; and (iv) The Member must "review the […] measure
accordingly within a reasonable period of time".1499
7.1124. Norway emphasizes that the threshold condition for the application of Article 5.7 of the
SPS Agreement is that evidence is insufficient, and that the main question will be whether the
available scientific evidence permits, in quantitat ive or qualitative terms, an assessment of risks
within the meaning of Article 5.1.1500
7.1125. Norway highlights that "insufficient" in the context of Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement
refers to both situations where there is not enough scientific evidence (in quanti tative terms) and
to situations where there is enough evidence, but it does not give reliable results (in qualitative
terms).1501
7.1126. Norway posits that with respect to the second element, the "available pertinent
information" must equate to "some evidence of a risk", even if it is not enough to perform a proper
risk assessment. In addition, there must be a rational relationship between the evidentiary basis
and the provisional measure, and that even if the rigorous standards of Article 5.1, together with
Articles 5.2 and 5.3 and annex A(4), do not apply under Article 5.7, those standards must be
considered as relevant context, and thus indicate what types of information may be considered as
"available pertinent information".1502
7.1127. With respect to the third element whic h is to "seek to obtain the additional information
necessary for a more objective assessment of risk ", Norway emphasizes that this reflects the
temporary nature of the provisional measures within the meaning of Article 5.7 of the
SPS Agreement, and that w hile the "the information sought must be germane to conducting 'a
more objective assessment of the risk', i.e. the evaluation of the likelihood of entry, establishment
or spread of, in casu, a pest, according to the SPS measures that might be applied ", a Member "is
not expected to guarantee specific results […] [n]or is it expected to predict the actual results of
its efforts to collect additional information at the time when it adopts the SPS measure".1503
7.1128. With respect to the requirement of review within a r easonable period of time, Norway
highlights that what constitutes a "reasonable period of time " should be conducted on a case -by-
case basis, and that it will depend "upon the specific circumstances of each case, including the
difficulty of obtaining the additional information necessary for the review and the characteristics of
the provisional SPS measure".1504
7.6.5.3 Analysis by the Panel
7.6.5.3.1 Introduction
7.1129. The European Union framed its claims under Articles 2.2, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.7 of the
SPS Agreement in the same manner for both the EU -wide ban and the bans on imports of the
products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. The European Union argues that the
measures at issue are not based on a risk assessment conducted in accordance with Articles 5.1
and 5.2. 1505 Furthermore, the European Union contends that because Russia has violated
Article 5.1 by not providing a risk assessment for the measures at issue, consequentially, Russia
has also violated Article 2.2. 1506 In respect of Article 5.7, the European Union argues that this is

1499 Norway's third-party submission, para. 8.
1500 Norway's third-party submission, paras. 10-12.
1501 Norway's third-party submission, para. 14 (citing Appellate Body Report, Japan – Apples, para.
185).
1502 Norway's third-party submission, para. 19.
1503 Norway's third-party submission, para. 20 (citing Appellate Body Report, Japan – Agricultural
Products II, para. 92).
1504 Norway's third-party submission, para. 21.
1505 European Union's first written submission, paras. 165 and 170.
1506 European Union's first written submission, para. 176. See also opening statement at the first
meeting with the Panel, paras. 78-80; response to Panel question No. 122, paras. 255-257; and second written
submission, para. 65.

not a situation where scientific evidence is insufficient , and that Russia has failed to comply with
any of the conditions of Article 5.7. 1507 According to the European Union, the sufficiency of
scientific evidence should be assessed at the time of adoption of the measure. Furthermore,
following the measure's adoption, the Member is obliged to seek to obtain the additional
information necessary for a more objective assessment of risk. According to the European Union,
the moment a Member asks for information that is not necessary for a more objective assessment
of risk, including the type of information characterized by the individual experts in the present
proceedings as an "overkill" or as an attempt to "muddy the water", that Member can no longe r
benefit from the provisional shelter of Article 5.7. Such information requests are a clear warning
sign that the respective Member is not genuinely seeking to perform a more objective risk
assessment (objective in the sense of being based on the pertinen t information available). Russia
has not performed and has not provided any risk assessment in support of the measures at
issue.1508
7.1130. Russia relies on different approaches to defend the bans on the imports of the products at
issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland and the EU-wide ban. In respect of the former, it
counters that the measures regarding Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are presumed to be
consistent with Articles 2.2, 5.1 and 5.2 because they conform to the relevant legal standards i n
the Terrestrial Code within the meaning of Article 3.2. 1509 At a late state in the proceedings,
Russia's argument was, to the extent the Panel were to find that Article 6 of the SPS Agreement
does not provide a basis for importing Members to take precaution ary trade actions pending
compliance by an exporting country with Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, and that the
appropriate temporal analysis is the time of the Panel's establishment, those measures would be
justified under Article 5.7.1510 Russia argues that accordingly, it would obviate any basis for claims
by the European Union with respect to Articles 5.1, 5.2, and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement regarding
Russia's bans on imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.1511
7.1131. In section 7.5.5.3.3.1 above, we have examined the text of Articles 5.1, 5.2, 2.2 and 5.7
of the SPS Agreement, the relationship between these provisions, the order in which to analyse
them, and the legal test corresponding to each of these provisions. We then examined the EU-wide
ban in light of the guidance identified in those sections. To avoid unnecessary repetition, we will
not replicate the general guidance on which we will base our assessment of the bans on the
imports of the produc ts at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Rather, we will
include cross-references to the relevant sections and findings, when necessary.
7.1132. Based on our understanding of Russia's arguments and our findings in respect of Article 6
of the SPS A greement and the temporal framework in light of which we examine the measures at
issue, we consider that the conditions for the consideration of Russia's alternative argument are
met. Therefore, we turn to examine whether the bans on the imports of the pro ducts at issue from
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland fall under Article 5.7.

1507 European Union's first written submission, para. 202; opening statement at the first meeting of the
Panel, paras. 81-95; and second written submission, para. 68.
1508 European Union's first written submission, paras. 165 and 170.
1509 Russia's first written submission, paras. 216 and 296; and response to Panel question No. 126,
para. 235.
1510 We note that Russia raised this argument in response to Panel question No. 279, and included
additional arguments in support of this argument in Russia's responses to Panel questions No. 293 and 294. All
of these questions were posed by the Panel after the second substantive meeting, and replied to by Russia on
8 October 2015. We are concerned with the impact that such timing may have on due process. In this respect,
we note that the European Union did not raise any issue with the timing of the formulation of this alternative
argument and from the outset of the proceedings challenged the applicability of Article 5.7 in respect of both
the EU-wide ban and the bans on the imports of the products at issue from the four affected EU member
States. We recall that the Appellate Body has found that "[i]t follows that the principles of good faith and due
process oblige a responding party to articulate its defence promptly and clearly. This will enable the
complaining party to understand that a specific defence has been made, 'be aware of its dimensions, and have
an adequate opportunity to address and respond to it.' Whether a defence has been made at a sufficiently early
stage of the panel proceedings to provide adequate notice to the opposing party will depend on the particular
circumstances of a given dispute." (Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling, para. 272 (quoting Appellate Body
Report, Chile – Price Band System, para. 164)). In the light of the circumstances of the present case, we
consider that, although Russia could well have raised this particular alternative defence in respect of the EU
member State-specific bans earlier, the European Union had adequate opportunity to address this argument.
1511 Russia's response to Panel question No. 279, para. 134.

7.6.5.3.2 Whether Article 5.7 applies to the bans on the imports of the products at issue
from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
7.1133. In terms of burden of proof, we recall that the p anel in EC – Approval and Marketing of
Biotech Products, operating under the premise that Article 5.7 is a "qualified right", concluded that
because Article 5.1 is only applicable if Article 5.7 is not, "when a complaining party presents a
claim of violati on under Article 5.1, the burden is on the complaining party to establish a prima
facie case of inconsistency with both Articles 5.1 and 5.7." 1512 The panel in US – Animals observed
that " nothing in the case law on Article 5.7 or other provisions which establ ish exemptions or
provide the ability to derogate from certain WTO obligations supersedes the basic premise that the
party asserting something bears the burden of proving it. 1513"1514 Accordingly, the Panel finds that
the initial burden was on the European Union as part of its case under Article 5.1 to raise the
inapplicability of Article 5.7 – which it did in its Panel request and first written submission.1515 As
Russia has asserted that its measures fall within the scope of Article 5.7, it carries the burden to
prove that each of the four cumulative requirements has been satisfied.1516
7.1134. The European Union argues that this is not a situation where scientific evidence is
insufficient and that Russia has failed to comply with any of the conditions of Article 5.7.1517
7.1135. Russia argues, in the alternative, that the bans on the imports of the products at issue
from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are justified under Article 5.7 of the SPS
Agreement.1518 Russia does not provide clear argumentation in respect of the manner in wh ich the
four prongs of Article 5.7 are satisfied in respect of the bans on the imports of the products at
issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Rather, Russia makes limited references to some
of those four prongs.
7.1136. Regarding the sufficiency of scientific evidence, Russia considers that the Panel is not
limited to examin ing the sufficiency of scientific evidence at the time of the adoption of the
challenged measure, but rather on an ongoing basis. In that respect, Russia posits that the 2015
EFSA scientific report confirms the continuing scientific uncertainty with respect of ASF spread and
ASF eradication, in particular in the context of the European Union as a whole.1519
7.1137. In addition, Russia indicates that the initial imposition of the four measur es for each of
the affected EU member States corresponds to provisional import bans on various live pig and pork
products upon the notification by the individual EU member State of the initial ASF outbreaks.
Such initial bans were precautionary measures. 1520 We understand this to mean that Russia based

1512 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.3000. Like the Panel in US
– Animals, para. 7.292, we note that the panel in EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products based its
reasoning on the Appellate Body decision in EC – Tariff Preferences on similar language in the Enabling Clause,
which was issued later in time than the Appellate Body decision that discussed Article 5.7 of the SPS
Agreement. The Appellate Body in EC – Tariff Preferences stated that where the permissive provision
constitutes a right rather than an exception, "the complaining party bears the burden of establishing that a
challenged measure is inconsistent with the provision permitting particular behaviour". Appellate Body Report,
EC – Tariff Preferences, para. 88.
1513 (footnote original) See e.g. Appellate Body Report, Japan – Apples, para. 157 ("the party that
asserts a fact is responsible for providing proof thereof."). Appellate Body in Canada – Renewable Energy /
Canada – Feed-in Tariff Program (where the Appellate Body concluded that "the characterization of [a]
provision as a derogation does not pre-determine the question as to which party bears the burden of proof with
regard to the requirements stipulated in the provision.") (Appellate Body Report, Canada – Renewable Energy /
Canada – Feed-in Tariff Program, para. 5.56 (referring to Appellate Body Report, China – Raw Materials, para.
334)).
1515 European Union's panel request (WT/DS475/2), p. 3; first written submission, paras. 177-202; and
second written submission, paras. 66-83.
1516 We find additional support for this approach in Panel Report, US- Animals, para. 7.293.
1517 European Union's first written submission, para. 202; opening statement at the first meeting of the
Panel, paras. 81-95; and second written submission, para. 68.
1518 Russia's response to Panel question No. 279, para. 134. See also response to Panel question No.
1519 Russia's response to Panel question No. 309, paras. 266-267.
1520 Russia's response to Panel question No. 295, para. 156. Russia also refers to responses to Panel's
questions No. 279, 293, and 294.

its measures on pertinent available information related to the presence of ASF in the four affected
EU member States.
7.1138. Russia argues that i t then sought additional information. In particular, Russia indicates
that it actively engaged the European Union and sent top Russian SPS officials to conduct in -
country visits and to meet with veterinary officials in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland at
various moments throughout 2014. 1521 Russia concludes that based on th e spread of ASF in the
affected EU member States, as well as on the evidence regarding ASF outbreaks in the second half
of 2014 and through the middle of 2015, and on the European Union's failure to objectively
demonstrate its ASF -free zones would remain A SF-free, it continued the maintenance of the
measures.1522
7.1139. In the Panel's examination to determine whether Russia's measures fall within the scope
of Article 5.7, we turn first to determining whether scientific evidence was (in)sufficient for Russia
to assess the relevant risks within the meaning of Articles 5.1 and 5.7 and as defined by paragraph
4 of Annex A. If the Panel finds that scientific information is insufficient, we would examine
whether the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Poland meet the other three conditions of Article 5.7.
7.1140. The parties have addressed all four requirements in their arguments. The European
Union's concerns relate both to the adoption and to the continued application, or maintenance, of
the measure at issue. Most of the evidence cited by the European Union in support of its assertions
under Article 5.7 relates to the period following adoption of the measure in respect of Lithuania
and extends throughout 2014, including the dates on whi ch the measures were adopted in respect
of the imports of the products at issue from Poland (February 2014), Latvia (June 2014) and
Estonia (September 2014). The information referred to by the European Union includes material
that it sent to Russia on its own initiative and in response to Russia's requests. 1523 Therefore, the
Panel finds it appropriate to begin by examining the sufficiency of scientific evidence, throughout
the relevant dates of 2014. The Panel will then examine the extent to which the bans on the
imports of the products at issue from the affected EU member States were based on available
pertinent information; followed by an assessment of whether Russia has sought to obtain
additional information necessary for a more objective assessment of ris k. Lastly the Panel will
assess whether Russia has reviewed the challenged measures accordingly within a reasonable
period of time. As these requirements are cumulative, if we find that Russia has failed to comply
with any one of these four requirements Ru ssia would be precluded from relying on Article 5.7 to
exclude the applicability of other provisions of the SPS Agreement. We consider this approach to
be appropriate in order to provide sufficient findings in respect of the parties' claims.
7.1141. We will pursue a comprehensive examination of the four prongs of Article 5.7 in respect
of the bans on the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Where relevant,
we will refer to information specifically pertaining to any of the four affected EU member States.
7.6.5.3.2.1 Whether relevant scientific information was insufficient at the time the bans
on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland were
adopted
7.1142. The first condition for the application of Article 5.7 is insuffic iency of scientific evidence.
As we have noted, according to the Appellate Body in Japan – Apples, this is the case when the
body of available scientific evidence does not allow, in quantitative or qualitative terms, the
performance of an adequate assessme nt of the risks as required under Article 5.1 and as defined
in paragraph 4 of Annex A.1524, Russia has argued that the sufficiency of scientific evidence should
be examined in an ongoing manner. Russia refers to the observation made by the panel in Japan –
Apples regarding the time-frame for the examination of the sufficiency of scientific evidence under
Article 5.7.1525 However, we agree with the view expressed by the panel in EC – Approval and

1521 Russia's response to Panel question No. 295, para. 157.
1522 Russia's response to Panel question No. 295, paras. 158-159.
1523 For a detailed account of such exchanges see Appendix 1 below.
1524 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Apples, para. 179.
1525 Russia's response to Panel question No. 309, para. 265 (referring to Panel Report, Japan – Apples,
para. 7.10).

Marketing of Biotech Products that the (in)sufficiency of the relev ant scientific evidence should be
assessed with respect to the time the SPS measure is adopted. 1526 Accordingly, we will focus our
examination on the dates, as relevant for each affected EU member States, throughout 2014,
starting with January 2014, when the ban on the imports from Lithuania was adopted.
7.1143. As we indicated above, Russia does not provide a detailed basis for its alternative claim
under Article 5.7. We understand Russia's argument that there is insufficient scientific evidence to
be formulated in t he broader context of Russia's claims in respect of the EU -wide ban and the
overall insufficiency of scientific evidence for it to perform a risk assessment appropriate to the
circumstances.1527 In respect of the sufficiency of scientific evidence for Russia's assessment of the
risks from the ASF situation in the affected EU member States, Russia posits that the 2015 EFSA
scientific report confirms the continuing scientific uncertainty with respect of ASF spread and ASF
eradication, in particular in the context of the European Union as a whole.1528
7.1144. In response to Russia's arguments, the European Union maintains that the relevant
scientific information is sufficient and asserts that such information was provided by it to
Russia.1529 In support of this assertion, the European Union refers to letters, emails, faxes,
meetings and inspections through which such information was provided.1530
7.1145. We bear in mind that insufficiency of scientific evidence does not extend to situations of
"scientific uncertainty" (i.e. when there is unresolved scientific uncertainty)1531, nor to situations of
scientific controversy.1532 Moreover, the possibility to supplement the underlying scientific evidence
does not, by itself, render it insufficient.1533
7.1146. We also note that Russia refers to the potential ris ks associated with the importation of
pigs and pork products from the affected EU member States, including certain categories of those
which have been subject to treatment for the inactivation of ASFV. 1534 While The European Union's
complaint is with respect to Russia's bans on the imports of the products at issue from the affected
EU-member States and the failure to adapt these bans pursuant to the SPS Agreement.
7.1147. We recall our earlier observations that ASF is already present in parts of Russia 1535,
particularly in areas that border the territories of Estonia, Latvia and Belarus. The risks to be
assessed in this case, therefore, are those of the potential re -entry or further spread of ASF into
Russia, and especially into the ASF-free regions of Russia.
7.1148. Mindful of these elements and the parties' arguments, the Panel will review whether the
qualitative and quantitative aspects of the available scientific evidence, including information the
European Union has provided to Russia, is of the type and scope that is (in)su fficient for Russia to
conduct a risk assessment appropriate to the circumstances.
7.1149. In section 7.5.5.3.5 above, we examined the sources of scientific evidence on record in
order to determine whether, for the purposes of the risk s associated with the ASF situation in the
non-affected EU member States, there was (in)sufficient evidence for Russia to conduct a risk

1526 This accords with the view of previous panels, e.g. the Panel in EC – Approval and Marketing of
Biotech Products, that an assessment of whether relevant scientific evidence is insufficient should be made
with reference to the time of adoption of the relevant provisional SPS measure. Panel Reports, EC – Approval
and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.3253. We recall our general comments on the Panel's temporal
framework in section 7.3.6 above.
1527 Russia's response to Panel question No. 309, paras. 266-267.
1528 Russia's response to Panel question No. 309, paras. 266-267.
1529 European Union's second written submission, para. 68.
1530 European Union's second written submission, para. 68 (referring to Exhibits EU-62, EU-64, EU-65,
EU-89, EU-91, EU-92, EU-94, EU-132 to EU-148). See Appendix 1 below.
1531 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Apples, paras. 183-184.
1532 Appellate Body Reports, US/Canada – Continued Suspension, para. 677.
1533 Appellate Body Reports, US/Canada – Continued Suspension, para. 702.
1534 Exhibits EU-7, EU-8, EU-10, EU-11, EU-168 and RUS-28 (regarding the measures in respect of
Lithuania); Exhibits EU-9, EU-10, EU-11, EU-168 and RUS-29 (regarding the measures in respect of Poland);
Exhibits EU-12 and EU-169 (regarding the measures in respect of Latvia); and Exhibits EU-13 and RUS-37
(regarding the measures in respect of Estonia). See tables 1 and 2 above.
1535 See para. 7.208 above.

assessment appropriate to the circumstances. We will rely on that examination for our assessment
of the (in)sufficiency of scientific evidence in respect of the ASF situation in the affected EU
member States.
7.1150. In our view, the presence of ASF in the territory of a country is a factor that needs to be
considered in the context of an assessment of risks as appropriate to the circumstances. However,
we consider that in the case of a disease like ASF – which, as we have found, is widely known, has
been studied in detail and for which a great deal of scientific evidence is available — the
uncertainties that may surround the intro duction and spread of such disease in a previously un -
affected territory should not impede a Member's ability to conduct a risk assessment. In our view,
this has been particularly true in respect of the ASF -affected EU member States, especially at the
time that Russia adopted each of the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
7.1151. We recall that as of January 2014, and furthermore thereafter, there has been a lot of
scientific evidence available in respect of t he epidemiology of ASF, the potential vectors for the
transmission and spread of ASF (including behavioural ecology of wild boars), potential risks of
spread of ASF in the Baltic region, and the type of control measures that could be applied.
Moreover, Russia received (at least by 7 February 2014), information in respect of contingency
planning in the European Union and the affected EU member States, as well as the general
regulatory framework applicable within the European Union in respect of control of ASF.
7.1152. This information has been available to Russia in a very particular context. Russia had
first hand experience in dealing with ASF for at least seven years at the time the first outbreaks
occurred in the European Union. In our view, Russia was equipped w ith publicly available scientific
evidence on the disease, together with trained experts who understood the risks and the manner
to assess them. Russia rejects this view, largely based on the argument that the European Union
did not provide detailed inform ation in a number of areas, thus raising scientific uncertainty in
respect of ASF spread and ASF eradication. It might be the case that some of the information
requested by Russia could supplement the information already available for conducting a risk
assessment as appropriate to the circumstances. However, the Appellate Body has clearly stated
that the "application of Article 5.7 is triggered not by the existence of scientific uncertainty, but
rather by the insufficiency of scientific evidence." 1536 On that basis, the Appellate Body concluded
that it was "unable to endorse Japan's approach of interpreting Article 5.7 through the prism of
'scientific uncertainty'". 1537 Following the Appellate Body's guidance, we cannot accept Russia's
approach of assessing the (i n)sufficiency of scientific evidence in the light of persistent scientific
uncertainties.
7.1153. We recall that we have found that the European Union did not provide Russia with the
necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that there were ASF -free areas, wh ich were likely
to remain so, within each of the four affected EU member States. In our view, our examination
under Article 6.3 does not mirror our examination under Article 5.7 for the purposes of
determining the (in)sufficiency of scientific evidence. Wh ile under Article 6.3 our focus is on a
particular type of evidence provided by the European Union to Russia (i.e. the necessary evidence
to objectively demonstrate the existence of ASF -free areas, which are likely to remain so), under
Article 5.7 we are making a broader examination in respect of the available scientific evidence that
was available to Russia to conduct a risk assessment of the ASF situation in the four affected
EU member States. Our findings under Article 6.3 thus only inform our analysis o f the evidence on
record that we are addressing in this section. As we have explained, the information provided by
the European Union to Russia supports our view that there was sufficient scientific evidence
available for Russia to conduct a risk assessmen t as appropriate to the circumstances. We further
note that our finding under Article 6.3 in respect of the affected EU member States relates to the
failure of the European Union to objectively demonstrate that there were ASF -free areas, which
were likely to remain so, within the affected EU member States. In this respect, the basis for our
finding on the European Union's failure does not affect the sufficiency of the scientific evidence
which we consider was available to Russia to conduct a risk assessment in respect of the ASF
situation in affected EU member States at the time of the adoption of each of the bans on the
imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.

1536 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Apples, para. 184.
1537 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Apples, para. 184.

7.1154. Our finding that there was sufficient evidence for Russia to conduct a risk assessment
does not mean that the conclusions of such an assessment would necessarily have been
favourable to permitting imports from the four affected EU member States. That is, Russia's risk
assessment might well have identified levels of risk for the re -introduction and further spread of
ASFV associated with imports from the four affected EU member States that might, hypothetically,
have supported Russia's decision to ban such imports.
7.1155. Based on the foregoing, we consider that there was, t hroughout 2014 and at the time of
adoption of each of the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland, sufficient scientific evidence for Russia to conduct a risk assessment as
appropriate to the circumstances i n respect of the ASF situation in each of those four
EU member States.
7.1156. While the preceding finding is sufficient to conclude that the ban s on the imports of the
products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland do not fall within the scope of A rticle
5.7 and the qualified exemption to the obligations in Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 2.2 is not available to
Russia, the Panel deems it prudent to examine the se bans in the context of the other three
elements of Article 5.7.
7.6.5.3.2.2 Whether the bans on the imports o f the products at issue from Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland were adopted on the basis of available pertinent
information
7.1157. We have found that there is sufficient scientific evidence in respect of ASF for Russia to
conduct a risk assessment of the ASF situation in the affected EU member States, as appropriate
to the circumstances. However, in order to provide a complete overview of the measures at issue,
we will examine the remaining requirements of Article 5.7.
7.1158. With respect to the second condition of Article 5.7 – that the measure should be adopted
on the basis of available pertinent information, we have indicated that it is pertinent when there is
a rational and objective relationship between the information concerning the risk and the
measure.1538
7.1159. The European Union also posits that a measure being manifestly unnecessary and
disproportionate would be pertinent to determining whether such a measure is based on pertinent
information or whether it is rather a disguised restriction on international trade.1539 In this respect,
the European Union sustains that in "case of a well -known disease like ASF, if there is only one
case in wild boar only a few kilometres from the border with Belarus, Russia should have not
banned, even provisionally, the products at issu e from the whole territory of the European Union,
including areas thousands of kilometres away, given the robustness of the EU measures and the
epidemiology of the disease."1540
7.1160. Russia indicates that the initial imposition of the four measures for each of the affected
EU member States corresponds to provisional import bans to various live pig and pork products
upon the notification by the individual EU member State of the initial ASF outbreaks. Such initial
bans were precautionary measures. 1541 We understand this to mean that Russia based its
measures on pertinent available information related to the presence of ASF in the four affected EU
member States.
7.1161. Moreover, we consider that our review of the evidence that we have identified as
available for Russia to conduc t a risk assessment of the situation in the four affected EU member
States, may inform our examination of the pertinent available information on which Russia
allegedly based its measures in respect of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.

1538 See Appellate Body Reports, US/Canada – Continued Suspension, para. 678. See also para. 7.675
above.
1539 European Union's response to Panel question No. 148, paras. 305-307; and second written
submission, para. 77.
1540 European Union's second written submission, para. 78.
1541 Russia's response to Panel question No. 295, para. 156. Russia also refers to its responses to Panel
question Nos. 279, 293, and 294.

7.1162. With these considerations in mind, the Panel will examine whether there is a rational and
objective relationship between the available pertinent information concerning the risks arising from
the potential re-entry and further spread of ASF within Russia through the impo rts of the products
at issue from the four affected EU member States and each of the bans on the imports of the
products at issue from those EU member States, as applied in respect of treated and non -treated
products. We begin our examination in respect of non-treated products.
7.1163. Russia indicates that its measures were adopted on the basis of precaution under Article
5.7 as an immediate response to the ASF outbreaks in Lithuania (January 2014), Poland
(February 2014), Latvia (June 2014), and Estonia (Septembe r 2014). To assist us in our analysis,
we classify pertinent information available to Russia as follows: (i) scientific reports available to
Russia, (ii) Russia's experience in handling ASF outbreaks, and (iii) the notifications provided by
the European Un ion in respect of the ASF outbreaks in each of the four affected EU member
States.1542
7.1164. Within the first category of information, we find the 2010 EFSA scientific opinion.
Section 4.2.1.4 of this opinion explains the presence of ecological corridors connectin g indirectly
the Trans Caucasian Countries (TCC) and Russia's wild boar population with that of the European
Union. In this respect, the opinion observes that the "wild boar populations of Belarus are well
connected with those of Poland and Lithuania, whil e the Ukrainian wild boar populations are
connected with the wild boar populations of Poland and Romania and, to a lesser extent, the
Slovak Republic and Hungary."1543 When explaining the ecology of wild boar and the non-migratory
nature of sus scrofa , the op inion indicates that infections "can spread between larger regions,
however, where there is continuity in the geographical distribution of the wild boar … In this
respect, Ukraine (Crimea), Poland and Romania may be at risk due to the continuous distributi on
and the high density of wild boar. Possible corridors may also exist from the infected Russian areas
into Lithuania to Latvia". 1544 The FAO E MPRES Watch 2013 report further confirms the risks
associated with the transmission of ASF through wild boar.1545
7.1165. Further to the scientific evidence we referred to in the preceding paragraph, we recall the
information in respect of the outbreaks that occurred in each affected EU member State. As we
have noted, according to the evidence on record, the European Union direct ly informed Russia of
the outbreaks in Lithuania, Poland and Latvia. 1546 In addition, the EU member States regularly
notified the OIE of the outbreaks taking place in the territory of the four affected EU member
States.1547
7.1166. We consider it also relevant to recal l that the ASFV is already present and widespread
within the territory of Russia. In fact, it could be that ASF was introduced into the territory of the
four affected EU member States by infected wild boar originating in Russia and Belarus. Russia has
described in some detail the various measures it has in place to attempt to control ASF within its
territory. We understand that Russia relies on the experience of its authorities in respect of ASF as
an additional element in support of its contention that the initial measures on the four affected EU
member States are based on pertinent available information.
7.1167. We find that there is a rational and objective relationship between the occurrence of ASF
in the territory of each of the affected EU member States and the adoption of a ban on the imports
of those products. This finding is of course limited to the initial moment of the adoption of such
measures and in respect of non -treated products. We recall our findings under Article 6.1 that
Russia still has an obliga tion to ensure adaptation of its measures (i.e. the bans on the imports of
the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland) to the SPS characteristics in the
areas where the products originate and in the areas to which they are destined.

1542 See fn 587 to para. 7.420 above and Exhibits EU-152-156. See also Appendix 1 below.
1543 2010 EFSA Scientific Opinion (Exhibit EU-24), p. 29.
1544 2010 EFSA Scientific Opinion (Exhibit EU-24), p. 30.
1545 FAO, EMPRES Watch, May 2013 (Exhibit RUS-3), p. 9.
1546 In respect of the outbreaks in Lithuania see Exhibit EU-132; regarding the outbreaks in Poland see
Exhibit EU-136; and regarding the outbreaks in Latvia see Exhibit EU-147. See also Appendix 1 below.
1547 See ASF cases in the European Union notified to the OIE (Exhibit EU-118). See fn 587 to
para. 7.420 above and Exhibits EU-152-156. See also Appendix 1 below.

7.1168. Based on the foregoing, we consider that there is a rational and objective relationship
between the bans on the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, and the
available pertinent information concerning the risks arising from the po tential re-entry and further
spread of ASF within Russia through the imports of non-treated products at issue from the affected
EU member States.
7.1169. We turn to examine whether the application of the bans on the imports of the treated
products at issue from th e four affected EU member States are based on pertinent available
information. In paragraphs 7.876-7.878 above we examined the available pertinent information in
respect of the existing treatments f or the inactivation of ASFV, including that available throughout
2014. We recall that in paragraphs 7.1029-7.1031 above, we found that the bans on most of the
treated products at issue from the four affected EU member States contradict the international
standards contained in the Terrestrial Code in respect of treated products. As part of our analysis,
we indicated that Russia does not provide any justification for limiting the "acceptable" treated
products to certain categories of cat and dog feed. Based on our reasoning regarding the
contradiction of the bans on most treated products at issue from the four affected
EU member States, we consider that such measures, in respect of treated products, are not based
on available pertinent information.
7.1170. We move on the third requirement under Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement.
7.6.5.3.2.3 Whether Russia has sought to obtain the additional information necessary
for a more objective assessment of risk in respect of the bans on the imports of the
products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
7.1171. The third requirement of Article 5.7 is that the importing Member applying the measure
seeks to obtain the additional information necessary for a more objective assessment of risk.1548
7.1172. The European Union argues that Russia "abused the process instead of seeking
information germane for the risk assessment" because the information that Russia claims to seek
was either already provided by the European Union or was irrelevant for the purposes of the
European Union's ASF regionalization measures. 1549 Following the adoption of a provisional
measure, the respective Member is under an obligation to seek to obtain additional information for
a more objective assessment of risk. According to the European Union, the moment a Member is
asking for information which is not necessary for a more objective assessment of risk, including
the type of information characterized by the individual experts in the present proceedings as an
"overkill" or as a n attempt to "muddy the water", that Member can no longer benefit from the
provisional shelter of Article 5.7. The European Union argues that such information requests are a
clear warning sign that the respective Member is not genuinely seeking to perform a more
objective risk assessment (objective in the sense of being based on the information available).
7.1173. Russia argues that it sought additional information. In particular, Russia indicates that it
actively engaged the European Union and sent top Russian SP S officials to conduct in -country
visits to meet with veterinary officials in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland at various moments
throughout 2014.1550
7.1174. Article 5.7 does not impose explicit prerequisites regarding the additional information to
be collected or a specific collection procedure .1551 Nevertheless, the Appellate Body has concluded
that:
[T]he WTO Member adopting a provisional SPS measure should be able to identify the
insufficiencies in the relevant scientific evidence, and the steps that it intend s to take
to obtain the additional information that will be necessary to address these

1548 Article 5.7 places the burden of seeking to obtain the additional scientific information necessary to
perform a more objective risk assessment on the importing Member. See e.g. Appellate Body Report,
1549 European Union's first written submission, para. 196.
1550 Russia's response to Panel question No. 295, para. 157.
1551 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Agricultural Products II, para. 92, Panel Report, US – Animals,
para. 7.295.

deficiencies in order to make a more objective assessment and review the provisional
measure within a reasonable period of time. The additional information to be collect ed
must be "germane" to conducting the assessment of the specific risk.1552
7.1175. The obligation in the second sentence of Article 5.7 entails that the Member adopting a
provisional SPS measure "must make best efforts to remedy the insufficiencies in the relevant
scientific evidence with additional scientific research or by gathering information from relevant
international organizations or other sources. 1553"1554 However, this does not mean that such a
Member is expected to guarantee specific results, nor is it expected t o predict the actual results of
its efforts to collect additional information at the time when it adopts the SPS measure.1555
7.1176. Mindful of these considerations, we recall that, f ollowing the outbreak of ASF in each
affected EU member State, Russia banned certain products from each of those EU member States.
We note that the scope of the requested information in contention between the parties relates
largely to the situation in the entire territory and all EU member States, over and above the four
ASF-affected member States.1556
7.1177. In our analysis in respect of Russia's compliance with Annex C(1)(c), we found that
Russia requested information that went beyond what was necessary for undertaking and
completing the procedure for the verification of the presence of ASF in the territory of the affected
EU member States.1557 We recall that such unnecessary requests include: (i) detailed information
about pig farms, pork processing factories and semi -finished products, graded by production
volume; (ii) regulations on export of wi ld boar meat and trophies, number of killed animals and
exported meat and trophies during 2013 -2014 (for regions adjacent to the infected zone); (iii)
detailed information about foreign hunters, who entered the country to hunt the wild boar during
2013-2014 (including information about the number and the country of origin), detailed by country
and region; (iv) detailed information about pig farms and meat processing factories approved to
ship animals and products to the territory of the CU, including inform ation about the suppliers
(number, country, region) and production volumes, detailed by country and region ; (v) rough
estimation of enterprises approved to ship animal products to the territory of the CU, by level of
zoosanitary condition, equivalent to th e previously conducted evaluation of the Russian and
Belarusian enterprises, detailed by regions and graded by production volume ;(vi) cartographical
visualisation of the establishments approved to supply live pigs and swine products from the
affected EU me mber States (Poland and Lithuania, in particular) to Russia with indication of the
raw material bases of these establishments; (vii) zoo sanitary status of small farms (due to the big
number of them in the territories of the infected/high risk zones with r egard to ASF) and measure
of their bio protection (possibility of free range, feed base, the regime of introducing the newly
arrived animals in the herd, etc.); (viii) data on internal evaluation by the veterinary services of
the EU member States of resources (human, technical, financial ones) needed for the creation and
maintenance of abovementioned ASF free zones; (ix) data on functional isolation of sub -
populations of domestic and wild animals in zones with the proves of the absence of
migration/seasonal movements of wild boars between the zones; and (x) data on the presence of
the ASF vector in the EU member States. 1558 In our examination under Annex C(1)(c) we recalled
that some of the preceding information might have been relevant to assess the situation in an
affected EU member State. However, the level of detail required in respect of these categories of
information seems excessive. We recall that the information that Russia would be justified in
asking for is the kind that would be necessary for underta king and completing the procedure at
issue. We concluded that, Russia is request ed an excessive amount of detail in respect of several

1552 Appellate Body Report, US/Canada – Continued Suspension, para. 679 (original footnote omitted);
1553 (footnote original) Pursuant to Article 10.1 of the SPS Agreement, due account shall be taken of the
special needs of developing country Members in respect of their ability to procure the additional information for
a more objective assessment of risk.
1554 Appellate Body Reports, US/Canada – Continued Suspension, para. 679.
1555 Appellate Body Reports, US/Canada – Continued Suspension, para. 679. See also Panel Report, US
– Animals, paras. 7.295-7.297.
1556 See Appendix 1 below.
1557 See para. 7.1087 above.
1558 Russia's letter to the European Union of 16 May 2014, FS-EN-8/7999 (Exhibit EU-93).

categories of information that, in our view, go beyond what we have identified as necessary for an
objective demonstration of the existence of ASF-free areas in an affected EU member State.1559
7.1178. Furthermore, we consider that our finding under Article 6.3 that the European Union
failed to objectively demonstrate that there are ASF -free areas, likely to remain so, within Latvia,
is not dispositive of the existence of such ASF -free areas. It could very well be the case that the
European Union may be able to demonstrate through the provision of additional information, some
of which was provided to Russia in the course of these procee dings, that there are ASF-free areas,
likely to remain so, within at least some of the four affected EU member States.
7.1179. In light of this, we find no basis in the evidence on record to support Russia's assertion
that all of the information it requested was "germane" to conducting a more objective
assessment1560 of the specific risk within the meaning of this element of Article 5.7. As we have
already noted, the experts consulted by the Panel characterized certain of the information
requested by Russia as "overk ill" or as an attempt to "muddy the water". 1561 While Article 5.7
requires that a Member must actively make best efforts to remedy the insufficiencies in the
relevant scientific evidence with additional scientific research or by gathering information from
relevant international organizations or other sources, it does not envisage that a Member will use
this process to seek information that is not germane to the specific risk involved.
7.1180. We therefore find that Russia did not seek to obtain additional information that was
"necessary" for a more objective assessment of risk within the meaning of Article 5.7.
7.6.5.3.2.4 Whether Russia has reviewed the bans on the imports of the products at
issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland within a reasonable period of time
7.1181. The fourth condition under Article 5.7 is that the Member applying the measure reviews it
within a reasonable period of time. What constitutes a reasonable period of time has to be
established on a case -by-case basis1562, based upon the particular facts and circu mstances of a
given case. In Japan – Agricultural Products II, the Appellate Body stated that what constitutes a
"reasonable period of time" within the meaning of Article 5.7 depends, inter alia, on the difficulty
of obtaining the information necessary for a more objective assessment of risk.1563
7.1182. We recall that the panel in EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products interpreted
the term "reasonable period of time" in Article 5.7 in a manner similar to the term "undue delay"
in Annex C(1)(a). 1564 This concep t is not dependent on the length of the delay, but rather on
whether any delay is legitimate and justifiable as opposed to unwarranted or excessive.1565

