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

RUSSIAN FEDERATION – MEASURES ON THE IMPORTATION OF LIVE
PIGS, PORK AND OTHER PIG PRODUCTS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
AB-2016-5
Report of the Appellate Body
Addendum
This Addendum contains Annexes A to D to the Report of the Appellate Body circulated as
document

The Notice of Appeal and the executive summaries of written submissions contained in this
Addendum are attached as they were received from the participants and third participants. The
content has not been revised or edited by the Appell ate Body, except that paragraph and footnote
numbers that did not start at one in the original may have been re -numbered to do so, and the
text may have been formatted in order to adhere to WTO style. The executive summaries do not
serve as substitutes for the submissions of the participants and thir d participants in the
Appellate Body's examination of the appeal.

LIST OF ANNEXES
ANNEX A
NOTICES OF APPEAL AND OTHER APPEAL
Contents Page
Annex A-1 Russian Federation's Notice of Appeal A-2
Annex A-2 European Union's Notice of Other Appeal A-4
ANNEX B
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTICIPANTS
Contents Page
Annex B-1 Executive summary of the Russian Federation's appellant's submission B-2
Annex B-2 Executive summary of the European Union's other appellant's submission B-8
Annex B-3 Executive summary of the European Union's appellee's submission B-9
Annex B-4 Executive summary of the Russian Federation's appellee's submission B-13
ANNEX C
ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTICIPANTS
Contents Page
Annex C-1 Executive summary of Australia's third participant's submission C-2
Annex C-2 Executive summary of Brazil's third participant's submission C-3
Annex C-3 Executive summary of the United States' third participant's submission C-4

ANNEX D
PROCEDURAL RULING
Contents Page
Annex D-1 Procedural Ruling of 14 November 2016 regarding the Russian Federation's
request for English-to-Russian interpretation at the oral hearing
D-2

- A-1 -

ANNEX A
NOTICES OF APPEAL AND OTHER APPEAL
Contents Page
Annex A-1 Russian Federation's Notice of Appeal A-2
Annex A-2 European Union's Notice of Other Appeal A-4

- A-2 -

ANNEX A-1
RUSSIAN FEDERATION'S NOTICE OF APPEAL*
1. Pursuant to Article 16.4 and Article 17.1 of the DSU, the Russian Federation hereby notifies
to the Dispute Settlement B ody its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law
covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel in the dispute
Russian Federation – Measures on the importation of live pigs, pork and other pig pro ducts 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 issue
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 to the Russian Federation. 2 The Russian
Federation also appeals the underlying findings of the Panel that led to this err oneous 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 Pro tocol,4 and, alternatively, the Panel's failure to recognize the
sequencing inherent in the bilateral veterinary certificates. As a result, 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 Agre ement,
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
are in error, and the Russian Federation respectful ly 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 panel s 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 interpr etative error – that the European Union has provided the
necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate to the Russian Federation that areas 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 Federation that there are areas in Lithuania,

 * This document, dated 23 September 2016, was circulated to Members as document WT/DS475/8.

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.
6 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.384, 7.389, 7.391-6, 7.399, 7.404, 7.406, 7.412, 7.413, 7.414,
7.416, 7.454, 7.930, 7.932, 7.933, 7.938, 7.939, 7.940, 7.969, 7.976, 7.978, 7.985, 7.987, 7.996, 7.1003,
and 7.1004.
7 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.449, 7.455 and 7.456.

- A-3 -

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 Lithuania, 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 in terpretation of Article 6.3 of
the SPS Agreement as not requiring a reasonable period of time for exporting Members to collect
the necessary evidence, on the one hand, and for importing Members to review the necessary
evidence, on the other hand. 10 As a con sequence 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 likely 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 recognition 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 Latvia 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

8 See, e.g., Panel Report, para. 7.963.
9 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.976, 7.985, 7.1001, 7.1003, and 7.1004 (second and third
sentences).
10 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.384, 7.393, 7.394, 7.395, 7.396, 7.399, 7.404, 7.406, 7.412,
7.413, 7.414, 7.416, 7.454, 7.930, 7.932, 7.933, 7.938, 7.939, 7.940, 7.969, 7.978, 7.987, and 7.996.
11 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.365, 7.1011 (second sentence), 7.1020, 7.1027, 7.1028.
12 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.995, and 7.1028.
13 To the extent that the Appellate Body reverses the Panel's findings under Article 6.3 with respect to
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.

- A-4 -

ANNEX A-2
EUROPEAN UNION'S NOTICE OF OTHER APPEAL*
Pursuant to Article 16.4 of the DSU the European Union hereby notifies to the Dispute Settlement
Body its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report
and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel in the dispute Russian Federation –
Measures on the Importation of Live Pigs, Pork and Other Pig Products from the European Union
(WT/DS475). Pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for App ellate Review , the
European Union simultaneously files this Notice of Other Appeal and the Other Appellant
Submission with the Appellate Body Secretariat.

For the reasons to be further elaborated in its submissions to the Appellate Body, the
European Union appeals, and requests the Appellate Body to reverse the findings, conclusions and
recommendations of the Panel, with respect to the following errors contained in the Panel Report:1

(a) the Panel erred in the interpretation and application of the first sentence of Article 6.2 of the
SPS Agreement when finding that Russia recognizes t he concepts of pest - or disease-free
areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence in respec t of ASF, and therefore, the
EU-wide ban is not inconsistent with Russia's obli gations under Article 6.2 of the
SPS Agreement. As a result, the European Union requests the Appellate Body to reverse the
Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.373, 7.379, 7.485 and 8.1(d )(iii) of its report , which are
based on its legally erroneous reasoning in paragraphs 7.366 -7.379, and to complete the
analysis;
(b) the Panel erred in the interpretation and application of the first sentence of Article 6.2 of the
SPS Agreement when finding 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 . As a result,
the European Union requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's findings in
paragraphs 7.925, 7.1029 and 8.1(e)(vi) of its report, which are based on its legally
erroneous reasoning in paragraphs 7.924- 7.925, and to complete the analysis.

* This document, dated 28 September 2016, was circulated to Members as document WT/DS475/9.

1 Pursuant to Rule 23(2)(c)(ii)(C) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review this Notice of Other
Appeal includes an indicative list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing the alleged errors, without
prejudice to the ability of the European Union to refer to other paragraphs of the Panel Report in the context of
its other appeal.

