EUROPEAN UNION – ADDITIONAL MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF CITRUS FRUIT FROM SOUTH AFRICA REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY SOUTH AFRICA
Document: REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY
Date: 24 April 2024
Document codes: WT/DS624/1; G/L/1529; G/SPS/GEN/2222
Complainant: South Africa
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Argentina, Australia, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Eswatini, India, Israel, Japan, Paraguay, Russia, Taiwan, U.S., Uruguay, Zimbabwe
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 6.1, 6.2, 8, 10.1, 10.2, Annex C  Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)Art. I:1, III:4, X:3(a), XI:1  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN UNION – ADDITIONAL MEASURES CONCERNING
THE IMPORTATION OF CITRUS FRUIT FROM SOUTH AFRICA
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY SOUTH AFRICA
The following communication , dated 15 April 2024 and received on 19 April 2024 , from the
delegation of South Africa to the delegation of the European Union, is circulated to the Dispute
Settlement Body in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.

My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the European Union pursuant to
Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994 (GATT 1994), Article 4 of the
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), and Article 11
of the Agre ement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement),
concerning certain aspects of the European Union's (EU) regime on the importation of citrus fruit
from South Africa described below.
As this request concerns perishable produc ts, South Africa also makes this request pursuant to
Article 4.8 of the DSU and reserves its rights thereunder.
We note that South Africa has already requested and since engaged in consultations with the EU
regarding the application of certain phytosanita ry measures relating to Thaumatotibia leucotreta
("false codling moth") that affect the importation of citrus fruit from South Africa. 1 As explained
below, this request addresses the application of those EU phytosanitary measures relating to
P. citricarpa ("citrus black spot" or "CBS") that also affect the importation of citrus fruit from
South Africa.
Pursuant to Article 4.4 of the DSU, South Africa describes below the reasons for this request,
including the identification of the measure at issue and an indication of the legal basis for the
complaints.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE MEASURE AT ISSUE
The measure at issue concerns certain aspects of the import regime imposed by the European Union
(EU) on citrus fruit from South Africa, as described below. Since at least 1992, the EU has prohibited
the importation of South African citrus fruit affected by Phyllosticta citricarpa (McAlpine) Van der Aa,
despite the fact that citrus fruit is not a viable pathway for the transmission of this organism.
Moreover, without sufficient scientific reasons, the EU has categorised this organism as a quarantine
pest for citrus fruit without leaves and furthermore as a "priority pest".2
As a direct result of this erroneous categorisation, the EU establishes, inter alia , burdensome
approval, verification, sampling, checking, inspection, testing, packaging, transportation,

1 See Request for Consultations by South Africa, EU — Citrus Fruit (South Africa), WT/DS613/1,
G/L/1430, G/SPS/GEN/2056, 29 July 2022.
2 See, inter alia, Part A of Annex III of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 of
28 November 2019, as well as Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1702 of 1 August 2019 read with
Regulation (EU) 2016/2031.
WT/DS624/1 • G/L/1529 • G/SPS/GEN/2222

certification, labelling and traceability requirements that must be met in order to import specified
fruits3 into the EU.4
The EU's measure is contained in, and based on, the following instruments:
(i) Council Directive 2000/29/EC, of 8 May 2000, "on protective measures against the
introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and
against their spread within the Community", as amended;
(ii) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/715 of 11 May 2016 setting out measures
in respect of certain fruits originating in certain third countries to prevent the
introduction into and the spread within the Union of the harmful organism Phyllosticta
citricarpa (McAlpine) Van der Aa.
(iii) Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of plants, amending
Regulations (EU) No 228/2013, (EU) No 652/2014 and (EU) No 1143/2014 of the
European Parliament and of the Council and repeal ing Council Directives 69/464/EEC,
74/647/EEC, 93/85/EEC, 98/57/EC, 2000/29/EC, 2006/91/EC and 2007/33/EC, which
came into effect on 14 December 2019;
(iv) Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
15 March 2017 on official contr ols and other official activities performed to ensure the
application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and
plant protection products, amending Regulations (EC) No 999/2001, (EC) No 396/2005,
(EC) No 1069/2009, (EC) No 1107/2009, (EU) No 1151/2012, (EU) No 652/2014, (EU)
2016/429 and (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council
Regulations (EC) No 1/2005 and (EC) No 1099/2009 and Council Directives 98/58/EC,
1999/74/EC, 2007/43/EC, 2008/119/EC an d 2008/120/EC, and repealing Regulations
(EC) No 854/2004 and (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council,
Council Directives 89/608/EEC, 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 91/496/EEC, 96/23/EC,
96/93/EC and 97/78/EC and Council Decision 92/438/EEC (Official Controls Regulation);
(v) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1702 of 1 August 2019 supplementing
Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and of the Council by
establishing the list of priority pests;
(vi) Commission Implementing Regul ation (EU) 2019/2072 of 28 November 2019
establishing uniform conditions for the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of
the European Parliament and the Council, as regards protective measures against pests
of plants, and repealing Commission Regula tion (EC) No 690/2008 and amending
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019;
(vii) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/632 of 13 April 2022 setting out
temporary measures in respect of specified fruits originating in Argentina, Brazil,
South Africa, Uruguay and Zimbabwe to prevent the introduction into, and the spread
within, the Union territory of the pest Phyllosticta citricarpa (McAlpine) Van der Aa; and
(viii) Scientific Opinion on the risk of Phyllosticta citricarpa (Guignardia citricarpa) for the EU
territory with identification and evaluation of risk reduction options, prepared by the
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2014, and supporting documentation including
the draft Scientific Opinion on the risk of Phyllosticta citricarpa (Guignardia citricarpa)
for the EU territory with identification and evaluation of risk reduction options, EFSA,
2013; Technical Report: Outcome of the public consultation on the draft Scientific