1559 See para. 7.1086 above.
1560 By this we refer to the distinction in degree of objectivity, based on available scientific evidence,
drawn from the situations covered by Articles 5.7 and 5.1. Article 5.7 requires Members applying a provisional
SPS measure on the basis of pertinent available information to "seek to obtain the additional information
necessary for a more objective assessment of risk" (emphasis added). In our view, this refers to the type of
risk assessment required pursuant to Articles 5.1 and 5.2, as defined in Annex A(4) of the SPS Agreement. In
the past, panels such as US – Animals have referred to the text of Article 5.7 without clarifying a particular
definition of the term "more objective assessment of risk". Rather they focused on what we mention in para.
6.55, which is the type of additional information that would be necessary.
1561 Dr Brückner's response to Panel question No. 13 (who stated "the information requested in Exhibit
RUS-131 [Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to DG SANCO, No. FS-AS-8/23743, 1 December 2014], is
in my opinion 'an overkill' of which many of the questions are not relative or needed to conduct either a
sensible quantitative or qualitative risk analysis"); and Dr Thomson's response to Panel question No. 13 (who
stated in respect of the questions asked through Letter of 5 February 2014 from Russia to the EU, FS-SD
8/1640 (Exhibit EU-84) "[t]hese questions are mostly variations on other questions posed by the RF. For a
country that is not itself free of ASF this strikes me as an overkill and possibly an attempt to 'muddy the
water'").
1562 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Agricultural Products II, para. 93.
1563 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Agricultural Products II, para. 93. Panel Report, US – Animals, para.
7.300.
1564 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, paras. 7.1495-7.1497 (concerning
Annex C(1)(a)) and 7.3245 (concerning Article 5.7). Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.301.
1565 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 437; Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.301.
Additionally, the panel in US – Animals looked to the context of Article 21.3(c) arbitrations – which determine

7.1183. The European Union argues that Russia has failed to review its measures within a
reasonable period of time . The European Union identifies this period as the six months from the
date of the first outbreak in Lithuania, at the end of January 2014, to the date of the
establishment of the Panel, on 22 July 2014 and the period from the time the European Union
provided additional information in June 2014 until the time Russia contacted the European Union
again, at the beginning of December 2014. Russia posits that based on the spread of ASF in the
affected EU member States, as well as on the evidence regarding ASF outbreaks during the second
half of 2014 and through the middle of 2015, and on the European Union's failure to objectively
demonstrate its ASF -free zones would remain ASF -free, it continued the maintenance of the
challenged measures.1566
7.1184. With these considerati ons in mind, we examine whether Russia has reviewed the
measures in respect of the affected EU member States within a reasonable period of time, and
taking into account the timeframe for the Panel's analysis (i.e. from January to the date of Panel
establishment on 22 July 2014, also encompassing the dates of adoption of the measures in
respect of Estonia and Latvia (September 2014)).
7.1185. The panel in US – Animals examined the question of whether the United States reviewed
the measures at issue in that dispute within a reasonable period of time. In its analysis, that panel
relied on its findings under Annex C(1)(a) in respect of whether the United States had incurred
undue delays in its review of Argentina's application for Northern Argentina. 1567 We agree with the
approach of the panel in US – Animals. We consider that our assessment of this matter is closely
linked with our examination of Russia's compliance with its obligations under Annex C(1)(a). In
that respect we found that Russia's excessive and unjustified information requests in respect of the
surveillance and control measures in non ASF -affected EU member States amount to acting in a
manner that impedes undertaking and completing the procedure for the verification of the
existence of ASF-free areas. In lig ht of the Appellate Body's guidance 1568, we found that situation
to constitute an infringement of the obligation to undertake and complete a procedure without
undue delay. We therefore found that Russia undertook and completed the procedure at issue with
undue delay.
7.1186. Our findings in respect of Annex C(1)(a) inform our analysis of Russia's compliance with
the last requirement under Article 5.7. In particular, we consider that Russia's excessive
information requests led to continued delays in considering the in formation that the European
Union provided. We do not ignore the proposition that a Member may require certain time to
process of detailed and complex information. A Member may also need to translate such
information in order to properly assess it. However , we consider that in a situation like the one of
the affected EU member States, where Russia has received information during more than seven
months (from January to September 2014) and insisted on the insufficiency of such information in
an unjustified ma nner, Russia is not reviewing its SPS measures within a reasonable period of
time.
7.1187. We therefore find that the fourth requirement for the application of Article 5.7 is not
satisfied in the present case, because Russia did not review the bans on the products at issue from
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland within a reasonable period of time.
7.6.5.3.2.5 Conclusion
7.1188. We have found that there was sufficient scientific evidence for Russia to conduct a risk
assessment of the ASF situation in the Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, as appropriate to the
circumstances. Moreover, we found that Russia provisionally adopted the measure on the basis of

the reasonable period of time for Members to implement the rulings and recommendations of the DSB– in
which arbitrators have interpreted the term "reasonable period of time" to mean "the shortest period possible
within the legal system of the [implementing] Member". Award of the Arbitrator, EC – Hormones (Article
21.3(c)), para. 26. That panel observed that, while not directly applicable in these circumstances, it does
suggest an understanding that when WTO Members must take legislative or regulatory actions involving
complex legal processes to bring their measures into conformity with their WTO obligations reasonableness can
be understood to mean as quickly as legally possible while accepting legitimate reasons for delay.
1566 Russia's response to Panel question No. 295, paras. 158-159.
1568 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 438.

available pertinent information, except in respect of treated products at issue. However, Russia did
not seek to obtain addit ional information, and did not review the bans on the imports of the
products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland within a reasonable period of time.
Having found that Russia did not satisfy three of the four requirements for the application of Article
5.7, we find that the each of the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland, do not fall within the scope of Article 5.7 and the qualified exemption to the
obligations in Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 2. 2 is not available to Russia. Thus, we now turn to assess the
conformity of Russia's measures with Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.
7.6.5.3.3 Whether Russia's measures are based on a risk assessment
7.1189. We have noted the importance of Members basing their SPS measures on a risk
assessment in order to maintain the "delicate and carefully negotiated balance in the SPS
Agreement between the shared, but sometimes competing, interests of promoting international
trade and of protecting the life and health of human beings"1569, as well of animals.1570 With this in
mind, we move on to assess whether Russia's measures are based on a risk assessment.
7.1190. In this dispute, Russia has argued that it is under no obligation to provide a risk
assessment in respect of the bans on th e imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland, because they are measures that conform to the relevant international
standards, or alternatively, were adopted on the basis of Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement.1571
7.1191. In paragraph 7.890 above, we have found that the bans on the imports of the products at
issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, do not conform to the Terrestrial Code.
Furthermore, as indicated in paragraph 7.1188 above, we have found that the conditions required
under Article 5.7 have not been met in respect of the bans on the four affected EU member States.
Therefore, the foundation of Russia's justification for not having a risk assessment on which t hose
bans are based does not have merit. In light of this, we need to examine whether there is a risk
assessment within the meaning of paragraph 4 of Annex A.
7.1192. We recall that we found in paragraph 7.1188 above that the bans on the imports of the
products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland pursue the objectives enshrined in
both Annex A(1)(a) and A(1)(b). The first type of risk assessment required under paragraph 4 of
Annex A (i.e. "evaluation of the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of a pest or disease")
is appropriate for measures seeking the objective contained in Annex(1)(a). The second type of
risk assessment required under paragraph 4 of Annex A (i.e. "evaluation of the potential adverse
effects on human or animal health arising from the presence of … disease -causing organisms in …
feedstuffs") is appropriate for measures seeking the objective contained in Annex (1)(b). 1572
Therefore, Russia's risk assessment should encompass both types of risk assessment referred to in
paragraph 4 of Annex A.
7.1193. Russia has acknowledged throughout these proceedings that it has not conducted a risk
assessment in the sense of Article 5.1 and paragraph 4 of Annex A. 1573 We therefore find that the
first requirement for our enq uiry under Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement is not satisfied. As we
have indicated above1574, our analysis of the European Union's claims under Article 5.2 should be
done together with the one corresponding to Article 5.1. In a situation where there is no ris k
assessment, it is clear that a Member does not comply with any of the requirements of Article 5.2.
7.1194. Based on the foregoing, we find that the bans on the imports of the products at issue
from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland is inconsistent with Arti cles 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS
Agreement.

1569 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 177.
1570 See para. 7.712 above.
1571 Russia's first written submission, paras. 216 and 296; Russia's response to Panel question No. 126,
1572 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Salmon, para. 123, fn 69. See also Appellate Body Report,
Australia – Salmon, para. 120, and Panel Report, Australia – Salmon, paras. 8.72 and 8.116.
1573 Russia's second written submission, paras. 185-203.
1574 See para. 7.713 above.

7.6.5.3.4 Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement
7.1195. We recall that according to the Appellate Body in India – Agricultural Products, a finding
of inconsistency with Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement raises a rebuttable presumpt ion of
inconsistency with Article 2.2. 1575 Therefore, we need to examine whether Russia has raised any
arguments in support of such a rebuttal.
7.1196. Russia's arguments in respect of the lack of a risk assessment have focused on the
conformity of the bans on the i mports of the products at issue from the affected EU member
States with the Terrestrial Code. As an alternative argument, Russia referred to the applicability of
Article 5.7 to these measures, and the corresponding justification in respect of Articles 5.1, 5.2,
and 2.2. However, we do not understand Russia to have raised arguments in support of the bans
on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland being based on
scientific principles and not being maintained without sufficient scientific evidence.
7.1197. In our view, our findings in respect of the bans on the imports of the products at issue
from the affected EU member States not conforming to the Terrestrial Code and not falling under
Article 5.7 and the lack of a risk assess ment on which these measures are based, confirms that
such measures are neither based on scientific principles nor maintained with sufficient scientific
evidence. Russia has not rebutted such findings. In our view, Russia has failed to rebut the
presumption of inconsistency raised by our findings of inconsistency with Articles 5.1 and 5.2.
7.1198. Based on the foregoing we find the bans on the imports of the products at issue from
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland to consequentially violate Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.
7.6.5.4 Conclusion
7.1199. We have found that there was sufficient scientific evidence for Russia to conduct a risk
assessment of the ASF situation in the affected EU member States, as appropriate to the
circumstances. Moreover, we found that Russia provisionally adopted the measures on the basis of
available pertinent information, except with respect to treated products at issue. We also found
that Russia did not seek to obtain additional information, and did not review the bans on the
imports of the produc ts at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland within a reasonable
period of time. Having found that Russia did not satisfy three of the four requirements for the
application of Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement, we find that the bans on the affect ed EU member
States do not fall within the scope of Article 5.7 and the qualified exemption to the obligations in
Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement is not available to Russia. We have also found that
Russia did not base the bans on the affecte d EU member States on a risk assessment within the
meaning of paragraph 4 of Annex A of the SPS Agreement, thus breaching Articles 5.1 and 5.2.
We have also found that Russia has not rebutted the presumption of inconsistency that our
findings raised in res pect of Article 2.2, therefore the bans on the affected EU member States are
also inconsistent with Article 2.2.
7.6.6 Claims under Articles 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement
7.6.6.1 Introduction
7.1200. In section 7.5.6 above we explained that the European Union makes claims in respect of
four provisions in Article 5 of the SPS Agreement that relate to the ALOP: Articles 5.3, 5.4, 5.5,
and 5.6. In the light of this approach, we decided that before turning to the substance of the
European U nion's claims, we would first examine what is Russia's ALOP in respect of ASF. In
paragraph 7.752 above, we found that Russia's ALOP for ASF is high or conservative. We have also
explained that our examination in respect of Rus sia's ALOP for ASF is common for the assessment
of the European Union's claims in respect of both the EU -wide ban and the bans on the imports of
the products at issue from the four affected EU member States.
7.1201. In section 7.5.6 above we examined the consistency of the EU-wide ban with Articles 5.3,
5.4, 5.6, and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement. In that section we reproduced the text of the relevant

1575 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.24.

legal provisions1576 and the applicable legal test in respect of each of those provisions. 1577 We will
rely on that analysis for our examination of the European Union's claims under Articles 5.3, 5.4,
5.6, and 2.2 in respect of the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland. We turn to our corresponding assessment of those European Union's claims.
7.6.6.2 Whether the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland are inconsistent with Article 5.3 of the SPS Agreement
7.1202. In section 7.5.6.3 above we have presented the parties' arguments, set out the applicable
legal test under Article 5.3 of the SPS Agreement, and undertaken our examination of the
consistency of the EU -wide ban with Article 5.3. We rely on that analysis for our examination of
the consistency of the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
and Poland with Article 5.3 of the SPS Agreement.
7.1203. In our analysis above, we examined two questions in respect of the EU -wide ban. The
first is whether Russia too k into account relevant economic factors when assessing the risk to
animal or plant life and health. The second is whether Russia took into account relevant economic
factors when determining the measure to be applied to achieve the appropriate level of san itary or
phytosanitary protection.
7.1204. As noted above,1578 in respect of the first question, we consider that if there is sufficiency
of scientific evidence but lack of conformity with the relevant international standard, by not basing
its SPS measures on a risk assessment, as defined in Article 5.1 and Annex A(4) of the SPS
Agreement, a Member would not be in a position to act in manner consistent with Article 5.3.
7.1205. In the instant dispute we have found that the ban on the imports of the products at issue
from Latvia, as applicable to non -treated products, is based on the relevant international
standard1579. We have also found that the bans on the imports of the products at issue from
Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland, as applicable to non -treated products, are not based on the
relevant international standard.1580 In addition, we have found that the bans on the imports of the
products at issue from the four affected EU member States, as applicable to treated products, are
not based on the relevant international standards. 1581 Moreover, we have found that the bans on
the imports of the products at issue from the four affected EU member States, as applicable both
to treated and non -treated products, are not based on a risk assessment as appropriate to the
circumstances, in a situation where there was sufficient scientific evidence for Russia to conduct an
assessment of risks as appropriate to the circumstances. 1582 Based on these findings and on the
reasoning explained above, we find that the bans on the imports of the products at issu e from
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are inconsistent with Article 5.3.
7.1206. In 7.5.6.5.1.1 above we addressed the question of whether Russia took into account
relevant economic factors when determining the measure to be a pplied to achieve Russia's ALOP
for ASF. In respect of this second question, we found that the European Union failed to meet its
burden of making a prima facie case that the EU -wide ban is inconsistent with Article 5.3 of the
SPS Agreement, in respect of R ussia taking into account the relevant economic factors when
determining the measure to be applied for achieving the appropriate level of sanitary or
phytosanitary protection.1583
7.1207. We see no distinction in the manner in which the European Union argued its case in
respect of the EU -wide ban and the bans on the imports of the products at issue four affected EU
member States. Rather, the European Union formulated its arguments under Article 5.3 for both

1576 See section 7.5.6.1 above.
1577 See above paras. 7.762-7.776 in respect of Article 5.3; paras. 7.789-7.792 in respect of Article 5.4;
paras. 7.806-7.813 in respect of Article 5.6; and paras. 7.839-7.845 in respect of Article 2.2 of the SPS
Agreement.
1578 See para. 7.775 above.
1579 See para. 7.1040 above.
1580 See para. 7.1040 above
1581 See para. 7.1039 above
1582 See para. 7.1199 above.
1583 See para. 7.783 above.

sets of measures. 1584 Therefore, we consider our finding in para graph 7.783 above in respect of
the EU-wide ban is also applicable to the bans on the imports of the bans on the products at issue
from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
7.1208. Based on the foregoing we find that the bans on the products at issue from Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are inconsistent with Article 5.3 of the SPS Agreement, because by
not basing those measures on a risk assessment in circumstances in which Article 5.7 is not
applicable, Russia could have not taken into account the relevant economic factors listed in Article
5.3 when assessing the risks of entry and spread of ASF in accordance with Article 5.1 and
paragraph 4 of Annex A of the SPS Agreement. However, the European Union failed to make a
prima facie case of inconsistency of the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland with Russia's obligation to take into account relevant economic
factors listed in Article 5.3 when determining the measure to be appli ed for achieving the
appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection in respect of the entry and spread of ASF.
7.6.6.3 Whether Russia took into account the objective of minimizing negative trade
effects when determining the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection
7.1209. In section 7.5.6.4 above we have presented the parties' arguments, set out the applicable
legal test under Article 5.4 of the SPS Agreement, and undertaken our examination of the
consistency of the EU-wide ban with Article 5.4. We rely on that analysis for our examination of
the consistency of the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
and Poland with Article 5.4 of the SPS Agreement.
7.1210. In our analysis above, we concluded that in light of the hortatory nature of Article 5.4, we
would not make findings with respect to whether Russia took into account the objective of
minimizing negative trade effects when determining its ALOP. However, this is without prejudice to
the Panel considering the objective of minimizing negative effects on international trade in its
interpretation of other provisions of the SPS Agreement in light of the European Union's claims.
7.6.6.4 Whether the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland are more trade restrictive than necessary pursuant to
Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement
7.6.6.4.1 Introduction
7.1211. In section 7.5.6.5 above we have presented the parties' arguments, set out the applicable
legal test under Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement, and undertaken our examination of the
consistency of the EU -wide ban with Article 5.6. We rely on that analysis for our examination of
the consistency of the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
and Poland with Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.
7.1212. We note that Russia has formulated specific arguments in respect of the bans on the
imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Therefore, we briefly
refer to Russia's arguments before turning to our analysis of whether these measures are
inconsistent with Article 5.6. We will rely on the European Union's argument as summarized in
section 7.5.6.5.1.1 above.
7.6.6.4.2 Main arguments of the parties
7.6.6.4.2.1 European Union
7.1213. The European Union argues that Russia has not expressly stated its ALOP. 1585 According
to the European Union if the level of protection is not specified in writing, a panel should infer it
from the SPS measures applied in practice.1586

1584 European Union's first written submission, para. 262.
1585 European Union's first written submission, para. 242.
1586 European Union's first written submission, para. 243.

7.1214. The European Union asserts that while Russia has imposed a country -wide ban in respect
to the products at issue for each of the four affected EU member States, it has not combined this
ban with a Russia -wide ban.1587 The European Union also argues that factual evidence indicates
that in fact, Russia has a rather low ALOP 1588, and that even assuming that Russia has a very high
or conservative ALOP, there is a possible alternative that cumulatively meets the conditions of
footnote 3 of the SPS Agreement.1589
7.1215. The European Union stresses that the application of the OIE standards, which recommend
regionalization and trade from the ASF -free countries/zones or for any part of a country notifying
ASF if the products underwent specific treatments, is such an al ternative, fulfilling all the legal
requirements in Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement. 1590 The European Union argues that such an
alternative is reasonably available to Russia, and does not involve technical difficulties or an
unfeasible economic burden, while at the same time, achieving Russia's ALOP and being
significantly less trade -restrictive.1591 The European Union concludes that Russia's measures at
issue are thus inconsistent with the provisions of Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.1592
7.6.6.4.2.2 Russia
7.1216. Russia argues th at the European Union has failed to establish a prima facie case that
there is an alternative measure that meets all three requirements of Article 5.6. 1593 According to
Russia, there are no less-restrictive alternative measures available to achieve Russia's ALOP, which
is based on the relevant international standard.1594
7.1217. Russia submits the Panel should dismiss the European Union's claim under Article 5.6.
First, to the extent the European Union derives Russia's ALOP from the measures applied to
imports, such measures, in Russia's view, cannot logically be more trade -restrictive than required
to achieve their ALOP. 1595 Second, Russia contends that to the extent the European Union derives
a different ALOP from the measures applied by Russia domestically, the European Union re-asserts
a claim of allegedly distinct ALOPs that falls under Article 5.5 and should therefore be dismissed by
the Panel in its consideration under Article 5.6.1596
7.1218. According to Russia, the application of the Terrestrial Code is not a less trade restr ictive
measure, as argued by the European Union, because Russia's measures concerning Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland already "conform to and/or are based" on the relevant standards of
the Terrestrial Code. 1597 Russia further elaborates that, if the ex porting country fails to discharge
its burden to establish, and to objectively demonstrate that it has established, containment zones
in accordance with the OIE guidelines, the importing country may reject the exporting country's
proposed zones, which do n ot reflect the same ALOP, and impose country -wide import
restrictions.1598 Russia asserts it acted accordingly and in compliance with the Terrestrial Code.1599
7.1219. Russia also asserts that when faced with what it considers to be the "deadly" combination
of high dens ity of wild boar and high percentages of low -biosecurity backyard farms, import

1587 European Union's first written submission, para. 245.
1588 European Union's first written submission, para. 248.
1589 European Union's first written submission, para. 249.
1590 European Union's first written submission, para. 252.
1591 European Union's first written submission, para. 258.
1592 European Union's first written submission, para. 259.
1593 Russia's first written submission, para. 337.
1594 Russia's first written submission, para. 334.
1595 Russia's first written submission, para. 336.
1596 Russia's first written submission, para. 336. Russia notes that it does not apply distinct ALOPs for
domestic live and imported live pigs and pork products (Russia's first written submission, fn 637 to para. 336
referring to Russia's first written submission, paras. 275-287).
1597 Russia's first written submission, para. 337.
1598 Russia's first written submission, para. 337; comments to the European Union's response to Panel
question No. 286, para. 149.
1599 Russia's first written submission, para. 337; and comments to the European Union's response to
Panel question No. 286, para. 149.

measures based on compartmentalization are the least trade restrictive measures that would
achieve Russia's ALOP.1600;1601
7.6.6.4.3 Analysis by the Panel
7.1220. As explained above1602, in order to asse ss the consistency of the bans on the imports of
the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland with Article 5.6 of the SPS
Agreement, the Panel needs to determine whether the European Union has identified one or more
alternative measure s. Then the panel needs to examine whether the alternative measures
submitted by the European Union: (i) are reasonably available to Russia taking into account
technical and economic feasibility; (ii) achieve Russia's ALOP; and (iii) are significantly less trade
restrictive than the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
and Poland.1603
7.1221. Before turning to our examination of the alternative measures identified by the European
Union, we recall that t he Panel would be requir ed to address the issue whether Article 5.7
"obviates" the need to comply with Article 5.6 only in case it finds that Russia complies with Article
5.7.1604 In section 7.719 we found that the bans on the imports of the products at issue from
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are not subject to Article 5.7. We therefore find no need to
address Russia's argument in respect of the relationship between Articles 5.7 and 5.6.
7.1222. We also recall that in paragraph 7.1037 above, we found that the ban on the imports of
the products at issue from Estonia, as applicable to non -treated products, is based on the relevant
international standard. We have also found that the bans on the imports of the products at issue
from Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, as applicable to non -treated products, are not based on the
relevant international standard. In addition, we have found that the bans on the imports of the
products at issue from the four affected EU member States, as ap plicable to treated products, are
not based on the relevant international standards.
7.1223. With these considerations in mind we turn to examine the alternative measures identified
by the European Union.
7.6.6.4.3.1 Whether the European Union has identified one or more alter native
measures
7.1224. The measures that the European Union submits as an alternative are those derived from
the application of the Terrestrial Code, which recommends regionalization and trade from the ASF -
free countries/zones or from any part of a country notify ing ASF if the products underwent specific
treatments.1605 In particular, the European Union argues that instead of an EU -wide ban, Russia
should allow trade of certain products according to specific provisions of Chapter 15.1 of the
Terrestrial Code. Table 9 below contains the alternative measures identified by the
European Union, as relevant for the EU -wide ban, on the basis of the specified provisions of the
Terrestrial Code.
Table 9 Alternative measures identified by the European Union1606
Product Terrestrial Code provision Recommendation
Live pigs Article 15.1.5 Allow trade from the ASF free
zones in the EU.
Semen of domestic pigs and in Articles 15.1.8 and 15.1.10 Allow trade from the ASF free

1600 Russia's response to Panel question No. 159, para. 300.
1601 Russia's second written submission, para. 143.
1602 See para. 7.810 above.
1603 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.203.
1604 This reflects the approach taken in US – Animals whereby the panel, having found the United States'
measures were not covered by the exemption in Article 5.7, decided not to consider the United States'
argument that the maintenance of a provisional measure under Article 5.7 would preclude the applicability of
Article 5.6 (Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.439).
1605 European Union's first written submission, para. 252; and second written submission, para. 134.
1606 This table is prepared on the basis of the European Union's opening statement at the second
meeting of the Panel, paras. 72-76.

Product Terrestrial Code provision Recommendation
vivo derived embryos of domestic
pigs
zones in the EU.
Fresh meat of domestic pigs and of
wild boar
Articles 15.1.12. and 15.1.13 Allow trade from the ASF free
zones in the EU.
Pig products which have been
processed so as to ensure the
destruction of the ASFV (e.g. heat
treatment, maturation)
Article 15.1.14 Allow from the entire territory of
the four partially affected EU
Member States
Bristles Article 15.1.16 Allow trade from the ASF free
country, zones or compartment; or
which have been processed in an
establishment approved by the
Veterinary Authority for export
purposes so as to ensure the
destruction of the ASFV, and that
the necessary precautions were
taken after processing to avoid
contact of
the product with any source of
ASFV.

7.1225. In our view, the European Union has clearly identifie d which would be the alternative
measures for the products at issue. We now proceed to examine whether the measures based on
the recommendations of the Terrestrial Code identified by the European Union meet the three
cumulative elements of Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.
7.6.6.4.3.2 Whether measures based on the recommendations in the Terrestrial Code
are reasonably available, taking into account technical and economic feasibility
7.1226. Having determined the alternative measures identified by the European Union, we first
need to examine whether such alternative measures are reasonably available to Russia, taking into
account technical and economic feasibility. In section 7.5.6.5.2.3 above we have found that the
measures recommended in the Terre strial Code in respect of regionalization are reasonably
available to Russia, because they are technically and economically feasible. We rely on this finding
for the purposes of the analysis we are undertaking in respect of the bans on the imports of the
products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
7.1227. Moreover, we note that the European Union has also identified as an alternative measure
to the bans on the imports from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland the recommendations in the
Terrestrial Code in respect of treated products. This is, accepting trade of products treated
(processed) in an establishment approved for export purposes so as to ensure destruction of ASFV,
and that the necessary precautions were taken after processing to avoid contact of the product
with any source of ASFV, as enshrined in Articles 15.1.14 and 15.1.16.
7.1228. We have observed that Russia has not challenged the technical and economic feasibility
of measures in line with the Terrestrial Code. On the contrary, Russia has claimed that its
measures on imports from the four affected EU member States "conform to" or "are based on" the
international standards articulated in the Terrestrial Code, hence implying that it considers these
standards to be technically and economically feasible.
7.1229. As indicated by the European Union, the alternative measures arising from the Terrestrial
Code include accepting the imports of the treated products, in line with Chapter 15.1 of the
Terrestrial Code. In our view, accepting such imports from t he European Union does not entail a
high technical or economic burden. Rather, it requires appropriate cooperation between the
European Union's and Russia's veterinary services in order to verify compliance with the
processing requirements for safe trade in each of the four affected EU member States.
7.1230. Examining these elements, we consider that the recommended measures under the
Terrestrial Code in respect of regionalization are reasonably available to Russia, because they are
technically and economically feasible.

7.6.6.4.3.3 Whether measures based on the recommendations in the Terrestrial Code
achieve Russia's ALOP
7.1231. In section 7.5.6.5.2.4 we found that the measures recommended in the Terrestrial Code
in respect of regionalization achieve Russia's high ALOP. We rely on this finding for the purposes of
the analysis we are undertaking in respect of the bans on the imports of the products at issue from
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
7.1232. Moreover, we recall that the European Union has also identified as an alternative measure
to the bans on the imports from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland the recommendations in the
Terrestrial Code in respect of treated products. This is, accepting trade of products treated
(processed) in an establishment approved for export purposes so as to ensure destruction of ASFV,
and that the necessary precautions were taken after processing to avoid contact of the product
with any source of ASFV, as enshrined in Articles 15.1.14 and 15.1.16.
7.1233. In its responses to th e Panel's questions the OIE refers to the Terrestrial Code Foreword,
which indicates that "the Code sets out standards for the improvement of terrestrial animal health
and welfare and veterinary public health worldwide, including through standards for safe
international trade in terrestrial animals". 1607 The OIE also observed that "[a]ll the various
combinations of testing, treatment and certification identified in Chapter 15.1 provide for safe
trade of animals and animal products". 1608 Furthermore, the OIE concl udes that "[r]egardless of a
country's policy on the ALOP, the OIE considers that the application of the measures recommended
in the Terrestrial Code provide conditions for safe trade in animals and animal products."1609 In our
view, the OIE's explanations in clude reference to the recommendations for safe trade arising from
treatment (processing) of products at issue as provided in Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code.
7.1234. On that basis, we need to examine whether the level of protection that would be achieved
by the alternative measures suggested by the European Union meets Russia's ALOP in respect of
ASF.1610 We recall that we have found that both Russia's ALOP and the level of protection achieved
through the alternative measures suggested by the European Union are high. We also recall that
Russia acknowledges that its ALOP for ASF, as applied to imports of the products at issue, could be
achieved by means of measures that conform to the standards enshrined in the Terrestrial
Code.1611 We therefore conclude that the lev el of protection achieved through measures in line
with the provisions of Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code in respect of treated products meet
Russia's ALOP.
7.1235. We thus move on to make the comparison between the trade restrictiveness of the bans
on the im ports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, and the
alternative measures identified by the European Union.
7.6.6.4.3.4 Whether the measures based on the recommendations in the Terrestrial
Code are significantly less trade-restrictive than the bans on the imports of the products
at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
7.1236. We recall that previous panels have examined the third requirement through comparing
the alternative measures proposed by the complaining party with the challenged measures.1612 The
panel in India – Agricultural Products, agreeing with the panel in Australia – Salmon, observed that
"any measure imposing conditions upon importation, even if stringent, 'would still be significantly
less restrictive to trade than an outright prohibition'".1613

1607 OIE response to Panel question No. 19.
1608 OIE response to Panel question No. 19.
1609 OIE response to Panel question No. 19.
1610 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 344.
1611 See paras. 7.750 and 7.805 above.
1612 Panel Reports, US- Animals, para. 7.425; India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.591; and Australia –
Salmon, para. 8.182
1613 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.590 (quoting Panel Report, Australia – Salmon,
para. 8.182).

7.1237. With this in mind, we move on to analyse whether measures applied pursuant to the
recommendations on regionalization in Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code are significantly less
trade restrictive than the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland.
7.1238. In paragraph 7.871 above we explained that we would separately examine the bans on
the imports from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland as applicable to treated and non-treated
products at issue. Following that distinction, we made separate findings on whether those
measures, as applied to treated and non -treated products at issue, are based on the relevant
international standards articulated in the Terrestrial C ode. In order to properly examine the
measures at issue, we consider that we should follow the same analytical approach in the context
of our assessment of whether the measures based on the recommendations on regionalization in
the Terrestrial Code are sig nificantly less-trade restrictive than the bans on the imports from the
four affected EU member States. We will begin our examination with an assessment of the matter
in respect of treated products, followed by the corresponding analysis of non-treated products.
Treated products
7.1239. In paragraph 7.898 above we found that the bans on the imports from Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland, applicable to treated products, are not based on the international standards
articulated in t he Terrestrial Code. Moreover, we recall that these measures impose a general
import ban to most treated products from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.1614
7.1240. In our assessment of the relevant provisions in the Terrestrial Code, we have explained
that ce rtain provisions in Chapter 15.1 provide for safe trade of pig products, regardless of
whether they originate from ASF-free areas, that have been subject to treatment (processed) in an
establishment approved for export purposes so as to ensure destruction of ASFV, and that the
necessary precautions were taken after processing to avoid contact of the product with any source
of ASFV.1615
7.1241. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the alternative proposed by the European
Union, namely that Russia accept pig produc ts which have been certified to satisfy the treatment
requirements explained above, which allows for safe trade of those treated pigs products covered
by Articles 15.1.14, 15.1.15, and 15.1.16, is significantly less restrictive to trade than a ban on the
same products.
Non-treated products
7.1242. In paragraph 7.1040 above we found that the ban on the imports from Latvia, as
applicable to non -treated products, is based on the international standards articulated in the
Terrestrial Code i n respect of non -treated products coming from ASF -free areas. We also found
that the ban s on the imports from Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland, as applicable to non -treated
products, are not based on the relevant international standard.
7.1243. In our assessment of the relevant provisions in the Terrestrial Code, we have explained
that certain provisions in Chapter 15.1 provide for safe trade from ASF -free areas. In our findings
under Article 6.3, we found that the European Union failed to provide to Russia the nece ssary
evidence to objectively demonstrate that there are ASF -free areas, which are likely to remain so,
within Latvia. We also found that the European Union provided to Russia the necessary evidence to
objectively demonstrate that there are ASF -free areas, which are likely to remain so, in Estonia,
Lithuania, and Poland.1616
7.1244. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the European Union has failed to demonstrate
that the alternative it identified in respect of non -treated products, namely that Russia base the

1614 Excluding thermally treated (temperature not lower than 70ºC for not less than 20 minutes) cat and
dog food from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland; as well as feed additives resulted from chemical or
microbiological synthesis from Estonia. See Table 1 (Product coverage of the measures at issue) below
para. 7.144 above.
1615 See para. 7.287 above.
1616 See para. 7.1004 above.

challenged measures on the recommendations on regionalization in the Terrestrial Code, which
allows for safe trade of pigs products from ASF -free areas covered by Articles 15.1.5, 15.1.8,
15.1.10, 15.1.12, 15.1.13, and 15.1.16, is significantly less restricti ve to trade than a ban on the
same products from Latvia. We also conclude that the alternative proposed by the European
Union, namely that Russia base the ban s on the imports from Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland on
the recommendations on regionalization in the Terrestrial Code, which allows for safe trade of pig
products from ASF-free areas covered by Articles 15.1.5, 15.1.12, and 15.1.13, is significantly less
trade restrictive to trade than a ban on the same products from Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland.
7.6.6.4.4 Conclusion
7.1245. We have found that the European Union identified measures based on the
recommendations on treated (processed) products in the Terrestrial Code as a reasonably
available alternative to the bans on the imports from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Po land, as
applied to treated products covered by Articles 15.1.14, 15.1.15, and 15.1.16 of the Terrestrial
Code. We have also found that the alternative is available to Russia, technically and economically
feasible to Russia, would achieve Russia's ALOP, an d is significantly less restrictive to trade than
the bans on the imports from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Therefore, we conclude that
those measures, as applicable to treated products, are inconsistent with Article 5.6 of the SPS
Agreements, w ith respect to treated products covered by Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code ,
because they are significantly more trade restrictive than required to achieve Russia's ALOP.
7.1246. We have also found that the European Union identified measures based on the
recommendations on regionalization in the Terrestrial Code as a reasonably available alternative to
the bans on the imports from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, as applied to non -treated
products covered by Articles 15.1.5, 15.1.8, 15.1.10, 15.1.12, and 15.1.13 of the Terrestrial Code.
We have also found that the alternative is technically and economically feasible and would achieve
Russia's ALOP, and is significantly less restrictive to trade than the ban s on the imports of the
products at issue from Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland. However, we have found that the European
Union failed to demonstrate that the alternative measure is significantly less restrictive to trade
than the ban on the imports of the products at issue from Latvia. Therefore, we conclude that the
European Union failed to demonstrate that the ban on the imports from Latvia, as applicable to
non-treated products, is inconsistent with Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreements. We also conclude
that the ban s on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland, as
applicable to non -treated products, are inconsistent with Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement ,
because they are significantly more trade restrictive than required to achieve Russia's ALOP .
7.6.6.5 Whether the measures at issu e are more than is necessary for the protection of
animal health pursuant to Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement
7.6.6.5.1 Main arguments of the Parties
7.6.6.5.1.1 European Union
7.1247. The European Union argues that Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement is a more general
provision and tha t Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 5.6 are more specific provisions. 1617 According to the
European Union, it follows that a finding of a violation of Article 5.6 with regard to risk
management will consequentially result in a violation of Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreemen t, more
precisely with regard to the necessity requirement.1618
7.1248. The European Union argues that Russia does not comply with the requirements in
Article 5.6 and footnote 3 of the SPS Agreement.1619

1617 European Union's second written submission, para. 129.
1618 European Union's second written submission, para. 130.
1619 European Union's second written submission, para. 134.

7.6.6.5.1.2 Russia
7.1249. Russia argues that its import restrictions on the four infe cted EU Member States are in
line with the international standards. Russia argues that consequently, they are presumed to be
consistent with the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement, including Article 2.2.1620
7.6.6.5.2 Analysis by the Panel
7.1250. In section 7.5.6.6.2.1 above we set out the legal test applicable in respect of Article 2.2
and indicated that agree with the panel in India – Agricultural Products that the "necessity"
requirement in Article 2.2 is closely linked to the determination under Article 5.6.
7.1251. In its second written submission, the European Union argues that, based on the
relationship between Articles 2.2 and 5.61621, a finding of violation of Article 5.6 with regard to risk
management will consequentially result in a violatio n of the necessity requirement enshrined in
Article 2.2.1622 The Appellate Body has been clear in endorsing the analysis provided by the panel
in India – Agricultural Products in considering that a breach of Article 5.6 does not result in a
consequential viol ation of Article 2.2. Rather, such a finding may lead to a rebuttable
presumption.1623
7.1252. In our view, Russia has not provided any arguments or evidence that would rebut the
presumption raised from a finding of inconsistency with Article 5.6. Rather, it has foc used its
arguments on the consistency of the measures at issue with its obligations under Article 5.6.
7.1253. We recall our finding that the bans on the imports of the products at issue, as applicable
to treated products, from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Pol and, are significantly more trade
restrictive than the alternative measures identified by the European Union. The Panel also found
that the alternative measures are available to Russia and met the Russia's ALOP in respect of ASF.
7.6.6.5.3 Conclusion
7.1254. In light of our findings under Article 5.6 and the arguments and evidence raised by Russia
in order to rebut the presumption of inconsistency with Article 2.2 raised by a finding of breach of
Article 5.6, we find that the bans on the imports of the products at issue, as applicable to treated
products, from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, are inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the SPS
Agreement because they are applied beyond the extent necessary to protect human and animal
life or health.
7.7 Claims under Articles 2.3 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement
7.7.1 Introduction
7.1255. The Panel will now examine the European Union's claims that Russia's measures are
inconsistent with Articles 2.3 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.
7.1256. At the outset, we observe that the European Union has formulated indivi dual and
independent claims in respect of Russia's obligations under Articles 2.3 and 5.5 of the SPS
Agreement.1624 In light of this, before we proceed to examine each of the European Union's claims,
we must first determine the relationship between Articles 2 .3 and 5.5 and decide the order of our
analysis of the European Union's claims in respect of these two provisions.

1620 Russia's first written submission, para. 296.
1621 European Union's second written submission, para. 129 (referring to Panel Report, EC – Hormones
(Canada), para. 8.99.
1622 European Union's second written submission, para. 130.
1623 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, paras. 5.37-5.38.
1624 European Union's first written submission, section IV.E; and second written submission, section
III.E.