- B-1 -

ANNEX B
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTICIPANTS
Contents Page
Annex B-1 Executive summary of the Russian Federation's appellant's submission B-2
Annex B-2 Executive summary of the European Union's other appellant's submission B-8
Annex B-3 Executive summary of the European Union's appellee's submission B-9
Annex B-4 Executive summary of the Russian Federation's appellee's submission B-13

- B-2 -

ANNEX B-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION'S APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The Russian Federation appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel
Report Russia Federation – Measures on the Importation of Live Pigs, Pork and other Pig Products
from the European Union . In accordance with Rule 21 of the Working Proced ures for Appellate
Review, the Russian Federation hereby submits its Appellant's Submission.
2. The first set of appeals seek clarification regarding the legal nature of the so -called EU-wide
ban. In this context, the Russian Federation also seeks clarificat ion concerning the rights and
obligations arising from the Protocol of Accession of the Russian Federation, with respect to all
Members, and in particular, the European Union.
3. In the second set of appeals, the Russian Federation seeks to clarify Members' rights and
obligations under Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, in addition to the relationship between
Article 6.1 and Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement. As the Panel recognized, this is the first time a
panel has interpreted the phrase "in order to objectively demonstrate" whether a disease-free area
is "likely to remain" so under Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, especially in the context of a
highly contagious disease that is rapidly evolving.1
4. As set out in this submission, the Russian Federation reques ts that the Appellate Body
reverse various legal findings and conclusions of the Panel, as a result of the legal errors identified
herein. The Russian Federation is concerned that, if left to stand, these legal findings and
conclusions would upset the care fully negotiated balance between importing and exporting
Members' rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement.
A. The Panel erred in finding an EU-wide ban attributable to the Russian Federation
5. The Russian Federation appeals the Panel's findings that a so -called EU -wide ban is a
measure that can be attributed to 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 Russi an 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 Protocol4, and, alternatively, the Panel's failure to recognize the sequencing
inherent in the bilateral veterinary certificates. As a result, the Panel erred in concluding that the
Russian Federation's so -called EU-wide ban is conduct attributable to the Russian Federation that
is inconsistent with Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6, 5.7, 6.1, 6.3, 8 and Annex C of the
SPS Agreement.5 Accordingly, the Russian Federation requests that the Appellate Body reverse the
Panel's findings.
6. The Panel's findings are erroneous because (i) they fail to differentiate between the
requirement to import products accompanied by a valid veterinary certificates – a national SPS
requirement attributable to the Russian Federation – with the content of the bilateral veterinary
certificates which is not a national Russian SPS measure; (ii) they do not give full legal effect to
the valid and WTO -consistent bilateral veterinary certificates negotiated and agreed to by all
WTO Members; and (iii), and alternatively, because they fail to recognize the sequencing inherent
in the bilateral veterinary certificates.

1 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.390, 7.965.
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. 7.484, 7.494, 7.571, 7.591, 7.707, 7.714, 7.719. 7.720, 7.783, 7.834,
and 7.846.

- B-3 -

7. First, the Panel erroneously considered that the content of the bilateral veterinary
certificates constitute national SPS measures attributable to the Russian Federation.
Customs Union (CU) Decision 317 and Table 41 of the Working Party Report o f the
Russian Federation's Accession ("Working Party Report") establish, unambiguously, the
Russian Federation's legitimate right to require valid veterinary certificates with respect to the
import of a certain number of live pigs and pork products from an y WTO Member. However, the
exact content of the EU -Russia bilateral veterinary certificates is not established in the Russian
Federation's national SPS framework. Indeed, nowhere does the Russian Federation's national SPS
legislation establish the requirem ent that to export relevant pork products to the Russian
Federation from the European Union, the entire European Union, with the exception of Sardinia,
must be ASF -free for three years. Thus, the Panel erroneously considered the content of the
EU-Russia bilateral veterinary certificates to be a national SPS measure of the Russian Federation.
8. Second, the Panel failed to give full legal effect to the validity and WTO -consistency of the
valid EU -Russia bilateral veterinary certificates. In relevant part, parag raph 893 of the Russian
Federation's Working Party Report provides that:
[b]ilateral veterinary export certificates initialed by one of the CU Parties [e.g. the
Russian Federation] before 1 July 2010 [e.g., in 2006] as well as any subsequent
amendments to such certificates agreed with the authorised body of such CU Party,
would remain valid for exports from the relevant country into the customs territory of
the CU [e.g. the Russian Federation] until an export certificate was agreed with a
CU Party based on the agreed positions of the other CU Parties.
9. The ordinary meaning, context, and object and purpose of the phrase "would remain valid"
indicates that pursuant to the Russian Federation's accession to the WTO, all WTO Members
agreed that the EU -Russia bila teral veterinary certificates are legally binding documents, which
must be recognized as a legitimate veterinary certificate for export into the territory of a
CU Member. This necessarily means that these bilateral veterinary certificates must be
WTO-consistent.
10. Third, and alternatively, the Panel erred by failing to recognize an inherent "sequence of
steps" that must be followed when ensuring the validity of the bilateral veterinary certificates. It is
undisputed that the European Union veterinary services, not the Russian Federation, is responsible
for issuing the bilateral veterinary certificates. Accordingly, as a pre -condition to exporting
relevant meat products to the Russian Federation, veterinary officials in the European Union must
certify the dise ase status with respect to relevant products originating in an EU Member State.
While the Panel correctly found that after the first ASF outbreak in the European Union,
European Union officials were no longer able to issue valid veterinary certificates for export of a
number of products to the Russian Federation, it erroneously attributed the European Union's
veterinary services' inability to comply with the terms of the certificates to the Russian Federation.
Yet, there can be no legitimate finding of the Russian Federation's compliance or lack thereof, with
the valid bilateral certificates because that would represent a contingent second step in the
certification process. That step could occur only after the European Union veterinary officials have
issued valid bilateral veterinary certificates.
11. Based on the above, the Russian Federation requests the Appellate Body to reverse the
Panel's findings that the European Union's failure to issue bilateral veterinary certificates is an
action attributable to the Russian Federation.
B. The Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement by failing
to find a requirement to take into account the importing Member's objective
assessment of the necessary evidence
12. The Russian Federation appeals the Panel's failure to interpret Article 6.3 of the
SPS Agreement, which requires 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 (A LOP), when assessing whether the exporting Member's regionalization request is