3 The requirements at issue apply to specified fruits defined in Article 2(2) of Commission Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2022/632 of 13 April 2022. They are Citrus L., Fortunella Swingle, Poncirus Raf., and their
hybrids, other than fruits of Citrus aurantium L. and Citrus latifolia Tanaka.
4 For specified fruits, other than fruits destined exclusively for industrial processing, see requirements
listed in Chapter II, Articles 3 to 5, and Annex III of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/632 of
13 April 2022. For specified fruits destined exclusively for industrial processing, see requirements listed in
Chapter III, Articles 6 to 9, of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/632 of 13 April 2022, and
Article 49 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625.
WT/DS624/1 • G/L/1529 • G/SPS/GEN/2222

Opinion on the risk of Phyllosticta citricarpa (Guignardia citricarpa) for the EU territory
with identification and evaluation of risk reduction options, EFSA, 2014; as well as Pest
survey card on Phyllosticta citricarpa, EFSA, 2020.
South Africa's request also covers any additional measures that may amend, supersede, supplement,
add to, update, extend, replace, or implement the EU's measure at issue.
LEGAL BASIS FOR THE COMPLAINT
The EU's measure at issue appears to be inconsistent with the EU's obligations under the Agreement
Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO Ag reement). In particular, the EU's measure
appears to be inconsistent with:
(i) Article 1.1 of the SPS Agreement, as it is a phytosanitary measure under the
SPS Agreement that is not "applied in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement";
(ii) Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement, as it is not "based on scientific principles", it is
"maintained without sufficient scientific evidence", and it is not "applied only to the
extent necessary to protect … plant life or health";
(iii) Articles 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 of the SPS Agre ement, to the extent that a relevant
international standard exists, and the EU has failed to base its measure on it or to provide
scientific justification to deviate from it;
(iv) Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of the SPS Agreement, as it is not "based on an assessm ent,
as appropriate to the circumstances, of the risks to … plant life or health" and does not
"take into account" the factors listed in Articles 5.2 and 5.3 of the SPS Agreement;
(v) not covered by Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement, as the EU is not in a situa tion "where
relevant scientific evidence is insufficient"; and, in any event, the EU does not comply
with any of the requirements set forth in this provision;
(vi) Articles 5.5 and 2.3 of the SPS Agreement, to the extent that the EU makes "arbitrary
or unjustifiable distinctions in the levels it considers appropriate in different situations"
and "discriminate[s] between Members where identical or similar conditions prevail";
(vii) Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement, as the EU's measure is "more trade -restrictive than
required";
(viii) Articles 6.1 and 6.2 of the SPS Agreement, as the EU fails to adapt its import regime for
South African citrus fruit to the "phytosanitary characteristics of the area … to which the
product is destined" and has failed to "recognize the concepts of pest - or disease-free
areas";
(ix) Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement, to the extent that the EU does not comply
with its obligations regarding control, inspection and approval procedures, including, but
not limited to, completion of procedures without undue delay, limitation of i nformation
requirements to what is necessary and reasonable, and a lack of proper procedures to
review complaints concerning the operation of such procedures and to take corrective
action when a complaint is justified and imposition of fees on imported products that are
equitable in relation to any fees charged on like domestic products;
(x) Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, as the EU's measure constitutes a "restriction … on the
importation" of citrus fruit from South Africa;
(xi) Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994, to the extent that the EU discriminates between
like products from different origins;
(xii) Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994, as the EU fails to apply it in a "uniform, impartial and
reasonable manner".
WT/DS624/1 • G/L/1529 • G/SPS/GEN/2222

These consultations might give rise to other matters having legal implications that are not expressly
stated in this request but relate to other WTO obligations of the EU. With a view to facilitating a
wide-ranging exchange of views, South Africa notes that, if such were to be the case, these matters
would also be covered by the scope of this request for consultations.

I look forward to receiving your reply to this request. In order to ensure that the consultations take
place within the 30-day deadline specified in Article 4.3 of the DSU, we propose that the consultations
take place at the WTO in Geneva between 6 and 8 May 2024, or earlier if required.