7.7.2 Relationship between Articles 2.3 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement and order of
analysis
7.1257. Article 2.3 addresses sanitary measures which (i) arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate
between Members where identical or similar conditions prevail; or (ii) are applied in a manner
which would constitute a disguised restriction on trade. Article 5.5 deals with a situation where
(i) the imposing Member ha s adopted ALOPs in several different situations; (ii) those levels of
protection exhibit arbitrary or unjustifiable "differences"/"distinctions" in their treatment of
different situations; and (iii) these arbitrary or unjustifiable differences result in di scrimination or a
disguised restriction on trade.
7.1258. The Appellate Body has found that Articles 2.3 and 5.5 are closely related. 1625 Both
articulate non-discrimination obligations and condemn disguised restrictions on international trade.
Article 2.3 is of a mor e general character than Article 5.5. A violation of Article 2.3 will not
necessarily imply a violation of Article 5.51626, and arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination in the
sense of the first sentence of Article 2.3, can be found to exist without any exam ination under
Article 5.5.1627
7.1259. On the basis of this relationship, panels faced with claims under both Articles 2.3 and 5.5
have typically adopted the approach of examining the claim under Article 5.5 before turning to the
claim under Article 2.3. Indeed, in most disputes in which a claim under Article 2.3 was made, it
was argued, not as an independent claim, but rather as a consequential breach of the alleged
breach of Article 5.5.1628
7.1260. In India – Agricultural Products, the complainant, the United States, ordere d its analysis
such that its primary claim was under Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement and, in the
"alternative"1629, under Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement. That panel addressed the Article 2.3
claim first and then exercised judicial economy in respect of the United States' "alternative" claim
under Article 5.5.1630
7.1261. In this Panel proceeding, the European Union orders its claims following the approach
undertaken by the panel in India – Agricultural Products .1631 Thus, the European Union first
addresses its claims in respect of Article 2.3, followed by those claims under Article 5.5. 1632 The
European Union indicates that it prefers this approach because of the broader nature of the non -
discrimination obligations contained in Article 2.3, as opposed to the focus of Article 5.5 on
discrimination that may arise in respect of distinctions in levels of protection. 1633 In its first written
submission, Russia rebutte d the European Union's claims starting with Article 5.5 followed by
Article 2.3. However, Russia was silent on the order of analysis the Panel should follow.
7.1262. We recall that the Appellate Body has recognized a panel's discretion to depart from the
sequential order suggested by the complaining party when this is required in the light of the
correct interpretation or application of the legal provisions at issue.1634

1625 Appellate Body Report, EC - Hormones, para. 212.
1627 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Salmon, para. 252; and Panel Report, US – Poultry (China),
para. 7.318.
1628 Panel Reports, Australia – Salmon (Article 21.5 - Canada), paras. 7.112-7.114; EC – Approval and
Marketing of Biotech Products, paras. 7.1446-7.1448, 7.1765-7.1766 and 7.3405-7.3406; US – Poultry
(China), paras. 7.318-7.319; and Australia – Apples, para. 7.1095.
1629 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.336 (referring to United States' first written
submission, Section VIII.H).
1630 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.481.
1631 European Union's first written submission, paras. 270-271.
1632 European Union's second written submission, para. 135.
1633 European Union's first written submission, para. 268.
1634 Appellate Body Report, US – Zeroing (Article 21.5 – EC), para. 277. See also Appellate Body
Reports, Canada – Renewable Energy/Feed in Tariff Program, para. 5.8; and Appellate Body Report, Canada –
Wheat Exports and Grain Imports, paras. 126-129; and Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.13; and Australia
– Salmon, paras. 8.42-8.48.

7.1263. Furthermore, we recall that Article 2.3 has a broader scope than Article 5.5. In this
particular case, the European Union has framed distinct, although related, arguments in respect of
why the measures at issue run contrary to Russia's obligations under Articles 2.3 and 5.5. The
European Union has not framed its claims under Article 2.3 as consequential to find ings in respect
of Article 5.5.
7.1264. In light of the above, we will adopt the order of analysis suggested by the European
Union and begin by examining the European Union's claim that Russia's measures result in
arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination inconsistent with Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement. We
will then examine the European Union's claim that Russia is in breach of Article 5.5 of the SPS
Agreement as it makes arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions in the levels it considers to be
appropriate in different situations, because such distinctions result in discrimination or a disguised
restriction on international trade.
7.7.3 Whether Russia's measures are inconsistent with Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement
7.7.3.1 Main arguments of the parties
7.7.3.1.1 European Union
7.1265. The European Union argues that Russia's measures violate the obligations contained in
both sentences of Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement. The European Union clarifies that the
obligations in the two sentences of Article 2.3 should not be mechanistically distinguished, as the
respective concepts impart meaning to one another.1635
7.7.3.1.1.1 First sentence of Article 2.3 –arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination
7.1266. The European Union stresses that there are three cumulative conditions that should be
satisfied before a violation of the first sentence of Article 2.3 can be established. Those conditions
are (i) the measure discriminates betw een the territories of Members other than the Member
imposing the measure, or between the territory of the Member imposing the measure and that of
another Member; (ii) the discrimination is arbitrary or unjustifiable; and (iii) identical or similar
conditions prevail in the territories of the Members compared. 1636
7.1267. The European Union argues that in the present dispute, the three cumulative conditions
are satisfied in respect of two instances of discrimination. 1637 The first instance refers to the
difference in treatment afforded to imported products from the European Union and internal trade
of Russian domestic products at issue. The products at issue from the entire territory of the
European Union (including the entire territory of the four affected EU member Sta tes) are subject
to a total import ban, which runs against regionalization that would allow trade of the products at
issue from the entire European Union, except the ASF-affected areas in the four EU member States
and Sardinia. By contrast, there is only a limited ban on trade of Russian domestic products,
applied only to those products from a limited area around an ASF epizootic hotbed.1638
7.1268. In respect of that situation, the European Union argues that (i) the difference in
treatment results in discrimination a s Russia allows intra -Russian trade in live pigs and pig
products from the non -affected areas and does not apply a Russia -wide ban on the products
associated with the risk of ASF; (ii) the discrimination between the Russian territory and the
European Union's territory is arbitrary and unjustifiable because the difference in treatment cannot
be explained by a different epizootic status; and (iii) the same or similar conditions prevail ed both
in the European Union (including in the four affected EU member St ates) and in Russia, i.e. the
existence of the ASF virus within both the Russian and the European Union territories, which was

1635 European Union's first written submission, para. 273.
1636 European Union's first written submission, para. 274 (citing Australia – Salmon (Article 21.5 –
Canada), para. 7.111).
1637 European Union's first written submission, para. 286.
1638 European Union's first written submission, para. 287-289.

the relevant feature triggering the import prohibition imposed by Russia on live pigs and certain
pig products from the European Union.1639
7.1269. The second instance of discrimination, according to the European Union, refers to the
initial acceptance of regionalization measures of other WTO Members, like Ukraine, while not
recognizing the "state -of-the art" ASF regionalization measures in th e European Union. 1640 In
particular, the European Union refers to two situations, both pre -dating the panel establishment.
One occurred in 2012, when Russia selectively did not apply any ban to Ukrainian products
following an ASF case in the Zaporozhye region . A second situation occurred in early 2014 with
respect to the Lugansk region. The European Union highlights in this regard that on 15 January
2014 Russia announced a ban on the trade from the Lugansk region, while accepting pig products
from the rest of Ukraine. This regional ban was notified to the WTO on 21 January 2014.1641
7.1270. In respect of this second instance, the European Union argues that (i) the difference in
treatment of the Ukrainian and European Union territory (and the four affected EU member State
territories) results in discrimination because, in the case of Ukraine, a country -wide ban was not
imposed as a reaction to the notification of an ASF outbreak; (ii) such discrimination is arbitrary
and unjustifiable because the difference in treatment can not be explained by a different epizootic
status; and (iii) the same or similar conditions prevailed both in the European Union and in
Ukraine, because the existence of the ASFV within both territories was the relevant feature
triggering the import prohibi tion imposed by Russia on the products at issue from the entire
European Union, on the one hand, and the limited territorial import ban on Ukrainian like pig
products, on the other hand.1642
7.7.3.1.1.2 Second sentence of Article 2.3 — disguised restriction on international trade
7.1271. The European Union argues that Russia's measures at issue amount to a disguised
restriction on international trade for several reasons: first, Russia's application of drastic measures
towards imports from the European Union while being far less s tringent with regard to the internal
movement of domestic products or with regard to imports from other countries, including other
WTO Members, amounts to a disguised restriction on international trade. Second, Russia's attempt
to justify its measures by t he OIE standards is a clear misreading of the Terrestrial Code and the
OIE Terrestrial Manual. Third, Russia did not provide any risk assessment in support of its
measures, which is required under Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement for measures that do not
"conform to" and are not "based on" international standards.1643
7.1272. The European Union concludes that the measures at issue are therefore contradictory,
contrary to international standards, protectionist, discriminatory and not based on scientific
evidence and sc ientific principles, thus constituting a disguised restriction on international trade
within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement.1644
7.1273. The European Union further posits that while for the purposes of Article 2.3 first
sentence, the discrimination should occur between WTO Members, the concept of disguised
restriction on international trade in the second sentence of Article 2.3 does not have such a
limitation.1645
7.1274. The European Union contends that in practice, this means that simila r factors should be
taken into account by the Panel in its analysis of the Russian treatment of Belarussian products
and the conditions of discrimination between WTO Members. In particular, the European Union
explained that such distinction is relevant tak ing into account the context of the similarly worded
chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994, which the Appellate Body took into account in its analysis

1639 European Union's first written submission, paras. 288-294.
1640 European Union's first written submission, para. 299.
1641 European Union's second written submission, paras. 139-140.
1642 European Union's first written submission, paras. 301-304.
1643 European Union's first written submission, paras. 313-322.
1644 European Union's first written submission, para. 323.
1645 European Union's second written submission, para. 136 (referring to the United States' third-party
responses to Panel question No. 24, para. 45).

regarding "arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination" in reaching its conclusions on "disguised
restriction on international trade".1646
7.7.3.1.2 Russia
7.1275. Russia separates its defence on this claim into two main streams: one pertaining to the
country-wide measures in respect of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland; and a second
concerning the EU-wide ban.
7.7.3.1.2.1 First sentence of Article 2.3 – arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination
7.1276. In respect of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, Russia submits that its measures are
not inconsistent with Article 2.3 as they do not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate against the
European Union, neither in comparison with Russia's internal movement restrictions, nor in
comparison with Russia's treatment of Belarus and Ukraine.
7.1277. Russia asserts, in the first instance, that its import restrictions on products from
ASF-infected EU membe r States are not discriminatory compared to Russia's internal movement
restrictions.1647 Russia explains that its measures do not de jure treat live pigs and pork products
imported from the ASF -infected EU member States differently from the way it treats its own
products after a domestic ASF outbreak, and that any de facto difference in the application of
measures is based on and caused by the inability of the European Union to objectively
demonstrate that its alleged ASF -free regions are and will remain ASF -free. In Russia's view,
taking into account the "conditions prevailing in the EU's ASF -infected countries," Russia's decision
to reject the European Union's zones while upholding its domestic zones is not discriminatory.1648
7.1278. Russia further considers that assu ming arguendo that there are differences between
Russia's measures with respect to imports from the four infected EU member States and its
domestic measures, such differences are neither arbitrary nor do they result in unjustifiable
discrimination under Ar ticle 2.3 of the SPS Agreement. Furthermore, Russia argues that contrary
to the European Union's suggestion, any formal difference in treatment or formal differences
between measures does not suffice to establish arbitrary discrimination within the meaning of
Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement. Rather, Russia posits that an assessment of whether a
difference in treatment is arbitrary or unjustified needs to be based on the rationale put forward to
explain its existence.1649
7.1279. Russia argues that the difference in treatment is not arbitrary because it results from the
European Union's inability to provide a reasonably objective basis for the zones it has established
and on whether its alleged ASF -free areas are and will remain ASF -free.1650 Moreover, Russia
argues that there is no arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination because measures that are
structured or operate differently can reflect the same ALOP.1651
7.1280. Russia also argues that the European Union has failed to demonstrate that identical or
similar conditions prevail. Russia argues that first, any larger size of the geographic area covered
by the import measures compared to the domestic measures is due to the European Union's
inability and unwillingness to propose reasonably -sized ASF-infected zones or any compartment s,
and by contrast, Russia applies strict and extensive domestic zoning measures. Second, imports
from these infected EU member States to Russia pose a greater risk of spreading the ASF virus,
particularly in light of the lax standstill provisions mandated by European Union legislation, and by
contrast, Russia applies strict standstill provisions coupled with a wide variety of other eradication
and control measures.1652

1646 European Union's second written submission, para. 137. See also European Union's response to
Panel question No. 169, paras. 349-350.
1647 Russia's first written submission, para. 304.
1648 Russia's first written submission, para. 305.
1649 Russia's first written submission, para. 307-308.
1650 Russia's first written submission, para. 309.
1651 Russia's second written submission, paras. 143-159.
1652 Russia's first written submission, paras. 311-314.

7.1281. In respect of the EU-wide ban and the European Union's claims of discrimination between
other EU member States and Ukraine/Belarus, Russia asserts that the European Union has failed
to establish that Russia's provisional compliance with the terms of the veterinary certificates
results in treatment of imports of pigs and pig products from the oth er EU member States that is
less favourable than the treatment of similar imports from Ukraine and Belarus.
7.1282. With respect to Ukraine, Russia asserts that it agreed upon and complied with a
veterinary certification system similar to the certification system agreed with the European Union:
the veterinary certificates indicate that the products originate from Ukraine territory that has been
ASF-free for three years; and provide for the possibility of discontinuation of certification of pigs
and pork products i f the territories are no longer ASF -free for the past three years. Russia's
provisional compliance with the veterinary certificates is not arbitrary or unjustifiable; not
permitting the importation of uncertified pig products is consistent with treatment o f all uncertified
pigs and pork products from any other Member with which Russia has a certification system. At the
time of the panel request, Russia did not discriminate between live pigs and pork products from
other EU member States and Ukraine. The alleged arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination flows
from the failure of the European Union to meet the ASF -related requirements contained in the
agreed veterinary certificates.
7.1283. With respect to Belarus, Russia submits that any different treatment between Belarus and
the European Union is justified and not arbitrary as it reflects the fact that Belarus recognized and
established compartments with high levels of biosecurity, whereas the European Union failed to
provide information sufficient to assess the lik elihood of entry of ASF into Russia from the
importation of uncertified pig and pork products from other EU member States. The claimed
discrimination flows from the failure of the European Union to meet the ASF -related requirements
contained in the agreed veterinary certificates.
7.7.3.1.2.2 Second sentence of Article 2.3 — disguised restriction on international trade
7.1284. In respect of the bans on imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
and Poland, Russia relies on its evidence and argumentation u nder Article 5.5 in asserting that its
measures do not constitute a disguised restriction on international trade.
7.1285. In respect of the EU -wide ban, Russia submits that the European Union has failed to
demonstrate that such measure constitutes a disguised res triction on international trade
inconsistent with the second sentence Article 2.3. The situation flows from the failure of the
European Union to meet the ASF -related requirements contained in the agreed veterinary
certificates. Russia believes importation would be unsafe until a proper risk analysis has been
conducted, and that it has been acting in good faith.1653
7.1286. With regard to the first claim of discrimination, Russia asserts that it did not engage in
arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination in its treatme nt of the European Union when compared
with the treatment of live pigs and pork products in its own territory.
7.1287. Russia reiterates that this dispute may be distinguished from India - Agricultural Products
in that whereas in that dispute, the same condition i.e. the presence of NAI in India or another
Member, "is the relevant distinction that triggers the import prohibition imposed by India's AI
measures", in this dispute, the mere presence of ASF did not automatically "trigger" the relevant
measures, i.e. the domestic regionalization measures versus country-wide import restrictions with
respect to the four ASF -infected EU Member States. Instead, the presence of ASF triggered an
assessment of the adequacy of the EU regionalization measures. In Russia's view, unlike the
India - Agricultural Products, this dispute does not involve identical or similar conditions.1654
7.1288. Russia also refers to and reiterates its arguments under Article 5.3 of the SPS Agreement
in claiming that it did not engage in arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination under Article 2.3 of the
SPS Agreement.1655

1653 Russia's first written submission, para. 407.
1654 Russia's second written submission, para. 163.
1655 Russia's second written submission, para. 164.

7.1289. With regard to the second discrimination claim, Russia argues that it did not engage in
arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination with respect to either Ukraine or Belarus.
7.1290. Russia highlights tha t with respect to Belarus, the European Union has changed its
position. Russia points out that the European Union has acknowledged that Belarus is not a WTO
Member and the non -discrimination obligation contained in Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement is
applicable only to WTO Members.1656
7.1291. With respect to Ukraine, Russia argues that following an examination that revealed the
inadequacy of Ukraine's containment measures, Russia decided not to accept Ukraine's zones, just
as it did with respect to the affected EU me mber States. Russia also claims that such alleged
discrimination is no longer in place today, nor was it in place at the date of the Panel
establishment.1657
7.1292. Finally, Russia argues that relevant jurisprudence has established that evidence post -
dating the pane l establishment is relevant in assessing whether or not Russia has violated its
obligations under Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement. Russia asserts that not taking into account the
ongoing dynamic ASF developments in the European Union would limit the abili ty of the Panel to
assist the parties in "secur[ing] a positive solution to a dispute" and to help them arrive at the
"satisfactory settlement of the matter" in accordance with the aim of the dispute settlement
mechanism.1658
7.7.3.2 Analysis by the Panel
7.7.3.3 Introduction
7.1293. The European Union formulates its claims jointly in respect of both sets of measures at
issue (i.e. the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Poland and the EU -wide ban), with reference to three alleged instanc es of discrimination. Russia
raises its defence separately in respect of the bans on the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland and in respect of the EU-wide ban. We consider it appropriate to undertake a
joint analysis in order to reach conclusions under Article 2.3 in respect of both sets of measures at
issue.
7.1294. We note that the European Union refers to three situations of discrimination. Therefore,
for the sake of clarity, the Panel will structure its analysis by first addressing th e legal provision at
issue and then examining the relevant parts thereof in respect of each of the situations of
discrimination invoked by the European Union. When necessary, the Panel will clarify whether its
findings refer to the bans on the imports of t he products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
and Poland or to the EU-wide ban.
7.7.3.4 The legal provisions at issue
7.1295. Article 2 of the SPS Agreement is entitled "Basic Rights and Obligations". Article 2.3
provides:
Members shall ensure that their sanitary and phytosanitary measures do not
arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between Members where identical or similar
conditions prevail, including between their own territory and that of other Members.
Sanitary and phytosanitary measures shall not be app lied in a manner which would
constitute a disguised restriction on international trade.
7.1296. Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement contains two primary obligations. Pursuant to the first
obligation, provided in the first sentence, Members "shall ensure that their sa nitary and
phytosanitary measures do not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between Members where
identical or similar conditions prevail, including between their own territory and that of other

1656 Russia's second written submission, para. 165.
1657 Russia's second written submission, paras. 167-168.
1658 Russia's second written submission, para. 169.

Members." According to the second obligation, containe d in the second sentence, Members' SPS
measures: "shall not be applied in a manner which would constitute a disguised restriction on
international trade." 1659 We will examine whether each of the measures at issue meet each of
these obligations.
7.7.3.5 The first sentence of Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement
7.1297. A claim under the first sentence of Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement consists of three
cumulative elements: (i) the measure discriminates between the territories of Members other than
the Member imposing the measure, or between the territory of the Member imposing the measure
and that of another Member; (ii) the discrimination is arbitrary or unjustifiable; and (iii) identical
or similar conditions prevail in the territory of the Members compared.1660
7.1298. The Appellate Bod y has clarified that these three requirements inform each other, such
that the analysis of each element cannot be undertaken in isolation from that of the other two. The
Appellate Body added that the sequence of analysis of the three requirements may vary as a
function of the circumstances of each dispute. The Appellate Body also observed that the first
sentence of Article 2.3 does not appear to mandate a particular order for analysing these
requirements. In the Appellate Body's view, logically, identifying the relevant conditions, and
assessing whether they are identical or similar, will often provide a good starting point for an
analysis under this provision.1661
7.1299. Based on this guidance, we will first examine the legal test for each of the requirements.
Then we will examine whether identical or similar conditions prevail in the territory of the Members
compared, whether discrimination exists in each of the situations identified by the European Union,
and, if we find there are instances of discrimination, we wil l then examine whether such
discrimination is arbitrary or unjustifiable. We will perform this assessment separately in respect of
each situation of discrimination identified by the European Union.1662
7.1300. Before proceeding to examine these three elements, we ob serve that the European Union
constructs its arguments under the first sentence Article 2.3 on the basis of its allegations of two
"instances" of discrimination, the second of which refers to two "situations" of discrimination. First,
the European Union ch allenges the fact that Russia maintains a total ban on imported products
from the entire territory of the European Union (including the entire territory of the four affected
EU member States) compared with a ban on Russian domestic products limited to area s encircling
the epizootic hotbed. Second, the European Union challenges the fact that Russia initially accepted
regionalization measures of other WTO Members, like Ukraine, while not recognizing the ASF
regionalization measures in the European Union. Acco rding to the European Union such difference
in treatment happened on two occasions: first, in 2012 when Russia selectively did not apply any
ban to Ukrainian products following an ASF case in the Zaporozhye region; and second, on 15
January 2014 when Russi a announced a ban on the trade from the Lugansk region, while
accepting pig products from the rest of Ukraine.
7.1301. We now turn to the legal test applicable when assessing a claim under the first sentence
of Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement. We will then exami ne the three elements required to
determine a breach of the first sentence of Article 2.3, in respect of each of the three situations of
discrimination identified by the European Union.

1659 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.388 (referring to Appellate Body Report,
Australia – Salmon, para. 252).
1660 Panel Reports, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.389; and Australia – Salmon (Article 21.5 –
Canada), para. 7.111.
1661 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.261.
1662 We note that this approach was followed by the panel in US – Animals. See Panel Report, US –
Animals, paras. 7.578, 7.600 and 7.618.

7.7.3.5.1 Legal test
7.7.3.5.1.1 Whether identical or similar conditions prevail in the ter ritory of the
Members compared
7.1302. To facilitate our consideration of this issue, we first discern the meaning of the terms
used in this provision. In this respect, the dictionary definition of the term "identical" is
"designating a proposition whose terms express an identity or denote the same thing; of a thing or
set of things viewed at different times – the very same; or of two or more separate things;
agreeing in every detail". 1663 In turn, the term "similar" is defined as "of the same substance or
structure t hroughout – homogenous; having a resemblance or likeness; of the same nature or
kind".1664 Finally, the term "condition" is defined as "a way of living or existing"; "the state of
something"; "the physical state of something"; and "the physical or mental stat e of a person or
thing".1665
7.1303. The panel in India – Agricultural Products noted, first, that the same facts that inform the
assessment of whether or not discrimination is arbitrary or unjustifiable may also inform the
assessment of whether or not identical or similar conditions prevail; and, second, that the relevant
"conditions", for the purpose of a given analysis, may be the presence of a disease within a
territory (and the concomitant risk associated with that disease).1666
7.1304. The panel thus agreed with India's c ontention that, if the relevant disease is present in
one country but not in another, this may be an indication that identical or similar conditions do not
exist. However, in view of the fact that India had not discharged its burden of proving that
LPNAI1667 was exotic to India, and the panel's finding that India did not maintain a surveillance
mechanism adequate to detect reliably the presence or absence of LPNAI within its territory, there
was no foundation upon which the panel could, in that dispute, take a ccount of any such
indication.1668
7.1305. This finding was challenged on appeal by India. In India's view, the panel had incorrectly
shifted the burden of proof when requiring it to demonstrate that LPNAI was exotic to India. The
Appellate Body found that the panel had not erred in make that finding, mainly because the panel
had been correct in assigning the burden to India of demonstrating one of the evidentiary pillars of
its argumentation.1669
7.1306. That panel also observed that the risk against which India was protecting was LPNAI, and
that there was no evidence before the panel to suggest that the risks associated with LPNAI were
in any way different on the basis of the origin of the relevant product. Thus, the panel considered
that India was protecting against an identi cal or similar risk when it took measures to protect
against LPNAI, regardless of whether the relevant product originated in India or in the United
States or somewhere else. Therefore, the panel found that the risks against which India was
protecting in In dia constituted conditions that were similar to those in other Members, including
the United States.1670
7.1307. Following this analytical approach, the panel in India – Agricultural Products opined that
the "relevant conditions" referred to the presence of NAI1671 in India or another Member. The panel
explained that under conditions where NAI is present in a country other than India, India applies
an import prohibition. In contrast, the panel stated, under conditions where NAI is present in

1663 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, 6th ed. (Oxford University Press, 2007)
Vol. 1, p. 1319 as quoted in Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.572.
1664 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, 6th ed. (Oxford University Press, 2007),
Vol. 2, p. 2838 as quoted in Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.572.
1665 Merriam-Webster, available at http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/condition (last accessed
9 December 2014) as quoted in Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.572.
1666 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.460.
1667 Low pathogenicity notifiable avian influenza (LPNAI).
1668 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.467.
1669 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.280.
1670 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, paras. 7.468-7.470.
1671 Notifiable avian influenza (NAI).

India, the relevant provision s of India's legislation 1672 permit movement and trade outside the
surveillance zone. For the panel, the measures in question thus addressed the same condition –
the presence of NAI – and they did so differently. The panel clarified that it was not stating th at
the disease situation of India was identical or similar to the disease situation of the United States,
but rather that the relevant condition for an analysis under this element of Article 2.3 was the
presence of NAI in India or another Member because th is was the relevant distinction that
triggered the import prohibition imposed by India's AI measures. That panel therefore concluded
that the relevant conditions were identical or similar between India and other countries (including
the United States) for the purpose of this element of the first sentence Article 2.3 of the SPS
Agreement.1673
7.1308. We note that the situation in this case is clear in respect of the presence of the relevant
disease, ASF, in the territory of the Members compared. Russia recognizes that ASF exists in its
territory.1674 Because of the fact that ASF is not exotic to Russia, and that, as described by Russia,
there are extensive programmes in place to control ASF spread within Russia's territory 1675, the
comparisons identified by the panel in India – Agricultural Products are particularly relevant to this
case.
7.1309. We recall that the panel in US – Animals stated:
In the context of the chapeau of Article XX, the Appellate Body stated in EC – Seal
Products that "only 'conditions' that are relevant for the purpose of establishing
arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination in the light of the specific character of the
measure at issue and the circumstances of a particular case" should be considered.1676
It further observed that the regulatory objective pursued by the measure at issue may
also provide useful guidance on the question of which "conditions" prevailing in
different Members are "relevant"1677.1678
7.1310. The panel in US – Animals considered that the challenged measure aimed to ensure that
imports of foot and mouth Disease (FMD)-susceptible animals and products were allowed only if
the level of risk posed by such imports met the United States' ALOP for FMD. 1679 The panel found
that the condition that had to be identical or similar in the two regions compared was the lev el of
risk of FMD-introduction posed by imports of the product at issue from the two regions, as well as
their ability to meet the United States' ALOP. 1680 A salient fact in that case was that FMD is not
present anywhere within the United States.
7.1311. We agree with the panel in India – Agricultural Products that the relevant "conditions" for
the purposes of a given analysis in the first sentence of Article 2.3 may be the presence of a
disease within a territory and the concomitant risk associated with that disease . In addition, we
consider that unlike the situation examined by the panel in US – Animals, the approach of the
panel in India – Agricultural Products addresses the risks associated with the entry of a disease
that is already present and widespread in India, hence the approach in India – Agricultural
Products is more fitting to the situation.
7.1312. Therefore, with a view to informing the Panel's interpretation of the relevant conditions
prevailing in the territory of Russia, the Panel will take into account whet her ASF is present in the
territories of the Members compared, as well as the risks associated with that disease. The Panel
will assess these elements in the territory of the Members compared in each of the three situations
of alleged discrimination.

1672 India's National Action Plan for 2012 (NAP 2012).
1673 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, paras. 7.463-7.464.
1674 See paras. 7.207-7.208 above.
1675 See paras. 7.1336-7.1337 below.
1676 (footnote original) Appellate Body Report, EC – Seal Products, para. 5.299.
1677 (footnote original) Appellate Body Report, EC – Seal Products, para. 5.300.

7.7.3.5.1.2 Whether the measure discriminates between the territories of Members
other than the Member imposing the measure, or between the territory of the Member
imposing the measure and that of another Member
7.1313. Examining the meaning of "discrimination" under the first sen tence of Article 2.3, the
Panel draws guidance from how this term has been interpreted in the context of this provision, as
well as other provisions of the covered agreements, and in particular, the chapeau of Article XX of
the GATT 1994. The chapeau of Article XX states:
Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which
would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries
where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on intern ational trade,
nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement
by any contracting party of measures [enacted for the purposes listed in the
subparagraphs of Article XX.]
7.1314. The Appellate Body has elaborated on the meaning o f "discrimination" in this context as
resulting "not only when countries in which the same conditions prevail are differently treated, but
also when the application of the measure at issue does not allow for any inquiry into the
appropriateness of the regu latory program me for the conditions prevailing in those exporting
countries".1681
7.1315. Citing this guidance, the panel in India – Agricultural Products went on to state
We note that the language of Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement is similar to that of the
chapeau to Article XX. Both provisions speak of "arbitrary" and "unjustifiable"
discrimination, and a comparison between conditions prevailing in different "countries"
(in the context of Article XX) or "Members" (in the context of Article 2.3). We also
note that the last recital of the preamble to the SPS Agreement states that the SPS
Agreement "elaborate[s] rules for the application of the provisions of GATT 1994
which relate to the use of [SPS] measures, in particular the provisions of Article
XX(b)", which inc ludes the chapeau. Given the similarities between these provisions
and the reference to Article XX of the GATT 1994 in the preamble of the SPS
Agreement, we consider it appropriate to interpret "discrimination" in Article 2.3 of the
SPS Agreement in a mann er similar to that which the Appellate Body adopted in the
context of Article XX of the GATT 1994. Hence, in the context of Article 2.3 of the SPS
Agreement, we consider that discrimination may result not only (i) when Members in
which the same conditions prevail (including between the territory of the Member
imposing the measure, and that of other Members) are treated differently, but also
(ii) where the application of the measure at issue does not allow for any inquiry into
the appropriateness of the regu latory programme for the conditions prevailing in the
exporting country.1682
7.1316. The panel in US – Animals agreed that the language of the chapeau of Article XX of the
GATT 1994 presents a number of similarities with that of Article 2.3: both provisions speak of
arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination, and a comparison between the "conditions" prevailing in
different Members.1683 That panel also observed that the last recital of the preamble of the SPS
Agreement states that the Agreement "elaborate[s] rules for t he application of the provisions of
GATT 1994 which relate to the use of [SPS] measures, in particular the provisions of Article
XX(b)", which includes the chapeau. 1684 Therefore, it considered that the chapeau of Article XX
provided useful context for its interpretation of the terms of Article 2.3.1685
7.1317. Turning to the requirement that the measures discriminate between Members that are in
identical or similar conditions, the US – Animals panel noted that

1681 Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp, para. 165.
1682 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.400.

[T]he Appellate Body consistently stated that different tre atment does not necessarily
amount to discrimination. The focus of a discrimination analysis is whether the
measure at issue alters the conditions of competition to the detriment of products
originating in the territories of Members other than the Member imposing the measure
or between the territory of the Member imposing the measure and that of another
Member. 1686 In US – Shrimp, the Appellate Body found that "discrimination" in the
context of the chapeau of Article XX may result not only when Members in whi ch the
same conditions prevail are treated differently, but also where the application of the
measure at issue does not allow for any inquiry into the appropriateness of the
regulatory programme for the conditions prevailing in the exporting country. 1687
Further, according to the Appellate Body, discrimination may arise not only from "the
detailed operating provisions" of a measure, but also from the application of a
measure "otherwise fair and just on its face". 1688 Finally, the panel in US – Poultry
(China) stated that discrimination may stem from both "'substantive' SPS measures"
and "procedural and information requirements"1689.1690
7.1318. Therefore, the Panel may consider that discrimination in the context of Article 2.3 may
result not only when Members in which the same conditions prevail are treated differently, but also
where the application of the measure at issue does not allow for any inquiry into the
appropriateness of the regulatory programme for the conditions prevailing in the exporting
country. Furthermore, discrimination may arise not only from "the detailed operating provisions" of
a measure, but also from the application of a measure "otherwise fair and just on its face".
Moreover, discrimination may stem from both "'substantive' SPS measures" and "procedural and
information requirements". While the Panel derives substantive guidance from prior cases relating
to Article XX (chapeau), we are also mindful of the "preliminary observation" relating to the
characterization of Article 2.3 made by the Appellate Body in India – Agricultural Products
We begin by observing that, notwithstanding certain similarities between its language
and that of the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994, Article 2.3, first sentence, of
the SPS Agreement, sets out an obligation and is not expressed in the form of an
exception. Thus, a complainant raising a claim that a Member's SPS measure is
inconsistent with Article 2.3, first sentence, bears the overall burden of establishing its
prima facie case of inconsistency.1691
7.1319. This "preliminary observation" serves as an important reminder that, although the
language of Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement and the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994 may
be similar, they are of a different legal character and accordingly require a different allocati on in
the applicable burden of proof. For the purposes these proceedings, this means that the European
Union, as complainant, retains the burden of establishing its prima facie case of inconsistency with
the elements of Article 2.3 with respect to each of its specific claims.
7.7.3.5.1.3 Whether the discrimination is arbitrary or unjustifiable
7.1320. To facilitate our consideration of this issue, we first discern the meaning of the terms
used in this provision. In this respect, the dictionary definition of the term "arbitrary " is "based on
mere opinion or preference as opp[osed] to the real nature of things, capricious, unpredictable,
inconsistent".1692 In turn, the term "unjustifiable" is defined as "not justifiable, indefensible" 1693,

1686 (footnote original) See e.g. Appellate Body Reports, EC – Asbestos, paras. 98-99; Dominican
Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes, para. 96; and Philippines – Distilled Spirits, para. 256.
1687 (footnote original) Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp, para. 165. See also Panel Report, India –
1688 (footnote original) Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp, para. 160.
1689 (footnote original) Panel Report, US – Poultry (China), para. 7.147. In the context of the chapeau of
Article XX of the GATT 1994, see Appellate Body Reports, US – Shrimp, para. 160; EC – Seal Products, para.
5.302.
1691 The Appellate Body made this "preliminary observation" on Article 2.3 before addressing India's
claims under Article 11 of the DSU. Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.260.
1692 Online Oxford English Dictionary (as quoted in Panel Report, US – Poultry (China), para. 7.259; and

with "justifiable" meaning "[c]apable of being legally or morally justified or shown to be just,
righteous, or innocent; defensible" and "[c]apable of being maintained, defended, or made
good".1694
7.1321. In a number of cases, the Appellate Body has explained that an analysis of whether
discrimination is arbitrary or unjustifiable within the meaning of the chapeau of Article XX "should
focus on the cause of the discrimination, or the rationale put forward to explain its existence". 1695
In particular, in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres the Appellate Body focused its analys is on whether the
measure at issue bore a " rational connection to" its stated objective of protecting human life or
health under subparagraph (b) of Article XX.1696 This approach was adopted by the panels in US –
Poultry (China), India – Agricultural Products and US – Animals in their analysis under Article 2.3
of the SPS Agreement.1697
7.1322. In the context of an analysis of Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement, which constitutes a
specification of the basic obligation contained in Article 2.3, the Appellate Body in Australia -
Salmon upheld the panel's finding that the measure at issue was arbitrarily and unjustifiably
discriminatory because it treated differently two products that presented the same level of risk.1698
7.1323. Based on this guidance , the focus of our analysis will b e the rationale that Russia puts
forward to explain each of the situations of discrimination alleged by the European Union in respect
of the measures at issue. As part of the assessment of whether the discrimination against imports
of the products at issue from the European Union ( vis-à-vis Russia) or between imports from the
European Union and Ukraine1699 stemming from Russia's measures is "arbitrary or unjustifiable",
the Panel will examine whether the regulatory distinction between the two situations/sets o f
imports bears a rational connection to the stated objective of the measures.1700
7.7.3.5.2 First instance of discrimination: treatment of domestic products in Russia
7.7.3.5.2.1 Whether identical or similar conditions prevail in Russia and in the European
Union
7.1324. According to the European Union, the same or similar conditions prevailed both in the
European Union (including in the four affected EU member States) and in Russia, i.e. the existence
of the ASFV in both the Russian and the European Union territories. The European Union p osits
that the first occurrence of ASF within the European Union was the relevant feature triggering the
import prohibition imposed by Russia on the products at issue from the European Union.1701
7.1325. Russia asserts that there are differences in "conditions" betw een the situation in the
European Union and in Russia with respect to ASF control measures in at least two instances. The
first refers to the differences in the size of zones established in Russia and in the European Union

1693 Online Oxford English Dictionary (as quoted in Panel Report, US – Poultry (China), para. 7.259; and
1694 Online Oxford English Dictionary (as quoted in Panel Reports, US – Poultry (China), para. 7.259;
and US – Animals, para. 7.587).
1695 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, paras. 225-226 (in turn referring to Appellate Body
Reports, US – Gasoline pp. 25-26 and 28; US – Shrimp, paras. 163-172; and US – Shrimp (Article 21.5 –
Malaysia), paras. 144 and 147). See also Appellate Body Report, EC – Seal Products, para. 5.303; and Panel
1696 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 227.
1697 Panel Report, US – Poultry (China), para. 7.261. See also Panel Report, India – Agricultural
Products, para. 7.429.
1698 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Salmon, para. 158.
1699 The European Union clarified, in the course of the proceedings that its references to Belarus were
only relevant in the context of the second, and not the first, sentence of Article 2.3. See European Union's
second written submission, paras. 136-137. We therefore do not examine allegations pertaining to Belarus in
connection with the first sentence of Article 2.3. However we note that the following exhibits pertain to this
argument: Exhibits EU-100, RUS-42, and RUS-43.
1700 The same approach was followed by the panel in US – Animals. See Panel Report, US – Animals,
para. 7.589.
1701 European Union's first written submission, para. 294.

to contain ASF. 1702 The second refer s to the different standstill provisions in place in the affected
zones both in the European Union and in Russia.1703
7.1326. In this regard, Russia further posits that this dispute may be distinguished from
India - Agricultural Products in that whereas in that disp ute, the same condition i.e. the presence
of NAI in India or another Member, was "the relevant distinction that triggers the import
prohibition imposed by India's AI measures", in this dispute, the mere presence of ASF did not
automatically "trigger" the r elevant measures, i.e. the domestic regionalization measures versus
country-wide import restrictions with respect to the four ASF -infected EU member States. Instead,
the presence of ASF triggered an assessment of the adequacy of the EU regionalization measures.
In Russia's view, unlike India - Agricultural Products , this dispute does not involve identical or
similar conditions.1704
7.1327. As described in paragraph 7.1312 above, to determine whether similar conditions prevail
in the European Union and in Russia in respect of trade of the products at issue, we will consider
the presence of ASF in each territory, and the risks thereof.
7.1328. We recall that it is an undisputed fact that ASF and ASFV have been present in Russia
from 2007. It is also an undisputed fact that ASF and ASFV were introduced to the European Union
territory on January 2014 through infected wild boar in Lithuania near the border with Belarus.
There have been infected wild boars in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. In a ddition, certain
domestic pig holdings have been infected with ASF, throughout 2014 and up to the second half of
2015, in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.1705
7.1329. The experts have identified the different risks associated with the presence of ASF in a
particular area. We recall the view of Dr Thomson that "the problem under discussion is a regional
one encompassing the Caucuses, Baltic States, the Russian Federation and eastern parts of the
EU. As indicated elsewhere, from an ASF perspective, the whole regi on seems to be in roughly the
same position."1706 We also recall Dr Thomson's view that
In my opinion the crux of this trade issue is that both the EU and the RF are
confronted by a similar problem, i.e. both have suffered incursion of ASF into their
territories and both, as part of their ASF management strategy, have established ASF -
free zones. The RF seems to be insinuating that the risk of importing ASF from ASF -
free zones in countries comprising the eastern part of the EU is greater than for
internal trade in the same commodities and products derived from ASF -free zones
within the RF. I do not have sufficient experience of the situation on the ground to
either accept or reject this insinuation. However, it seems to me that the risks are
probably similar. If that is so, to be consistent with Article 6, the risks of internal and
this proposed external trade are not significantly different. If that is so there is no
sanitary reason to prevent the proposed cross-border trade.1707
7.1330. From the experts' answers, we disc ern that those risks associated with the disease are
present both in the territory of the European Union and of Russia.
7.1331. Based on the foregoing, we consider that the relevant conditions are identical or similar
between Russia and the European Union for the purposes of the first sentence of Article 2.3 of the
SPS Agreement.