- B-4 -

supported by the "necessary evidence". 6 The Russian Federation also appeals the Panel's
conclusions – based on this interpretative error – that (a) the European Union has provid ed the
necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate to the Russian Federation under Article 6.3 that
areas in Lithuania, Poland, Latvia and Estonia, and the European Union as a whole, are African
Swine Fever (ASF) free 7, and (b) that the European Union ha d provided sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that zones in Lithuania, Poland, Estonia and the European Union as a whole, are likely
to remain ASF-free.8
13. In interpreting whether exporting Members have provided the necessary evidence under
Article 6.3 of t he SPS Agreement, the Panel considered it sufficient to limit its examination to the
evidence provided by the exporting Member. The Panel did not consider it relevant for an
Article 6.3 interpretation to take into account, to the extent available, the scie nce-based and
technical evidence the importing Member relied on, in accordance with its ALOP. This legal
interpretation of Article 6.3 is incorrect and unsupported by the ordinary meaning, context, object
and purpose of Article 6.3.
14. The phrase "necessary evidence" in Article 6.3 is directly connected through "in order to" to
the phrase "objectively demonstrate to the importing Member". This indicates that the purpose of
the exporting Member collecting the necessary evidence is to convince the importing Mem ber that
parts of its territory are, and are likely to remain, disease -free. The reference to "evidence" and
"objectively demonstrate" further indicates the centrality of scientific and technical evidence under
Article 6.3 – as opposed to mere information or conjecture. Moreover, the phrase "necessary
evidence" indicates that an importing Member's assessment of the necessary evidence be
conducted in accordance with its ALOP.
15. An importing Member's right under the second sentence of Article 6.3 to undertake
inspection visits to exporting Members claiming that parts of its territory are disease -free supports
a reading of Article 6.3 that requires panels to take into account the importing Member's objective
assessment of the necessary evidence. This is further confirmed by the exchange of information as
part of the regionalization process envisioned by both the OIE Terrestrial Code and the
SPS Committee Guidelines to Article 6, which underscore the role of the importing Member as
reviewer and assessor of the nec essary evidence provided. Finally, the relevant risk assessment
jurisprudence under Articles 5.1 and 5.2 underscores that, at a minimum, in assessing the
necessary evidence, a panel must take into account, where available, the science and technical
evidence relied upon by the importing Member – be it minority or majority science. Indeed,
importing Members with a high ALOP may require evidence that establishes that a territory is
disease-freed with a higher degree of certainty than importing Members with a low ALOP.
16. This legal interpretation is further supported by the object and purpose of Article 6 of the
SPS Agreement. The key objectives of the regionalization provisions of Article 6 of the
SPS Agreement are to facilitate international trade from at least some regions or zones of an
exporting Member's territory while protecting the life and health of animals, plants, and human
beings in the importing Member. On the one hand, it does not provide unfettered discretion to
importing Members in conducting an as sessment of the necessary evidence under Article 6.3; on
the other hand, the proper interpretation of Article 6.3 allows the importing Member to base its
evaluation on science -based and technical evidence in accordance with its ALOP when assessing
whether sufficient evidence has been provided. By contrast, the Panel's interpretation, which
focuses only on the science and evidence provided by the exporting Member, would lead to
incongruity with the distinctly science -based disciplines of the SPS Agreement, i ncluding
Articles 2.2, 3.3, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1 and 6.2 therein.
17. Given the dearth of factual findings made by the Panel with respect to the scientific and
technical evidence presented and relied upon by the Russian Federation, the Appellate Body would
not be in a position to complete the analysis should it reverse the Panel's interpretation of
Article 6.3. Key scientific evidence relied upon by the Russian Federation, about which the Panel
failed to make factual findings, includes evidence concerning wild boar mo vement and the critical

6 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.384, 7.389, 7.3916, 7.399, 7.404, 7.406, 7.412, 7.413, 7.414,
7.416, 7.454, 7.930, 7.932, 7.933, 7.938, 7.939, 7.940, 7.969,7.976, 7.978, 7.985, 7.987, 7.996, 7.1003,
and 7.1004.
7 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7449, 7.455 7.456. and 7.963.
8 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.976,7.985,7.1001, and 7.1004.

- B-5 -

importance of intensified hunting as a wild boar control strategy, in addition to evidence
concerning the risk of ASF -spread through the large number of backyard farms with low levels of
biosecurity.
C. The Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement by failing
to find a requirement for a reasonable period of time to collect and assess the
evidence by exporting and importing Members, respectively
18. The Russian Federation appeals the Panel's legal interpretat ion of Article 6.3 of the
SPS Agreement as not requiring a reasonable period of time for the sequential process of an
exporting Members to collect the necessary evidence followed by the review and assessment by an
importing Member of the necessary evidence .9 As a consequence of the Panel's erroneous legal
interpretation of Article 6.3, the Panel incorrectly found that the European Union had provided the
necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate to the Russian Federation that parts of Estonia are,
and are likely to remain, disease-free based on a three-day window from the first ASF outbreak in
Estonia.10 Thus, the Russian Federation requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's
erroneous legal interpretation11, and the conclusion stated in paragraphs 7.963 and 7.1003.
19. In assessing whether the European Union had provided the necessary evidence under
Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, the Panel did not identify a reasonable period of time for the
overall process to collect and review that evidence. Rather , the Panel engaged in its assessment
under Article 6.3 by applying the same, general cut-off date of 11 September 2014 with respect to
all four infected EU Member States, even though the four infected EU Member States had
experienced ASF infections – and established ASF zones – at quite different time intervals. In
particular, the Panel's failure to assess the necessary evidence with respect to Estonia by
employing a reasonable period of time led to the erroneous finding that the European Union had
provided the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate that parts of its territory are and are
likely to remain disease-free within three days of the first ASF outbreak in Estonia. In essence, the
Panel found that three days sufficed for the European Union to demonstrate that parts of Estonia
would likely remain disease -free, and for the Russian Federation to translate, review, and assess
the "necessary evidence" through conducting inspection visits.
20. In contrast to the Panel's interpretation, in assessing par ties' rights and obligations under
Article 6.3, a panel must recognize that it takes time for an importing Member to evaluate,
inspect, and verify the measures and evidence both presented by the exporting Member and
obtained through site -visits and for an exporting Member to gather the necessary evidence of its
disease situation. Accordingly, a panel must identify a reasonable period of time that begins the
moment an exporting Member requests a Member to recognize a disease -free area in response to
a diseas e outbreak. This interpretation of Article 6.3 is supported by the ordinary meaning,
context, and object and purpose of Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement. The ordinary meaning of
Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement underscores that it cannot be given proper ef fect without a panel
assessing the parties obligations over a reasonable period of time. On the one hand, exporting
Members require time to gather the necessary evidence and observe the evolution of the disease
to objectively demonstrate to the importing M ember that their ASF -free territories are, and
especially, are likely to remain ASF-free in the future. On the other hand, importing Members
require time to review the necessary evidence, including through Article 6.3 sanctioned inspection
visits to the ex porting Member. The appropriate length of the reasonable period of time will
necessarily be impacted by the establishment of new disease -free zones, both in countries already
infected with the disease and in countries that were previously free of the disea se and are
experiencing their first outbreak.
21. This is further supported by the relevant context of Article 6.3. Both the SPS Committee
Guidelines to Article 6 and relevant chapters in the OIE Terrestrial Code envision a dynamic
exchange between importing and exporting Members in the context of a regionalization request. It
takes time for both parties to carry out these relevant steps, which include collecting evidence,

9 See, e.g., Panel Report paras. 7.384, 7.389, 7.3916, 7.399, 7.404, 7.406, 7.412, 7.413, 7.414, 7.416,
7.454, 7.930, 7.932, 7.933, 7.938, 7.939, 7.940, 7.969,7.976, 7.978, 7.985, 7.987, 7.996, 7.1003, and
7.1004.
10 Panel Report, paras. 7.963 and 7.1003.
11 See, e.g., Panel Report paras. 7.384, 7.393, 7.394, 7.395, 7.396, 7.399, 7.404, 7.406, 7.412, 7.413,
7.414, 7.416, 7.454, 7.930, 7.932, 7.933, 7.938, 7.939, 7.940, 7.969, 7.978, 7.987, and 7.996.

