RUSSIAN FEDERATION – MEASURES ON THE IMPORTATION OF LIVE PIGS, PORK AND OTHER PIG PRODUCTS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
Document: AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
Date: 28 September 2016
Document codes: WT/DS475/8
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
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES
AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU),
AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
The following communication, dated 23 September 2016 , from the Delegation of the
Russian Federation, is being circulated to Members.

Russian Federation – Measures on the importation of live pigs, pork and other pig products from
the European Union). Pursuant to Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review , the
Russian Federation simultaneously files this Notice of Appeal with the Appellate Body Secretariat.

2. The Russian Federation is restricting its appeal to those errors that it believes constitute
serious errors of law and legal interpretation that need to be corrected. Non -appeal of an i ssue
does not signify agreement therewith.

3. For the reasons to be further elaborated in its submissions to the Appellate Body, the
Russian Federation appeals, and requests the Appellate Body to modify or reverse, certain issues
of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel in this dispute.1

I. THE PANEL'S FINDINGS REGARDING THE ALLEGED EU-WIDE BAN

4. The Russian Federation seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findings that the
so-called EU-wide ban is a measure that can be attributed t o the Russian Federation.2 The Russian
Federation also appeals the underlying findings of the Panel that led to this erroneous finding: the
Panel's failure to differentiate between national Russian Federation SPS measures and the terms of
the bilateral EU -Russia veterinary certificates 3, the Panel's failure to give full legal effect to the
Russian Federation's Accession Protocol, 4 and, alternatively, the Panel's failure to recognize the
sequencing inherent in the bilateral veterinary certificates. As a resu lt, the Panel erred, under
Articles 1.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6, 5.7, 6.1, 6.3, 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement,
and Article 3.3 DSU, in concluding that the Russian Federation's so -called EU-wide ban is conduct
attributable to the Russian Federation that is inconsistent with the SPS Agreement.5 These findings

1 Pursuant to Rule 20(2)(d)(iii) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review this Notice of Appeal
includes an indicative list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing the alleged errors, without prejudice
to the ability of the Russian Federation to refer to other paragraphs of the Panel Report in the context of its
appeal.
2 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.74, 7.76, 7.77, 7.78, 7.79, 7.80, 7.81, 7.82, 7.83, and 7.84.
3 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.76, 7.77, 7.78, 7.80, 7.81, 7.82, 7.83 and 7.84.
4 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.108, 7.109, 7.110, 7.111, 7.112, 7.114, 7.115, 7.116.
5 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.216- 7.220, 7.235, 7.237, 7.484, 7.494, 7.571, 7.591, 7.707, 7.714,
7.719, 7.720, 7.783, 7.834, and 7.846.

are in error, and the Russian Federation respectfully requests that the Appellate Body reverse
them.

II. THE PANEL'S FINDINGS ON ARTICLE 6 OF THE SPS AGREEMENT

5. The Russian Federation seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's failure to interpret
Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement to require panels to take into account science -based and
technical evidence relied upon by the importing Member, in accordance with the importing
Member's appropriate level of protection. 6 The Russian Federation also appeals the Panel's
conclusions – based on this interpretative error – that the European Union has provided the
necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate to the Russian Federation that ar eas within the
European Union are and are likely to remain ASF -free under Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement. 7
Similarly, the Panel incorrectly found that the European Union had provided the necessary
evidence to objectively demonstrate to the Russian Federa tion that there are areas in Lithuania,
Poland, Latvia and Estonia that are ASF -free pursuant to Article 6.38, and that the European Union
had provided the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate to the Russian Federation that
there are areas in Lith uania, Poland and Estonia that are likely to remain ASF -free pursuant to
Article 6.3.9 These findings are in error and are based on the Panel's erroneous findings of law and
legal interpretations of Article 6.3. The Russian Federation respectfully requests that the
Appellate Body reverse the Panel's findings.

6. The Russian Federation also seeks review of the Panel's legal interpretation of Article 6.3 of
the SPS Agreement as not requiring a reasonable period of time for exporting Members to collect
the neces sary evidence, on the one hand, and for importing Members to review the necessary
evidence, on the other hand. 10 As a consequence of the Panel's erroneous interpretation of
Article 6.3 as not requiring the production, translation and review of the necessary evidence over a
"reasonable period of time", the Panel erroneously found in paragraphs 7.963 and 7.1003 that the
European Union had provided the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate to the Russian
Federation that parts of Estonia are and are like ly to remain disease -free based on a three -day
window from the first African Swine Fever outbreak in Estonia. Thus, the Russian Federation
requests that the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's erroneous legal interpretation and its
conclusion with respect to Estonia.

7. The Russian Federation further seeks review of the Panel's interpretation of Article 6.1 and
its relationship to Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement.11 The Panel found that in situations involving a
request by an exporting Member for zone recog nition pursuant to Article 6.3, a finding of a
violation of Article 6.1 regarding conditions in the exporting Member can still be found even absent
a finding that the exporting country provided the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate
that areas in its territory are and are likely to remain disease -free under Article 6.3. Based on this
erroneous legal interpretation, the Panel found that while the European Union had failed to provide
the necessary evidence objectively demonstrating that parts of La tvia are likely to remain
ASF-free, the Russian Federation nevertheless violated Article 6.1, in part, because it failed to
adapt its measures to the SPS characteristics in Latvia. 12 The Russian Federation requests the
Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's erroneous legal interpretation and its erroneous conclusion
with respect to Latvia under Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement.13

Lithuania, Poland, Estonia and the EU-wide ban in accordance with the argumentation set out in paras. 93-194
above, the Russian Federation also request the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's findings that the import
restrictions on Lithuania, Poland and Estonia and the alleged EU-wide ban are inconsistent with Article 6.1 of
the SPS Agreement. See, e.g., paras. 7.484, 7.1020, 7.1028.