1702 Russia's response to Panel question No. 174, para. 307.
1703 Russia's response to Panel question No. 174, para. 308.
1704 Russia's, response to Panel question No. 174, para. 309; and second written submission, para. 163.
1705 Exhibits EU-118 and RUS-296 revised. See paras. 7.1015-7.1018 above.
1706 Dr Thomson's response to Panel question No. 5, Compilation of the experts' responses, para. 1.128
1707 Dr Thomson's response to Panel question No. 54, Compilation of the experts' responses,
para. 4.149.

7.7.3.5.2.2 Whether Russia's measures discriminate between imported and domestic
products
7.1332. The European Union argues that the difference in treatment of imports of the products at
issue, as compared to intra-Russian trade of such products, results in discrimination. In particular,
the European Union posits that Russia bans imports of the products at issue from the entire
territory of the European Union, while it allows for trade in the products at iss ue from non-affected
areas within Russia, based on regionalization measures surrounding an ASF epizootic hotbed.1708
7.1333. Russia asserts that the import restrictions on products from the ASF -infected EU member
States are not discriminatory compared with the restr ictions applied on the internal movement of
products coming from ASF infected areas. From a de jure perspective, Russia claims to apply
regionalization and compartmentalization both to imported and domestic products. From a de facto
perspective, Russia arg ues that any difference in treatment is solely the consequence of the
European Union's inability to objectively demonstrate that its ASF -free regions are and will remain
ASF-free.1709
7.1334. We first recall that as indicated in paragraph 7.1318 above, in order to find that there is a
discriminatory treatment, we have to determine that the same or similar conditions prevailing in
both Members are treated differently, or that the application of the measure at issue does not
allow for any i nquiry into the appropriateness of the regulatory programme for the conditions
prevailing in the exporting country.
7.1335. We have found that the EU-wide ban bars the importation of products originating from
non- ASF affected areas.1710 We have also found that the EU-wide ban is not based on the relevant
international standards. We recall that the bans on imports of the products at issue from Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland impose nation-wide import prohibitions. We have found that those
measures do not conform to the relevant international standards. 1711 We have also found that the
bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland are not based on
the relevant international standard while the ban on non -treated products from Latvia is based on
the relevant international standard.1712
7.1336. We are called upon t o examine how Russia treats intra -Russian trade in the products at
issue. After examining the content of the 1980 ASF Instructions,1713 together with the evidence on
how they have been appl ied in different areas within Russia, 1714 it is clear to us that Russia's
domestic legislation does not mandate the imposition of a ban on the products at issue coming
from certain regions, zones or compartments beyond the first and second endangered areas
surrounding the epizootic hotbed (section 5 of the 1980 ASF Instruction s). Furthermore, we note
that Russia contends that it does not maintain a Russia-wide ban in respect of the domestic trade
of the products at issue.1715
7.1337. In addition, Russia has acknowledged that it allows for trade of the products at issue from
certain facilities that meet Level IV biosecurity standards even if they are located within an area

1708 European Union's first written submission, paras. 287-290.
1709 Russia's first written submission, para. 305.
1710 See paras. 7.83-7.84 above.
1711 See para. 7.890 above.
1712 See paras. 7.1039-7.1040 above.
1713 Russian instructions on ASF prevention and eradication measures of 21 November 1980
(Exhibit EU-18).
1714 See fn 1048 above.
1715 Russia's responses to Panel question No. 266, para. 51.

considered to be infected with ASF. 1716 Level IV refers to high -level protected holdings which may
be certified as such if they meet specific biosecurity standards described in Russia's legislation.1717
7.1338. Based on this evidence, it is clear for us that Russia allows for internal trade of the
products at issue originating in areas that it considers to be ASF-free.
7.1339. In this respect, there is a clear distinction in the treatment of the products under the
same conditions, i.e. imports of products from areas not affected by ASF. The imported products
coming from non - ASF affected areas within the European Union are not allowed to enter into
Russia's market, while intra -Russian trade is possible for those products coming from non -ASF
affected areas. In this respect, we find that the EU -wide ban discriminates against products
originating in the non -ASF affected areas of t he European Union compared to the treatment
granted to trade in domestic products. The bans on imports of the products at issue from Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland discriminate because they impose nation -wide import prohibitions.
As we have seen, there is no Russia-wide ban on intra-Russian trade in the products concerned.
7.1340. If we were to accept Russia's argument that the distinction in treatment does not amount
to discrimination, due to Russia's objective refusal of the European Union's regionalizat ion
measures, we would need to examine the second scenario of potential discrimination. That is,
whether the application of the measure at issue does not allow for any inquiry into the
appropriateness of the regulatory programme for the conditions prevaili ng in the exporting
country.
7.1341. We note that previous panels have focused their assessment of discrimination pursuant to
the first sentence of Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement on the question of whether there has been a
difference in treatment. However, the Appellate Body in US – Shrimp examined measures adopted
by the United States in respect of the importation of certain shrimp and shrimp products,
specifically Section 609 of Public Law 101 -162 (Section 609). Pursuant to those measures, the
United States did not permit imports of shrimp harvested by commercial shrimp trawl vessels
using mechanisms for the protection of turtles comparable in effectiveness to those required in the
United States, if those shrimp originated in waters of countries not certified un der Section 609.
The Appellate Body considered that the measures at issue were, in their application, more
concerned with effectively influencing WTO Members to adopt essentially the same comprehensive
regulatory regime as that applied by the United States to its domestic shrimp trawlers. In this
regard, the Appellate Body noted that "discrimination results not only when countries in which the
same conditions prevail are differently treated, but also when the application of the measure at
issue does not all ow for any inquiry into the appropriateness of the regulatory program for the
conditions prevailing in those exporting countries."1718
7.1342. We note that Russia's regulation in respect of imports of veterinary products refers to the
adaptation of SPS measures to pa rticular sanitary conditions based on the principles of
regionalization.1719 Russia allows for the establishment of particular ASF-free regions, zones or
compartments from which internal trade of the products at issue is allowed. However, as described
above, pursuant to the measures at issue, Russia imposes a nation -wide import ban on the
products at issue from the four ASF affected EU member States, as well as an EU -wide ban on
products at issue from the rest of the European Union's territory. Nevertheless, i n light of our
analysis and findings under Article 6 1720 and the regionalization dialogue outlined in Appendix 1,
we do not consider that the application of the measures at issue do not allow for any inquiry into
the appropriateness of the regulatory programm e for the conditions prevailing in the exporting
members in such a way as to lead to another form of discrimination within the meaning of the first
sentence of Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement.

1716 Russia's first written submission, para. 34; and response to Panel question No. 138, paras. 247-249.
See also Order by the Russian Federal Ministry of Agriculture on Approval of Guidelines to Determine Animal
Health Status of Pig Holdings and Organizations Involved in Pig Slaughter, Pork Product Processing and
Storage, No. 258, 23 July 2010. (Exhibit RUS-22).
1717 Order by the Russian Federal Ministry of Agriculture on Approval of Guidelines to Determine Animal
Health Status of Pig Holdings and Organizations Involved in Pig Slaughter, Pork Product Processing and
Storage, No. 258, 23 July 2010. (Exhibit RUS-22).
1718 Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp, para. 165.
1720 Section 7.6.2 above.

7.1343. We consider that Russia's argument regarding its objective re fusal of the European
Union's regionalization measures does not affect our previous finding that there has been
discriminatory treatment. The reason underlying such treatment, as discussed in the following
section, might be relevant to determine whether the discrimination is arbitrary or unjustifiable, not
whether the discrimination itself exists.
7.1344. Based on the foregoing, we find that through the measures at issue Russia discriminates
between imports of the products at issue from non ASF -affected areas in th e European Union and
domestic trade of the products at issue from non ASF-affected areas within Russia.
7.7.3.5.2.3 Whether the discrimination is arbitrary or unjustifiable
7.1345. The European Union argues that the difference in treatment is arbitrary and unjustifiable
because it cannot be explained by a different epizootic status. According to the European Union its
regionalization and control measures are effective, which cannot be said of Russia's measures. 1721
In the European Union's view, Russia imposed a disproportionate ban on the products at issue
from the European Union after the ASF notifications to the OIE. On the other hand, while the
Russian domestic measures have limited efficiency in ensuring proper detection and containment
of ASF within Russia, trade in the prod ucts associated with the risk of ASF of Russian origin is in
principle permitted.1722
7.1346. Russia argues that the difference in treatment is not arbitrary because it results from the
European Union's inability to provide a reasonably objective basis for the inadeq uate zones it has
established and the European Union 's failure to demonstrate that its alleged ASF -free areas are
and will remain ASF -free.1723 In this respect, Russia notes that the Panel's assessment should
focus on the cause of the discrimination or the rationale put forward in support of its existence.1724
7.1347. We agree with Russia that our examination of whether the discrimination is arbitrary or
unjustifiable should focus on the cause of the discrimination or rationale put forward in support of
its existence. In this respect, the Panel finds useful guidance in the panel reports in US – Animals
and US – Poultry (China). Those panels considered that the meaning of "arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination" pursuant to Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement involves a c onsideration of whether
there is a "rational connection" between the reasons given for the discriminatory treatment and
"the stated objective of the measure". 1725 We therefore need to examine whether the regulatory
distinction between imports from the Europea n Union and domestic trade bears a rational
connection to the stated objectives of the measures.
7.1348. In section 7.4.4.2.1.1 above the Panel examined the scope of the EU -wide ban. Based on
the evidence examined there, we find that the EU -wide ban's objective is to ensure that non -
treated products from any of the territories of the European Union not affected by ASF are not
imported into Russia, because of the European Union's veterinarians inability to certify the
veterinary require ments set forth in the veterinary certificates agreed by both parties in 2006.
Such requirements refer to the absence of ASF during three years in the whole territory of the
European Union except Sardinia.
7.1349. In addition, in section 7.4.4.2.2.1 above the Panel examined the objectives of the bans
imposed on imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland . After
reviewing the text of each of those measures, as well as their notifications to the WTO by Rus sia,
we concluded that the objective of the four EU member States specific bans is to ensure the
protection of Russia's territory from ASF and ASFV.
7.1350. Based on the foregoing, broadly speaking the regulatory objective of the measures at
issue is to limit the re-entry and further spread of ASF from additional sources into Russia's

1721 European Union's first written submission, para 291.
1722 European Union's first written submission, para 297.
1723 Russia's first written submission, para. 309.
1724 Russia's first written submission, para. 308.
1725 Panel reports, US – Animals, para. 7.574 and 7.588; and US – Poultry (China), para. 7.147. In the
context of the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994, see Appellate Body Reports, US – Shrimp, para. 160;

territory. The European Union has provided a detailed explanation of the surveillance, control and
eradication measures that its regulation envisages. 1726 The European Union has also pr ovided
information on the measures that it has applied to ensure protection from entry and spread of ASF
into its territory. 1727 In our view, the European Union's ASF -related measures provide evidence
that they also pursue the objective of ensuring protection against the further entry and spread of
ASF.
7.1351. Furthermore, we understand that Russia has acknowledged that pursuant to the
Terrestrial Code the European Union is entitled to select an ASF control strategy of its choice, and
that the crux of the parties' d isagreement stems from Russia's view that the European Union has
not demonstrated the actual effectiveness of the zones it has established. Such discrepancy does
not speak to the regulatory objective of the ASF-related measures adopted by the European Union.
7.1352. We recall our finding that Russia has set a high or conservative ALOP in respect of
ASF.1728 Based on the objective of the European Union's measures, we can deduce the ALOP of
those measures to be ensuring protection from entry and spread of ASF. 1729 In our view, that is a
high or conservative ALOP that at least matches Russia's in respect of ASF. Such an objective has
been applied through a number measures aimed at controlling the spread of ASF from those areas
currently infected and at eradicating the disease within the four affected EU member States.1730
7.1353. The Panel is cognizant of Russia's claims that the European Union's control methods have
not been effective in preventing the entry and further spread of ASF within the four affected EU
member States.1731 The evidence on the Panel's record also demonstrates that despite Russia's
best efforts 1732, Russia's control methods have not been entirely successful in preventing the
spread of ASF within Russia's territory since its initial introduction. Indeed, at the first mee ting
with the Panel, Russia detailed how despite costly and extensive efforts to establish an ASF -free
compartment, particular enterprises were nonetheless infected with ASF. 1733 The Panel is not
convinced that Russia's control methods, while somewhat differe nt from those applied in the
European Union, have been any more effective in preventing the further spread of ASF over time.
7.1354. As described in paragraphs 7.211, 7.228, and 7.748 above, the objective of the measures
at issue is to ensure protection of Russia's territory from the further entry and spread of ASF.
When assessing the European Union's claims under Article 3 of the SPS Agreement, we observed
that the evidence on r ecord, including the experts' views, support the proposition that there are
ASF-free areas within the European Union. 1734 However, Russia has refused to accept any of them
on the basis of a number of factors that Russia considers to objectively support such r efusal.1735
We also found that Russia allows for domestic trade of the products at issue that come from areas
or compartments considered to be free of ASF pursuant to Russia's regulatory framework.1736
7.1355. Taken together, these findings constitute strong indicators , or warning signals 1737, that
Russia's measures arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between domestic and imported
products. However, before reaching our conclusions, we find it appropriate to consider Russia's
explanations as to the rationale underlying the regulatory distinction between the products at issue
imported from the European Union and those domestically produced.

1726 See Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 below.
1727 See Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 below.
1728 See para. 7.752 above.
1729 Council Directive of 27 June 2002, 2002/60/EC (Exhibit EU-31), Article 1.
1730 See Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 below.
1731 See e.g. Russia's first written submission, paras. 309 and 313.
1732 See fns 1045, 1046, 1047, 1048 to para. 7.733 above, where the Panel refers to the measures
adopted by Russia in the regions of Voronezh , Krasnodar and Belgorod.
1733 See Exhibit RUS-148.
1734 See sections 7.5.2 and 7.6.2 above.
1735 See Russia's second written submission, paras. 57-127.
1736 See para. 7.1338 above.
1737 Using the same expressions of the panel in US – Animals. Panel Report, US – Animals, para. 7.590.

7.1356. Russia explains, when referring to the ban on imports of the products at issue from
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, that the European Union has not been able to demonstrate
that its alleged ASF-free zones are indeed free of ASF and are likely to remain so.1738
7.1357. We are mindful that according to the provisions of the Terrestrial Code (especially Article
5.3.7.1), the importing coun try has a certain degree of flexibility to recognize or reject a zone for
international trade purposes. However, we are also mindful that pursuant to its obligations under
the SPS Agreement, in the circumstances of the present dispute, Russia should at lea st explicitly
recognize, in the measure itself, the possibility for such recognition to take place. Russia is not
doing this either on the face of the measures at issue nor on the basis of their application. We
consider that this conclusion is without prej udice to our findings under Article 6.2 of the SPS
Agreement, that Russia has recognized the concept of disease free areas in its overarching SPS
legislation in respect of ASF.1739 This is because in our analysis under Article 6.2 we are addressing
a separate question that does not directly relate to the existence of instances of discrimination as
the ones we are examining in this context.
7.1358. None of the measures at issue contains any explicit indication that there is a possibility to
recognize ASF - free zones or compartments from the territory of the European Union. The
instruments through which the EU -wide ban is enforced only refer to the inability of the European
Union to issue the veterinary certificates that attest ASF-freedom for the last 3 years in the ent ire
European Union excepting Sardinia. Based on such inability they require the European Union to
refrain from issuing those veterinary certificates. In addition, Russia has ordered border authorities
to pay special attention to compliance with this requirement.
7.1359. The measures on Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland impose a "temporary restriction"
on imports of the products at issue. However, on their face, they do not explicitly provide for
potential regionalization in the European Union.
7.1360. This holds true also in respect of the application of both sets of measures. Although
Russia has requested additional information 1740 and has formally rejected the European Union's
recognition of ASF - free zones1741, up to this point Russia has not been open to recogniz ing any
area outside the four affected member States (and Sardinia), regardless of the particular
characteristics of the different areas within the European Union. Rather, Russia has remained
closed to the possibility that there are ASF -free zones within the Euro pean Union outside the four
affected member States (and Sardinia). Russia has kept in place its EU -wide ban on imports of the
products at issue. Russia has also maintained its country -wide "temporary restrictions" on the
imports of the products at issue from the entire territory of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
7.1361. We have already noted that trade in the products at issue on the basis of the OIE
standards would ensure protection to Russia from the re -entry and further spread of ASF and
ASFV. Such me asures include trade from ASF -free countries, zones or compartments. We have
also observed that both parties agree that the Terrestrial Code offers certain flexibilities in respect
of the manner in which a Member may establish its ASF - free zones. In addit ion, considering the
evidence on record as well as the experts' responses, it seems to us that at least certain areas
from the European Union's territory could be considered as free from ASF.1742
7.1362. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that, by allowing domestic trade of the products at
issue from ASF - free areas outside the first and second endangered zones and from ASF - free
compartments, and prohibiting imports of the same products from ASF - free areas within the
European Union, as well as denying through its m easures and through their application the
recognition of ASF- free areas, Russia's measures arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between
Members (including the territory of the Member imposing the measure) where the same conditions
prevail. This amounts to a violation of the first sentence of Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement.

1738 Russia's first written submission, para. 309.
1739 See para. 7.379 above.
1740 See Appendix 1 below.
1741 Russia's letter to the European Union of 29 July 2014, C-EH-8/13771 (Exhibit RUS-263).
1742 See in section. 7.6.2.3.4 above our analysis in respect of the SPS characteristics in certain areas in
the European Union.

7.7.3.5.3 Preliminary considerations regarding the two situations involved in the second
instance of discrimination
7.1363. We recall that regarding the second instance of discrimination, the Eur opean Union refers
to two situations: first, in 2012 when Russia selectively did not apply any ban on Ukrainian
products following an ASF case in Zaporozhye region; and second, on 15 January 2014, when
Russia announced a ban on the trade from the Lugansk r egion, while accepting pig products from
the rest of Ukraine.
7.1364. Russia asserts that the situations described in respect of the second instance of
discrimination are no longer in place and were not in place at the date of the establishment of the
Panel.1743 In Russia's view, this demonstrates that the European Union has failed to meet its
burden to demonstrate that the second instance of discrimination breaches Russia's obligations
under Article 2.3.
7.1365. The European Union considers that even if a measure is no lon ger in force, a panel may
still make findings in respect of such measure without issuing recommendations.1744
7.1366. We recall that the measures at issue are the bans imposed by Russia on the imports of
the products at issue from the four affected EU member States and from the rest of the European
Union. In this sense, the objection raised by Russia is not whether a challenged measure that pre -
dates the establishment of a panel can be considered for the purposes of dispute settlement.
Rather, the question is whether in assessing a claim of discrimination under the first sentence
Article 2.3, the situation compared with the measure challenged can be one that pre -dates the
establishment of the Panel and is no longer in place.
7.1367. The Appellate Body and panels have examined whether it is appropriate for them to make
findings on an expired measure. 1745 In this regard, the Appellate Body stated that "[w]hether a
measure is still in force is not dispositive of whether that measure is currently affecting the
operation of any covered agreement. Therefore, we disagree with the United States' argument that
measures whose legislative basis has expired are incapable of affecting the operation of a covered
agreement in the present, and that, accordingly, expired measures cannot be subjec t of
consultations under the DSU." 1746 However, the fact that a measure has expired may affect the
recommendations that a Panel may make pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU.1747
7.1368. The Appellate Body has also noted that temporal limitations to the measures that ma y be
within a panel's terms of reference do not apply in the same way to evidence. Rather, evidence in
support of a claim may pre -date or post-date the establishment of the panel. 1748 Thus, a panel is
not precluded from assessing a piece of evidence for the m ere reason that it pre -dates or
post-dates its establishment. 1749 The Appellate Body added that a "panel enjoys a certain
discretion to determine the relevance and probative value of a piece of evidence that pre -dates or
post-dates its establishment".1750·

1743 Russia's second written submission, para. 169.
1744 European Union's comments to Russia's response to Panel question No. 259, para. 41.
1745 Appellate Body Reports, China – Raw Materials, para. 263 (referring to Panel Report, US – Wool
Shirts and Blouses, para. 6.2; Panel Report, Indonesia – Autos, para. 14.9; Panel Report, Chile – Price Band
System, para. 7.126; Panel Report, Dominican Republic – Imports and Sale of Cigarettes, para. 7.344; and
Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, paras. 7.1303-7.1312).
1746 Appellate Body Report, US – Upland Cotton, para. 262.
1747 Appellate Body Report, US – Upland Cotton, para. 272.
1748 See section 7.3.6 above.
1749 The Appellate Body has noted that "However, we recall that, in US – Cotton Yarn, the Appellate
Body stated (when reviewing a textile safeguards determination) that a Member cannot be expected to
examine "evidence that did not exist and that, therefore, could not possibly have been taken into account
when the Member made its determination. ... Consequently, a panel must not consider evidence which did
not exist at that point in time." (Appellate Body Report, US – Cotton Yarn, paras. 77 and 78 (original
emphasis; footnote omitted)) We also note the Appellate Body's statement in EC – Sardines that "[t]he
interim review stage is not an appropriate time to introduce new evidence." (Appellate Body Report, EC –
1750 Appellate Body Report, EC – Selected Customs Matters, para. 188.

7.1369. In our view, the situations that the European Union is requesting us to consider under the
second instance of discrimination are to be regarded as evidence. We are mindful that such
evidence predates the establishment of the Panel. However, this does not preclu de us from
addressing such evidence considering the European Union's claims under the first sentence of
Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement in respect of the second instance of discrimination.
7.7.3.5.4 Second situation of discrimination: treatment of imports from Ukraine in 2012
7.7.3.5.4.1 Whether identical or similar conditions prevail in Ukraine in 2012 and in the
European Union at the time of the establishment of the Panel
7.1370. The European Union refers to the second situation of discrimination in the following
terms: "The first i nstance occurred in 2012, when Russia did not apply any ban to Ukrainian
products following an ASF case in the Zaporozhye region. Russia considered at the time that the
Ukrainian measures were sufficient to prevent any spread of the ASFV. 1751"1752 However, neither in
its second written submission nor in its responses to the Panel's questions does the European
Union explain in which manner the relevant conditions are similar or identical between the
situation in Ukraine in 2012 and the situation in the European Un ion at the time of the
establishment of this Panel.
7.1371. Russia neither challenges this assertion nor put s forward arguments in respect of this
alleged instance of discrimination.
7.1372. As we mentioned in paragraph 7.1312 above, to dete rmine whether similar conditions
prevail in the European Union and in Ukraine in respect of trade of the products at issue, we will
consider the presence of ASF in each territory, and the risks thereof.
7.1373. The only exhibit that the European Union provides in order to support the existence of
ASF in Ukraine in 2012 is a n FSVPS press note that refers to a letter from the deputy head of
FSVPS to the president of the State Veterinary and Phytosanitary Service of Ukraine.1753 That letter
refers to "self -imposed restri ctions on exports of African swine fever susceptible animals in
connection with the occurrence of disease outbreaks in the village of Kamyshevatka, Primorsk
district in the Zaporozhia region of Ukraine." This demonstrates the presence of ASF in the
territory of the Zaporozhia region of Ukraine.
7.1374. However, we consider that the European Union does not adduce any type of evidence in
support of the particular characteristics of the presence of ASF in that region. Furthermore, the
European Union does not formulate any type of arguments as to why the prevailing conditions in
Ukraine in 2012 are similar or identical to those in the European Union at the time of the
establishment of the Panel. The European Union seems to consider, without a clear indication in
this re spect, that the arguments it formulated in its first written submission in respect of the
second instance of discrimination are applicable to the situation relative to the imports of the
products at issue from Ukraine in 2012.
7.1375. The flaws and shortcomings i n the European Union's case largely limit our ability to
perform the comparison between the relevant conditions in Ukraine in 2012 and in the European
Union at the time of the establishment of the Panel 1754 in order to determine whether such
conditions are si milar or identical. Without such assessment, we are not in a position to continue
the rest of the examination pursuant to the first sentence of Article 2.3, in respect of the second
situation of discrimination.
7.1376. Based on the foregoing, we consider that the European Union has failed to adduce
sufficient evidence and arguments that would allow us to determine that relevant conditions were
identical or similar between Ukraine in 2012 and the European Union at the time of the

1751 (footnote original) Press release, Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary
Supervision, 2 August 2012, http://www.fsvps.ru/fsvps/news/5049.html (Exhibit EU-165).
1752 European Union's second written submission, para. 139.
1753 Press release, Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision, 2 August 2012,
http://www.fsvps.ru/fsvps/news/5049.html (Exhibit EU-165).
1754 See section 7.3.6 above.

establishment of this Panel 1755, for t he purposes of the first sentence of Article 2.3 of the SPS
Agreement.
7.7.3.5.5 Third situation of discrimination: treatment of imports from Ukraine between
15 and 30 January 2014
7.7.3.5.5.1 Whether identical or similar conditions prevail in Ukraine and in the
European Union and whether Russia's treatment of imports from Ukraine in 2014 are
arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminatory in respect of the treatment provided to imports
from the European Union
7.1377. The third situation of discrimination to which the European Union refers arises from
Russia's acceptance of regionalization in the Lugansk region in Ukraine between 15 and 30 January
2014. According to the European Union, on 15 January 2014 Russia announced a ban on the trade
from the Lugansk region, while accepting pig produc ts from the rest of Ukraine. Such ban was
notified to the WTO on 21 January 2014.1756 The European Union considers that identical or similar
conditions prevailed both in the European Union and in Ukraine, because the presence of ASFV on
both territories was the relevant feature triggering the import prohibitions imposed by Russia.1757
7.1378. Russia underlines that the European Union's claim is based on a situation that was no
longer in place at the time of the establishment of the Panel, and focuses on the justified character
of any different treatment that it provided to the imports from Ukraine during those two weeks.1758
7.1379. As we mentioned in paragraph 7.1312 above, to determine whether similar conditions
prevail in the European Union and in U kraine in respect of trade of the products at issue, we
consider the presence of ASF in each territory, and the risks thereof. The European Union has
referred to the notification to the WTO of the import ban imposed by Russia on the products at
issue from Ukraine. Together with other exhibits submitted by the parties, this serves as evidence
of the presence of ASF in the territory of Ukraine on 15 January 2014. As described by the
European Union, accepted by Russia, and supported on the record, Russia's in itial reaction to this
outbreak was to impose a ban limited to those products originating from the Lugansk region. 1759
The Lugansk region was the only region affected by ASF at the time. A couple of weeks later,
Russia reassessed this measure and imposed a ne w ban, which does not appear on the Panel's
record as having been notified to the WTO, and which applies to products from the entire territory
of Ukraine.
7.1380. It is also clear from the record that as of 25 January 2014, Russian imposed a ban on the
imports of the products at issue from Lithuania. In addition, a couple of days later, Russia notified
the European Union that it would no longer accept the veterinary certificates attesting that the
entire European Union, except Sardinia, has been free of ASF for th e last three years. Such
notification, as described above, together with internal instructions in Russia and their
enforcement, has led to a ban on the imports of the products at issue from the entire territory of
the European Union.
7.1381. When comparing those two situations, it is clear that during the brief time -period in
January 2014 mentioned by the European Union, Russia initially responded to the ASF outbreak in
Ukraine by immediately recognizing ASF- free areas or zones within Ukraine, while it was not open
to such possibility from the European Union.
7.1382. For the purposes of our analysis, we need to further understand whether there were any
substantive differences between the ASF situation in Ukraine and in the European Union which
would distinguish the risks associated with the presence of ASF in the territory of each of these

1755 See section 7.3.6 above.
1756 See G/SPS/N/RUS/46 (Exhibit EU-6).
1757 European Union's first written submission, paras. 300-305; and second written submission, paras.
140-142.
1758 See Russia's second written submission, paras. 138 and 169; See also Russia's response to Panel
question No. 166, para. 340.
1759 See European Union's first written submission, para. 302; Russia's first written submission, para.
325; and G/SPS/N/RUS/46 (Exhibit EU-6).

Members. According to the descriptions of the risks associated with ASF provided by the experts,
there does not seem to be any material difference between the conditions of risks associ ated with
the presence of ASF in those Members.
7.1383. However, we have difficulties in continuing our examination of a claim of discrimination
based on something that lasted 15 days and which occurred almost seven months before the date
of the establishment of this Panel. We have difficulties seeing, and the European Union has not
provided us with a compelling rationale concerning, the value and significance of any findings in
respect of these allegations given the particular facts and circumstances with which w e are faced.
Accordingly, we are of the view that it is appropriate to exercise judicial economy on these
allegations of discrimination by the European Union under Article 2.3. This is so as the Panel
considers that findings on these elements of the claims are not necessary in order to enable the
DSB to make sufficiently precise recommendations and rulings as to allow for prompt compliance
with those recommendations and rulings "in order to ensure effective resolution" of the dispute.1760
7.7.3.5.6 Conclusion on claims pursuant to the first sentence of Article 2.3 of the SPS
Agreement
7.1384. The Panel has found that Russia's measures on the imports of the products at issue from
the European Union (including those imposed on imports from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Poland, as well as from the rest of the European Union) arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate in
respect of domestic trade in the products at issue and imports of the products at issue from the
European Union.
7.7.3.6 Article 2.3, second sentence, of the SPS Agreement
7.1385. Having found that the measures at issue arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate, we now
turn our attention to the second sentence of Article 2.3 to consider whether the measures have
been applied in a manner that would constitute a disguised restriction on trade. We note that this
second sentence of Article 2.3 contains an obligation that is not conditioned upon a finding of
arbitrary or unjustified discrimination. That is, the obligations contained in the first and second
sentences of Article 2.3 are not cumulative in nature. Nonetheless, they are closely related.
7.7.3.6.1 "disguised restriction on international trade"
7.1386. The phrase "disguised restriction on international trade" has been interpreted by a panel
for the first time, in the context of Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement, in India Agricultural Products.
The panel relied on previous observations of the Appellate Body within the context of Article 5.5 of
the SPS Agreement. In addition to Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement, further guidance may be
sought from the previous interpretations reached within the framework of an analysis of the
chapeau to Article XX of the GATT 1994, which contains similar language. Concerning the meaning
of "disguised restriction on international trade", the Appellate Body in US – Gasoline stated that
such a notion, as contained in the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994, "includes disguised
discrimination in international trade". 1761 More specifically, the Appellate Body found that
"'disguised restriction', whatever else it covers, may p roperly be read as embracing restrictions
amounting to arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination".1762
7.1387. The panel in India – Agricultural Products applied the same reasoning, in its interpretation
of "disguised restriction on international trade" in Article 2. 3 of the SPS Agreement, and stated
that such terms "encompass measures that constitute arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination".1763
7.1388. The panel in US – Animals stated:
We see no reason to depart from the above-mentioned approach in our assessment of
Argentina's claims in this dispute. We thus consider that a finding that the United
States' measures result in arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination would necessarily

1760 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Salmon, para. 223.
1761 Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline, p. 25.
1762 Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline, p. 25.
1763 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.476.

entail a finding that they are applied in a manner which would constitute a disguised
restriction on international trade.1764
7.1389. We agree with the approach followed by the panels in India – Agricultural Products and in
US – Animals in respect of the relationship of a finding of arbitrary or unjustified discrimination
and a finding of a disguised restriction on international trade, pursuant to Article 2.3.
7.1390. Moreover, we recall that, in Australia – Salmon, the Appellate Body stated that a finding
that an SPS measure is not based on a risk assessment is a strong indication that the measure "is
not really c oncerned with the protection of human, animal or plant life or health but is instead a
trade restrictive measure taken in the guise of an SPS measure, i.e., a 'disguised restriction on
international trade'". The Appellate Body also took into account the di fference in treatment
associated with a certain risk between the internal movement of products within the territory of a
Member and the treatment accorded to the same imported products.
7.1391. We have found above that Russia's SPS measures at issue are not based on a risk
assessment under Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, and do not benefit from provisional
justification under Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement. 1765 We agree that the lack of a risk
assessment for the SPS measures at issue in this case further support s the view that they
constitute disguised restrictions on international trade.
7.1392. Having found that Russia's measures at issue arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminat e in
respect of domestic trade in the products at issue and of imports of those products, and they are
not based on a risk assessment, we find the measures at issue are applied in a manner that
constitutes a disguised restriction on international trade. Therefore, the measures at issue are
inconsistent with the second sentence of Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement.
7.7.3.7 Conclusion on the European Union's claim pursuant to Article 2.3 of the SPS
Agreement
7.1393. On the basis of the foregoing, the Panel concludes that Russia's ASF measures are
inconsistent with the first sentence of Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement because they arbitrarily
and unjustifiably discriminate between Members where identical or similar conditions prevail. We
also find that Russia's ASF measures are inconsistent with the second sentence of Article 2.3,
because they are applied in a manner which constitutes a disguised restriction on international
trade.
7.7.4 European Union's claim pursuant to Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement
7.7.4.1 Main arguments of the parties
7.7.4.1.1 European Union
7.1394. The European Union argues that Russia has adopted its own "appropriate leve ls" of
sanitary protection against risks to animal life or health. In the absence of a clear statement from
Russia regarding its ALOPs, these should be inferred from the measures that the Russian
Federation applies to the domestically produced products ass ociated with the risk of ASF and from
the measures that the Russian Federation applies with respect to the European Union products at
issue.1766
7.1395. The European Union emphasizes that Russia's measures with respect to European Union
products are far more stringen t than those applied with respect to the internal movement of the
domestic products associated with the ASF risk within Russia. The European Union argues that
Russia also failed domestically to take effective measures in order to eradicate and contain the
ASFV. In the European Union's view, it follows that Russia's ALOP with regard to domestic goods is

1765 See paras. 7.720 and 7.1199 above.
1766 European Union's first written submission, para. 326.

rather low, while Russia's ALOP with respect to the European Union products at issue is very
high.1767
7.1396. In the European Union's view, as long as ASF transmission through domestically -
produced products and through products from the European Union are viewed as distinct
situations, Russia breaches the provisions of Article 5.5, by applying different levels of protection
without any justification.1768 The European Union highlights that in the present case, the situations
are "comparable" in the sense that they involve the same virus and the same health effects.1769
7.1397. The European Union considers that the differences exhibited by Russia's measures are
arbitrary and unjustifiable. The European Union argues that Russia's WTO notifications concerning
the bans on the imports from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are imprecise, contradictory
and prove a profound misunderstanding of the Terrestrial Code. According to the Europe an Union,
Russia's measures not only do not "conform to" and are not "based on" international standards,
but they go against the relevant OIE standards. Moreover, Russia did not conduct any risk
assessment. Consequently, the European Union considers that t he measures at issue should be
considered to amount to a disguised restriction on international trade, inconsistent with the
provisions of Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.1770 In addition, the breach of Article 5.5 results in a
consequential breach of Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement.1771
7.1398. Moreover, the European Union considers that for the purposes of Article 5.5 claims, the
discrimination with regard to Belarus is also relevant.1772
7.7.4.1.2 Russia
7.1399. In respect of the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia , Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland Russia argues that the European Union confuses the concepts of "ALOP" and
"measure". According to Russia a Member may adopt a high ALOP with the objective of preventing
the entry or spread of a disease. A Member may then see k to achieve the objective through
various legal instruments and on -the-ground prevention and eradication measures taken by
various government and private sector entities and organizations. Russia explains that the
question of whether Russia's ALOP is "low" or "high", must be judged by examining the acceptable
level of risk expressed through the goal and objective of Russia's measures, and the fact that there
may be circumstances when the objective was not achieved does not lower or diminish the
objective itself.1773
7.1400. According to Russia, it applies the same ALOP to imported live pigs and pig products from
infected EU member States as to those products within domestic ASF-infected zones. There are no
de jure or de facto distinctions in ALOP. Russia recognizes a nd applies regionalization to both
domestic and imported products after an ASF outbreak. Its measures as applied to Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland conform to, or are based on, international standards, and are presumed to
be consistent with the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement (including Articles 5.1 and 2.2 on
risk assessment) and GATT 1994. Moreover, the Russian Veterinary Service has engaged in a
"transparent and open" discussion with the European Union Veterinary Service, and Russia'
measures have caused very large losses for its pork producers. Russia is one of many Members to
deem pork imports from infected EU member States as unsafe and imposed country -wide
restrictions (China, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Chinese Taipei and Ukraine). In the
alternative, any alleged distinctions between Russia's treatment of domestic products and products
from the European Union are not arbitrary or unjustified, and do not result in discrimination or a
disguised restriction on international trade.

1767 European Union's first written submission, paras. 328-329. See also second written submission,
paras. 144, 150-153.
1768 European Union's first written submission, para. 327.
1769 European Union's first written submission, para. 330.
1770 European Union's first written submission, para. 331. See also second written submission, paras.
143-149.
1771 European Union's first written submission, para. 332.
1772 European Union's second written submission, para. 154.
1773 Russia's first written submission, para. 248.