- B-6 -

reviewing evidence, requesting and providing additional evidence, and making inspection visits.
Specifically, the Guidelines to Article 6 anticipate an average reasonable period of time of around
90 days to complete the information exchange. The disease -specific provisions of the
OIE Terrestrial Code underscore that the extent of the reasonab le period of time is informed by,
and may be altered as a result of, continuing outbreaks taking place in formerly disease -free
areas. Moreover, pursuant to Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement, not every lapse of time
amounts to a delay. This furthe r indicates the relevance of finding a requirement for a reasonable
period of time when it comes to assessing the necessary evidence under Article 6.3. The risk
assessment jurisprudence which demands sufficient time to collect and assess available scientif ic
evidence further corroborates this interpretation.
22. The requirement of a reasonable period of time under Article 6.3 is also supported by the
provision's object and purpose. A reasonable period of time safeguards the importing Member's
right to protect its territory from animal diseases by giving meaning to their right to review the
necessary evidence provided. Similarly, establishing limits on the amount of time an importing
Member uses to assess necessary evidence of whether a region will remain disease free recognizes
the exporting Member's right to continue to trade from parts of its territory after objectively
demonstrating effective regionalization.
23. The Panel has assessed the necessary evidence provided with respect to Estonia over only a
three-day period following Estonia's its first ASF outbreak. Accordingly, there are insufficient
findings on the record that would allow for the completion of an assessment whether the
European Union has provided the necessary evidence to objectively demonstrate to the
Russian Federation the absence of ASF within a reasonable period of time from the first ASF
outbreaks in Estonia.
D. The Panel erred in its interpretation of the relationship between Articles 6.1
and 6.3 of the SPS Agreement
24. The Russian Federation a ppeals the Panel's interpretation of the relationship between
Articles 6.1 and 6.3 of the SPS Agreement.12 The Panel found that, even in situations where, under
Article 6.3, an exporting Member has failed to provide the necessary evidence to establish that a
region will likely remain disease free, an importing Member can be found to violate Article 6.1 for
failing to adapt its SPS measures to regional conditions in the exporting Member. The Russian
Federation requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's erroneous legal interpretation13, and
its erroneous finding that the Russian Federation's import restrictions on Latvia violate Article 6.1
because they are not adapted to SPS characteristics in Latvia.14
25. The Panel's finding reflects an incorrect interpre tation of the ordinary meaning, context,
object and purpose of Article 6.1. By using the word "shall", Article 6.3 establishes that exporting
Members claiming that parts of their territory are disease -free do not have the automatic right of
recognition for zones they claim to be disease -free; rather, they must first provide the necessary
evidence that objectively demonstrates that the alleged disease -free areas are and are likely to
remain disease-free. The fact that Article 6 contains a special provision ( Article 6.3) addressing
situations involving specific requests for recognition of disease free zones by exporting Members
indicates that these situations warrant treatment that may differ from other types of Article 6
claims.
26. This is supported by the context of the SPS Committee Guidelines to Article 6, which set out
a "sequence" of steps that must be followed by exporting and importing Members when engaging
with a regionalization request by an exporting Member. Based on the sequencing set out in the
Guidelines, it follows that absent the exporting Member having provided the necessary evidence
that parts of its territory are and are likely to remain disease -free, the importing Member is not
obligated to "adapt" its measures to the disease situation in the e xporting Member under
Article 6.1.
27. Further context is found in Article 5.3.7 of the OIE Terrestrial Code, entitled "sequence of
steps to be taken in establishing a zone/compartment and having it recognized for international

12 See, e.g., Panel Report paras. 7.365, 7.1011 (second sentence), 7.1020, 7.1027 and 7.1028.
13 See, e.g., Panel Report paras. 7.365, 7.1011 (second sentence), 7.1020, 7.1027 and 7.1028.
14 Panel Report, para. 7.995 and 7.1028.

- B-7 -

trade purposes." This corrobora tes that an importing Member must adapt its measures to the
SPS characteristics in its territory only if the exporting Member requesting for zone recognition has
provided the importing Member with the necessary evidence. This is a logical sequencing, given
that the exporting Member's cooperation in providing the "necessary" evidence is an essential
element in allowing the importing Member to assess the risk and ultimately to adjust its own
measures to that risk.
28. By interpreting Article 6.1 findings vis -à-vis disease prevalence in exporting Members as
being dependent and contingent on an exporting Member's compliance with its obligation under
Article 6.3 – in situations involving an exporting Member's request for zone recognition under
Article 6.3 – proper effect is given to the provisions of Article 6.3 and the corresponding obligation
on the exporting Member contained therein. By contrast, the Panel's interpretation attaches no
legal or practical evidentiary significance to the exporting Member's obligation to provide the
necessary evidence that a particular zone will likely remain disease -free under Article 6.3. This
would render Article 6.3 superfluous, and indeed, irrelevant for claims involving Article 6.1.
29. Relevant jurisprudence from the Appellate Body Report in India – Agricultural Products and
the Panel Report in US – Animals further confirms that (i) in situations involving a request by an
exporting Member for zone recognition under Article 6.3, consistency with Article 6.3 is required
before finding a violation of Article 6.1 vis -à-vis the situation in the exporting Member, and (ii) for
all other situations, a violation of Article 6.1 can be found absent a finding of consistency with
Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement.
30. Based on the above, the Russian Federation requests the Appellate Body to reverse the
Panel's interpretation that in situations in which an exporting Member requests for zone
recognition, a violation of Article 6.1 can be found with respect to the conditions in the exporting
Member even where the exporting Member has failed to provide the necessary evidence, and,
accordingly, to reverse its findings under Article 6.1 vis-à-vis Latvia.