7.1401. Regarding the EU -wide ban, Russia submits that the European Union has failed to
establish that Russia's provisional compliance with the agreed veterinary certificate arbitrarily or
unjustifiably discriminates between other EU member States and Russia. Because Russia's
provisional compliance is justified under Article 5.7, the European Union has failed to support its
claims under any provision of Article 5, including Article 5.5.1774
7.7.4.2 Analysis by the Panel
7.1402. Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement calls for non -discrimination in the management of risks
to human, animal or plant life or health. Three cumulative elements must be demonstrated to
establish an inconsistency with Article 5.5 (i) the Member imposing the measure complained of has
adopted its own appropriate levels of sanitary protection against risks to [human] life or health in
several different situations; (ii) those levels of protection exhibit arbitrary or unjustifiable
differences ("distinctions") in their treatment of different situations; and (iii) the arbitr ary or
unjustifiable differences result in discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.1775
7.1403. In section 7.7.2 above, we addressed the relationship between Articles 2.3 and 5.5 of the
SPS Agreement. We noted tha t the Appellate Body has found that Articles 2.3 and 5.5 are closely
related.1776 Both articulate non -discrimination obligations and condemn disguised restrictions on
international trade. Article 2.3 is of a more general character than Article 5.5. A violatio n of
Article 2.3 will not necessarily imply a violation of Article 5.51777, and arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination in the sense of the first sentence of Article 2.3, can be found to exist without any
examination under Article 5.5.1778
7.1404. The Appellate Body in Argentina – Import Measures observed:
The Appellate Body has explained that the principle of judicial economy "allows a
panel to refrain from making multiple findings that the same measure is inconsistent
with various provisions when a single, or a certa in number of findings of
inconsistency, would suffice to resolve the dispute." 1779 Thus, panels need address
only those claims "which must be addressed in order to resolve the matter in issue in
the dispute"1780, and panels "may refrain from ruling on every clai m as long as it does
not lead to a 'partial resolution of the matter'." 1781 Nonetheless, the Appellate Body
has cautioned that "[t]o provide only a partial resolution of the matter at issue would
be false judicial economy", and that "[a] panel has to address those claims on which a
finding is necessary in order to enable the DSB to make sufficiently precise
recommendations and rulings so as to allow for prompt compliance by a Member with

1774 Russia's first written submission, paras. 382 and 409. See also response to Panel question No. 129,
paras. 240-241; response to Panel question No. 154, para. 277; and second written submission, paras.
204-205.
1775 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 214.
1776 Appellate Body Report, EC - Hormones, para. 212.
1778 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Salmon, para. 252; and Panel Report, US – Poultry (China),
para. 7.318.
1779 (footnote original) Appellate Body Report, Canada – Wheat Exports and Grain Imports, para. 133.
(emphasis original)
1780 (footnote original) Appellate Body Reports, US – Wool Shirts and Blouses, p. 19, DSR 1997:I, p.
1781 (footnote original) Appellate Body Reports, US – Upland Cotton, para. 732; US – Tuna II (Mexico),
para. 404.

those recommendations and rulings 'in order to ensure effective resolutio n of disputes
to the benefit of all Members.'"1782;1783
7.1405. In Argentina – Imports Measures the Appellate Body also noted that:
In our view, the fact that two provisions have a different "scope and content" does
not, in and of itself, imply that a panel must address each and every claim under
those provisions. Indeed, if this were so, then only in the rarest of circumstances
would a panel be able to exercise judicial economy on a claim. As the Appellate Body
has explained in previous disputes, what should guide panel s in their decision to
exercise judicial economy is the need to address all of those claims whose resolution
is necessary to resolve the dispute so as to avoid a partial resolution of the
dispute.1784
7.1406. In light of this guidance, we consider it is appropriate t o exercise judicial economy in
respect of the European Union's claims under Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement. This is, because
we have already made findings in respect of the European Union's arguments on discrimination
under both the first and the second sentence of Article 2.3. As the Appellate Body noted, "when
read together with Article 2.3, Article 5.5 may be seen to be marking out and elaborating a
particular route leading to the same destination set out in Article 2.3". 1785 Thus, in the context of
this particular dispute, we consider our findings under Article 2.3 to be enough to provide a
solution of the matters of discrimination raised by the European Union.
7.1407. Moreover, we have made a number of findings under other provisions of the SPS
Agreement which support our recommendation to the DSB to request Russia to bring the measures
at issue into conformity with its obligations under the SPS Agreement. In our view, the totality of
our findings resolves the matter at issue in this dispute. We therefore conside r that we are not
exercising false judicial economy, or providing a partial resolution of this dispute.
7.1408. If this report is appealed and the Appellate Body were to disagree with our approach, we
have made factual findings in respect of Russia's ALOP and in s upport of our findings that the
measures at issue breach the first and the second sentence of Article 2.3. In our view, these
factual findings would provide a basis for the Appellate Body to complete its analysis under Article
5.5.
7.8 Claims under Article 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement
7.8.1 Main arguments of the parties
7.8.1.1 European Union
7.1409. The European Union claims that the measure s in respect of Lithuania is inconsistent with
Russia's obligations under Article 7 and Annex B paragraphs 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the SPS Agree ment,
because certain measures at issue were taken by Russia against Lithuania on 25 January 2014
(ref. FS-EN-8/1032), but only notified to the WTO on 10 February 2014, that is, 16 days after their

1782 (footnote original) Appellate Body Report, Australia – Salmon, para. 223. (fns omitted) For instance,
in Australia – Salmon, the Appellate Body considered that the fact that the panel made findings concerning a
violation of Article 5.1 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
(SPS Agreement) with respect to certain Canadian salmon, without findings under Articles 5.5 and 5.6 of the
SPS Agreement, would not enable the DSB to make sufficiently precise recommendations and rulings so as to
allow for compliance by Australia with its obligations under the SPS Agreement. (Ibid., para. 224) The
Appellate Body reached a similar conclusion in EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar, explaining that findings under
Articles 3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture were not sufficient to "fully resolve" that dispute because, by
declining to rule on the claims under Article 3 of the SCM Agreement, that panel precluded the possibility of a
remedy being made available, pursuant to Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement, in the event of a finding of
inconsistency under Article 3 of the SCM Agreement. (Appellate Body Report, EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar,
para. 335)
1783 Appellate Body Reports, Argentina – Import Measures, para. 5.190.
1784 Appellate Body Reports, Argentina – Import Measures, para. 5.194.
1785 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 212.

imposition.1786 The European Union also argues , with respect to the EU-wide ban, that Russia has
neither published it nor notified it to the WTO. 1787 In addition, the European Union assert s that
Russia similarly notified the ban on the products at issue from Latvia only on 16 July 2014, more
than two weeks after its imposition on 27 June 2014.1788
7.1410. With respect to the ban concerning Lithuania, the European Union argues that Russia
failed to immediately notify other Members, through the WTO Secretariat, of the products covered,
with a brief indication of the objective and th e rationale of the regulation, including the nature of
the urgent problem. The European Union also argues that Russia failed to provide copies of the
regulation to other Members and to allow other Members to make comments in writing, discuss
these comments upon request, and take the comments and the results of the discussions into
account, and that it took more than two weeks for Russia to notify the measure to the WTO after
its adoption.1789
7.8.1.2 Russia
7.1411. Russia argues that it duly notified the measure s affecting Lithuania.1790 Russia argues
that it immediately notified the European Union through correspondence and by telephone
regarding the temporary import restrictions affecting exports from Lithuania that were
implemented on 25 January 2014. 1791 With regard to the EU -wide ban, Russia argues that the
European Union has failed to establish that the EU -wide ban constitutes a measure subject to the
requirements of Article 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement.1792
7.8.2 Analysis by the Panel
7.8.2.1 Introduction
7.1412. The Panel underlines that transp arency is of fundamental importance to the operation of
the multilateral trading system. We agree with the SPS Committee that the term "transparency" is
used in the context of the WTO to signify one of the fundamental principles of its agreements: the
aim is to achieve a greater degree of clarity, predictability and information about trade policies,
rules and regulations of Members.1793
7.1413. In examining the European Union's claims pertaining to transparency under Article 7 and
Annex B of the SPS Agreement, the Pan el will first reproduce the relevant legal provisions. Then,
the Panel will provide a summary of the applicable legal test in respect of those provisions. After
clarifying the legal test, the Panel will examine the European Union's claims in respect of the bans
on the imports of the products at issue from Lithuania followed by the EU-wide ban.
7.8.2.2 Relevant legal provisions
7.1414. Article 7 of the SPS Agreement provides:
Members shall notify changes in their sanitary or phytosanitary measures and shall
provide information on their sanitary or phytosanitary measures in accordance with
the provisions of Annex B.
7.1415. The relevant provisions of Annex B of the SPS Agreement provide:

1786 European Union's first written submission, para. 349.
1787 European Union's first written submission, para. 350. See also the European Union's response to
Panel question No. 201, para. 391
1788 European Union's second written submission, para. 191.
1789 European Union's first written submission, para. 353.
1790 Russia's first written submission, para. 442-443.
1791 Russia's first written submission, para. 443, citing the letter from Russia to the European Union of
25 January 2014, FS-EN-8/1023 (Exhibit RUS-28).
1792 Russia's first written submission, para. 446.
1793 G/SPS/7/Rev.3, para. 1.

Publication of regulations
1. Members shall ensure that all sanitary and phytosanitary regulatio ns5 which have
been adopted are published promptly in such a manner as to enable interested
Members to become acquainted with them.
2. Except in urgent circumstances, Members shall allow a reasonable interval between
the publication of a sanitary or phytos anitary regulation and its entry into force in
order to allow time for producers in exporting Members, and particularly in developing
country Members, to adapt their products and methods of production to the
requirements of the importing Member.
…
Notification procedures
5. Whenever an international standard, guideline or recommendation does not exist or
the content of a proposed sanitary or phytosanitary regulation is not substantially the
same as the content of an international standard, guideline or reco mmendation, and if
the regulation may have a significant effect on trade of other Members, Members
shall:
(a) publish a notice at an early stage in such a manner as to enable
interested Members to become acquainted with the proposal to introduce
a particular regulation;
(b) notify other Members, through the Secretariat, of the products to be
covered by the regulation together with a brief indication of the objective
and rationale of the proposed regulation. Such notifications shall take
place at an early s tage, when amendments can still be introduced and
comments taken into account;
(c) provide upon request to other Members copies of the proposed
regulation and, whenever possible, identify the parts which in substance
deviate from international standards, guidelines or recommendations;
(d) without discrimination, allow reasonable time for other Members to
make comments in writing, discuss these comments upon request, and
take the comments and the results of the discussions into account.
6. However, where urg ent problems of health protection arise or threaten to arise for
a Member, that Member may omit such of the steps enumerated in paragraph 5 of
this Annex as it finds necessary, provided that the Member:
(a) immediately notifies other Members, through the S ecretariat, of the
particular regulation and the products covered, with a brief indication of
the objective and the rationale of the regulation, including the nature of
the urgent problem(s);
(b) provides, upon request, copies of the regulation to other Members;
(c) allows other Members to make comments in writing, discusses these
comments upon request, and takes the comments and the results of the
discussions into account.
5 Sanitary and phytosanitary measures such as laws, decrees or ordinances which are
applicable generally.

7.8.2.3 Legal test
7.8.2.3.1 Introduction
7.1416. Article 7 of the SPS Agreement imposes an obligation on Members to notify changes in,
and provide information on, SPS measures, in accordance with the provisions of Annex B of the
SPS Agreement.1794 The provisions of Annex B pertain to transparency of SPS regulations, touching
upon publication of regulations, enquiry points and notification procedures. These provisions
should be read together, and a finding of inconsistency with the provisions of Annex B would result
in an inconsistency with Article 7. 1795 On this basis, previous panels have begun their examination
of claims pursuant to Article 7 and Annex B by assessing the particular elements under Annex
B.1796
7.1417. Before exploring the particular elements of the legal tes t in respect of the relevant
paragraphs of Annex B of the SPS Agreement, the Panel recalls the allocation of the burden of
proof in the context of claims brought pursuant to Article 7 and Annex B. The panel in Japan –
Apples found that "Article 7 of the SPS Agreement requires Members to notify 'changes' in their
SPS measures." 1797 In this respect, we recall that in order to establish a prima facie case of
inconsistency with Article 7 and Annex B, whenever a claim is made regarding the notification of
changes t o an SPS measure, a complainant should not only raise the claims under these
provisions, but also provide evidence in support of the changes in the SPS measures that should
have been notified. This includes explaining how much the new regulations depart fr om the
previous ones.1798
7.1418. Having addressed these preliminary considerations, the Panel now turns to examine the
legal test in respect of the relevant obligations provided in Annex B of the SPS Agreement.
7.8.2.3.2 Annex B
7.1419. The provisions of Annex B relate to publicatio n and notification requirements. Some of
the applicable obligations provided therein depend on whether there is any urgency involved,
whether an international standard exists, and whether a Member's measure is substantially the
same as the content of an international standard, guideline or recommendation.
7.1420. We agree with the panel in India – Agricultural Products , that the "transparency
provisions of Annex B apply only to measures that qualify as 'SPS regulations'." 1799 That panel
further indicated that:
The te rm "SPS regulations" is defined in the footnote to Annex B(1) as "[SPS]
measures such as laws, decrees or ordinances which are applicable generally". The
Appellate Body in Japan – Agricultural Products II clarified that the footnote to Annex
B(1) includes an illustrative list of instruments, as indicated by the words, "such as".
This list is therefore not exhaustive. The Appellate Body explained that the scope of
the term "SPS regulation" also includes, in addition to "laws, decrees or ordinances",
other in struments which are "applicable generally" and are "similar in character" to
the instruments explicitly referred to in the illustrative list of the footnote to Annex
B(1).1800;1801

1794 Panel Reports, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.47, subpara. 85.
1795 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.741 (referring to Panel Report, Japan –
Agricultural Products II, para. 8.116; and Appellate Body Report, Japan – Agricultural Products II, para. 108).
1796 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.741
1797 Panel Report, Japan – Apples, para. 8.319. In fn 425 to para. 8.319, that panel further noted that
"we do not believe that changes of legal instruments require, in all instances, notification".
1798 Panel Report, Japan – Apples, paras. 8.316-8.318.
1799 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.737.
1800 (footnote original) Appellate Body Report, Japan – Agricultural Products II, para. 105. The Appellate
Body further explained that:
The object and purpose of paragraph 1 of Annex B is "to enable interested Members to become
acquainted with" the sanitary and phytosanitary regulations adopted or maintained by other Members and thus
to enhance transparency regarding these measures. In our opinion, the scope of application of the publication

7.1421. As a threshold matter, it is therefore necessary to determine whether a measure f alls
within the scope of Article 7 and Annex B, deriving guidance from the text and footnote of Annex
B(1).
7.8.2.3.2.1 Annex B(1)
7.1422. Annex B(1) obliges Members to ensure that their adopted SPS regulations are published
promptly in such a manner as to enable interested M embers to become acquainted with them. In
addition to constituting an SPS regulation, for a measure to be subject to the publication
requirement in Annex B (i) the measure must have "been adopted"; and (ii) the measure must be
"applicable generally".1802
7.8.2.3.2.2 Annex B(2)
7.1423. Annex B(2) requires Members, except in urgent circumstances, to allow for a reasonable
interval between the publication of the SPS regulation and its entry into force.
7.1424. At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Members decided that:
Subject to the conditions specified in paragraph 2 of Annex B to the Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the phrase "reasonable interval"
shall be understood to mean normally a period of not less than 6 months. It is
understood that timeframes for specific measures have to be considered in the
context of the particular circumstances of the measure and actions necessary to
implement it. The entry into force of measures which contribute to the liberalization of
trade should not be unnecessarily delayed.1803
7.1425. To examine consistency with paragraph 2 of Annex B , a panel should first determine
whether it is inapplicable to the circumstances of the particular case due to the existence of urgent
circumstances.1804 Thereafter, a panel would need to examine wheth er the measure was published
within a reasonable interval.
7.8.2.3.2.3 Annex B(5)
7.1426. Pursuant to its chapeau, Annex B(5) will apply when the following circumstances are met:
(a) where a relevant international standard does not exist or the content of the proposed measure
is not substantially the same as the content of an international standard, guideline or
recommendation, and (b) if the regulation may have a significant effect on trade of other
Members.1805
7.1427. Regarding the first element, the panel in India – Agricultural Products considered that the
analysis for the purposes of the chapeau of Annex B(5) is different from the determination of
whether a measure is "based on" or "conforms to" an international standard pursuant to
Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the SPS Agreement. That pa nel reasoned that for the purposes of its
analysis, "substantially the same" means that "something closely approximating 'sameness' is

requirement of paragraph 1 of Annex B should be interpreted in the light of the object and purpose of this
provision.
Appellate Body Report, Japan – Agricultural Products II, para. 106.
1801 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.738.
1802 Panel Report, Japan – Agricultural Products II, para. 8.109.
1803 WT/MIN(01)/17, para. 3.2. The Appellate Body in US – Clove Cigarettes examined the legal status
of paragraph 5.2 of this decision of the Ministerial Conference in the context of determining whether the
definition of a "reasonable interval" in Article 12.2 of the TBT Agreement was a multilateral interpretation in the
sense of Article IX:2 of the WTO Agreement. The Appellate Body concluded that paragraph 5.2 does not qualify
as a multilateral interpretation within the meaning of Article IX:2 of the WTO Agreement; however, it upheld
the panel's finding that it constitutes a subsequent agreement between the parties, within the meaning of
Article 31(3)(a) of the Vienna Convention, on the interpretation of the term "reasonable interval" in Article 12.2
of the TBT Agreement. See Appellate Body Report, US – Clove Cigarettes, paras. 247-268.
1804 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, paras. 7.752-7.753.
1805 Panel Report, Japan – Apples, para. 8.310. See also Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products,
paras. 7.771-7.772.

required".1806 That panel added that, in the circumstances of that case, "for the content of an SPS
regulation to be 'substa ntially the same' as the content of an international standard, the former
must be at least 'based on' the latter according to Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement."1807
7.1428. Regarding the second element, the panel in India – Agricultural Products considered that
an outright prohibition on the importation of the products in question into India constituted the
most restrictive measure a Member could take in respect of trade, thus having a "significant" effect
on trade.1808
7.1429. We note that the Recommended Procedures for Imple menting the Transparency
Obligations of the SPS Agreement (Article 7), adopted by the SPS Committee with effect as of
1 December 2008, encourage Members to notify all regulations that are based on, conform to or
are substantially the same as an internation al standard, guideline or recommendation, if they are
expected to have a significant effect on trade of other Members. Furthermore, the Recommended
Procedures indicate:
For the purposes of Annex B, paragraphs 5 and 6 of the SPS Agreement, the concept
of "significant effect on trade of other Members" may refer to the effect on trade:
 - of one sanitary or phytosanitary regulation only or of various sanitary or
phytosanitary regulations in combination;
 - in a specific product, group of products or products in general; and
 - between two or more Members.
To assess whether the sanitary or phytosanitary regulation may have a significant
effect on trade, the Member concerned should consider relevant available information
such as: the value or other importance o f imports to the importing and/or exporting
Members concerned, whether from other Members individually or collectively; the
potential development of such imports; and difficulties for producers in other
Members, particularly in developing country Members , to comply with the proposed
sanitary or phytosanitary regulations. The concept of a significant effect on trade of
other Members should include both import -enhancing and import -reducing effects on
the trade of other Members, as long as such effects are significant.1809
7.1430. If a panel is satisfied that the requirements for the application of Annex B(5) are met, it
would then have to examine whether, in that particular case, the responding party has complied
with each of the relevant obligations under paragraphs (a) through (d). 1810 Although the
Committee guidelines do not provide any legal interpretation or modification to the SPS Agreement
itself, they may assist in our understanding of the obligations on Members.1811
7.8.2.3.3 Annex B(6)
7.1431. Where urgent problems of health protect ion arise or threaten to arise, a Member may
omit the steps described in Annex B(5) in respect of proposed measures. Annex B(6) imposes
three additional conditions that must be met for a Member to take advantage of this exceptional
approach, namely (a) to notify immediately other Members, through the Secretariat, of that
particular regulation and the products covered, with a brief indication of the objective and the
rationale of the regulation, including the nature of the urgent problem(s); (b) to provide, upon
request, copies of the regulation to other Members; and (c) to allow other Members to make
comments in writing, and to discuss these comments upon request and take the comments and

1806 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.779. That panel reached that conclusion based
on the Appellate Body's interpretation of the term "substantially the same" as used in Article XXIV:8(a)(ii) of
the GATT 1994. Appellate Body Report, Turkey – Textiles, para. 50.
1807 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.780.
1808 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.773.
1809 G/SPS/7/Rev.3, paras. 8-10.
1810 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.782.
1811 G/SPS/7/Rev.3, para. 3.

the results of the discussions into account. These conditions , includi ng the condition in the
chapeau are cumulative, such that all four conditions must be met before the provisions Annex
B(6) are triggered.1812
7.8.2.3.4 Order of analysis
7.1432. The European Union has raised claims under Article 7 of the SPS Agreement in connection
with Annex B(1), B(2), B(5) and B(6) of the SPS Agreement. In determining the order in which we
will examine those claims, we take account of the relationship between Article 7 and Annex B of
the SPS Agreement.
7.1433. In light of the considerations outlined above in paragraph 7.1416 and the circumstances
of this dispute, the Panel will begin by examining the threshold question of whether the measures
challenged under Article 7 and Annex B fall within the scope of these provisions, deriving guidance
from the text and footnote of Annex B(1). Depending on the outcome of our analysis under Annex
B(1) the Panel may then address the claims under Annex B(2), Annex B(6), and Annex B(5). The
Panel turns to examine these elements in respect of the bans o n the imports of the products at
issue from Lithuania and the EU-wide ban.
7.8.2.3.5 Whether the challenged measures fall within the scope of Article 7 and
Annex B
7.1434. It is uncontested that the measures regarding Lithuania have been adopted. We recall
that the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Lithuania are maintained through
instructions from FSVPS to the heads of territorial departments. The Panel found that those
measures constitute SPS measures that have been applied as of 25 January and 27 June 201 4,
respectively.1813 The Panel also found that the EU -wide ban is a measure attributable to the
Russian Federation, adopted as of 29 January 2014.1814
7.1435. The term "SPS regulations" is defined in the footnote to Annex B(1) as "[SPS] measures
such as laws, decrees, o r ordinances which are applicable generally". The Appellate Body has
clarified that the term "SPS regulation" includes "laws, decrees or ordinances", as well as other
instruments which are "applicable generally" and are "similar in character" to the instru ments
explicitly referred to in the illustrative list of the footnote to Annex B(1).1815
7.1436. We are confronted with the issue whether the measures at issue here, which relate to
specific actions in the aftermath of outbreaks of ASF taken within the context of a more general
legislative and regulatory framework 1816, qualify as "laws, decrees or ordinances" or, at the very
least, legal instruments of general application, within the terms of the footnote to Annex B(1).
Russia's requirement that products come from areas that have been free of ASF for at least three
years has been in existence at least since 2006, when this requirement was reflected in the text of
the bilaterally -agreed veterinary certificate. This requirement by Russia has not been changed.
What has changed is the ASF situation within the European Union, and in particular within the four
affected EU member States.
7.1437. We have carefully examined the arguments of the parties in respect to whether this
change in the application of an existing requirement is sub ject to notification. In particular, we
have scrutinized the European Union's argumentation before us. We note that the European Union
has focused its arguments exclusively on the timeliness of the notification and publication of these
actions.1817 We have co me to the conclusion that the European Union has failed to establish a
prima facie case that the measures at issue here qualify as generally applicable laws, decrees or
ordinances that would fall within the scope of Article 7 and Annex B(1) of the SPS Agre ement.

1812 Panel Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 7.762.
1813 See para. 7.170 above.
1814 See para. 7.84 above.
1815 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Agricultural Products II, para. 105. See Panel Report, India –
Agricultural Products, para. 7.738.
1816 See Customs Union Decision No. 317 (Exhibit RUS-25).
1817 European Union's first written submission, paras. 351-357; and second written submission, paras.
190-193.

Having reached this conclusion, it is not necessary for us to proceed any further with our
examination of the European Union's claims under Annex B.
7.1438. In the alternative, the Panel considers it appropriate to exercise judicial economy on the
claims by the European Union under Annex B. This is so as the Panel considers that findings on
these elements of the claims are not necessary in order to enable the DSB to make sufficiently
precise recommendations and rulings as to allow for prompt compliance with those
recommendations and rulings "in order to ensure effective resolution" of the dispute. 1818 The
measures at issue are now well known to the European Union and no action by Russia at this stage
would increase the transparency of these measures , in a timel y manner, to the benefit of the
European Union or other WTO Members.
7.8.3 Summary of conclusions in respect of the challenged measures
7.1439. Based on the foregoing, the Panel finds that the European Union has failed to establish a
prima facie case that the measures at issue fall within the scope of Article 7 and Annex B. In the
alternative, the Panel exercises judicial economy in respect of these claims of the European Union.
8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1. As described in greater detail above, the Panel finds that:
a. The European Union has demonstrated the existence of the alleged 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's territory,
except for Sardinia, has to be ASF free for three years in order for the products at issue
to be imported into Russia. Following the ASF outbreaks 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 results in
an EU-wide ban of the products at issue attributable to Russia. Hence, the EU-wide ban
is a measure susceptible to challenge under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism.
b. There is no limitation in Russia's Protocol of Accession to the Panel's assessment of the
merits of the European Union's claims brought in respect of the EU-wide ban.
c. The import restrictions on the products at issue from Estonia and Latvia are within the
Panel's terms of reference.
d. In respect of the European Union's claims regarding the EU-wide ban, pursuant to the
SPS Agreement:
i. the EU-wide ban is an SPS measure within the meaning of Annex A(1) of the SPS
Agreement;
ii. the EU -wide ban is not based on the Terrestrial Code and is in consequence
inconsistent with Russia's obligation to base it s SPS measures on international
standards, pursuant to Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement;
iii. 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 Agreement;
iv. 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 area s within the European Union territory, outside Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland, which are free of ASF and are likely to remain so;

1818 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Salmon, para. 223.

v. Russia did not adapt the EU-wide ban to the SPS characteristics related to ASF of the
areas where the products subject to that measure originated nor to the SPS
characteristics related to ASF in Russia. Therefore, the EU -wide ban is inconsistent
with Article 6.1;
vi. Russia's process of consideration of the European Union's request for recognition of
the ASF-free areas within the European Union falls within the scope of Article 8 and
Annex C(1) of the SPS Agreement. Russia formulated information requirements, in
respect of the EU -wide ban, that were not limited to what is necessary for the
procedure at issue, thus breaching An nex C(1)(c). In addition, Russia undertook and
completed the procedure at issue with undue delay, thus rendering the procedure at
issue inconsistent with Annex C(1)(a). Consequently the procedure at issue is
inconsistent with Article 8 of the SPS Agreement;
vii. there was sufficient scientific evidence for Russia to conduct a risk assessment of the
ASF situation in the non -affected EU member States, as appropriate to the
circumstances. Moreover, Russia did not provisionally adopt the measure on the
basis of ava ilable pertinent information, did not seek to obtain the additional
information necessary for a more objective assessment of risk , and did not review
the EU-wide ban within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, the EU-wide ban does
not fall within the sc ope of Article 5.7 and the qualified exemption to the obligations
in Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement is not available to Russia.
Moreover, Russia did not base the EU -wide ban on a risk assessment within the
meaning of paragraph 4 of Annex A of the SPS Agreement, thus breaching Articles
5.1 and 5.2; and Russia has not rebutted the presumption of inconsistency that our
findings raised in respect of Article 2.2 therefore the EU -wide ban is also inconsistent
with Article 2.2;
viii. the EU-wide ban is i nconsistent with Article 5.3 of the SPS Agreement, because by
not basing that measure on a risk assessment in circumstances in which Article 5.7 is
not applicable, Russia could have not taken into account the relevant economic
factors listed in Article 5.3 when assessing the risks of entry and spread of ASF in
accordance with Article 5.1 and paragraph 4 of Annex A of the SPS Agreement;
ix. the EU-wide ban is inconsistent with Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement, with respect
to non-treated products covered by Chap ter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code , because it
is significantly more trade restrictive than required to achieve Russia's ALOP . In light
of our findings under Article 5.6 and the arguments and evidence raised by Russia in
order to rebut the presumption of inconsistency with Article 2.2 raised by a finding of
inconsistency of the EU -wide ban with Article 5.6, the EU -wide ban is inconsistent
with Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement because it is applied beyond the extent
necessary to protect animal life or health.
e. In respect of the European Union's claims regarding the bans on the imports of the
products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, pursuant to the SPS
Agreement:
i. the import restrictions on the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuani a, and
Poland are SPS measures within the meaning of Annex A(1) of the SPS Agreement;
ii. the import bans on the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
do not conform to the relevant international standards contained in the Terrestrial
Code, and thus are inconsistent with Article 3.2 of the SPS Agreement. Therefore,
Russia is not entitled to benefit from the presumption of consistency of the bans on
the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland with
the other relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement and of the GATT 1994;
iii. the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Poland, as applicable to treated products, are not "based on" the relevant
international standards, a s articulated in Articles 15.1.14 -15.1.16 of the Terrestrial

Code; and are therefore, to the extent applicable to treated products, inconsistent
with Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement;
iv. the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Lithuania , and Poland,
as applicable to non -treated products, 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 applicable to non -treated produc ts,
inconsistent with Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement;
v. the ban on the imports of the products at issue from Latvia, as applicable to non -
treated products, is "based on" the relevant international standards, as articulated in
the relevant Articles of Chapt er 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code; and is therefore, to the
extent applicable to non -treated products, consistent with Article 3.1 of the SPS
Agreement;
vi. 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 the imports of
the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are not inconsistent
with Russia's obligations under Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement;
vii. at least as at 11 September 2014, the Eur opean Union 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;
viii. at least as at 11 September 2014, the European Union failed to provide to Russia the
necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate, pursuant to Article 6.3 of the SPS
Agreement, that there are areas within Latvia that are free of ASF and are likely to
remain so;
ix. 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
evaluation 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;
x. Russia's process of consideration of the European Union's request for recognition of
ASF-free areas withi n the European Union including the four affected EU member
States falls within the scope of Article 8 and Annex C(1) of the SPS Agreement.
Russia formulated, in respect of the bans on the imports of the products at issue
from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, an d Poland, information requirements that were not
limited to what is necessary for the procedure at issue, thus breaching
Annex C(1)(c). Russia undertook and completed the procedure at issue with undue
delay, thus rendering the procedure at issue inconsiste nt with Annex C(1)(a).
Consequently the procedure at issue is inconsistent with Article 8 of the SPS
Agreement;
xi. there was sufficient scientific evidence for Russia to conduct a risk assessment of the
ASF situation in the affected EU member States, as appropriate to the circumstances.
Moreover, Russia provisionally adopted the bans on the imports of the products at
issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, on the basis of available pertinent
information, except with respect to those measures as appl icable to the treated
products at issue. In addition, Russia did not seek to obtain the additional
information necessary for a more objective assessment of risk , and did not review
the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lith uania, and
Poland within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, the bans on the affected EU
member States do not fall within the scope of Article 5.7 and the qualified exemption

to the obligations in Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement is not a vailable
to Russia in respect of these measures. Furthermore, Russia did not base the bans
on the affected EU member States on a risk assessment within the meaning of
paragraph 4 of Annex A of the SPS Agreement, thus breaching Articles 5.1 and 5.2.
Russia has not rebutted the presumption of inconsistency that our findings raised in
respect of Article 2.2, therefore the bans on the affected EU member States are also
inconsistent with Article 2.2;
xii. the bans on the products at issue from Estonia, Latvia, Lithua nia, and Poland are
inconsistent with Article 5.3 of the SPS Agreement, because by not basing those
measures on a risk assessment in circumstances in which Article 5.7 is not
applicable, Russia could have not taken into account the relevant economic factor s
listed in Article 5.3 when assessing the risks of entry and spread of ASF in
accordance with Article 5.1 and paragraph 4 of Annex A of the SPS Agreement;
xiii. the bans on the imports from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, as applicable to
treated produc ts, are inconsistent with Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement, with
respect to treated products covered by Chapter 15.1 of the Terrestrial Code , because
they are significantly more trade restrictive than required to achieve Russia's ALOP .
In light of our findings under Article 5.6 and the lack of arguments or evidence raised
by the Russian Federation in order to rebut the presumption of inconsistency with
Article 2.2 raised by a finding of breach of Article 5.6, we find that the bans on the
imports of the prod ucts at issue, as applicable to treated products, from Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, are inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement
because they are applied beyond the extent necessary to protect animal life or
health.
xiv. the bans on the imports of the products at issue from Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland,
as applicable to non -treated products, are inconsistent with Article 5.6 of the
SPS Agreement, with respect to non -treated products covered by Articles 15.1.5,
15.1.8, 15.1.10, 15.1.12, and 15.1.13 of the Terrestrial Code , because they are
significantly more trade restrictive than required to achieve Russia's ALOP. In light of
our findings under Article 5.6 and the arguments and evidence raised by Russia in
order to rebut the presumption of inconsistency with Article 2.2 raised by a finding of
breach of Article 5.6, we find that the bans on the imports of the products at issue,
as applicable to non -treated products, from Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland, are
inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement because they are applied beyond
the extent necessary to protect animal life or health.
f. In respect of the European Union's claims pursuant to Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement
with respect to the measures at issue:
i. Russia's measures at issue a re 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. We also find that Russia's ASF
measures are inconsistent with Arti cle 2.3, second sentence, because they are
applied in a manner which constitutes a disguised restriction on international trade.
8.2. Having found that Russia's ASF measures are inconsistent with Article 2.3 of the SPS
Agreement, the Panel declines to rule on t he European Union's claim under Article 5.5 of the
SPS Agreement.
8.3. The Panel also declines to rule on the European Union's claims in respect of the ban on the
imports of the products at issue from Latvia, as applicable to non -treated products, pursuant to
Articles 5.6 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement, because the European Union failed to make a prima
facie case that the alternative identified by the European Union in respect of non -treated products
is significantly less restrictive to trade than this measure.
8.4. The Panel also declines to rule on the European Union's claims in respect of the measures at
issue pursuant to Article 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement, because the European Union has

failed to establish a prima facie case that the measures at issue fall w ithin the scope of those
provisions, thus failing to make a prima facie case of inconsistency thereof.
8.5. The Panel also declines to rule on the European Union's claims in respect of the measures at
issue pursuant to Annex C(1)(b) of the SPS Agreement because the European Union failed to make
a prima facie case of inconsistency thereof.
8.6. The Panel also declines to rule on the European Union's claims in respect of Russia not taking
into account the relevant economic factors listed in Article 5.3 when determining the measure to
be applied for achieving the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection in respect of
ASF, because the European Union failed to make a prima facie case of inconsistency thereof.
8.7. The Panel also declines to rule on the European Union's claims in respect of Russia not taking
into account the objective of minimizing negative trade effects when determining the appropriate
level of sanitary and phytosanitary protection, because the Panel finds that Article 5.4 does not
impose a positive obligation on WTO Members.
8.8. Under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is an infringement of the obligations
assumed under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of
nullification or impairment. We conclud e that, to the extent that the measures at issue are
inconsistent with the specified provisions of the SPS Agreement, they have nullified or impaired
benefits accruing to European Union under that agreement.
8.9. Pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU, having foun d that Russia acted inconsistently with its
obligations under Articles 3.1, 3.2, 5.1, 5.2, 2.2, 5.3, 5.6, 6.1, and 8 as well as Annex C(1)(a) and
C(1)(c) of the SPS Agreement, we recommend that the DSB request Russia to bring its measures
into conformity with its obligations under the SPS Agreement.

EUROPEAN UNION AND RUSSIA FROM 24 JANUARY 2014
9.1. On 24 January 2014, DG SANCO sent a fax to Russia's delegation in Brussels, rep orting on
two outbreaks in wild boar in Lithuania, in Salcininkai and Varena regions, at the border with
Belarus. Attached to the fax was the report of the director of Lithuania's State Food and Veterinary
Service. This report included a detailed indicatio n of where the outbreaks had taken place, the
date on which the reported cases were found to be ASF positive (22 January 2014), as well as an
indication of surveillance and control measures that were put in place.1819
9.2. On 27 January 2014, DG SANCO sent a fax t o Russia's delegation in Brussels with the draft
Commission Implementing Decision with the areas in Lithuania that should be considered
infected.1820 This draft was adopted on 27 January 2014 as Commission Implementing Decision
No. 2014/43/EU.1821 On 30 January 2014, DG SANCO sent this Commission Implementing Decision
to Russia's delegation in Brussels. 1822 On the same day, DG SANCO sent a letter to the head (Mr
Dankvert) of FSVPS referring to the fruitful conversation Mr Miko had with Mr Dankvert that day,
and indicating that it is the European Union's understanding following that conversation that the
import restrictions introduced by Russia due to ASF apply only to Lithuania (in addition to those
that already apply to Sardinia), and indicated the points that could still be certified.1823
9.3. On 29 January 2014, DG SANCO sent a letter to the head of FSVPS (Mr Dankvert) referring
to the certification of live pigs and their products in relation to the ASF outbreaks in Lithuania. In
this letter, it was stated that the Europea n Union has followed all the provisions of the 2004 and
2006 Memoranda having notified immediately the two cases of ASF in Lithuania. The letter further
noted that the European Union had been informing Russia on a daily basis about all the control and
prevention measures, surveillance activities and data which have been applied. The letter also
referred to the invitation extended to Russian and Belarusian experts to join the emergency teams
set up. Attached to the letter was the most recent data on ASF surv eillance carried out in the
EU member States at risk (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland). This included data on the
testing undertaken in 2013 and in the first months of 2014 in these EU member States. In
addition, the letter requested an additional a ttestation to the veterinary certificates of pork meat
and raw meat preparations, piglets for fattening, pigs for breeding, and pigs for slaughter, in order
to adapt the principles of regionalization to the ASF situation in the European Union.1824
9.4. On 29 January 2014, FSVPS sent DG SANCO a letter indicating, in respect of the information
necessary for the acceptance of regionalization in the European Union, that DG SANCO should
provide FSVPS "with the exhaustive data (items 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 [of the 2006 Mem orandum])
as well as with the provisions foreseen by recommendations of the OIE Code of Terrestrial
Animals, - grounded proposals on regionalization and zoning of the EU territory with regard to the
ASF taking into consideration the risk assessment carrie d out by the EU." 1825 The items of the
2006 Memorandum referred to in this letter include: zones established (item 5); control and
prevention measures, including surveillance programmes (item 6); epidemiological investigations
and surveillance (item 7); reassessment of status of zones because of outbreaks (item 8); control
measures taken and changes in the situation (item 9); and set up of a joint permanent working
group.1826

1819 Communication of 24 January 2014: African swine fever (ASF) in two wild boars in Lithuania, in
Salcininkai and Varena Regions, at the border with Belarus (Exhibit EU-132).
1820 Communication of 27 January 2014: African swine fever (ASF) in Lithuania. Interim protective
measures (Exhibit EU-133).
1821 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/43/EU of 27 January 2014 concerning certain interim
protective measures relating to African swine fever in Lithuania, OJ L 26, p.44 (Exhibit EU-33).
1822 Communication of 30 January 2014: African swine fever (ASF) in Lithuania. Interim protective
measures (adoption of implementing decision) (Exhibit EU-134).
1823 Exhibit EU-172 and Exhibit RUS-224.
1824 European Union's letter to Russia of 29 January 2014, ARES(2014)209377, SANCO
G7/RF/mh(2014)219959 (Exhibit EU-62).
1825 Russia's letter to the European Union of 29 January 2014, FS-SA-8/1277 (Exhibit EU-14).
1826 European Union-Russia Memorandum of 4 April 2006 concerning principles of zoning and
compartmentalization in the veterinary field (Exhibit EU-61).

9.5. On 31 January 2014, DG SANCO sent a letter to the head of FSVPS with a request to accep t
the sanitary status of EU member States and their regions under the principle of regionalization in
relation to the ASF outbreaks in Lithuania. In this letter DG SANCO recalls what had happened
from 22 January 2014 up to that point, refers to the Europea n Union's legal framework, as well as
the effectiveness of the European Union's measures to control and eradicate ASF. The letter also
refers to the participation of experts from Russia in the emergency veterinary team set up in
Lithuania. DG SANCO also makes a formal request that competent authorities in Russia "accept the
ASF-free sanitary status of EU member States." To that end, DG SANCO requests amending the
wording in the veterinary certificates for pork meat and raw meat preparations, piglets for
fattening, pigs for breeding, and pigs for slaughter, in the manner suggested in the annexes
attached to that letter.1827
9.6. On 5 February 2014, FSVPS sent a letter to DG SANCO in response to the letter from DG
SANCO dated 31 January 2014. Attached to this letter , FSVPS sent a preliminary list of
questions1828 that the European Union should provide to understand the situation objectively for
further decisions on whether ASF regionalization was possible.1829 The list of questions was divided
in respect of Lithuania, the adjacent countries located in the obvious risk zone (Latvia, Estonia,
and Poland), and other EU member States. However, some of the same information was requested
for the three groups. These questions are listed in Table A1 below.
Table A1 List of information requested through FSVPS's letter of 5 February 2014
Countries Information required
All EU member
States
- Detailed action plan of emergency response at regional and national level in case of an
ASF outbreak;
- Information about wild boar population with detailed density by region;
- Swine population in the industry sector and personal subsidiary farming with detailed
density by region;
- The number of swine and wild boars monitoring researches rolled out during 2013-2014,
detailed by region;
- Detailed information about pig farms, pork processing factories and semi-finished
products, graded by production volume;
- Regulatory acts, which provide for and specify monitoring procedures and epidemic
investigations in cases of suspicion/ mortality/ disease (differential diagnostics)/ disposal
of animals susceptible to ASF – swine and wild boars;
-Regulatory acts, providing for wild boar hunting and further utilization of killed animals
(for food, as trophies);
Lithuania - Regulatory acts, providing for wild boar hunting and further utilization of killed animals
(for food, as trophies): regulations on export of wild boar meat and trophies, number of
killed animals and exported meat and trophies during 2013-2014;
- Detailed information about foreign hunters, who entered the country to hunt the wild
boar during 2013-2014 detailed by region (including information about the number and
the country of origin);
- Detailed information about pig farms and meat processing factories attested to ship
animals and products to the territory of the CU, including information about the suppliers
(number, country, region) and production volumes, detailed by region;
- Rough estimation of enterprises attested to ship animal products to the territory of the
CU, by level of zoosanitary condition, equivalent to the previously conducted evaluation of
the Russian and Belarusian enterprises, detailed by regions and graded by production
volumes.
Latvia, Estonia,
and Poland
and
Other EU
member States
- Regulatory acts, providing for wild boar hunting and further utilization of killed animals
(for food, as trophies): regulations on export of wild boar meat and trophies, number of
killed animals and exported meat and trophies during 2013-2014 (for regions adjacent to
the infected zone);
- Information about measures taken/being taken to prevent introduction of the etiologic
agent to the swine industry sector/personal subsidiary farming sector/wild boar

1827 European Union's letter to Russia of 31 January 2014, ARES(2014)226547, SANCO
G7/JP/mh(2014)241111 (Exhibit EU-64).
1828 Through a letter dated 18 February 2014, FSVPS seems to acknowledge that this list of preliminary
questions, sent on 5 February 2014, is the basis on which Russia is willing to pursue an "objective evaluation of
the epizootic situation in Lithuania and neighbouring countries in the zone of clear risk (Latvia, Estonia, and
Poland) and other EU Member States". The letter further indicates that FSVPS is "looking forward to receive the
information requested by us". See Letter of 18 February 2015 from Russia to the European Union (Exhibit EU-
167).
1829 Russia's letter to the European Union of 5 February 2014, FS-SD 8/1640 (Exhibit EU-84).

Countries Information required
population;
- Description of measures taken/being taken at the territories of the EU member states,
which are in the zone of the obvious ASF risk (security/ border check points);
- Description of the disease and sanitation inspection process (indicating the regulatory
acts) and pre-export certification at all the stages of production cycle;
- Description of measures taken/being taken to control movement of live animals and pig
farming products (swine products in the case of other EU member States);
- Detailed information about foreign hunters, who entered the country to hunt the wild
boar during 2013-2014 (including information about the number and the country of
origin), detailed by country and region;
- Detailed information about pig farms and meat-processing factories attested to ship
animals and products to the territory of the CU, including information about the suppliers
(number, country, region) and production volumes, detailed by country and region;
- Rough estimation of enterprises attested to ship animal products to the territory of the
CU, by level of zoosanitary condition, equivalent to the previously conducted evaluation of
the Russian and Belarusian enterprises, detailed by regions and graded by production
volume.

9.7. On 6 February 2014, DG SANCO sent a fax to Russia's delegation in Brussels with the draft
Commission Implementing Decision and two presentations regarding the ASF situation in
Lithuania, as well as the control and surveillance mechanisms put in place.1830
9.8. On 6 February 2014, DG SANCO sent a letter to the deputy head of FSVPS (Dr Nepoklonov),
requesting the acceptance of declarations from official veterinarians in the EU member States
attesting that certain products at issue had undergone certain forms of treatment.1831
9.9. On 7 February 2014, DG SANCO sent a letter to the head of FSVPS with additional
information relevant to the preparedness and surveillance of the disease in the European Union. Of
particular interest for this part of our assessment, the European Union provided information on
"the structure of the pig sector in the whole of the EU as well as an overall assessment by the
Commission of the contingency plans in place in the EU Member States". 1832 The communication
further noted that "almost all of this information has been and still is publicly accessible including
to your services". This letter is am ong the communications that the European Union identified as
addressing Russia's information requests.1833
9.10. DG SANCO attached four annexes to the above -mentioned letter of 7 February 2014. In
response to a question from the Panel, the European Union clarified and identified the pieces of
information it has submitted as part of the record in this dispute and the corresponding exhibit
number.1834 We will therefore refer to the information contained in those annexes through the
exhibit number to which they correspond , as provided by the European Union . Table A2 below
provides an overview of the information that the European Union annexed to its communication
dated 7 February 2014.
Table A2 Overview of Evidence attached by the European Union
Category of information Piece of information
Legislation
on ASF
EU legislation
applicable to all
EU member
States
- Council Directive 2002/60/EC, laying down specific provisions for the control
of ASF (Exhibit EU-31)
- Commission Decision 2003/422/EC , approving an ASF diagnostic manual
(Exhibit EU-32)
EU
implementing
decisions
adopted
- Commission Decision 2014/43/EU, concerning certain interim protective
measures relating to ASF in Lithuania (Exhibit EU-33)
- Commission Decision (draft) concerning certain protective measures relating
to ASF in Lithuania (Exhibit EU-135)

1830 Exhibit EU-135. The first of these presentations is the same as that contained in Exhibit EU-66
referred to in Table A2 below.
1831 Letter from DG SANCO, G7/PD/(2014)312766 dated February 6, 2014 (Exhibit RUS-185).
1832 European Union's letter to Russia of 7 February 2014, ARES(2014)304571,
SANCO/G7/DP/tb(2014)328578 (Exhibit EU-65), p. 1.
1833 European Union's first written submission, para. 221.
1834 European Union's response to Panel question No. 322, to which the European Union exhibited
Exhibit EU-214, indicating precisely to which exhibit each piece of information annexed to the letter of 7
February 2014 corresponds.

Category of information Piece of information
following the
detected
outbreaks in
Lithuania

National
legislation in
Lithuania
adopted
following the
detected
outbreaks in
Lithuania
- Order of Lithuania's Director of State Food and Veterinary Service on the
slaughter of pigs as part of the measures to prevent the spread of ASF –No.
B1-60 of 30 January 2014, (Exhibit EU-72)
- Order of Lithuania's Director of State Food and Veterinary Service
concerning order No. B1-31 of 20 January 2014 on measures to prevent the
spread of ASF - No. B1-48 of 24 January 2014 (Exhibit EU-70)
- Order of Lithuania's Director of State Food and Veterinary Service on
measures to control ASF –No. B1-49 of 24 January 2014, (Exhibit EU-71)

Pig sector structure in the
European Union
Spreadsheet containing data on the number of farms and heads by
agricultural size of farm and size of pig herd for 27 EU member States,
between 2007 and 2010 (Exhibit EU-215)
Data on the pig industry (pig production (Exhibit EU-245)) and pig population
at EU level of all EU member States in 2011, 2012 and 2013 (Exhibit EU-244)
Updated outlook on the pig sector (Presentation of the Committee for the
Common Organization of the Agricultural Market of 23 January 2014
(Exhibit EU-243)
Detailed information on the
pig sector in Lithuania
The letter indicates that "there are 18,526 pig farms with 657,288 pigs in total
in Lithuania. In the infected area (six districts) there are 369 pig keepers with
13732 pigs (12,288 pigs kept in 5 pig farms and 1,444 pigs kept in back yard
farms)." The letter also states that the list of establishments authorised for
export to Russia is available to Russian authorities (as evidenced in the
dedicated website of FSVPS (Exhibit EU-216).
Emergency response in case
ASF in the EU member
States/Contingency Plans
Guidelines for preparing contingency plans for epidemic disease – Document
SANCO/10101/2002 (Exhibit EU-73)
Presentation on Contingency Planning as part of the high level training (Better
Training For safer Food) by Fred Landeg CBE BVetMed MRCVS
(Exhibit EU-125)
Report of audit of contingency plans for epizootic diseases and the eradication
programme for rabies in Lithuania, carried out from 20 to 24 July 2009
(Exhibit EU-78)
Report of audit of actions taken during recent outbreaks of classical swine
fever and of contingency planning of epizootic disease in Lithuania, carried out
from 27 February to 2 March 2012 (Exhibit EU-79)
Report of audit of the implementation of contingency plans in relation to
animal health, including provisions on the protection of animals during
depopulation for disease control in Latvia, carried out from 4 to 8 March 2013
(Exhibit EU-80)
Report of audit of contingency plans for epizootic diseases and the eradication
programme for rabies in Latvia, carried out from 15 to 19 June 2009 (Exhibit
EU-81)
Report of audit of the implementation of contingency plans in relation to
animal health, including provisions on the protection of animals during
depopulation for disease control in Estonia, carried out from 15 to 19 April
2013 (Exhibit EU-82)
Report of audit of disease contingency plans for epizootic diseases (in
particular foot and mouth disease and classical swine fever) and surveillance
activities for bluetongue in Poland, carried out from 7 to 16 April 2008 (Exhibit
EU-83)
Information
relevant to a
recent audit
of the
Lithuanian
contingency
planning
system
Report of audit of actions taken during recent outbreaks of
classical swine fever and of contingency planning of epizootic
disease in Lithuania, carried out from 27 February to 2 March
2012 (Exhibit EU-79) – Available in the European Union's
dedicated website (Exhibit EU-126)
Contingency Plan for classical swine fever and ASF of
Lithuania, approved by Order No. B1-831 of the Director of
the State Food and Veterinary Service of 30 December 2011
(Exhibit EU-74)
Annex with response of competent authorities of Lithuania to
report of an audit carried out from 27 February to 2 March
2012 of actions taken actions taken during recent outbreaks of
classical swine fever and of contingency planning of epizootic
disease in Lithuania, updated on 9 October 2012 (Exhibit EU-
234).
Annex with response of competent authorities of Lithuania to

Category of information Piece of information
report of an audit carried out from 27 February to 2 March
2012 of actions taken actions taken during recent outbreaks of
classical swine fever and of contingency planning of epizootic
disease in Lithuania, updated on 14 May 2012 (Exhibit EU-
235).
Examples of
audits in
other EU
member
States
Screen shots with the available information in respect of the
audit reports of Finland, Portugal, the Netherlands, and
Estonia (Exhibit EU-217) The website also provides access to
similar audit reports to other EU member States.
Report of audit of the implementation of contingency plans in
relation to animal health, including provisions on the
protection of animals during depopulation for disease control
in Finland, carried out from 3 to 7 September 2012 (Exhibit
EU-218)
Annex with general comments of competent authorities of
Finland to the draft audit report DG(SANCO)/2012-6401,
carried out from 3 to 7 September 2012, received on 17
January 2013 (Exhibit EU-219)
Annex with response of competent authorities of Finland to
recommendations of audit report DG(SANCO)/2012-6401-MR,
carried out from 3 to 7 September 2012, received on 17
January 2013 (Exhibit EU-220)
Annex 2 summarizing legal requirements related to
contingency planning of epizootic disease, including ASF
(Exhibit EU-221)
Report of audit of the implementation of contingency plans in
relation to animal health, including provisions on the
protection of animals during depopulation for disease control
in Portugal, carried out from 24 to 28 September 2012
(Exhibit EU-222)
General comments of competent authorities of Portugal to the
draft audit report DG(SANCO)/2012-6402, carried out from 24
to 28 September 2012, received on 16 January 2013 (Exhibit
EU-223)
Annex with response of competent authorities of Portugal to
recommendations of audit report DG(SANCO)/2012-6402-MR,
carried out from 24 to 28 September 2012, received on 4
January 2013 (Exhibit EU-224)
Annex 2 summarizing legal requirements related to
contingency planning of epizootic disease, including ASF
(Exhibit EU-225)
Report of audit of the implementation of contingency plans in
relation to animal health, including provisions on the
protection of animals during depopulation for disease control
in the Netherlands, carried out from 28 January to 6 February
2013 (Exhibit EU-226)
Annex 2 summarizing legal requirements related to
contingency planning of epizootic disease, including ASF
(Exhibit EU-227)
General comments of competent authorities of the
Netherlands to the draft audit report DG(SANCO)/2013-6775,
carried out from 28 January to 6 February 2013, received on
16 April 2013 (Exhibit EU-228)
Response of competent authorities of the Netherlands to
recommendations of the draft audit report DG(SANCO)/2013-
6775, carried out from 28 January to 6 February 2013,
received on 16 April 2013 (Exhibit EU-229)
Corrigendum to the English version of the report of audit of
the implementation of contingency plans in relation to animal
health, including provisions on the protection of animals
during depopulation for disease control in the Netherlands,
carried out from 28 January to 6 February 2013 (Exhibit EU-
230)
Report of audit of the implementation of contingency plans in
relation to animal health, including provisions on the
protection of animals during depopulation for disease control
in Estonia, carried out from 15 to 19 April 2013 (Exhibit EU-
231)
General comments of competent authorities of Estonia to the

Category of information Piece of information
draft audit report DG(SANCO)/2013-6781, carried out from 15
to 19 April 2013, received on 16 August 2013 (Exhibit EU-232)
Response of competent authorities of Estonia to
recommendations of audit report DG(SANCO)/2013-6781,
carried out from 15 to 19 April 2013, received on 16 August
2013 (Exhibit EU-233)
Presentation to the Working group on contingency planning and emergency
preparedness made on 25-26 September 2013 (Exhibit EU-236)
Information on processing
establishments
Information on all establishments in all EU member States (Example of the list
in France (Exhibits EU-241 and 242)) – The letter provided a website with
links to the information from all of the 28 EU member States
The letter provided a summary table with statistics on establishments in
Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland.
Emergency measures taken
for the prevention and early
detection of ASF
Programme aimed at early detection of infection with ASFV and increasing
knowledge about the risk of ASF in the territory of Poland approved for 2013
(Exhibit EU-237)
Veterinary Control Programme on ASF early detection in Lithuania and
Belarus, approved for 2013 (Exhibit EU-238)
Veterinary Control Programme on ASF early detection in Latvia in 2014,
approved for 2013 (Exhibit EU-239)
Program of additional veterinary supervision measures in connection with the
outbreaks of African swine fever in Russia and Belorussia in 2014 in Estonia,
approved for 2013 (Exhibit EU-240)
Additional information on ASF
surveillance in Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
Presentation to the Animal Food Chain and Health on 6 February 2014 by
Lithuania's State Food and Veterinary Service (Exhibit EU-66)
Presentation to the Animal Food Chain and Health on 7 February 2014 by
Poland's General Veterinary Inspectorate (Exhibit EU-67)
Presentation to the Animal Food Chain and Health on 7 February 2014 by
Latvia's Veterinary Authority (Exhibit EU-68)
Presentation to the Animal Food Chain and Health on 7 February 2014 by
Estonia's Veterinary Food Board (Exhibit EU-69)
Additional information EFSA Scientific Opinion on ASF published on 19 April 2010 (Exhibit EU-24)

9.11. On 12 February 2014, FSVPS sent a letter to DG SANCO in reply to the letter sent by DG
SANCO to FSVPS on 6 February 2014. In this letter, FSVPS indicates its approval of the proposed
annex to the veterinary certificate for finished food products containing raw material of animal
origin, canned meat, sausages and other ready -to-eat meat products, and animal (porcine) origin
raw material for the manufacture of pet food and fur-bearing animal feed.1835
9.12. On 17 February 2014, DG SANCO sent a fax to Russia's delegatio n in Brussels informing it
of a wild boar infected with ASF in Poland, 900 meters from the border with Belarus in the
Podlaskie Province. Attached to the fax was a letter from Poland's chief veterinary officer,
indicating that all measures had been impleme nted according to Council Directive 2002/60/EC as
well as with SANCO Guidelines on surveillance and control of ASF. The fax also attached a map
with the approximate location of the place where the dead wild boar was found.1836
9.13. On 18 February 2014, DG SANCO s ent a fax to Russia's delegation in Brussels forwarding
Commission Implementing Decision 2014/93/EU of 14 February 2014 1837 concerning certain
protective measures relating to ASF in Lithuania.1838 On the same day DG SANCO sent another fax
to Russia's delegation in Brussels forwarding a communication from Polish veterinary authorities
indicating the area considered to be infected in accordance with Article 15 of Council Directive
2002/60/EC.1839 Also on 18 February 2014, DG SANCO provided to Russia's delegation in Br ussels,
via fax, the draft Commission Implementing Decision concerning certain interim protective

1835 Exhibit RUS-331.
1836 Communication of 17 February 2014: African swine fever (ASF) confirmed in Poland in a wild boar
found 900 meters from the border with Belarus (Exhibit EU-136).
1837 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/93/EU of 14 February 2014 concerning certain protective
measures relating to African swine fever in Lithuania, OJ L 46, p.20 (Exhibit EU-34).
1838 Communication of 18 February 2014: African swine fever (ASF) in Lithuania (adoption of
implementing decision) (Exhibit EU-137).
1839 Communication of 18 February 2014: African swine fever (ASF) in Poland – Information on infected
area (Exhibit EU-138).

measures relating to ASF in Poland. 1840 Finally, on the same day, the European Union informed
Russia's delegation in Brussels that the draft Decision concerning interim protective measures had
been adopted with the number C(2014)1179 1841 and attached a map with the areas covered by
protective measures in Lithuania and Poland along the border with Belarus.1842
9.14. On 20 February 2014, DG SANCO sent a fax to Russia's delegati on in Brussels forwarding
Commission Implementing Decision 2014/100/EU of 18 February 2014 concerning certain
protective measures relating to ASF in Poland.1843 On the same day, DG SANCO sent a letter to the
head of FSVPS indicating that "all the relevant inf ormation which should enable Russia to accept
the regionalization of the EU as regards African swine fever were submitted" on 7 February 2014.
The letter noted that on 8 February 2014 Mr Y. Nepoklonov acknowledged receipt of such
communication. The letter also referred to the additional information that Russia's veterinary
services were able to obtain in the meeting of 11 February 2014 in Vilnius.1844
9.15. On 26 February 2014, DG SANCO sent a fax to Russia's delegation in Brussels forwarding
information submitted by the Polish General Veterinary Inspectorate regarding certain interim
protective measures relating to ASF in Poland.1845 On the same day, DG SANCO sent a letter to the
head of FSVPS recalling the information sent to Russia up to that point, as well as a ma p
illustrating the European Union's regionalization for ASF in Lithuania and Poland, and Commission
Implementing Decisions 2014/93/EU of 14 February 2014 and 2014/100/EU of 18 February 2014
concerning certain protective measures relating to ASF in Lithuania and in Poland, respectively.1846
9.16. On 27 February 2014, FSVPS sent a letter to DG SANCO indicating that the European Union
was holding expert consultations with bodies of the Customs Union and the Eurasian Economic
Commission member states authorized in veter inary terms in respect of the amendment of the
veterinary certificates agreed in 2006 and the implementation of zoning and regionalization
measures in the European Union. The letter also indicated that a questionnaire had been
submitted in order to build an unbiased picture for the subsequent decision on regionalization. The
letter concluded indicating that following the expert consultation and reception of the answers to
the questionnaire submitted, the authorized bodies of the Customs Union would consider further
supplies of pigs and pork products from the EU member States to Russia.1847
9.17. On 3 March 2014, FSVPS sent a letter to DG SANCO referring to previous letters received
from DG SANCO on 7, 20, 25 and 26 February 2014. The letter indicated that "[u]nfortun ately the
approval of conditions of regionalisation in the EU is hindered by the fact that Russian experts are
still waiting to receive exhaustive information on anti -AFS [ASF] efforts undertaken by EU
veterinary authorities to contain the disease (in the affected countries) and to prevent the
introduction of AFSV [ASFV] into other neighbouring countries as well as other data for risk
assessment, as specified in the question list" that was "provided in the letter of 05 February
2014". The letter also noted that so far, FSVPS had received reply to only 5 out of 37 questions.
Moreover, the letter referred to the upcoming meeting in Vladimir and requested that the

1840 Communication of 18 February 2014: African swine fever (ASF) in Poland. Interim protective
measures (Exhibit EU-139).
1841 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/100/EU of 18 February 2014 concerning certain interim
protective measures relating to African swine fever in Poland, OJ L 50, p.35 (Exhibit EU-35).
1842 Communication of 18 February 2014: African swine fever (ASF) in Poland. Adoption of Interim
protective measures (Exhibit EU-140).
1843 Communication of 20 February 2014: African swine fever (ASF) in Poland (adoption of implementing
decision) (Exhibit EU-141).
1844 Letter of DG SANCO of 20 February 2014 (ref. SANCO/G7/PD/mh (2014) 450287 (Exhibit EU-175)
and Letter from DG SANCO to the Russian Veterinary Service, SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014) 450287, 20 February
2014 (Exhibit RUS-217).
1845 Communication of 26 February 2014: African swine fever (ASF) in Poland. Measures put in place in
the infected area (Exhibit EU-142).
1846 Letter from DG SANCO to the Russian Veterinary Service, SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014)542957, 26
February 2014 (Exhibit RUS-30).
1847 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to the French Veterinary Service, 27 February 2014, ФС-
НВ-8/2964 (Exhibit RUS-231).

European Union submit the required information concerning the items mentioned in the questions
in the list prior to such meeting.1848
9.18. On 5 March 2014, DG SANCO sent a fax to Russia's delegation in Brussels forwarding the
presentations made at the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on 4 March
2014 on the ASF situation in Lithuania and Poland, and in respect of the outcome of the mission of
the Community Veterinary Emergency Team to Poland. The fax includes a link to the dedicated
webpage where these presentations were available.1849 On the same day, the European Union sent
another fax to Russia's delegation in Brussels attaching a draft Commission Implementing Decision
concerning certain protective measures relating to ASF in Poland.1850
9.19. On 6 March 2014, DG SANCO sent a letter to the head of FSVPS referring to logistical
arrangements for a mee ting scheduled to take place on 7 March 2014. The letter also included a
table indicating the information that the European Union had provided to Russia in response to a
letter of 5 February 2014.1851
9.20. Table A3 below provides an overview of the information pr ovided by the European Union in
the above mentioned letter of 6 March 2014.
Table A3 Overview of information and explanations provided by 6 March 2014
Category of information Piece of information/Explanation
Detailed action plan of emergency response
at regional and national level in case of
African swine fever outbreak
- Indicated that information on contingency plans, including
audits from the Commission and measures improving the plans
had been provided.
- Noted that "the contingency plan of each country cannot be
provided as they contain confidential information".
Wild boar population with detailed density
by country and region
- Indicated that the reply was provided as regards Poland in the
Polish presentation to the Standing Committee on the Food
Chain and Animal Health on 4 March 2014.
- Indicated that further information on the wild boar density in
the European Union is available in FAO EMPRES Watch Vol. 28 of
May 2013, page 8 (provided a website link to the document).
Swine population in the industry sector and
personal subsidiary farming with detailed
density by country and region
- Indicated that information on the structure of the pig sector in
the EU has been already provided.
- Indicated that further information on the density of pigs in low
biosecurity holding in the European Union is available in FAO
EMPRES Watch Vol. 28 of May 2013, page 8 (provided a website
link to the document).
The number of swine and wild boars
monitoring investigations during 2013-
2014, detailed by region
- Indicated that reports on monitoring investigations in Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland had been provided because they
were the EU member States at risk.
- Explained that active laboratory surveillance in other EU
member States is not considered necessary given the limited
movements of wild boars; and that any suspicion of ASF is
compulsorily notifiable in all EU member States.
Detailed information about pig farms, swine
processing factories and semi-finished
products, graded by production volume.
- Explained that further detailed data, including per region, is
publicly available on the EUROSTAT website (provided a
dedicated webpage where such information could be accessed).
- Provided an example of the data for each EU member State on
pig holdings from such database on a pdf file entitled
"Pig_sector".
Regulatory acts, which provide for and
specify monitoring procedures and epidemic
investigations in cases of suspicion/
mortality/ disease (differential diagnostics)/
disposal of animals susceptible to ASF-
- Explained that Council Directive 2002/60/EC and the
diagnostics manual for ASF had been already provided.

1848 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to DG SANCO, FS-SD-8/3196, 3 March 2014 (Exhibit
RUS-137).
1849 Communication of 5 March 2014: African swine fever (ASF) in Lithuania and Poland – Presentations
on the situation (Exhibit EU-143).
1850 Communication of 5 March 2014: African swine fever (ASF) in Poland (Committee approval of
implementing decision) (Exhibit EU-144).
1851 European Union's letter to Russia of 6 March 2014, ARES(2014)601346,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh/(2014)630598 (Exhibit EU-86).

Category of information Piece of information/Explanation
swine and wild boars
Regulatory acts, providing for wild boar
hunting and further utilization of killed
animals (for food, as trophies): regulations
on export of wild boar meat and trophies,
number of killed animals and exported meat
and trophies during 2013- 2014 (for regions
adjacent to the infected zone)
- Explained that the rules applicable to the affected zones in the
European Union as regards hunting are included in the
documents mentioned in the previous point.
- Further explained that such information as regards unaffected
areas of the European Union is not relevant for the purposes of
approval of regionalization.
Information about measures taken/being
taken to prevent introduction of the
etiologic agent to the swine industry sector/
personal subsidiary farming sector/wild
population
- Explained that the information is included in the plans that had
already been made available (in respect of all EU member
States except Lithuania).
Description of measures taken / being
taken at the territories of the EU member
states, which are in the zone of the obvious
ASF risk (security/ border check points)
- Explained that the information is included in the plans that had
already been made available (in respect of Poland, Latvia, and
Estonia).
Description of the disease and sanitation
inspection process (indicating the
regulatory acts) and pre­export certification
at all the stages of production cycle
- Explained that Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004 defines the
official controls for the verification of compliance with the
European Union animal health rules and is applicable to all the
EU member States (provided a website link where the text of
the regulation could be accessed).
Description of measures taken / being
taken to control movement of live animals
and pig farming products
 - Explained that Council Directive 64/432/ECC defines the rules
for the movement of bovines and pigs in the European Union
(provided a website link where the text of the regulation could
be accessed).
Detailed information about foreign hunters,
who entered the country to hunt the wild
boar during 2013-2014 (including
information about the number and the
country of origin), detailed by country and
region
- Indicated that such information could not be given.
Detailed information about pig farms and
meat processing factories attested to ship
animals and products to the territory of the
CU, including information about the
suppliers (number, country, region) and
production volumes, detailed by country
and region
- Explained that information on the approved establishments for
export is already available to Russia's authorities.
- Further indicated that details on suppliers and production
volumes cannot be dispatched.
Rough estimation of enterprises attested to
ship animal products to the territory of the
CU, by level of zoosanitary condition,
equivalent to the previously conducted
evaluation of the Russian and Belarusian
enterprises, detailed by regions and graded
by production volume.
- Explained that this information cannot be compiled easily, and
lacks relevance for the purpose.

9.21. Also on 6 March 2014, DG SANCO sent a letter to the deputy head of FSVPS i nforming that
a European Union Veterinary Emergency Team would visit Lithuania on 12 -14 March 2014 in
relation to the detection of ASF, and invited Russia to nominate an expert to join the mission
team.1852 Attached to the letter DG SANCO sent a draft "Workin g Document on EU preventive
measures for ASF".1853
9.22. On 7 March 2014, experts from the European Union and Russia met in Vladimir. The
representatives of Russia and the European Union produced a protocol of such meeting, recording
the views of the parties expres sed. The representatives of the European Union reported on the
measures taken to localize and prevent further spread of ASF, and provided a map on which the
zones affected by ASF are marked. The European Union's experts further observed the strengths
of th e measures in place. Russia's experts made some remarks on the European Union's
measures. It is noteworthy that Russia's experts indicated, in respect of the questionnaire sent on
5 February 2014, that in "respond [sic] either outdated data on pig census f rom whole EU (until

1852 Letter of 6 March 2014 from the European Union to Russia, ARES(2014)605187, SANCO G7/PD/mh
(2014)640752 (Exhibit EU-87).
1853 The final version of which was exhibited as Exhibit EU-88.

2010) while updated information had been provided for Poland and Lithuania or insufficient
information was provided which does not allow to analyse the risks objectively." According to
Russia's experts that is an underestimation of outg oing risks. The European Union's expert
guaranteed that it would provide all non -confidential information requested by Russia as regards
contingency plans.1854
9.23. On 10 March 2014, DG SANCO sent a letter to the head of FSVPS referring to the exchanges
that took place in the course of the meeting of 7 March 2014 in Vladimir and seeking confirmation
of the meeting in Madrid scheduled for 14 March 2014. The letter noted that during the meeting in
Vladimir, "the European Commission has provided to your services all requested clarifications in
relation to the EU situation and measures for ASF demonstrating the safety of trade from the
unaffected areas of the EU."1855
9.24. On 12 March 2014, FSVPS sent a letter to DG SANCO indicating that the technical experts
did not have time to discuss certain matters during the meeting in Vladimir, namely (i) remarks on
the measures taken in Lithuania and Poland, which were made by the FGBU "VNIIZH" expert
participating in the investigation of sources of distribution of ASF within the group of immediate
response; (ii) availability of only situational response and lack of systematic approach by the
European Union to avoid further distribution of ASFV; (iii) absence of any proof of non-existence of
ASF in the territory of other EU member States ; and (iv) absence of any proof of impossibility of
getting meat of animals infected by ASFV in the production cycle of pork from other EU member
States. The letter further confirmed the meeting in Madrid.1856
9.25. On 13 March 2014, FSVPS sent a letter to DG SANC O regarding certain incidents of
"violations of veterinary rules" in connection with trade of certain products, supplied from
Lithuanian refrigeration plants, subject to veterinary control and surveillance because they were
produced in third countries or in the EU member States that do not have the right to export to the
Customs Union. In this respect, FSVPS requested that DG SANCO provide them with information
concerning "the EU enterprises which have been receiving pork products from Lithuanian and
Polish establishments or plants since the outbreaks of" ASF in Lithuania and Poland.1857
9.26. On 13 March 2014, DG SANCO sent a letter to the head of FSVPS referring to the questions
considered outstanding by Russia in respect of the information presented by the Europe an Union
during the meeting with Russia's experts on 7 March 2014. Attached to that letter, the European
Union provided a table listing the topics Russia consider remaining outstanding indicating the
answers provided during the meeting as well as evidence provided by the European Union.1858
9.27. Table A4 below provides a list of the information and explanations that the European Union
provided to Russia attached to the above mentioned letter dated 13 March 2014.
Table A4 Overview of information and explanations provided by the European Union on
13 March 2014
Category of information Piece of information/Explanation
Measures adopted to control
ASF in Poland
- Evidence was made available during on-the-spot-visit.
- Presentations from EU member States at the Standing Committee of Food
Chain and Animal Health (SCoFCAH).
- Evidence is available in full reports of the Community Veterinary Emergency
Team (CVET).
- Further evidence gathered in the second visit of CVET to Lithuania.
- Example of biosecurity applied in Poland in pictures taken by CVET
(annexed).
Emergency Plans for
emergency response to ASF
- Explanation on the approach to emergency response to ASF through
contingency plans.

1854 Protocol of technical meeting between the European Union and Russia of 7 March 2014 (Exhibit EU-
89).
1855 Letter of DG SANCO of 10 March 2014 (ref SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014)6591200) (Exhibit EU-173).
1856 Russia's letter to the European Union of 12 March 2014, FS-SD-4/3620 (Exhibit EU-90/Exhibit RUS-
135).
1857 Letter from Russian Veterinary Service, EC-AC-8/3671, 13 March 2014 (Exhibit RUS-209).
1858 European Union's letter to Russia of 13 March 2014, ARES(2014)709435,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014)745829 (Exhibit EU-91).

Category of information Piece of information/Explanation
outbreaks

- Example of audits by the European Union's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO)
for CFS contingency plan in Lithuania (provided through a website link).
- Example of application of Spanish ASF contingency plan (provided through a
website link).
- Measures put in place due to the risk posed by the presence of ASF in
countries neighbouring the European Union (Decision 2013/426/EU – Exhibit
RUS-349). Those measures were the object of FVO inspections (examples of
those audit reports were provided through website links).
Measures taken by non-
affected EU member States in
respect of ASF/Proof of non-
existence of ASF in non-
affected EU Member States

- Explanation of the passive surveillance applied in the European Union,
pursuant to Article 1.4.5 of the Terrestrial Code, to demonstrate absence of
ASF in the European Union in territories that are not high-risk not adjacent to
infected areas.
- Explanation that the evidence provided by the above referred surveillance
proves that the vast majority of the territory of the European Union complies
with the requirements in Article 1.4.6 paragraph 1(b) of the Terrestrial Code
to be considered historically free of ASF.
- Explanation that EU member States shall notify the presence or the
suspected presence of ASF to the competent authority that shall proceed to
fully investigate the suspicion (Directive 2002/60/EC).
- Explanation of the active surveillance put in place in Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland and information regarding reports on such programmes
(provided through website links).
- Explanation that active surveillance would be expanded in 2014 to other EU
member States adjacent to high risk areas, for example, Finland or Romania.
- Explanation that this surveillance approach has been applied to other
disease such as FMD, CSF, sheep pox etc., for which the European Union has
a free status recognised worldwide.
Absence of proof of
impossibility of getting meat
of animals infected by ASFV
in the production cycle of
pork from other EU member
States
- Explanation that the European Union's rules, fully in force in all EU member
States, guarantee for the EU and for third countries trading partners that it is
impossible to transmit ASF or any other similar disease like CSF by meat or
animals infected by ASFV in the production cycle of pork from other EU
member States.
- Reference to the attached "Working Document on EU preventive measures
for ASF" (SANCO/7073/2014/Rev1 (Exhibit EU-88)).
- Indication that the operation and implementation of relevant regulation is
regularly audited by FVO (with an website link where those reports could be
accessed).

9.28. On 17 March 2014, DG SANCO sent a fax to Russia's delegation in Brussels forwarding
Commission Implementing Decision 2014/134/EU of 12 March 2014 1859 concerning certain
protective measures relating to ASF in Poland.1860
9.29. On 19 March 2014, FSVPS sent a letter to DG SANCO referring to a teleconference between
FSVPS and DG SANCO that took place on 18 March 2014, in respect of ASF regionalization and
veterinary certificate redrafting. The letter noted that "[r]egrettably we c ould find no common
ground on the process of ASF regionalisation in the EU, and the issue of sufficiency of the EU reply
and of conclusive evidence that the rest of the EU is not affected by the disease." The letter also
noted that Belgium had been the onl y EU member State that had provided them with
"comprehensive answers to our questions about endemicity of ASF in the European Union".1861
9.30. On 27 March 2014, DG SANCO sent a fax to Russia's delegation in Brussels forwarding draft
Commission Implementing Decisi on concerning animal health control measures relating to ASF in
certain EU member States, adopted under the number C(2014)1979.1862

1859 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/134/EU of 12 March 2014 concerning certain protective
measures relating to African swine fever in Poland, OJ L 74, p.63 (Exhibit EU-36).
1860 Communication of 17 March 2014: African swine fever (ASF) in Poland (Publication of implementing
decision) (Exhibit EU-145).
1861 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to DG SANCO, FS-SD-8/4168, 19 March 2015 (Exhibit
RUS-130).
1862 Communication of 27 March 2014: Adoption of control measures relating to African swine fever in
certain Member States (Exhibit EU-146). See also Commission Implementing Decision of 27 March 20142,
014/178/EU (Exhibit EU-37).