- B-8 -

ANNEX B-2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION'S OTHER APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION1
A. Claims
1. The Pane l erred in the interpretation and application of the first sentence of
Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement when finding 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 measures at issue are not inconsistent with Russia's obligations
under that provision
1. A panel faced with an SPS measure adopted by a Member which has in place a regulatory
framework that (only) formally recognizes the concepts described in the first sentence of
Article 6.2 may still find an inconsistency of a challenged measure with the first sentence of
Article 6.2.
2. A determination by a panel based solely on the text of the regulatory framework of the
importing Member according to which that Member formally recognizes the concept of disease-free
areas can only be a provisional one. In such a case, the European Union submits that a panel
should subsequently seek to confirm its provisional conclusion in light of its analysis under
Articles 6.3 and 6.1 of the SPS Agreement.
3. Contrary to what the Panel posits, the European Union's proposed interpretation would not
lead to the inutility and redundancy of the first sentence of Article 6.2 for several reasons.
4. First, throughout the covered agreements there was used as a general drafting technique
the spelling out of the more general obligations in first place, followed by more specific obligations
afterwards. Article 6.2 starts with the phrase "in particular", clearly indicating that it develops a
certain aspect which is already contained in a more general form in Article 6.1.
5. Second, the Appellate Body clearly indicated that the recognition of the concept of
disease-free areas in Article 6.2 should be harmoniously interpreted in the light of the
requirements in Article 6.1 and not read in isolation.
6. Third, the first sentence of Article 6.2 is the place where a panel's analysis may start and
may very well end, without the need of going any further into the analysis of the other provisions
in Article 6, in a scenario like India-Agricultural Products. However, in the present scenario a panel
would reach only a provisional conclusion under Article 6.2, which may very well not be
confirmed after a full analysis under Articles 6.3 and 6.1. Indeed, in such a case a panel faced with
an SPS measure adopted by a Member which has in place a regulatory framework that only
formally recognizes the concepts described in the first sentence of Article 6.2 will still find the
challenged measure inconsistent with the first sentence of Article 6.2.
7. Finally, the European Union considers helpful the fact that elsewhere in its report the Panel
made findings according to which neither on the face of the measures at issue, nor in their
application, Russia recognizes the concept of regionalization.
8. Therefore, the Panel erred in the interpretation and application of the first sentence of
Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement when finding that Russia recognizes the concepts of pest - or
disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease pr evalence in respect of ASF, and thus, the
measures at issue are not inconsistent with Russia's obligations under that provision.

1 Total number of words (including footnotes but excluding executive summary) = 5419; total number
of words of the executive summary = 536.

- B-9 -

ANNEX B-3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION'S APPELLEE'S SUBMISSION1
A. Claims
1. The Panel correctly found that the E U-wide ban is a measure at issue attributable
to Russia
1. It is not in dispute that exports of the products at issue from the entire European Union to
Russia have ceased. Russia has essentially only two points on appeal, which have no merit :
(i) that the EU-wide ban is attributable to the European Union and not to Russia and (ii) that the
European Union has agreed to this because of the bilateral veterinary certificates and Russia's
terms of accession to the WTO.
2. Russia adduces three types of "creative" arguments.
3. First, Russia attempts to differentiate between "the requirement to present a valid
veterinary certificate" and "the exact content of the EU-Russia bilateral veterinary certificates".
4. Russia misrepresents the Panel's findings. The Panel n ever mentions that the bilaterally
negotiated certificates are the measure at issue. The measure at issue consists of different actions
which amount to an EU-wide ban.
5. A "sanitary measure" is a defined term, as set out in Annex A(1). The definition "in cludes"
"all relevant laws, decrees, regulations, requirements and procedures". The Panel has correctly
found that the EU -wide ban is an SPS measure. Any act or omission may be a measure for the
purposes of dispute settlement.
6. The European Union recall s the different actions attributable to the Russian government,
which taken together clearly denote the existence of a composite measure – the EU-wide ban –,
referred to by Russia as Russia's "provisional compliance with the terms / language of the
veterinary certificates": the letter FS -SA-8/1277, the FSVPS Instructions FS -SA-7/1275, the letter
НF-12-26/1650, a press clipping on the FSVPS webpage and the rejection of several consignments
by the Russian authorities after 25 January 2014. As a matter of fact , the effect of the above
actions was the practical absence of new attempts by exporters to ship the products at issue to
Russia.
7. Second, Russia claims that because the validity of the bilateral veterinary certificates is a
term of Russia's accession to the WTO, the bilateral certificates are "frozen in time".
8. Russia's interpretation is contrary to the terms of its WTO a ccession. The text of
paragraph 893 clearly refers to "any subsequent amendments" of bilateral certificates, in line with
the continuing obligation in Article 6.1.
9. The Panel could not find that the provision relied on by Russia has clear and unambiguous
language to the effect that Russia's Protocol of Accession would allow it to depart from other
obligations enshrined in the Multilateral Trade Agreements.
10. To the contrary, a reading of the provisions at issue in good faith, in accordance with the
ordinary meaning to be given to the terms in their context and in light of their object and purpose
reveals that Members were concerned with respect to R ussia's compliance with its
WTO obligations, in particular with respect to regionalization. (paragraph 892).

1 Total number of words (including footnotes but excluding executive summary) = 23380; total number
of words of the executive summary = 2176.

- B-10 -

11. In fact, Russia confirms that the position of the Panel and the European Union on this point
is correct. Russia sums up its ca se by asserting that the cert ificates must be "presumed"
WTO-consistent. Indeed, all measures attributable to a WTO Member are presumed
WTO consistent, until the contrary is demonstrated in DSU proceedings.
12. Third, the alleged "sequencing" argument advanced by Russia is a misrepresentation. The
impossibility of the EU veterinary officials to sign valid certificates is due to Russia's own refusal to
adapt the said certificates to the regional conditions in the European Union and in Russia.
13. A proper ex planation of "sequencing" would take into account that as a first step Russia
failed to agree to the adaptation of the wording of the bilateral certificates in accordance with the
EU proposals and scientific evidence. Russia agreed in the past with adaptat ion of the certificates
(i) for imports of beef from the European Union and (ii) for imports of poultry from Canada.
14. Russia's appeal on this point should be dismissed.
2. Claims related to regionalization
i) The Panel did not err in its interpretation of Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement with
regard to the scientific and technical evidence relied upon by the importing Member
15. There are several introductory remarks. First, it is unclear what Panel finding Russia is
actually appealing, as it invites consideration of 30 paragraphs of the Panel Report. Second, Russia
does not explicitly appeal the findings at paragraph 8.1(d)(iv). Third, Russia attempts to fault the
Panel for a "failure to interpret". This looks like a disguised Article 11 of the DSU appea l. Fourth,
Russia asserts that Article 6.3 must be interpreted so as to "require panels" to do something. Fifth,
Russia refers to evidence allegedly "relied upon" by Russia. Russia did not conduct an assessment
of risk and the Panel's findings under Articl es 5.1 and 5.7 are not appealed in this context. Sixth,
Russia adds to its appeal claim a reference to Russia's ALOP. The materials characterised as
"evidence" submitted by Russia are not part of the "matter" that the Panel was required to assess
under Article 6.3.
16. The European Union considers that these observations are in themselves sufficient to
dispose of Russia's appeal on this point.
17. The Panel made findings with respect to the evidence and information supplied by the
European Union and not wit h regard to Russia's alleged assessment of this information, because
Russia never assessed this information.
18. Contrary to what Russia alleges, the Panel did not omit the words "in order to" and "to the
importing Member".
19. The European Union disagree s that two different elements (risk assessment and risk
management) should be "merged" into only one subjective requirement. Russia attempts to
equate "necessary" (evidence) in Article 6.3 with a subjective test at the unfettered discretion of
an importing Member.
20. The context of Article 6.3 confirms this understanding. Article 3.3 provides that Members
may depart from international standards on the basis of a risk assessment or as a consequence of
a higher ALOP.
21. The European Union agrees that it i s possible that a risk assessment may be based on
divergent or minority views, as long as these views are from qualified and respected sources. The
present case is different from previous cases such as the Hormones or GMOs cases, which involved
relatively "new" issues.
22. Russia's allegations should be dismissed, taking into account that:
 the Panel did not commit any legal error and did not omit to give meaning to each and
every word in Article 6.3;