9.31. On 2 April 2014, FSVPS sent a letter to DG SANCO indicating that "Russian experts are still
waiting to receive detailed inform ation on ASF -control measures which are being taken by EU
veterinary authorities, particularly arrangements for localisation of the disease in the affected
countries as well as preventing the introduction of the ASF virus in other EU countries ". The letter
also indicated that FVSPS had received no response to the request of information sent on 13 March
2014 regarding European Union traders that have received pork products originating in Lithuania
and Poland following the outbreaks. Moreover, the letter note d the concerns FSVPS had raised in
respect of the absence of veterinary borders within the European Union and the fact that DG
SANCO "cannot guarantee that fresh porcine meat from the ASF -affected EU countries will not
enter the production chain of finishe d food products exported to Russia." On that basis, the letter
concluded by informing of the decision to impose, as of 7 April 2014, temporary restrictions on the
exports of finished food products, except hot processed pet food for cats and dogs (with
processing temperature above 70 degree Celsius and processing time of more than 20 minutes)
from Lithuania and Poland to Russia.1863
9.32. On the same day, FSVPS sent a letter to DG SANCO observing, among other things, that the
"measures announced by the European Commi ssion seem ed insufficient to ensure ASF
regionalisation in the EU. Introducing restrictions in certain areas of Lithuania and Poland does not
effectively prevent the risk of further spread of ASFV."1864
9.33. On 4 April 2014, DG SANCO sent a letter to the deputy head of FSVPS (Mr Saurin) reporting
on developments related to incidents of suspected violations of Russian import conditions. In
addition, the letter provided information concerning the list of establishments approved for the
storage of animal by-products not intended for human consumption.1865
9.34. On 10 April 2014, FSVPS sent a letter to the Chief Veterinary Officer of Poland requesting
information for evaluating the effectiveness of the control measures to contain the ASF outbreak
and prevent its further spread. The following information was requested: (i) a number of
surveillance studies conducted in March and April 2014 in order to detect ASFV in domestic pig
populations (in the private and industrial sectors) and in wild boar populations within the
quarantine and buffer zones (both in absolute numbers and proportionally in the total number of
susceptible wild and domestic animals in the herd); (ii) a number of surveillance studies conducted
in March and April 2014 in order to detect ASFV in domestic pig populat ions (in the private and
industrial sectors) and in wild boar populations within administrative territories which are adjacent
to the quarantine and buffer zones (both in absolute numbers and proportionally in the total
number of susceptible wild and domes tic animals in the herd); and, (iii) volumes of deliveries of
pork and ready -to-eat products containing pork from the Lithuanian enterprises located in the
quarantine and buffer zones to any enterprises located outside these zones, including in other
European Union countries.1866
9.35. On 18 April 2014, FSVPS sent a letter to the Director of State Food and Veterinary Service
of Lithuania indicating that in order to consider lifting the temporary restrictions on importation of
certain finished pork products FSVPS was ready to carry out within two months an inspection of
the Lithuanian animal product manufacturing establishments interested in exporting products to
the Customs Union member states.1867
9.36. On 16 May 2014, FSVPS sent a letter to DG SANCO expressing its regret th at the European
Union had not provided the information concerning "additional risks" as noted by Russia's experts
at the Vladimir meeting on 7 March 2014. The letter further noted that due to that, FVSPS would
like to remind DG SANCO of the need to provide information on the following issues:
(i) Justification of criteria of identification of borders of infected/free/high risk zones in the territory
of Poland and Lithuania, namely regulatory and legislative acts and scientific data used as a basis
for zonin g in the EU member States with regard to ASF; (ii) cartographical visualization of the

1863 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to DG SANCO, FS-EN-8/5084, 2 April 2015 (Exhibit
RUS-54)
1864 Russia's letter to the European Union of 2 April 2014, FS-EN-8/5095 (Exhibit RUS-53).
1865 Letter from DG SANCO to the Russian Veterinary Service, SANCO/G7/PD/mh (2014) 1055360, 4
April 2015 (Exhibit RUS-56).
1866 Russia's letter to Poland of 10 April 2014, FS-NV-8/5827 (Exhibit RUS-240).
1867 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to DG SANCO, FS-AS-8/6360, 18 April 2014 (Exhibit
RUS-138.b revised).

establishments attested to supply live pigs and swine products from the EU member States
(Poland and Lithuania, in particular) to Russia with indication of the raw mater ial bases of these
establishments; (iii) zoo sanitary status of small farms (due to the number of them in the
territories of the infected/high risk zones with regard to ASF) and measure of their bio protection
(possibility of free range, feed base, the reg ime of introducing the newly arrived animals in the
herd, etc.); (iv) whether there were plans to implement surveillance programmes (ASF early
detection) in the EU member States neighbouring Poland and Lithuania in view of the change in
the ASF epizootic situation in these two countries; (v) data on internal evaluation by the veterinary
services of the EU member States of resources (human, technical, financial ones) needed for the
creation and maintenance of above mentioned zones; (vi) data on functional is olation of sub -
populations of domestic and wild animals in zones with the proves of the absence of
migration/seasonal movements of wild boars between the zones; and (vii) Data on the presence of
the ASF vector in the EU member States.1868
9.37. On 21 May 2014, DG S ANCO sent a letter to the deputy head of FSVPS (Mr Nepoklonov)
with follow-up information requested by Russia in the framework of consultations held on 30 April
and 1 May 2014. The letter refers to European Union's communications sent on 7 February and 13
March 2014, and clarifies certain information requested by Russia. The letter states "I trust that
the Russian Federation will now be in a position not only to properly assess the regionalisation
measures of the European Union, but more pressingly, to allow the export of pigs and pig products
to the Russian Federation to resume without delay".1869
9.38. Table A5 below provides a list of the information and explanations that the European Union
provided to Russia attached to the above mentioned letter dated 21 May 2014.
Table A5 Overview of information and explanations provided by the European Union on
21 May 2014
Category of information Piece of information/Explanation
Further information or
clarification to Russia's
request to provide a detailed
action plan of emergency
response
- Clarification that contingency plans are set up individually at the EU member
State level. Recalls that information on those contingency plans was provided
with the letter of 7 February 2014.
- Provided a copy of the contingency plans of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and
Estonia, indicating that all sensitive information had been removed from them.
- Recalled that in the letter of 7 February 2014 the European Union had
already provided comprehensive information in respect contingency planning
in the other 24 EU member States.
- Recalled that in the letter of 13 March 2014 the European Union sent the
contingency plan of Spain, which could serve as an example of the methods
and actions that make up the contingency plans used throughout the
European Union.
Further information regarding
wild boar population data,
with detailed density by
country and region
- Recalled that in the letter of 6 March 2014 a map based on a published FAO
study (covering 2005-2011) was forwarded with estimated densities of wild
boar population in Europe, by region.
- Provided an updated table (apparently as of 2014) with estimated wild board
population in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
Detailed information about
pig farms and information
about swine population with
detailed density by region

- Recalled the spread-sheet with data on the number of farms and heads by
agricultural size of farm and size of pig herd for 27 EU member States, as of
2010, that was provided with the letter of 7 February 2014.
- Provided a table with pigs kept on holdings as of December 2013 for all the
28 EU member States.
- Provided a table with the number of pig holdings as of 2010 for all 28 EU
member States. The letter indicates that this information is collected every
three years and 2010 was the last time it was done.
- Provided tables with more detailed information on swine populations in
Lithuania and Poland updated to 2014, based on their Control and
Surveillance Programmes.
Further information on
measures taken to prevent
the introduction of ASF
- Recalled the information provided in respect of control and surveillance
programmes of ASF in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland in 2013, sent
with the letter of 7 February 2014.
- Provided the plans with the control and surveillance activities foreseen in

1868 Russia's letter to the European Union of 16 May 2014, FS-EN-8/7999 (Exhibit EU-93).
1869 European Union's letter to Russia of 21 May 2014, ARES(2014)1658269,
SANCO/G6/AB(2014)1782253 (Exhibit EU-92).

Category of information Piece of information/Explanation
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland in 2014.
Information on foreign
hunters who entered the
country to hunt wild boar
during 2013-2014
- Explained the regulatory framework applicable to the treatment of carcasses
of wild boar, wild boar meat, wild boar products and trophies, including
movement restrictions.
- Indicated the irrelevance, against this backdrop, of information about
individual hunters who entered the country to hunt wild boar.
Information about pig farms
and meat processing factories
attested to ship animals and
products to the territory of
the Customs Union
Pig population (farms
and pigs)
The letter refers to the information sent with the
letter of 7 February 2014 and indicates that an
update of that information with more exhaustive
information was provided in that communication.
Establishments The letter refers to the information sent with the
letter of 7 February 2014 and indicates that such
information is available to Russian authorities through
their dedicated webpage.
Suppliers of pig meat
to establishments
Explains the clear prohibitions on the dispatch and
supply of live pigs and pig meat from the legally
defined infected areas, as provided in Article 8 of
Commission Implementing Decision 2014/178/EU.

9.39. On 5 June 2014, FSVPS sent a letter to the Director of the State Food and Veterinary
Service of Lithuania indicating the names of Russia's experts that would participate on a joint
inspection at the Lithuanian plants pr oducing products and willing to export their products to
Customs Union member states. That inspection was scheduled to take place for 7 -days starting on
15 June 2014. The inspection would cover: plants producing ready -to-eat meat products, the
epizootic situation in Lithuania, and effectiveness of the measures taken by the veterinary services
of Lithuania to monitor ASF and to prevent its spread.1870
9.40. On 13 June 2014, DG SANCO sent a letter to the deputy head of FSVPS (Mr Nepoklonov)
with follow-up information requested by Russia through a letter sent to the European Union on 16
May 2014. The letter refers to the European Union's communications sent to FSVPS on 7 February,
6 and 13 March 2014, and 21 May 2014, and provides certain explanations and information in
respect of the information requested by Russia. The letter underlines that the epidemiological
situation of ASF in the European Union remains unchanged, because since February 2014 only two
further ASF cases were discovered in wild boar in Poland.1871
9.41. Table A6 below provides a list of the information and explanations that the European Union
provided to Russia attached to the above mentioned letter dated 13 June 2014.
Table A6 Overview of information and explanations provided by the European Union on
13 June 2014
Category of information Piece of information/Explanation
Justification of criteria of identification of
borders of ASF infected/free/high risk zones
in the territory of Poland and Lithuania
Provided an explanation of the scientific data, including the
home range of wild boars, taken into account in the definition
of zones.
Cartographical visualization of the
establishments attested to supply live pigs
and swine products from the EU member
States (Poland and Lithuania, in particular) to
Russia with indication of the raw material
bases of these establishments
Referred to the responses it had provided through its letter of
21 May 2014 in respect to the information about pig farms and
meat processing factories attested to ship animals and
products to the territory of the CU, including information about
suppliers and production volumes, detailed by country and
region (last item in TableA5 above).
Zoo sanitary status of small farms (due to the
big number of them in the territories of the
infected/high risk zones with regard to ASF)
and measures of their bio protection
(possibility of free range, feed base, the
regime of introducing the newly arrived
animals in the herd, etc.).
Explained that in accordance with the Terrestrial Code, the
animal health status of farms/holdings, independently of their
size, as regards ASF is defined by the status of the zone where
they are located. This may be either infected/restricted or free
from disease. Assigning such a status to individual farms -
regardless of where they are located - does not exist in the
Terrestrial Code, nor as a consequence, in European Union
legislation.
Whether it is foreseen to plan and implement Explained that as general rule, non-specific or passive

1870 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to the Director of the State Food and Veterinary Service
of the republic of Lithuania, FS-NV-8/9668, 5 June 2014 (Exhibit RUS-355).
1871 European Union's letter to Russia of 13 June 2014, ARES(2014)1941949,
SANCO/G7/PD/mh(2014)2038505 (Exhibit EU-94).

Category of information Piece of information/Explanation
surveillance programmes (ASF early
detection) in the European Union countries
neighbouring Poland and Lithuania in view of
the change in the ASF epizootic situation in
these two countries.
surveillance is applied all over the European Union. ASF –
targeted (active) surveillance is applied where there is a
differentiated risk, such as in the territories or countries that
neighbour infected countries. In 2013, surveillance was
implemented in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
Further explained that in 2014, as a result of the detected
cases, surveillance in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
was further intensified. Such surveillance is also being
intensified in other EU member States countries who consider
themselves to be at risk, due to their close proximity to the
border with Russia, Belarus and/or Ukraine.
Data on internal evaluation by the veterinary
services of the EU countries of resources
(human, technical, financial ones) needed for
the creation and maintenance of above
mentioned zones.
Responded that there is a systematic evaluation of the
veterinary services of each EU member State through audits
by the FVO. The necessary human, technical and financial
resources are made available as required. Detailed reports of
the audits conducted to date are publicly available through the
FVO dedicated web page (the letter provides a website link
where those reports could be accessed).
Data on functional isolation of sub-
populations of domestic and wild animals in
zones with proof of the absence of
migration/seasonal movements of wild boars
between the zones.
Referred to the EFSA scientific papers that were sent to Russia
with the letter dated 7 February 2014, according to which wild
boars do not migrate and that movements of these animals
between areas is very limited.
Observed that the risk of contact between domestic and wild
animals in the infected areas exists, but that this is the reason
for which restrictive measures have been applied on the
movements of domestic pigs from the affected areas. The
European Union pointed out that intensive surveillance
continues to confirm the absence of the disease in farms.
Data on the presence of the ASF vector in the
European Union countries.
Explained that it does not have available data yet for the
infected areas of its territory and that concerns about vectors
in case of ASF relate to their role in the persistence of the
infection in already affected areas, thus, any question about
the presence of vectors in this case, is in the European Union's
view with no relevance as regards areas unaffected by ASF.

9.42. On 26 June 2014, DG SANCO sent a fax to Russia's delegation in Brussels informing the
confirmation of ASF in a backyard pig holding in Kraslava district and in three wild boars found
dead in Dagda district in Latvia, at the border w ith Belarus and forwarding a communication from
Latvia's Food and Veterinary Service. The fax indicated that measures in accordance with Council
Directive 2002/60/EC were being implemented and that ASF had been confirmed in the area that
was already under restriction because of CSF established in Latvia (Commission Implementing
Decision 2013/764/EU).1872
9.43. On 27 June 2014, DG SANCO sent a fax to Russia's delegation in Brussels forwarding the
draft Commission Implementing Decision adopted on that day concerning c ertain interim
protective measures relating to ASF in Latvia. 1873 On 1 July 2014, DG SANCO sent a fax to
Russia's delegation in Brussels forwarding the Commission Implementing Decision 2014/417/EU
adopted on 27 June 2014, the draft of which it had sent on 27 June 2014, concerning certain
interim protective measures relating to ASF in Latvia.1874
9.44. On 30 June 2014, FSVPS sent a letter to DG SANCO indicating that in the light of the
continuing spread of ASF throughout the European Union, specifically referring to t he outbreaks in
wild boar and domestic pigs in Latvia, believed that consideration of amending the veterinary

1872 Communication of 26 June 2014: African swine fever (ASF) detection in Latvia (Exhibit EU-147).
1873 Communication of 27 June 2014: African swine fever (ASF) in Latvia – Adoption of interim
protective measures (Exhibit EU-148).
1874 Communication of 1 July 2014: African Swine fever (ASF) in domestic pigs and in wild boar in Latvia
Commission Implementing Decision 2014/417/EU of 27 June 2014 (Exhibit EU-206). See also Commission
Implementing Decision 2014/417/EU of 27 June 2014 concerning certain interim protective measures relating
to African swine fever in Latvia, OJ L 192, p.66 (Exhibit EU-38).

certificates of certain pork products should be postponed. The letter concludes referring to it being
practicable to organize consultations on the issue as soon as possible.1875
9.45. On 7 July 2014, DG SANCO sent a fax to Russia's delegation in Brussels informing of the
confirmation of ASF in five dead wild boars found at Poland's border with Belarus. The fax
forwarded the corresponding report of Poland's V eterinary Inspection and indicated that these
cases had occurred within the restricted area listed in Part II of the Annex to Commission
Implementing Decision 2014/178/EU.1876
9.46. On 8 July 2014, DG SANCO sent a fax to Russia's delegation in Brussels forwarding the draft
Commission Implementing Decision adopted on that day under number C(2014)4925, listing
certain regions in Latvia affected by ASF in Part I and Part II of the Annex to Decision
2014/178/EU.1877 On the same day, DG SANCO sent a fax to Russia's delegati on in Brussels
informing the confirmation of ASF in six wild boars found near Poland's border with Belarus. The
fax forwarded the corresponding report of Poland's Veterinary Inspection and indicated that these
cases had occurred within the restricted area listed in Part II of the Annex to Commission
Implementing Decision 2014/178/EU.1878
9.47. On 9 July 2014, DG SANCO sent a fax to Russia's delegation in Brussels providing a map
displaying the areas as presented in the updated Annex to Commission Implementing Decisi on
2014/178/EU concerning animal health control measures relating to ASF in certain EU member
States.1879
9.48. On 10 July 2014, DG SANCO sent a fax to Russia's delegation in Brussels forwarding
Commission Implementing Decision 2014/448/EU, adopted on 8 July 2014, amending the Annex to
Commission Implementing Decision 2014/178/EU as regards ASF in Latvia.1880
9.49. On 22 July 2014, DG SANCO sent a fax to Russia's delegation in Brussels informing of the
confirmation of one ASF outbreak in domestic pigs and a positive case in wild boar in the novads of
Valkas. The fax forwarded the corresponding report of Latvia's Food and Veterinary Service and
indicated that these cases had been confirmed outside the restricted area listed in Part I and Part
II of the Annex to Commission Implementing Decision 2014/178/EU.1881
9.50. On 24 July 2014, DG SANCO sent a fax to Russia's delegation in Brussels informing of a
strong suspicion of ASF in a commercial pig farm located in Rupinskai village in the Kazitiskis sub -
district within Ignalina district i n the eastern part of Lithuania close to the border with Belarus. 1882
On the same day, DG SANCO sent a fax to Russia's delegation in Brussels informing about the
confirmation of ASF in one holding with domestic pigs located in the Ignalina region in Lithuania
and forwarded the corresponding report of Lithuania's State Food and Veterinary Service. The fax
indicated that the outbreak had been confirmed outside the restricted area listed in Part I and Part
II of the Annex to Commission Implementing Decision 2014/ 178/EU.1883 Also on 24 July 2014, DG

1875 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to the EU Veterinary Service, 30 June 2014, ФС-СД-
8/11415 (Exhibit RUS-250).
1876 Communication of 7 July 2014: African swine fever (ASF) in wild boar in Poland in the restricted
area listed in Part II of the Annex to Decision 2014/178/EU (Exhibit EU-186).
1877 Communication of 8 July 2014: Adoption of Commission Implementing Decision amending Decision
2014/178/EU as regards African swine fever in Latvia (Exhibit EU-207). See also Commission Implementing
Decision of 8 July 2014, 2014/448/EU (Exhibit EU-39).
1878 Communication of 8 July 2014: African swine fever (ASF) in wild boar in Poland in the restricted
area listed in Part II of the Annex to Decision 2014/178/EU (Exhibit EU-208).
1879 Communication of 9 July 2014: Epidemiological update and map displaying regionalisation set out in
Decision 2014/178/EU, as last amended, as regards African swine fever (Exhibit EU-209).
1880 Communication of 10 July 2014: Publication of Decision amending Commission Implementing
Decision 2014/178/EU as regards African swine fever regionalisation (Exhibit EU-210). See also Commission
Implementing Decision of 8 July 2014, 2014/448/EU (Exhibit EU-39).
1881 Communication of 22 July 2014: African Swine Fever in Latvia (Exhibit EU-187).
1882 Fax, SANCO/G2/FR/is (2014) 2721683, 24 July 2014 (Exhibit RUS-326).
1883 Fax, SANCO/G2/FB/is (2014) 2728623, 24 July 2014 (Exhibit RUS-327).

SANCO sent another fax with the draft Commission Implementing Decision adopted that day
concerning certain interim protective measures relating to ASF in Lithuania.1884
9.51. On 28 July 2014, DG SANCO sent a letter to FSVPS report ing on the confirmed ASF
outbreak in Ignalina region in Lithuania, inviting Russian authorities to participate in the EU
Emergency Team that would visit Lithuania on 30 -31 July. Attached to the letter the European
Union sent draft Implementing Decisions revising the annex of Commission Implementing Decision
2014/178/EU.1885 On the same day DG SANCO sent a fax to Russia's delegation in Brussels
forwarding Commission Implementing Decision 2014/502/EU of 24 July 2014 concerning certain
interim protective measures relating to ASF in Lithuania.1886
9.52. On 29 July 2014, FSVPS sent a letter to DG SANCO pointing out that, among other things,
reports of ASF outbreaks in domestic pigs in areas of Latvia and Lithuania located outside the
"quarantine zones" confirms the inefficiency of the preventive measures approved by the European
Commission. The letter further noted that there is clear evidence of additional risks mentioned by
Russia's experts at the meeting held on 7 March 2014, related to the possibility that infected meat
may enter the pork production chain. The letter concluded by observing that the worsening
epizootic situation in the European Union, as well as the absence of conclusive evidence of
sufficient supervision and proper functioning of the determined zones, "cur rently preclude the
Russian Federation from accepting the EU regionalization terms, proposed by the European
Commission at the meeting held on 4 July 2014 in Moscow, as well as from pronouncing the entire
EU territory free from AFS [ASF]."1887
9.53. On 31 July 2014 , FVSPS sent a letter to DG SANCO indicating that due to the worsening
epizootic situation in the EU member States and the growing number of outbreaks reported
outside the "quarantine zones", they require an updated proposal regarding regionalization in the
European Union. Moreover, based on the ASF outbreak at one of Lithuania's biggest pig -breeding
farms located outside of the "quarantine" area, FSVPS requested that DG SANCO send "an update
on whether the European Commission has introduced any additional measures restricting the
movement of live animals and livestock products outside of the quarantine areas and in the EU
territory."1888
9.54. On 26 September 2014, DG SANCO sent a letter to FSVPS in connection with a new case of
ASF in a wild boar near the border between Estonia and Russia, located in Ida-Viru county, around
40 km from Russia's border and 220 km from the closest outbreak in Estonia. The letter underlines
that "[w]e are particularly concerned regarding the possible origin of this case, in particular taking
into account that so far investigations indicate no epidemiological link with other cases or
outbreaks in the EU".1889
9.55. On 13 October 2014, FSVPS sent a letter to DG SANCO in response to the letter of 26
September 2014. This letter indicates that the co nclusion regarding the introduction of ASF
through the Leningrad region into Estonia is not sufficiently grounded. In that respect, the letter
referred to the notifications Russia provided to the OIE in respect of the number of outbreaks and
controls measures put in place in that area. The letter also noted that increasing ASF spread within
the affected EU member States caused by non -controlled movement of animal products from the
affected foci and due to absence of rigid measures to control wildlife, and u nderlined the benefits
of compartmentalization for safe trade.1890

1884 Fax, SANCO/G2/FB/is (2014) 2729207, 24 July 2014 (Exhibit RUS-328). See also Commission
Implementing Decision of 24 July 2014, 2014/502/EU (Exhibit EU-40).
1885 Exhibits RUS-133 and RUS-380.
1886 Fax, SANCO/G2/MP/kh (2014) 2759647, 28 July 2014 (Exhibit RUS-330). See also Commission
Implementing Decision of 24 July 2014, 2014/502/EU (Exhibit EU-40).
1887 Russia's letter to the European Union of 29 July 2014, C-EH-8/13771 (Exhibit RUS-263).
1888 Russia's letter to the European Union of 31 July 2014, EH-8/14006 (Exhibit RUS-157).
1889 Exhibits EU-177 and RUS-191. This letter refers to letters sent by DG SANCO to FSVPS on 1 and 10
July 2014 (both contained in Exhibits EU-177 and RUS-191) concerning the potential links between the ASF
situation in Russia and in the affected EU member States (at that time, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland).
1890 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to DG SANCO, FS-EN-8/19574, 13 October 2015 (Exhibit
RUS-39).

9.56. On 1 December 2014, FSVPS sent a letter to DG SANCO indicating that the process of
discussion of veterinary certificates and resumption of trade in breeding pigs and pork products is
getting "protracted" due to the European Union's failure to provide sufficient information required
for the objective assessment of risks associated with the spread of ASF in the EU member States.
The letter also referred to the European Union's unwillingness to fo llow compartmentalization as
provided in the Terrestrial Code. Moreover, the letter requested that the European Union provide
detailed information in respect of particular list of questions. 1891 Such questions are listed in
Table A7 below.
Table A7 Questions attached to FSVPS's letter of 1 December 2014
No. Question
1 Please provide the ASF early detection and contingency plan for each EU member State. For each plan
which has been implemented in response to the current epizootic situation, provide evidence of the
effectiveness of that plan and explain the steps officials are taking to actively enforce the plan. Discuss
the budget for enforcement, the number of inspection personnel, reports of successful elimination of
ASF, and plans to increase resources dedicated to enforcement.
2 Please provide detailed information regarding monitoring/surveillance of wild boars in each EU member
State.
3 Please provide the characteristics of the population of wild boars in each EU member State, including
detailed data on the density of the wild boar population in each region of each EU member State.
4 Please provide data regarding the role of wild boars in the spread of ASF in EU member States, including
evidence regarding the functional isolation, migration, and seasonal movements of sub-populations of
wild boars between different EU member States.
5 Please provide detailed information regarding the measures taken by each EU member State to prevent
the trans-boundary spread of ASF in the European Union. For each measure, provide data demonstrating
its effectiveness and explain the steps officials are taking to actively enforce this measure.
6 Please provide detailed information regarding the measures taken by each EU member State to prevent
the trans-boundary spread of ASF through the movement of wild boars in the EU. For each measure,
provide data demonstrating its effectiveness and explain steps officials are taking to actively enforce this
measure.
7 Please provide detailed information on measures intended to prevent the spread of ASF to/from small
and average-sized farms and farms/facilities with low level protection (e.g., premises where pigs are not
indoors) in each EU member State. For each measure, provide data demonstrating its effectiveness and
explain the steps officials are taking to actively enforce this measure.
8 Please explain how each EU member State control and monitors the movement of foreign hunters and
the hunting of wild boars by foreign hunters. Provide data on the movements of foreign hunters between
different ASF risk zones in the European Union.
9 Please provide detailed information regarding the measures taken by each EU member State to prevent
the trans-boundary spread of ASF through the movement of foreign hunters and hunting-related
carcasses and trophies in the European Union. For each measure, provide data demonstrating its
effectiveness and explain the steps officials are taking to actively enforce this measure.
10 Please provide data regarding the role of ticks in the spread of ASF in EU member States, including data
regarding their distribution and host preferences.
11 Please provide detailed information regarding the measures taken by each EU member State to prevent
the trans-boundary spread of ASF through tick in the European Union. For each measure, provide data
demonstrating its effectiveness and explain the steps officials are taking to actively enforce this
measure.
12 Please provide detailed information regarding the measures taken by each EU member State to control
and monitor the raw materials (e.g., animals for slaughterhouses, carcasses for meat production plants)
used by companies that supply live swine and pork products to Russia. Provide evidence that these raw
materials are not sourced from ASF infected/high risk zones.
13 Please explain whether companies in the European Union that supply live swine and pork products to
Russia revised their raw material sourcing plans as a result of the changed epizootic situation in the
European Union.
14 Please provide justification for the criteria used to identify borders of ASF infected / free \ high risk
zones. Explain whether these criteria should be applied to other EU member States.
15 Please explain what regulations and research findings underlie principles of ASF zoning in EU member
States.
16 Please provide detailed information regarding the measures taken by each EU member State to stamp
out ASF. For each measure, provide data demonstrating its effectiveness and explain the steps officials
are taking to actively enforce this measure. Discuss the budget for enforcement, the number of
inspection personnel, reports of successful elimination of ASF, and plans to increase resources dedicated
to enforcement. For each EU member State that has not taken measures to stamp out ASF, explain
whether these EU member States have prepared plans to stamp out ASF and provide us with all such

1891 Exhibit Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to DG SANCO, No. FS-AS-8/23743, 1 December
2015 (RUS-131).

No. Question
plans.
17 Please provide detailed information regarding the measures taken by each EU member State to prevent
the spread of ASF through the slaughter of ASF-infected swine. For each measure, provide data
demonstrating its effectiveness and explain the steps officials are taking to actively enforce this
measure.
18 Please provide detailed information regarding the measures taken by each EU member State to prevent
the spread of ASF through the improper destruction/disposal of carcasses of ASF-infected swine. For
each measure, provide data demonstrating its effectiveness and explain the steps officials are taking to
actively enforce this measure.
19 Please provide detailed information on the procedures each EU member State has in place to control and
monitor the burial sites of ASF-infected swine. Explain the steps officials are taking to ensure that these
procedures are followed.
20 Please provide detailed information regarding the procedures each EU member State has in place
concerning the cleaning and disinfection of premises on which ASF-infected swine were located. Explain
the steps officials are taking to ensure that these procedures are followed.
21 Please provide data regarding the role of the following factors in the spread of ASF in EU member
States: frozen meat; chilled meat; skin fat; vehicles used to transport ASF infected swine/products;
smoked meat; fermented meat; vehicles driven through ASF-infected areas; people involved in pig-
keeping; slurry; animal feed; litter; fomites; vegetables; crops; pests (e.g. rodents); pets; hay and
straw; and insects.
22 Please provide detailed information regarding the measures taken by each EU member State to prevent
the trans-boundary spread of ASF in the European Union through the factors listed in Question 21
above. For each measure, provide data demonstrating its effectiveness and explain the steps officials
are taking to actively enforce this measure.
23 Data on measures being taken/taken for prevention of ASF introduction in the industrial pig
farms/backyard pig farms/wild population, on measures being taken/taken in the EU member States
(checkpoints/BIPs) as well as information describing procedure of veterinary and sanitary inspection and
pre-export certification at all stages along the whole production chain.
24 In view of a large number of small farms (pig population under 200 animals) in ASF infected / high risk
zones the animal health status of these farms should be clarified as well as biosecurity measures taken
there (feasibility of free range, feed supply, procedure of new-coming animal introduction in the herd).
25 Map location of plants approved for exportation of live pigs and pork products into Russia along with
indication of sources of raw materials.
26 Description of measures being taken/taken for movement control of live animals and pork products,
aspects of traceability of feed, equipment and tools (including used ones), approaches to passive/active
surveillance of susceptible animal populations.
27 What is the procedure for ASF differential diagnosis in case of salmonellosis, erysipelas, classical swine
fever and Aujesky's? Statistical data (number of disease suspects/confirmed cases).
28 Submit contact details of the competent authority in the EU member States responsible for
establishment of zones with different ASF status (for each country).
29 Was evaluation of performance of veterinary service (PVS) performed (human, technical, financial and
other resources) in the EU member States including evaluation of the competent authorities responsible
for establishment of zones with different ASF status for each country?
30 What criteria / factors are used to evaluate PVS in the EU member States and their equivalence with the
OIE recommended criteria for evaluation of performance of veterinary services (OIE PVS Tool)?
31 ASF emergency plans including data on staff number and logistics.

9.57. On 19 Dece mber 2014, FSVPS sent a letter to DG SANCO addressing the ASF situation in
Estonia. Through the letter FSVPS request that DG SANCO provide detailed information on the
epizootic research of the outbreak, as well as a detailed description of the measures imp lemented
in Estonia to prevent the spread of ASF into the neighbouring disease-free regions of Russia.1892
9.58. On 23 December 2014, DG SANCO sent a letter to FSVPS in response to Russia's letter
dated 1 December 2014 requesting additional information in relation to ASF. The letter refers to
the communications sent by DG SANCO to FSVPS on 7 February, 6 and 13 March, 21 May, and 13
June of 2014. The letter observed the following in respect of the first three of these five
communications, "I am confident that this in formation is more than sufficient to allow your
services to conclude on the safety of pigs and their products, originating in unaffected areas of the
EU". The letter concluded that it was surprising that Russia had submitted a new set of questions
despite the fact that during the last five months they had not provided any feedback on the
European Union's latest responses as requested by Russia, and that Russia was claiming once

1892 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service to the Director of Veterinary and International Affairs,
European Commission, HB-8/25328, 19 December 2014 (Exhibit RUS-379).

again that the European Commission had not provided all the information needed t o carry out a
risk assessment.1893
9.59. On 19 March 2015, FSVPS sent a letter to DG SANTE requesting an explanation on the
procedure of notification of outbreaks of animal diseases by EU member States to the OIE. The
letter explained that such request is based on certain doubts that FSVPS has in respect of the
manner in which competent authorities in Estonia notify new outbreaks in wild boars. According to
the letter, the "approach of the Estonian service prevents a comprehensive assessment of the ASF
spread in the wild".1894
9.60. On 24 March 2015, DG SANTE sent to FSVPS a letter referring to the European Union's
previous communications and providing answers to the questions sent by Russia in the attachment
to letter FS -AS-8/24743 dated 1 December 2014. The letter include s a description of what
information had already been provided by the European Union in its communications of 7
February, 6 and 13 March, 21 May, and 13 June 2014, as well as additional information
complementing the information already provided to Russia.1895
9.61. Table A8 below provides an overview of the information provided by the European Union in
the above mentioned communication of 24 March 2015. In addition, this communication had
attached the eradication plans for Lithuania1896 and Poland.1897
Table A8 Overview of information and explanations provided by the European Union on
24 March 2015
Category of information Information already provided Additional information
ASF early detection and
contingency plan for each EU
member State, including
evidence of the effectiveness
of the plan, steps for its
enforcement, budget,
staffing, reports of successful
elimination of ASF, and plans
to increase resources
dedicated to enforcement.
Through the letter of 7 February
2014, the following information was
provided: (i) general information on
development and content of
contingency plans; (ii) presentation
from a Better Training for Safer Food
training on the operation of
contingency plans; (iii) FVO audit
reports on contingency planning in
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Poland; (iv) examples of audits in
other EU member States; and (v)
FVO presentation on contingency
planning.
Through the letter of 13 March 2013,
the following information was
provided: (i) ASF contingency plan of
Spain; and (ii) FVO audit report in
Lithuania.
Through the letter of 21 May 2014,
general information on contingency
plans and the ASF contingency plan
of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Poland was provided.

The European Union explained that
sufficient information had already
been provided to Russia.
The letter also indicated that during
the consultations in Geneva on 30
April to 1 May 2014, it was agreed
that only contingency plans of ASF
affected countries were relevant.

1893 Letter from DG SANCO to the Russian Veterinary Service, SANCO/G7/PD/mh (2014) 4703183, 23
December 2014 (Exhibit RUS-132).
1894 Letter from Russian Veterinary Service to the European Union Veterinary Service, FS-EN-8/4220, 19
March 2015 (Exhibit RUS-153).
1895 Letter of 24 March 2015 from the EU to Russia, Ref. Ares(2015)1284836 (Exhibit RUS-154) and
Letter from DG SANTE to FSVPS
Ref. Ares(2015)1284836 - 24/03/2015; EU's replies to the questionnaire sent by FSVPS with the letter
FS-AS-8/23743 dated 1 December 2014 (Exhibit RUS-167).
1896 Eradication plan of African swine fever in feral pigs in certain areas of Lithuania (communicated to
Russia on 24 March 2015) (Exhibit EU-101) and ASF Eradication plan for African swine Fever in wild boars in
the Southern part of Lithuania, June 2014 (Exhibit RUS-156).
1897 Eradication plan of African swine fever in feral pigs in certain areas of Poland (communicated to
Russia on 24 March 2015) (Exhibit EU-102) and the Polish plan of measures in order to eradicate African Swine
Fever in wild boar in infected area and buffer zone developed on the basis of Article 16 of the Council Directive
2002/60/EC. Ref. Areas (2015) 1284836 – 24/03/2015 (Exhibit RUS-149).

Category of information Information already provided Additional information
Detailed information
regarding
monitoring/surveillance of
wild boars in each EU
member State
Through the letter of 7 February
2014, the 2013 ASF control and
surveillance programmes of Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland was
provided.
Through the letter of 21 May 2014,
the 2014 ASF control and
surveillance programmes of Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland were
provided.
Provided website links to DG SANTE's
dedicated webpage with the most
updated data from the Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. The
European Union observes that such
information is permanently available
and regularly updated.
Characteristics of the
population of wild boars in
each EU member state,
including detailed data on the
density of the wild boar
population in each region of
each EU member country.
Through the letter of 21 May 2014,
data on the estimated wild boar
population in Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland was provided.
Through the letter of 6 March 2014,
a map based on an FAO study (with
data from various statistical sources
from the years 2005-2011) and
indicating the estimated densities of
wild boar population in the European
Union by region was provided.
Explained that a lot of scientific
information was made available on
the GF-TADS website after the
discussion of the meeting of the
Standing Group of Experts on ASF in
the Baltic and Eastern Europe region
held on 1-2 December 2014 in Minsk
(provided the website link where that
information is available).
Data regarding the role of
wild boars in the spread of
ASF in EU member States,
including evidence regarding
the functional isolation,
migration, and seasonal
movements of sub-
populations of wild boars
between different EU member
States.
Through the letter of 7 February
2014, the 2010 EFSA scientific
opinion on ASF was provided
(provided the website link where that
information is available).
Through the letter of 13 June 2014,
the 2014 EFSA scientific opinion on
ASF was provided (provided the
website link where that information is
available).
Explained that in addition to the
information provided before,
extensive and didactic discussions
were held on this matter at the GF-
TAD meeting on 1-2 December 2014
in Minsk (which would be available in
the website link provided in that
letter).
Detailed information
regarding the measures taken
by each EU member State to
prevent the trans-boundary
spread of ASF in the
European Union. For each
measure, provide data
demonstrating its
effectiveness and explain the
steps officials are taking to
actively enforce this measure.
Through the letter of 7 February
2014, Council Directive 2002/60/EC,
laying down specific provisions for
the control of ASF, was provided.
Through the letters of 6 and 13
March 2014, the "Working Document
on the EU preventive measures on
ASF" was provided.