- B-11 -

 Russia does not have any risk assessment;
 the issue of a risk assessment based on divergent or minority views, from qualified and
respected sources, is not likely to arise in a case like the present one;
 Russia's ALOP was found by the Panel to be high, but not very high and not zero risk;
Russia considers appropriate the level of protection reflected in the OIE Terrestrial Code;
 the Panel has found that the EU regionalization measures represent a significantly less
trade restrictive alternative which meets Russia's ALOP;
 the factors to be taken into account under Article 6.3 are objective factors.
23. According to Article 11 of the DSU, the standard of review in an SPS case, including with
respect to Article 6.3, is for a panel to make an objective assessment of the matter before it.
24. The Appellate Body will no t reach the stage of considering whether or not it can complete
the analysis because it will not reverse the Panel's findings under Article 6.3.
25. Russia reiterates arguments which it dropped before the Panel, as they had no relevance to
the present dis pute, related to containment zones and compartments. The EU regionalization
measures are in line with the OIE Terrestrial Code.
26. Russia further states that the Panel did not make factual findings about the science and
technical evidence allegedly "relied on" by Russia. But Russia has no risk assessment.
27. The Appellate Body should reject this ground of appeal and uphold the findings of the Panel.
ii) The Panel did not err in its interpretation of Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement with
regard to the reas onable period of time for exporting Members to collect the
necessary evidence and for importing Members to review the respective evidence
28. A reasonable period of time is normally required in the process envisaged by Article 6.3. The
Panel was right to c onclude that the European Union supplied the necessary evidence to Russia in
order to objectively demonstrate that ASF -free areas are free and are likely to remain free in the
European Union, and in particular in Estonia.
29. Russia employs as a "litigati on technique" a "stuffing" of claims exclusively under Article 6,
while by their very nature such claims are closely linked to other provisions of the SPS Agreement,
such as Articles 5.1, 5.7 and Annex C, while not appealing the respective findings of the Panel.
30. First, according to Article 4.3.1. of the OIE Terrestrial Code, the process of regionalization is
"best implemented by trading partners through establishing parameters and gaining agreement on
the necessary measures prior to outbreaks of disease".
31. Second, the European Union provided abundant information and evidence with respect to
the ASF situation and the respective regionalization measures in the European Union (including
Estonia), so as to objectively demonstrate to Russia that ASF -free a reas are ASF -free and are
likely to remain so. Such information and evidence comprises (i) general information and evidence
with respect to the ASF regulatory framework in the European Union; (ii) specific information and
evidence pertaining to Estonia and (iii) immediate and constant updates with respect to the
ASF situation in the European Union, including Estonia.
32. The European Union provided to Russia the necessary evidence with respect to geography,
epidemiological surveillance, the effectiveness of sanitary controls in respect of ASF, relevant
ecosystems, the prevalence of the disease and the existence of control or eradication programmes,
in order to objectively demonstrate to Russia the requirements under Article 6.3.
33. Third, between the notifi cation of an outbreak to the OIE and the moment trade resumes
between the respective Members there is normally a short suspension period. This is a situation
covered by Article 5.7.

- B-12 -

34. The moment a Member is asking for information which is not necessary f or a more objective
assessment of risk, that Member can no longer benefit from the provisional shelter of Article 5.7
and the respective delays are undue as per Annex C(1)(a).
35. Article 5.7 itself employs the notion of a "reasonable period of time" , with respect to the
obligation (on importing Members) to review the measure in light of a more objective assessment
of risk. Russia did not review the measures at issue within a reasonable period of time, and Russia
did not appeal this finding by the Panel.
36. The notions of reasonable period of time in Article 5.7 and undue delays in Annex C(1)(a)
are related to each other. While Russia claims that 3 days do not constitute a reasonable period of
time with respect to assessing the EU ASF regionalization measur es in Estonia, at the same time
Russia made unnecessary information requests (resulting in undue delays) only 5 days after the
receipt of the EU regionalization request regarding Lithuania.
37. Fourth, the European Union recalls that most of the products at issue from Estonia were
already subject to the EU-wide ban since 29 January 2014.
38. Fifth, the ASF regionalisation measures in Estonia, while presenting certain particularities,
are sufficiently closely related to the ASF regionalization measures in t he other affected
EU Member States. Russia did not need an extensive period of time so as to assess the respective
regionalization measures.
39. Russia's third ground of appeal should be rejected. The Appellate Body will not need to
complete the analysis, as it will uphold the Panel's findings.
iii) The Panel did not err in its interpretation of the relati onship between Articles 6.1
and 6.3 of the SPS Agreement
40. The debate with regard to regionalization measures is relevant only with regard to
non-treated products.
41. At the interim review stage the European Union noted that certain paragraphs of the interim
report were factually inaccurate. The European Union promptly provided Russia significant
information on revised or updated control measures with regard to Latvia from the first case until
11 September 2014.
42. The European Union did not previously provide the Panel with copies of these
communications because it was never asked to do so. The European Union could not anticipate,
and the Panel did not indicate at any moment during the proceedings, that the relevant date it will
take into account with regard to Latvia will be a date subsequent to the date of the Panel
establishment.
43. The Panel considered that the supplied evidence is "new evidence" . However, the position
with respect to Article 6.1 remained unchanged.
44. The Panel did not err with respect to the interpretation of th e relationship between
Articles 6.3 and 6.1 neither as a matter of principle, nor in the particular case of the
regionalization measures in Latvia. Russia's fourth ground of appeal should be rejected.

- B-13 -

ANNEX B-4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION'S APPELLEE'S SUBMISSION
1 INTRODUCTION1
1. Pursuant to Rule 22(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, th e Russian
Federation hereby submits its Appellee's Submission.2
2. The Russian Federation requests the Appellate Body to reject the European Union appeal,
and to uphold the Panel's finding that the Russian Federation recognizes the concept of
regionalization pursuant to Article 6.2, first sentence, of the SPS Agreement. The European Union's
argument is based on the erroneous assumption that the only manner in which Members can
satisfy their obligations under Article 6.2 is by applying regionalization in th e challenged
SPS measure. This position is unsupported both by the principles of treaty interpretation and the
jurisprudence.
A. The European Union's interpretation of Article 6.2, first sentence, is unsupported
by the ordinary meaning, context, and object and purpose
3. The Panel did not err in its legal interpretation of Article 6.2, first sentence. The ordinary
meaning, context, and object and purpose of Article 6.2, first sentence, support the Panel's
interpretation of this provision as requiring only proof of an express recognition of the concepts of
pest-or disease -free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence, including through a
Member's national SPS regulatory and legislative framework.
4. The ordinary meaning of the phrase "recognize the concepts" confirms the Panel's
interpretation that Article 6.2 requires Members to enable the application of the concept of pest -or
disease-free areas, and areas of low pest or disease prevalence. This directly contradicts the
European Union's argument th at Article 6.2 requires Members to apply regionalization in their
challenged SPS measures. Indeed, the European Union's interpretation of Article 6.2, first
sentence, erroneously conflates the requirements of Article 6.1 with the requirements of
Article 6.2, first sentence. The European Union's interpretation of Article 6.2, first sentence, is also
contradicted by the phrase "in particular" in Article 6.2. The existence of this phrase demonstrates
that Article 6.2 is linked to Article 6.1, and not, as the European Union claims, the reverse.
5. Moreover, the Panel's interpretation of Article 6.2, first sentence, is confirmed by the context
of the second sentence of Article 6.2, which provides guidance on the factors that Members may
take into account when re cognizing the concepts of pest -or disease-free areas and of low pest or
disease prevalence. It is further supported by the overall structure and design of Article 6,
whereby more general obligations are set out first in Article 6.1, followed by more specif ic
obligations in Articles 6.2 and 6.3. Indeed, Article 6.2 is a subset of Article 6.1 to the extent that it
refers to situations involving pest or disease. Conversely, nothing in the context of Article 6.2, first
sentence, supports the European Union's interpretation.
6. The object and purpose of Article 6 further confirm that the Panel correctly interpreted
Article 6.2, first sentence. The Panel's interpretation properly differentiates between a situation
where regionalization is outright prohibited (such as with respect to India's Avian Influenza
outbreaks), and a situation where a Member has in place a detailed regulatory and legislative
framework recognizing regionalization. In doing so, the Panel's interpretation furthers the object
and purpose of ince ntivizing importing Members to create a legal framework that recognizes and
facilitates the concepts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence.
To the contrary, the European Union's interpretation would not enable panels an d the

1 Total number of words (including footnotes but excluding executive summary) = 10071; total number
of words of the executive summary = 965.
2 The Russian Federation should not be taken to agree with any argument or proposition advanced by
the European Union that is not specifically addressed in this Appellee's Submission.

- B-14 -

Appellate Body to tailor their findings to reflect these distinctly different situations, and thus offers
no incentive for Members to integrate the key principle of regionalization into their national
regulatory systems.
7. Moreover, under the Europ ean Union's interpretation, where an importing Member with a
legal framework recognizes the concepts of pest -or disease -free areas or areas of low pest or
disease prevalence but fails to apply them in a particular case, the panel or Appellate Body will
necessarily find that the importing Member acted inconsistently with both Articles 6.1 and 6.2.
Thus, in this situation, a panel will not be able to make independent findings under Articles 6.1
and 6.2, thus rendering Article 6.2, first sentence, largely redundant.
B. The European Union's application of Article 6.2, first sentence, is unsupported by
the Panel's factual findings
8. The European Union cannot demonstrate that the Panel's factual findings under Article 6.2,
first sentence, are incorrect. The Pan el made factual findings that the Russian Federation
recognizes regionalization based on not one, but numerous legislative documents and agreements:
Customs Union Decision 317, the 2006 EU -Russia bilateral memorandum on regionalization, and
the text of the actual veterinary certificates applied between the Russian Federation and the
European Union. These findings reflect the existence of a comprehensive framework for the
recognition and application of the concepts of pest - or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or
disease prevalence as set out in Article 6.2, first sentence.
9. Assuming, arguendo, that the Appellate Body were to find that recognizing the concepts of
pest- or disease- free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence would require some proof
beyond implementing a legal framework that expressly recognizes the concept of regionalization,
various actions taken by the Russian Federation demonstrate that the Russian Federation both
recognizes and applies the concept of regionalization. T hese actions include the numerous letters
sent by the Russian Federation to the European Union explaining its regionalization requirements
and requesting additional evidence; the fact that the Russian Federation has applied, and made
positive regionalization determinations, with respect to other Member States, and the fact that the
Panel found that the EU-Russia bilateral veterinary certificates recognize regionalization.

- C-1 -

ANNEX C
ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTICIPANTS
Contents Page
Annex C-1 Executive summary of Australia's third participant's submission C-2
Annex C-2 Executive summary of Brazil's third participant's submission C-3
Annex C-3 Executive summary of the United States' third participant's submission C-4

- C-2 -

ANNEX C-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF AUSTRALIA'S THIRD PARTICIPANT'S SUBMISSION
ARTICLE 6 OF THE SPS AGREEMENT
1. Australia recalls the Panel's finding in this dispute that Russia had not breached Article 6.2
because it recognized the concepts of pest - or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease
prevalence in respect of African Swine Fever in its legislative framework.
2. In Australia's view, the Appellate Body's findings in India – Agricultural Products indicate
that the obligation in Article 6.2 requires Members to do more than simply refer to or recognise
such concepts in the abstract.
3. The Appellate Body clarified that the overarching obligation in Article 6.1 requires a Member
to ensure that its SPS measures are adapted to regional SPS characteristics, and that the furth er
paragraphs in Article 6 elaborate on the specific aspects of this obligation.1
4. In light of the Appellate Body's findings, Australia considers that to fulfil the obligation in
Article 6.2, it is not sufficient for a Member to merely have a declaratory recognition of the concept
of regionalisation in its legislation. Rather, a Member must ensure that its SPS measures, as
implemented, are adapted to regional SPS characteristics.

1 Appellate Body Report, India – Agricultural Products, para. 5.141.

- C-3 -

ANNEX C-2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF BRAZIL'S THIRD PARTICIPANT'S SUBMISSION
Brazil considers that the panel addressed satisfactorily the relationship between
Articles 6.1, 6.3 and 5 but is concerned about the interpretation given to Article 6.2, which would
merely require WTO Members to "recognize the concept of pest - or disease -free ar eas", in
abstract.
Article 6.2 does not command solely a formal recognition of the principle of regionalization.
It also entails that such recognition be practically functional. As any other relevant obligation
enshrined in the SPS Agreement, the obligatio n to recognize the concept of regionalization in
Article 6.2 cannot be subject to a reductionist interpretation, that would devoid the provision of
any practical repercussion and would encapsulate it on a mere theoretical level. The second
sentence of the Article 6.2, moreover, defines precisely how the determination of the areas shall
be made, making it clear that a mere recognition of the principle is not sufficient in order to
comply with Article 6.2.
As regards Article 6.3, Brazil considers that the pan el correctly found that the exporting
Member must objectively demonstrate to the importing Member that some areas are, and are
likely to remain, pest - or disease-free. As the panel correctly clarified Members have to "provide
evidence" and not "merely information" concerning the information related to the determination of
a disease- or pest-free area. This requirement on the exporting member to demonstrate its claims
of disease - or pest -free areas could be seem as an equivalent to the obligation put on the
importing Member to "recognize" the concept of regionalization.