Explained that in addition,
Commission Implementing Decision
2014/709/EU of 9 October 2014
concerning animal health control
measures relating to ASF in certain
EU member States and repealing
Implementing Decision
2014/178/EU, provides for detailed
rules on prohibitions and other
restrictions to avoid local and trans
boundary spread of the disease.
Detailed information
regarding the measures taken
by each EU member State to
prevent the trans-boundary
spread of ASF through the
movement of wild boars in
the EU. For each measure,
provide data demonstrating
its effectiveness and explain
the steps officials are taking
to actively enforce this
measure.
Explained that the measures to
prevent ASF spread are laid down in
a comprehensive set of legislation
based on Council Directive
2002/60/EC and the rest of the EU's
veterinary legislation.
Through the letter of 7 February
2014, Council Directive 2002/60/EC,
laying down specific provisions for
the control of ASF, was provided.
Explained that in addition, when wild
boar is involved in the epidemiology
of ASF, specific targeted measures
are specified in national eradication
plans.
Provided a copy of Lithuania's and
Poland's eradication plans approved
by Commission Implementing
Decision 2014/442/EC (provided the
website link where that information
is available).
Explained that The eradication plan
of Estonia and Latvia were revised in
line with the Minsk GF-TAD
recommendations and the draft
Decision approving those plans was
voted at the Standing Committee on
Plants, Animals Food and Feed on 5
March 15; and that it would be
expected to be adopted in the
coming weeks (provided the website
link to the GF-TAD
recommendations).
Provided a copy of report of the
European Union's veterinary
emergency team (CVET) mission that
took place in Vilnius on 8-10 October

Category of information Information already provided Additional information
2014.
Detailed information on
measures intended to prevent
the spread of ASF to/from
small and average-sized
farms and farms/facilities
with low level protection
(e.g., premises where pigs
are not indoors) in each EU
member State. For each
measure, provide data
demonstrating its
effectiveness and explain the
steps officials are taking to
actively enforce this measure.
Through the letter of 7 February
2014, Council Directive 2002/60/EC,
the cornerstone of ASF legislation,
was provided. Explained that these
rules apply across the European
Union, regardless of the size of the
holdings.
Explained that In addition to the
control measures, preventive actions
have also been taken voluntarily by
some EU member States. These
actions have been co-financed by the
European Union as described in
Commission Implementing Decision
2014/236/EU of 24 April 2014
concerning a Union financial
contribution towards surveillance and
other emergency measures
implemented in Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland against ASF
(provided the website link where that
information is available).
In addition provided information
presented by Latvia and Lithuania in
the Standing Committee meeting of
November 2014.
Regarding Latvia, pig farmers who
cannot implement biosecurity
requirements, must slaughter pigs
under official control - there were
3600 pigs slaughtered under this
program and 1501 pig keepers within
the restricted areas have been
compensated since July 2014
(provided the website link where that
information is available).
Regarding Lithuania, by 15 of
December 2014, in the Part III area
of the Commission Implementing
Decision 2014/709/EU, all pigs in
holdings with low biosecurity
measures will be early slaughtered
after ASF tests (provided the website
link where that information is
available).
Manner in which each EU
member State controls and
monitors the movement of
foreign hunters and the
hunting of wild boars by
foreign hunters. Provide data
on the movements of foreign
hunters between different
ASF risk zones in the EU.
Through the letter of 21 May,
information on foreign hunters was
provided.
Explained that the free movement of
persons is a fundamental European
Union's principle enshrined in Article
45 of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union. As explained
during the consultation meeting held
on 30 April-1 May 2014 in Geneva,
no differentiation is made between
national and foreign hunters
(provided the website link where that
information is available).
Detailed information
regarding the measures taken
by each EU member State to
prevent the trans-boundary
spread of ASF through the
movement of foreign hunters
and hunting-related carcasses
and trophies in the European
Union. For each measure,
provide data demonstrating
its effectiveness and explain
the steps officials are taking
to actively enforce this
measure.
Through the letter of 21 May,
information on foreign hunters was
provided.
Explained that the free movement of
persons is a fundamental European
Union's principle enshrined in Article
45 of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union. As explained
during the consultation meeting held
on 30 April-1 May 2014 in Geneva,
no differentiation is made between
national and foreign hunters
(provided the website link where that
information is available).
Further explained that preventive
measures to avoid ASF spread by
commodities such as trophies carried
by hunters are laid down in Council
Directive 2002/60/EC in particular in
point 2(c) of Article 15.
Data regarding the role of
ticks in the spread of ASF in
Explained that the role of vectors
(ticks) has been explained by EFSA
Explained that EFSA has stated that
"Ticks do not, play an active role in

Category of information Information already provided Additional information
EU member states, including
data regarding their
distribution and host
preferences.
in its scientific opinions on ASF of
2010 (provided through the letter of
7 February 2014) and of 2014
(provided through the letter of 13
June 2014).
Indicated that additional information
was also provided with the letter of
13 June 2014.
the geographical spread of the virus.
Wild boar have never been found
infested because they do not rest
inside burrows potentially infested by
ticks."
Further indicated that in the four
affected EU member States, soft
ticks have never been mentioned in
relation with ASF. No evidence has
been found so far that they, if they
exist, play a role in ASF
epidemiology. Their
existence/distribution in those EU
member States is not documented.
Also noted with importance that the
role of the Ornithodoros spp. ticks as
vectors in the epidemiology of ASF,
relates to the persistence of the
disease in infected premises after
stamping-out and repopulation. The
ticks have no role regarding the
geographical spread of the disease
and therefore such information is not
relevant for the acceptance of
regionalization.
Detailed information
regarding the measures taken
by each EU member State to
prevent the trans-boundary
spread of ASF through ticks in
the European Union. For each
measure, provide data
demonstrating its
effectiveness and explain the
steps officials are taking to
actively enforce this measure.
Provided the same explanation and
references as indicated in the
previous point.
Provided the same explanation as
indicated in the previous point.
Detailed information
regarding the measures taken
by each EU member state to
control and monitor the raw
materials (e.g. animals for
slaughterhouses, carcasses
for meat production plants)
used by companies that
supply live swine and pork
products to Russia. Provide
evidence that these raw
materials are not sourced
from ASF infected/high risk
zones.
Through the letter of 7 February
2014, Council Directive 2002/60/EC,
the cornerstone of ASF legislation,
was provided.
Explained that additional detailed
information had already been
provided about relevant European
Union measures through the letters
of 13 March and 21 May 2014.
Observed that it has been stated that
from the defined areas, as listed in
the annex to the European Union
decision establishing regionalization,
no establishment is allowed to supply
pig meat or pig meat products to
establishments authorised to export
to Russia.
Explained that Commission
Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU
of 9 October 2014 concerning animal
health control measures relating to
ASF in certain EU member States
provides for detailed rules (provided
the website link where that
information is available).
Indicated that further information on
implementation of ASF control
measures may be found in the most
recent audit reports of the FVO
(provided the website link where the
audit reports for Latvia, Lithuania
and Poland are available, and
explained that FVO audit in Estonia
took place on 2-6 March 2015).
Information regarding
whether companies in the
European Union that supply
live swine and pork products
to Russia revised their raw
material sourcing plans as a
result of the changed
epizootic situation in the
European Union.
Provided the same explanation as
indicated in the previous point.
Provided the same explanation as
indicated in the previous point.
Justification for the criteria
used to identify borders of
ASF infected / free / high risk
zones. Explain whether this
criteria should be applied to
other EU member States.
Indicated that information had
already been provided through the
letter of 13 June 2014.
Explained that as already stated, the
European Union's regionalization is
based on the criteria laid down in
point 3.(b) and(c) of Article 16 of
Council Directive 2002/60/EC, which
is applied across the European
Union. When defining an infected

Category of information Information already provided Additional information
area, the existence of major natural
or artificial obstacles is taken into
account as in the particular case of
Lithuania and Estonia where a lake
or river was considered as natural
obstacles.
Examples are:
for Estonia: Võrtsjärv lake
for Latvia: Daugava river
Please explain what
regulations and research
findings underlie principles of
ASF zoning in EU member
States
Through the letter of 7 February
2014, Council Directive 2002/60/EC,
the cornerstone of ASF legislation,
was provided.
Explained that additional information
had already been provided through
the letter of 13 June 2014.
Explained that the European Union's
regionalization measures are in line
with Chapter 4.3 of the Terrestrial
Code (zoning and
compartmentalization), and are also
in line with Article 6 of the WTO SPS
Agreement.
In addition, Commission
Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU
of 9 October 2014 concerning animal
health control measures relating to
ASF in certain EU member States
provides for detailed rules (provided
the website link where that
information is available).
Detailed information
regarding the measures taken
by each EU member State to
stamp out ASF, including
evidence of its effectiveness,
staff enforcing this measure,
budget for enforcement,
number of inspection
personnel, reports of
successful elimination of ASF,
and plans to increase
resources dedicated to
enforcement. For each EU
member state that has not
taken measures to stamp out
ASF, explain whether these
EU member states have
prepared plans to stamp out
ASF and provide us with all
such plans.
 Indicated that information on
implementation of specific ASF
control measures may be found in
the most recent audit reports of the
FVO (provided the website link where
the audit reports for Latvia, Lithuania
and Poland are available, and
explained that FVO audit in Estonia
took place on 2-6 March 2015).
Detailed information on the
measures taken by each EU
member State to prevent the
spread of ASF through the
slaughter of ASF-infected
swine. For each measure,
provide data demonstrating
its effectiveness and explain
the steps officials are taking
to actively enforce this
measure.
Referred to the provisions in Articles
5 (point 1, letters a, c and d), 10,
11, and 14 of Directive 2002/60/EC.
Indicated that as an additional layer
of protection, Commission
Implementing Decision 2014/709
contains further provisions.
Indicated that information on
implementation of ASF control
measures may be found in the audit
reports of the FVO (provided the
website link where the audit reports
for Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are
available, and explained that FVO
audit in Estonia took place on 2-6
March 2015).
Detailed information
regarding the measures taken
by each EU member State to
prevent the spread of ASF
through the improper
destruction/disposal of
carcasses of ASF-infected
swine. For each measure,
provide data demonstrating
its effectiveness and explain
the steps officials are taking
to actively enforce this
measure.
Provided the same explanation as
indicated in the previous point.
Provided the same explanation as
indicated in the previous point.
Detailed information on the Referred to the provisions in Articles Explained that, furthermore, some of

Category of information Information already provided Additional information
procedures each EU member
State has in place to control
and monitor the burial sites of
ASF infected swine. Explain
the steps officials are taking
to ensure that these
procedures are followed.
5 (point 1, letters a, c and d), 10,
11, and 14 of Directive 2002/60/EC.
Indicated that as an additional layer
of protection, Commission
Implementing Decision 2014/709
contains further provisions.
Further explained that in addition,
detailed rules apply to the disposal of
carcasses by burial in Commission
Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 of 25
February 2011 implementing
Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the
European Parliament and of the
Council laying down health rules as
regards animal by-products and
derived products not intended for
human consumption and
implementing Council Directive
97/78/EC as regards certain samples
and items exempt from veterinary
checks at the border under that
Directive (provided the website link
where that information is available).
The carcasses of pigs, which have
been compulsorily killed due to an
infectious virus disease, must be
disposed under official supervision
and in a manner, which avoids any
risk of spread of the virus causing
the disease.
Destruction of such carcasses should
normally be carried out in a
rendering facility approved for the
purpose by the official veterinary
service. Under certain circumstances
the competent authority may
consider burial as an alternative
method of carcass destruction.
the contingency plans prepared by
EU member States provide for
further national rules. As an
example, such measures may be as
follows:
The dimensions of a burial pit shall
be large enough for 60 adult pig
carcasses with a 2 meter cover
(length 6 m; width 3 m; depth 4 m);
It is recommended that animals are
only placed in 2 layers;
To prevent carcasses in a burial pit
from rising to the surface, the
abdomen should be cut open before
burial to allow gases to escape from
the alimentary tract and the
abdomen cavity.
Detailed information
regarding the procedures
each EU member state has in
place concerning the cleaning
and disinfecting of premises
on which ASF-infected swine
were located. Explain the
steps officials are taking to
ensure that these procedures
are followed.
Explained that detailed rules can be
found in point 1 (g) of Article 5, point
2. (c) of Article 14 and Annex II of
Directive 2002/60/EC.

Data regarding the role of the
following factors in the spread
of ASF in EU member States:
frozen meat; chilled meat;
skin fat; vehicles used to
transport ASF infected
swine/products; smoked
meat; dried meat; fermented
meat; vehicles driven through
ASF infected areas; people
involved in pig keeping;
slurry; animal feed: litter;
fomites; vegetables; crops;
pests (e.g., rodents); pets;
hay and straw; and insects.
Referred for detailed information to
the EFSA scientific opinions on ASF of
2010 (provided through the letter of
7 February 2014) and of 2014
(provided through the letter of 13
June 2014) (provided the website
links where both reports are
available).

Referred to pages 36-40 of the 2010
EFSA scientific opinion.
Detailed information
regarding the measures taken
by each EU member State to
prevent the trans-boundary
spread of ASF in the
European Union through the
Indicated that a full package of
information on preventive
(surveillance) and control
(eradication) measures has already
been provided in all letters referred
above.
Explained that information on
implementation of ASF control
measures may be found in the audit
reports of the FVO (provided the
website link where the audit reports
for Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are

Category of information Information already provided Additional information
factors listed in the previous
point. For each measure,
provide data demonstrating
its effectiveness and explain
the steps officials are taking
to actively enforce this
measure.
available, and explained that FVO
audit in Estonia took place on 2-6
March 2015).
Data on measures being
taken/ taken for prevention of
ASF introduction in the
industrial pig farms/ backyard
pig farms/ wild population, on
measures being taken/ taken
in the EU member states
(checkpoints/ BIPs) as well as
information describing
procedure of veterinary and
sanitary inspection and pre-
export certification at all
stages along the whole
production chain.
 Explained that due to the perceived
threat of the spread of ASF from
countries neighbouring the European
Union in the East, audits by the FVO
to evaluate the implementation of
border controls against ASF started
already in 2013 and continued during
2014 (provided the website link
where the audit reports for Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are
available).
Furthermore, detailed rules can be
found in Regulation (EC) No
882/2004 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 29
April 2004 on official controls
performed to ensure the verification
of compliance with feed and food
law, animal health and animal
welfare rules (provide the website
link where such information is
available).
Further explained that EU member
States affected by ASF regularly
report to the Standing Committee
about the outcome of reinforced
controls that they perform on
imported commodities. The results
show that due to the increased
controls the number of findings has
dropped.
The rules to be observed with regard
to certification are laid down Council
Directive 96/93/EC on the
certification of animals and animal
products (provided the website link
where such information is available).
Invited to see the links to the
presentations that Latvia and
Lithuania made at the Standing
Committee in November 2014. In
respect of Latvia, highlights that
there was strengthened control of
personal luggage; and random
sampling from confiscated products
of animal origin (out of 20 samples 3
have been found positive for ASF
genome) (provided the website links
where such information is available).
Explained that according to the
Memorandum of Understanding of
2004, pre- export certificates should
be issued only for animals or animal
products moving between two or
more EU member States where the
animals or the products are destined
for products intended for exports to
Russia and where the pre-export
certificate is necessary to ensure that
the final product meets the Russian
import conditions. Requirements of
Council Directive 96/93/EC on

Category of information Information already provided Additional information
veterinary certification are
applicable.
Data on small farms (pig
population under 200
animals) in ASF infected/ high
risk zones, regarding: the
animal health status of these
farms and the biosecurity
measures taken there
(feasibility of free range, feed
supply, procedure of new-
coming animal introduction in
the herd).
 Explained that this issue has already
been discussed on previous
occasions and it was the main
subject of the GF-TADS meeting in
Tallinn held on 11- 12 February 2015
(provided the website link where
such information is available).
Map location of plants
approved for exportation of
live pigs and pork products
into the RF along with
indication of sources of raw
materials.
 Explained that all farms in the
European Union, except those in the
infected areas, are approved for
exportation to Russia.
As far as food producing
establishments are concerned, the
list of approved establishments is
established and maintained by
Russia, not by the European Union.
Description of measures being
taken/ taken for movement
control of live animals and
pork products, aspects of
traceability of feed,
equipment and tools
(including used ones),
approaches to passive/ active
surveillance of susceptible
animal populations
 Noted that this question is rather
general therefore the entire
European Union's veterinary acquis
could be cited by way of an answer.
Explained that the basic European
Union legislation is: Council Directive
of 26 June 1964 on animal health
problems affecting intra-Community
trade in bovine animals and swine
(64/432/EEC) (provided the website
link where such information is
available).
Information regarding the
procedure for ASF differential
diagnosis in case of
salmonellosis, erysipelas,
classical swine fever and
Aujeszky'; including statistical
data (number of disease
suspects/ confirmed cases).
 Explained that the relevant European
Union legislation is: Commission
Decision 2003/422/EC of 26 May
2003 approving an African swine
fever diagnostic manual (provided
the website link where such
information is available).
Contact details of the
competent authority in the EU
member responsible for
establishment of zones with
different ASF status (for each
country)
 Explained that the information
regarding European Union delegates
can be consulted in the OIE webpage
(provided the website link where
such information is available).
Indication of whether
evaluation of performance of
veterinary service (PVS) was
done (including human,
technical, financial and other
resources) in the EU member
States including evaluation of
the competent authority
responsible for establishment
of zones with different ASF
status for each country.
 Explained that the Competent
Authorities of the EU member States
are regularly audited by the Food
and Veterinary Office (FVO) of the
Commission's Health and Food
Safety Directorate General to ensure
that European Union legislation in
areas such as food safety, animal
health and animal welfare is properly
implemented and enforced. It
considers risk and trade factors, plus
the status of legislation, to prioritise
visits. The reports of the FVO,
including the country profiles of
Member States, are publicly available
on the Commission's website
(provided the website link where
such information is available).

Category of information Information already provided Additional information
Indication of What criteria/
factors are used to evaluate
PVS in the EU member States
and their equivalence with the
OIE recommended criteria for
evaluation of performance of
veterinary services (OIE PVS
Tool).
 Explained that the OIE PVS tool is a
voluntary instrument offered by the
OIE to those member countries
wishing to engage in the OIE PVS
pathway. EU member States have
not requested OIE PVS evaluations
from the OIE (with the exception of
Bulgaria and Romania before joining
the European Union), which to a
certain extent would duplicate or
overlap the activities of the FVO
described above. However, some EU
Member States have performed pilot
PVS self-evaluations using the OIE
PVS tool.
Information regarding ASF
Emergency plans including
data on staff number and
logistics.
 Referred to the comments provided
in the first point of the table.

9.62. On 10 April 2015, FSVPS sent a letter to DG SANTE referring to the ASF situation in the
European Union. The letter referred to the inefficiency of the measures in place in the European
Union and to the problems of proper noti fication to the OIE by authorities in Estonia. The letter
also noted that Russia only received the letter dated 21 May 2014, in January 2015. In respect of
this letter, FSVPS observed that it did not contain the requested information on the results of
active surveillance in EU member States that border the EU member States affected with ASF. The
letter also underlined that some of the information attached to the letter of 21 May 2014 was in
the national language, which made its analysis more complicated.1898
9.63. On 16 June 2015, DG SANTE sent a letter to FSVPS in response to an information request
from FSVPS. The letter referred to an information request regarding ASF surveillance results in the
EU member States bordering ASF -affected EU member States. In that res pect, DG SANTE
indicated that such information is not "relevant to the acceptance of regionalisation", in particular,
taking into account the distance of the territories of those EU member States from the affected
area and the favourable results of intensi ve surveillance in the ASF -free areas of the four affected
EU member States. The letter explained that the latter information including regular updates, as
presented at the meetings of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, is
publicly available (provided the website link where such information is available). The letter also
provided a copy of the English translations of the contingency plans of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
and Poland.1899

1898 Letter from the Russian Veterinary Service, FS-NV-8/5906, 10 April 2015 (Exhibit RUS-329).
1899 Letter from the European Union Veterinary Service to the Russian Federation Veterinary Service,
Ref. Ares (2015)2518258. 16 January 2015. (Exhibit RUS-319). In response to Panel question No. 321, para.
177, the European Union confirmed that those contingency plans correspond to Exhibits EU-74, EU-75, EU-76
and EU-77.

10 APPENDIX 2 DESCRIPTION OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2002/60/EC
10.1. Council Directive 2002/60/EC 1900 lays down specific provisions for the control of ASF. This
Directive provides a series of surveillance and control mechanisms that EU member States'
veterinary authorities have to put in place in respect of ASF.
10.2. The survei llance mechanism set up in Article 3 of Council Directive 2002/60/EC provides
that EU member States shall ensure that the presence or the suspected presence of ASF is
compulsorily and immediately notifiable to the competent authority. Furthermore, this pro vision
indicates that an EU member State in whose territory ASF has been confirmed shall (i) give
notification of the disease and provide to the Commission and other EU member States on 1901:
confirmed outbreaks of ASF in holdings; confirmed cases of ASF in slaughter houses or in means of
transport; confirmed primary cases of ASF in feral pigs; and results of epidemiological enquiry;
and (ii) provide information to the Commission and other EU member States on further cases
confirmed in feral pigs in an ASF infected area.
10.3. Article 4 of Council Directive 2002/60/EC foresees a detailed list of measures that EU
member States shall adopt in cases where the presence of ASF on a holding is suspected. These
measures include (1) ensuring the competent authorities immedia tely set in motion official means
of investigation to confirm or rule out the presence of ASF, including a verification of the register
of the pig identification marks; (2) when the competent authority considers that the presence of
ASF in a holding cannot be ruled out, it shall have the holding placed under official surveillance and
shall order that: all pigs on the holding are counted and a list of the number of pigs already sick,
dead or likely to be infected is compiled and updated; all pigs on the hold ing are restricted to their
living quarters of confined in a place where they can be isolated; no pigs can enter or leave the
holding (such ban on leaving the holding may be extended to other species of animals and
destruction of rodents or insects may be required); no pig carcasses may leave the holding without
an authorization issued by the competent authority; certain products, feed, materials and waste
likely to transmit ASF may not leave the holding without an author ization issued by the competent
authority, and meat, pig products, semen, ova or embryos shall not be moved from the holding for
intra-Community trade; movement of persons to or from the holding shall be subject to written
authorization by the competent authority; appropriate means of disinf ection shall be applied; and,
an epidemiological enquiry shall be carried out; (3) where required by the epidemiological
situation, the competent authority: may apply the measures mandated in cases where ASF on a
holding is confirmed, including a limited a pplication of those measures to the pigs suspected of
being infected or contaminated with ASFV, provided certain conditions are met; may establish a
temporary control zone around the holding where the suspicion of contamination exists, in which
some or all of the previous measures shall be applied; and (4) once adopted, the previous
measures shall not be lifted until the presence of ASF has been officially ruled out.
10.4. Measures that EU member States shall adopt in cases where the presence of ASF on a
holding is confirmed are provided in Article 5 of Council Directive 2002/60/EC. These measures
include, in addition to the ones described in numeral (2) in the previous paragraph: killing all pigs
in the holding without delay under official supervision in such a way as to avoid the risk of ASF
spreading during transport or killing; taking of a sufficient number of samples from the pigs when
they are killed in order to that the manner of introduction of ASFV into the holding and the length
of time during which it m ay have existed on the holding before the disease was notified may be
established; processing of carcases of pigs that have died or have been killed under official
supervision; wherever possible tracing and processing under official supervision of the meat of pigs
slaughtered during the period between the probable introduction of ASF into the holding and the
taking of official measures ; tracing and destruction under official supervision, in such a way
as to avoid the risk of ASFV spreading, of semen, ova o r embryos of pigs collected from the
holding during the period between the probable introduction of ASF into the holding and the taking
of official measures; carrying out in accordance with the instructions of the official veterinarian
processing of all su bstances and waste likely to be contaminated (such as feedingstuffs) and
destruction of all materials for single use which may be contaminated (particularly those used for

1900 Council Directive of 27 June 2002, 2002/60/EC (Exhibit EU-31).
1901 Such information shall be provided in accordance with Annex I of Council Directive 2002/60/EC,
which includes a detailed list of the information that an EU member State should provide to the Commission
and to other EU member States upon confirmation of ASF. (Exhibit EU-31).

the killing operations); after the pigs have been eliminated, cleaning, and if neces sary, disinfecting
buildings used for housing the pigs, vehicles used to transport them or their carcasses and the
equipment, bedding, manure and slurry likely to be contaminated; in the case of a primary
outbreak of disease 1902, subjecting the ASFV isolate t o the laboratory procedure to identify the
genetic type; and carrying out an epidemiological enquiry. Article 5 further provides that the
Commission shall immediately review the situation with the EU member State concerned in the
Standing Veterinary Commit tee (SVC) at the earliest possible opportunity, and that if necessary,
additional measures to prevent the spread of ASF shall be adopted.
10.5. Article 6 of Council Directive 2002/60/EC provides for special rules applicable to holdings
consisting of various prod uctions units. These rules include possible derogations, as regards
healthy pig population, from the measures provided in Articles 4 and 5 when the official
veterinarian confirms that the structure, size and distance apart of these production units and the
operations carried out there are such that the production units provides completely separate
facilities for housing, keeping and feeding, so that ASFV cannot spread from one production unit to
another. Furthermore, Article 7 provides specific rules for me asures in contact holdings, which are
those where the official veterinarian finds, or considers on the basis of an epidemiological enquiry,
that ASF may have been introduced from other holdings.
10.6. The conditions for undertaking an epidemiological inquiry in relation to suspected cases or
outbreaks of ASF are laid out in Article 8 of Council Directive 2002/60/EC. Such enquiry is carried
out on the basis of questionnaires prepared within the framework of contingency plans. The
enquiry shall deal at least with: (a) length of time during which ASFV may have existed on the
holding before the disease was notified or suspected; (b) possible origin of ASF on the holding and
the identification of other holdings in which pigs may have become infected or contaminated fr om
the same source; (c) movement of persons, vehicles, pigs, carcases, semen, meat or any material
which could have carried ASFV to or from the holdings in question; and (d) the possibility that
vectors of feral pigs cause the disease to spread. Article 8 also provides that if the results of this
inquiry suggest that ASF may have spread from or to holdings located in other EU member States,
the Commission and the Member States concerned shall be immediately informed.
10.7. Following the official confirmation of A SF diagnosis in pigs on a holding, Article 9 of Council
Directive 2002/60/EC mandates the competent authority to establish a protection zone with a
radius of at least three kilometres around the outbreak site, and a surveillance zone, which shall
include the protection of zone, of a radius of at least 10 kilometres. Article 9(2) provides that when
establishing these zones, the competent authority must take account of: (a) the results of the
epidemiological enquiry; (b) the geographical situation, particularly natural or artificial boundaries;
(c) the location and proximity of holdings; (d) patterns of movements and trade in pigs and the
availability of slaughterhouses and facilities for processing carcases; and (e) the facilities and
personnel available to control any movement of pigs within the zones, in particular if the pigs to be
killed have to be moved away from their holding of origin. Article 9(3) provides that when a zone
includes parts of the territory of several EU member States, the competent autho rities of the EU
member States concerned shall collaborate to establish the zone. Lastly, Article 9(4) provides that
the competent authority shall take all necessary measures, including the use of prominent signs
and warning notices and the use of media re sources, such as the press and television, to ensure
that all persons in the protection and surveillance zones are fully aware of the restrictions in force
in accordance with Articles 10 and 11, and shall take such measures as it considers appropriate to
ensure the adequate enforcement of these measures.
10.8. The measures that EU member States shall ensure are applied within a protection zone are
contemplated in Article 10 of Council Directive 2002/60/EC. These measures include: (a) carrying
out a census of all holdings as soon as possible; after the establishment of the protection zone,
undertaking visits to the holdings by an official veterinarian, within not more than seven days, in

1902 The term primary outbreak is defined for the purposes of Council Directive 2002/60/EC, as the
outbreak within the meaning of Article 2(d) of Council Directive 82/894/EEC of 21 December 1982 on the
notification of animal diseases within the Community (Article 2(h) of Council Directive 2002/60/EC (Exhibit EU-
31)). Article 2(d) of Council Directive 82/894/ECC provides: 'primary outbreak' means an outbrake [sic] not
epizootiologically linked with a previous outbreak in the same region of a Member State as defined in Article 2
of Directive 64/432/EEC or the first outbreak in a different region of the same Member State. (available at:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31982L0894&from=en, last visited on
5 January 2016).

order to conduct a clinical examination of the pigs and to check the register and pig identification
marks; (b) prohibiting the movement and transport of pigs on public or private roads, excluding
when necessary the service roads of holdings, unless approved by the competent authority when
allowing the movements referred to in point (f) below 1903; (c) cleaning, disinfection, and if
necessary, disinsectication and treatment, as soon as possible after contamination, of trucks and
other vehicles and equipment used to transport pigs or other livestock or material which may be
contaminated; and prohibiting trucks or vehicles which have been used for the transport of pigs to
leave the zone without being cleaned and disinfected and then inspected and re -authorised for
transport by competent authority; (d) prohibiting that other domestic animals enter or leave a
holding without the authorization of the competent authority; (e) immediately notifying all dead or
diseased pigs on a holding to the competent authority, which shall carry out the appropriate
investigations; (f) prohibiting removing pigs from the holding in which they are kept for at least 40
days1904 after the completion of the preliminary cleansing and disinfection, and if necessary,
desinsectication of the infected holdings; following those 40 days 1905, subject to certain conditions
(laid out in Article 10(3)), the competent authority may authorize the removal of pigs from the
said holding to be directly transported to specific sites 1906; (g) prohibiting that semen, ova or
embryos of pigs leave from the holdings situated in the zone; and (h) ens uring that any person
entering or leaving pig holdings complies with appropriate hygiene measures as necessary to
reduce the risk of ASFV spreading. Article 10(2) provides specific conditions, where the described
measures are maintained beyond 40 days, 1907 when the competent authority may authorize the
removal of pigs from a holding within the protection zone, to be directly transported to specific
sites.
10.9. Article 10(3) provides the conditions under which the competent authority may authorise
the removal of pigs from the holding concerned. Article 10(4) mandates that these measures shall
continue to be applied at least until: cleansing, disinfection and, if necessary, disinsect ization in
the infected holdings have been carried out; and pigs on all holdings have undergone clinical and
laboratory examinations (which shall not take place until 45 days 1908 have elapsed since the
completion of the preliminary cleansing) carried out in accordance with the diagnostic manual in
order to detect the possible presence of ASF.
10.10. Article 11 of Council Directive 2002/60/EC provides the measures applicable within the
surveillance zones. These measures include: (a) carrying out a census of all holdings;
(b) prohibiting the movement and transport of pigs on public or private roads, ex cluding when
necessary the service roads of holdings, unless approved by the competent authority; 1909;
(c) cleaning, disinfection, and if necessary, disinsectication and treatment, as soon as possible
after contamination, of trucks and other vehicles and equi pment used to transport pigs or other
livestock or material which may be contaminated; and prohibiting trucks or vehicles which have
been used for the transport of pigs to leave the zone without being cleaned and disinfected;

1903 This prohibition does not extend to transit of pigs by road or rail without unloading or stopping; and
derogations may be granted for slaughter pigs coming from outside the protection zone and on their way to a
slaughterhouse situated in the said zone for immediate slaughter. Article 10.1.(b).
1904 This period may be reduced to 30 days if, in accordance with the diagnostic manual, the EU member
States have applied an intensive sampling and testing programme making it possible to rule out the presence
of ASF on the holding in question (Article 10(5) of Council Directive 2002/60/EC).
1905 This period may be reduced to 30 days if, in accordance with the diagnostic manual, the EU member
States have applied an intensive sampling and testing programme making it possible to rule out the presence
of ASF on the holding in question (Article 10(5) of Council Directive 2002/60/EC).
1906 Those sites are: (i) a slaughterhouse designated by the competent authority, preferably within the
protection or surveillance zone for the purpose of immediate slaughter; (ii) a processing plant or a suitable
place where the pigs are immediately killed and their carcases are processed under official supervision; and
(iii) in exceptional circumstances, to other premises located within the protection zone (EU member States
making use of this provision shall immediately inform the Commission thereof in the SVC).
1907 This period may be reduced to 30 days if, in accordance with the diagnostic manual, the EU member
States have applied an intensive sampling and testing programme making it possible to rule out the presence
of ASF on the holding in question (Article 10(5) of Council Directive 2002/60/EC).
1908 This period may be reduced to 30 days if, in accordance with the diagnostic manual, the EU member
States have applied an intensive sampling and testing programme making it possible to rule out the presence
of ASF on the holding in question (Article 10(5) of Council Directive 2002/60/EC).
1909 This prohibition does not need to be applied to the transit of pigs by road or rail, without unloading
or stopping, or to slaughter pigs coming from outside the surveillance zone and on their way to a
slaughterhouse situated in the said zone for immediate slaughter. Article 11.1.(b).

(d) prohibiting that other dom estic animals enter or leave a holding during the first seven days
after establishment of the zone without the author ization of the competent authority;
(e) immediately notifying all dead or diseased pigs on a holding to the competent authority, which
shall carry out the appropriate investigations; (f) prohibiting removing pigs from the holding in
which they are kept for at least 30 days 1910 after the completion of the preliminary cleansing and
disinfection, and if necessary, desinsectication of the infected h oldings; following those
30 days1911, subject to certain conditions (laid out in Article 10(3)) 1912, the competent authority
may authorize the removal of pigs from the said holding to be directly transported to specific sites;
(g) prohibiting that semen, ova or embryos of pigs leave from the holdings situated in the zone;
and (h) ensuring that any person entering or leaving pig holdings complies with appropriate
hygiene measures as necessary to reduce the risk of ASFV spreading. Article 11(2) provides
specific conditions, where the described measures are maintained beyond 40 days 1913, when the
competent authority may authorize the removal of pigs from a holding within the surveillance
zone, to be directly transported to specific sites.
10.11. Article 11(3) mandates that the se measures shall continue to be applied at least until:
cleansing, disinfection and, if necessary, disinsectization in the infected holdings have been carried
out; and pigs on all holdings have undergone clinical and laboratory examinations (which shall n ot
take place until 40 days1914 have elapsed since the completion of the preliminary cleansing) carried
out in accordance with the diagnostic manual in order to detect the possible presence of ASF.
10.12. The measures applicable in cases where ASF is suspected or co nfirmed in a slaughter
house or means of transport are indicated in Article 14 of Council Directive 2002/60/EC. In case of
suspicion of ASF in a slaughter house or means of transport, the first measure that EU member
States shall ensure is that the compete nt authority immediately sets in motion official means of
investigation to confirm or to rule out the presence of ASF. Should a case of ASF be detected in a
slaughter house or means of transport, the competent authority shall ensure that: (a) all
susceptible animals in the slaughterhouse or in the means of transport are killed without delay;
(b) the carcases, offal and animal waste of possibly infected and contaminated animals are
processed under official supervision; (c) cleansing, disinfection and, if nec essary, disinsectization
of buildings and equipment, including vehicles, takes place under the supervision of the official
veterinarian; (d) an epidemiological inquiry is carried out; (e) the ASFV isolate is subject to the
laboratory procedure to identify the genetic type of virus; (f) measure regarding contact holdings
are in the holding where the infected pigs or carcases came from and in the other contact holdings
(unless otherwise indicated by the epidemiological inquiry, the measures laid down in respe ct of
cases where the presence of ASF on a holding is confirmed, shall be applied in the holding of origin
of the infected pigs or carcases); and (g) no animals are reintroduced for slaughter or transport
until at least 24 hours after completion of the cle ansing, disinfection and, if necessary,
disinsectization operations.
10.13. Article 15 of Council Directive 2002/60/EC provides the measures applicable in cases
where ASF is suspected or confirmed in feral pigs. According to this provision, immediately after
the competent authority of an EU member State has information that feral pigs are suspected of
being infected, it shall take all appropriate measures to confirm or rule out the presence of the
disease, by giving information to the owners of pigs and to hunters , and by investigations of all

1910 This period may be reduced to 21 days if, in accordance with the diagnostic manual, the EU member
States have applied an intensive sampling and testing programme making it possible to rule out the presence
of ASF on the holding in question (Article 11(4) of Council Directive 2002/60/EC).
1911 This period may be reduced to 21 days if, in accordance with the diagnostic manual, the EU member
States have applied an intensive sampling and testing programme making it possible to rule out the presence
of ASF on the holding in question (Article 11(4) of Council Directive 2002/60/EC).
1912 Article 11.1(f) also provides that "[h]owever, if the pigs are to be transported to a slaughterhouse,
at the request of a Member State, accompanied by appropriate justification, and in accordance with the
procedure referred to in Article 24(2), derogations from Article 10(3)(e) and (f), fourth indent, may be
authorised, in particular with respect to the marking of the meat from these pigs and its subsequent use, and
the destination of the treated products."
1913 This period may be reduced to 30 days if, in accordance with the diagnostic manual, the EU member
States have applied an intensive sampling and testing programme making it possible to rule out the presence
of ASF on the holding in question (Article 11(4) of Council Directive 2002/60/EC).
1914 This period may be reduced to 20 days if, in accordance with the diagnostic manual, the EU member
States have applied an intensive sampling and testing programme making it possible to rule out the presence
of ASF on the holding in question (Article 11(4) of Council Directive 2002/60/EC).

feral pigs shot or found dead, including laboratory testing. As soon as confirmation of a primary
case of ASF in feral pigs has taken place, in order to reduce the spread of ASF, the competent
authority of an EU member State shall immediately: (a) establish an expert group including
veterinarians, hunters, wild life biologists and epidemiologists, that shall assist the competent
authority in: studying the epidemiological situation and defining an infected area in accordance
with Article 16(3)(b), establishing appropriate measures to be applied in the infected area 1915,
drawing up the eradication plan to be submitted to the Commission in accordance with Article 16,
and carrying out checks to verify the effectiveness of the measures adopted to eradicate ASF from
the infected area; (b) place under official surveillance pig holdings in the defined infected area,
and shall in particular order that: an official census be carried out of all pigs on all holdings, and be
kept up to date by the owner (the information in the census shall be produced on request and may
be checked at each inspection) 1916; all pigs on the holding be kept in their living quarters or some
other place where they can be isolated from feral pigs (feral pigs must not have access to any
material which may subsequently come in contact with the pigs on the holding); no pigs enter or
leave the holding, except where authorised by the competent authority having regard to the
epidemiological situation; appropriate means of disinf ection and if necessary disinsect ization be
used at the entrance and exits of buildings housing pigs and of the holding itself; appropriate
hygiene measures be applied by all persons coming into contact with feral pigs, to reduce the risk
of ASFV spreading ; all dead or diseased pigs with ASF symptoms on a holding be tested for the
presence of ASF; no part of any feral pig, whether shot or found dead, nor any material or
equipment which could be contaminated with ASFV, shall be brought into a pig holding; pi gs, their
semen, embryos or ova shall not be moved from the infected area for intra -Community trade;
(c) arrange that all feral pigs shot or found dead in the defined infected area are inspected by an
official veterinarian and examined for ASF (and follow the applicable rules on processing of
carcases of all animals found positive or negative); (d) ensure that the ASFV isolate is subject to
the laboratory procedure to identify the genetic type of virus.
10.14. Article 15(3) further provides that if a case of ASF has occurred in feral pigs in an area of
an EU member State close to the territory of another EU member State, the EU member States
concerned shall collaborate in the establishment of disease control measures.
10.15. The regulations in respect of plans for the er adication of ASF from a feral pig population
are contained in Article 16 of Council Directive 2002/60/EC. According to Article 16 EU member
States shall submit the Commission within 90 days of the confirmation of the a primary case of
ASF in feral pigs a w ritten plan of the measures taken to eradicate the disease in the area defined
as infected, and of the measures applied on the holdings in that area. The Commission shall then
examine the plan in order to determine whether it permits the desired objectives to be attained.
The plan, if necessary with amendments, shall be approved in accordance with the accelerated
regulatory procedure contained in Article 24(2) of Council Directive 2002/60/EC. Such plan may be
subsequently amended or supplemented to take acc ount of developments in the situation,
including the definition of the infected area. In cases where such re -definition takes place, the
respective EU member States shall ensure that the Commission and the other EU member States
are informed of these amend ments without delay. If the amendments concern other provisions of
the plan, the EU member States shall submit the amended plan to the Commission for examination
and eventual approval in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2).
10.16. As indica ted in Article 16(3), the eradication plan shall contain information on: (a) the
results of the epidemiological investigations and controls carried out in accordance with Article 15
and the geographical distribution of the disease; (b) the definition of th e infected area within the
territory of the EU member State concerned 1917; (c) the organization of close cooperation between
biologists, hunters, hunting organ izations, the wildlife services and veterinary authorities (animal
health and public health); (d) th e information campaign to be enforced to increase hunters'
awareness of the measures they have to adopt in the framework of the eradication plan;
(e) specific efforts made to determine the extent of the infection in the feral pig population, by

1915 Such measures may include suspension of hunting and a ban on feeding feral pigs.
1916 However, as regards open-air pig holdings, the first census carried out may be done on the basis of
an estimate (Article 15.2(b)).
1917 When defining the infected area, the competent authority shall take into account: the results of the
epidemiological investigations carried out and the geographical distribution of the disease; the feral pig
population in the area; and the existence of major natural or artificial obstacles to movements of feral pigs.
(Article 16.3.(b)).

investigating feral pigs shot by hunters or found dead, and by laboratory testing, including age -
stratified epidemiological investigations; (f) the requirements to be complied with by hunters in
order to avoid any spread of the disease; (g) the method of removal of f eral pigs found dead or
shot1918; (h) the epidemiological inquiry which is carried out on each 1919; (i) surveillance
programmes and prevention measures applicable to the holdings situated in the defined infected
area, and, if necessary, in its surroundings, incl uding the transport and movement of animals
within, from and to the area 1920; (j) other criteria to be applied for lifting the measures taken;
(k) the authority with responsibility for supervising and coordinating the departments responsible
for implementing the plan; (l) the information system established in order that the expert group
appointed in accordance with Article 15(2)(a) can review on a regular basis the results of the
eradication plan; and (m) the disease monitoring measures which shall be enforced at the earliest
12 months after diagnosis of the last case of ASF in feral pigs in the defined infected area; these
monitoring measures shall stay in place for at least 12 additional months and shall at least include
the provisions already enforced in accordance with points (e), (g) and (h).
10.17. Article 16 also contemplates the obligation of the respective EU member States to transmit
a report concerning the epidemiological situation in the defined infected area and the results of the
eradication plan to the C ommission and to other EU member States. This report shall be
transmitted to the Commission every six months. In addition, Council Directive 2002/60/EC
contains provisions on: cleansing, disinfection and treatment with insecticides (Article 12);
repopulation of pig holdings following disease outbreaks (Article 13); measures to prevent the
spread of ASFV by means of vectors (Article 17); diagnostic procedures and bio -safety
requirements (Article 18); use, manufacture and sale of ASF vaccines (Article 19); co mmunity
controls (Article 20); contingency plans (Article 21); and disease control centres and expert groups
(Article 22).

1918 Such method of removal shall be based on: processing under official supervision; or inspection by
an official veterinarian and laboratory tests (Article 16.3(g)).
1919 This inquiry must include the completion of a questionnaire which supplies information about: the
geographical area where the animal was found dead or shot; the date on which the animal was found dead or
shot; the person who found or shot the animal; the age and sex of the pig; if shot, symptoms before shooting;
if found dead, the state of the carcase; and laboratory findings (Article 16.3(h)).
1920 These measures shall at least include the ban on moving pigs, their semen, embryos or ova from
the infected area for intra-Community trade and may include a temporary ban on pig production and on the
establishment of new holdings (Article 16.3(i)).