- C-4 -

ANNEX C-3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE UNITED STATES' THIRD PARTICIPANT'S SUBMISSION
1. The United States welcomes the opportunity to present its views on certain findings raised
on appeal by t he Russian Federation ("Russia") and the European Union ("EU") in
Russian Federation – Measures on the Importation of Live Pigs, Pork and Other Pig Products from
the European Union (DS475).
2. First, contrary to what Russia argues in its appellant submiss ion, the text of Article 6 of the
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ("SPS Agreement") does not
support a categorical rule that a breach of Article 6.1 – on the basis of a failure to recognize
particular disease free areas – can occur only after an exporting Member has satisfied its
Article 6.3 obligation to provide information.
3. Second, contrary to what Russia argues, the Panel did not err in its interpretation of
Article 6.3 by not taking into account in its Article 6.3 analysis evidence relied upon by Russia.
Rather, both evidence supplied by the exporting Member pursuant to Article 6.3 and other
evidence in the possession of the importing Member bear on the question of whether the importing
Member has satisfied its Arti cle 6.1 obligation to ensure that its SPS measures are adapted to the
SPS characteristics of relevant areas.
4. Third, the Panel committed no error in its interpretation of Article 6.3 by failing to give
Russia time to consider evidence following the Estonian ASF outbreak. This claim by Russia reflects
its continued confusion between Article 6.1 and Article 6.3 analysis.
5. Fourth, Article 6.1 imposes obligations with respect to measures, while Article 6.2 requires
recognition of concepts. Refusal to recogn ize specific areas as disease -free, standing alone, is
unlikely to support a finding that the importing Member failed to recognize the concepts described
in Article 6.2.

- D-1 -

ANNEX D
PROCEDURAL RULING
Contents Page
Annex D-1 Procedural Ruling of 14 November 2016 regarding the Russian Federation's
request for English-to-Russian interpretation at the oral hearing
D-2

- D-2 -

ANNEX D-1
PROCEDURAL RULING OF 14 NOVEMBER 2016
1. On 2 November 2016, we received a letter from the Russian Federation requesti ng that the
Appellate Body Division hearing the above appeal allow simultaneous English -to-Russian
interpretation at the oral hearing in this appellate proceeding. Specifically, Russia explains that
government officials in charge of sanitary and phytosanit ary issues will participate in the
oral hearing and that these officials do not have sufficient English skills to follow the hearing.
Russia states that it will bear all costs associated with such simultaneous interpretation.
2. On 3 November 2016, we invited the European Union and the third participants to comment
in writing on Russia's request. We received a response from the European Union on 4 November
and responses from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Norway, and the United States on 7 November 2016.
3. The Euro pean Union opposes Russia's request. The European Union submits that this
request is not related to the efficient conduct of the hearing or the effective exercise by Russia of
its rights under the DSU, but reflects an attempt to promote Russian, de facto, as a language in
WTO dispute settlement. The European Union states that the DSU does not prevent any delegation
from taking steps, within the structures of the delegation, to ensure simultaneous interpretation
for convenience of one or more members of a de legation. For the European Union, Russia's
request is in fact about access to the WTO interpretation booths. The European Union notes that
WTO meeting rooms are equipped with a limited number of such booths and raises a number of
general questions that may arise in relation to the use and the allocation of these booths in
practice.
4. In their respective comments, Japan, Norway, and the United States express that they have
no objection to Russia providing English -to-Russian interpretation at its own expense, so that
Members of its delegation may follow the proceedings. Brazil considers that such a request should
be granted only in exceptional circumstances and takes no position on whether such circumstances
are present in this case. Australia opposes the reque st, considering it unnecessary in the light of
its expectation that the issues on appeal will be of a legal, rather than factual, nature.
5. Furthermore, Japan and the United States emphasize that they would oppose any request to
allow interpretation going b eyond the one described in the preceding paragraph. Highlighting that
the three official working languages of the WTO are English, French, and Spanish, both Japan and
the United States object, in particular, to interpretation from Russian into an official WTO working
language being provided by interpreters. Australia emphasizes that all Members accede to the
WTO and participate in proceedings in full knowledge of the constraint of three official working
languages. Brazil states that WTO Members may face dif ficulties in having to express themselves
in one of the three official working languages of the WTO when these are different from their own
languages. Brazil adds that it has faced this challenge in WTO dispute settlement for the
past 20 years and that every delegation should make every effort to resolve such languages issues
within their delegation.
6. We note that Russia requests that the Appellate Body Division hearing the above appeal
allow only simultaneous English -to-Russian interpretation at the oral h earing in this appellate
proceeding. Russia does not request, and we do not address in this ruling, Russian -to-English
interpretation.
7. We further note that the official working languages of the WTO are English, French, and
Spanish. In the present case, the appellate proceedings are being conducted in English and thus in
one of the official working languages of the Organization.
8. We recall that the Appellate Body held in EC – Bananas III that, in principle, it is for a
WTO Member to determine the compositio n of its delegation in appellate proceedings. 1 We
therefore see no impediment for a WTO Member to include individuals providing interpretation

1 Appellate Body Report, EC – Bananas III, paras. 10 and 12.

- D-3 -

from one of the WTO official working languages into another language for the benefit of those
members of its delegation lacking the language skills required to follow the hearing.
9. At the same time, we consider interpretation provided by one member of a delegation to
other members of that delegation present in the hearing room, and audible for all present in the
room, not conducive to an efficient conduct of the hearing. In the interest of orderly procedure in
the conduct of this appeal, the Division has therefore decided, on the basis of Rule 16(1) of the
Working Procedures for Appellate Review, to allow the booths t o be used by the interpreters of the
Russian delegation during the oral hearing in this dispute. We do not see that the due process
rights of other participants at the oral hearing would be affected by these arrangements. We also
note that the Panel allowe d for similar arrangements during the substantive meetings with the
parties.
10. In the light of these considerations, the Division hearing this appeal authorizes Russia to use
interpreters for the purpose of simultaneous interpretation from English -to-Russian. We note that
Russia has undertaken to engage the interpreters and that Russia will cover all costs associated
with their engagement. We underline that the oral hearing is confidential and that Russia shall take
all necessary measures to ensure that the i nterpreters engaged by Russia maintain the
confidentiality of the proceedings. The Division requests that Russia indicate in its delegation list
which members of its delegation act as interpreters. In the interest of orderly procedure in the
conduct of thi s appeal, the interpretation facilities available in the designated hearing room shall
be used for simultaneous interpretation.