Russia
– Measures affecting the importation of
railway
equipment and parts thereof
final Report of the Panel
BCI
deleted, as indicated by [[XXX]]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction.. 20
1.1
Complaint by Ukraine. 20
1.2
Panel establishment and composition. 20
1.3
Panel proceedings. 20
1.3.1
General 20
1.3.2
Working procedures on Business Confidential Information (BCI) 21
1.3.3
Preliminary ruling. 21
2 Factual aspects. 21
3 Parties' requests for findings and
recommendations. 22
4 Arguments of the parties. 23
5 Arguments of the thiRd parties. 23
6 Interim review... 23
6.1
Panel's preliminary ruling. 23
6.2
Ruling on a request to exclude two exhibits from the record. 25
6.3
Overview of claims and order of the Panel's analysis. 25
6.4
Claims concerning the suspension of certificates. 26
6.4.1
Measures at issue. 26
6.4.2
Consistency of the suspensions with Article 5.1.1 of the TBT Agreement 27
6.4.3
Consistency of the suspensions with Article 5.1.2 of the TBT Agreement 29
6.4.4
Consistency of the suspensions with Article 5.2.2 of the TBT Agreement 32
6.5
Claims concerning the rejections of applications for new certificates. 32
6.5.1
Consistency of the rejections with Article 5.1.2 of the TBT Agreement 32
6.6
Claims concerning the non-recognition of CU certificates issued in other CU
countries under CU Technical Regulation 001/2011. 33
6.7
Claims concerning the alleged systematic import prevention. 35
7 Findings. 37
7.1
Preliminary matters. 37
7.1.1
Panel's preliminary ruling. 37
7.1.1.1
Issue 1: Whether Ukraine's panel request fails to "present the problem
clearly". 37
7.1.1.1.1
Issue 1(a) 38
7.1.1.1.2
Issue 1(b) 45
7.1.1.1.3
Issue 1(c) 48
7.1.1.1.4
Issue 1(d) 50
7.1.1.1.5
Issue 1(e) 51
7.1.1.1.6
Issue 1(f) 54
7.1.1.2
Issue 2: Whether Ukraine's panel request expands the scope of the dispute. 55
7.1.1.2.1
Issue 2(a) 55
7.1.1.2.2
Issue 2(b) 58
7.1.1.2.3
Issue 2(c) 63
7.1.2
Ruling on the breach of confidentiality. 68
7.1.2.1
Confidentiality of information submitted to and by the Panel 68
7.1.2.2
Alleged breaches of confidentiality. 70
7.1.2.2.1
Disclosure of parts of the Panel's timetable. 70
7.1.2.2.2
Disclosure of aspects of Russia's position. 71
7.1.3
Ruling on a request to exclude two exhibits from the record. 72
7.1.3.1
Main arguments of the parties. 72
7.1.3.2
Exclusion of evidence in WTO dispute settlement on procedural and other grounds. 72
7.1.3.3
Assessment of Russia's request 73
7.1.4
Designation of information as Business Confidential Information (BCI) 74
7.2
Overview of claims and order of the Panel's analysis. 76
7.3
Claims concerning the suspension of certificates. 78
7.3.1
Measures at issue. 78
7.3.1.1
Overview of Russia's legal framework on conformity assessment procedures. 78
7.3.1.2
Challenged FBO instructions. 80
7.3.1.3
Panel's terms of reference. 86
7.3.2
Consistency of the suspensions with Article 5.1.1 of the TBT Agreement 86
7.3.2.1
Interpretation. 87
7.3.2.1.1
Like products. 88
7.3.2.1.2
The importing Member grants access
for suppliers of products from another Member under
conditions less favourable. 88
7.3.2.1.3
The importing Member grants less favourable access conditions for suppliers of
like products, "in a comparable
situation". 92
7.3.2.2
Application. 94
7.3.2.2.1
Nature of the claims. 94
7.3.2.2.2
Applicability of Article 5.1.1 and order of analysis. 94
7.3.2.2.3
Whether Russia has granted access
for specific suppliers of products from another Member under
conditions less favourable. 95
7.3.2.2.4
Whether Russia has granted less favourable access conditions for specific
suppliers of products, "in a comparable
situation". 98
7.3.2.2.4.1
Horizontal considerations. 98
7.3.2.2.4.2
Uncertainty with respect to the safety and security of FBO employees travelling
to Ukraine to conduct inspections. 100
7.3.2.2.4.3
Restrictions on Russian citizens entering Ukraine. 106
7.3.2.2.4.4
Overall assessment of the evidence submitted by the parties. 110
7.3.2.2.5
Like product analysis. 112
7.3.2.2.6
Conclusion. 113
7.3.3
Consistency of the suspensions with Article 5.1.2 of the TBT Agreement 114
7.3.3.1
Interpretation. 114
7.3.3.1.1
Article 5.1.2, first sentence. 115
7.3.3.1.2
Article 5.1.2, second sentence. 117
7.3.3.1.3
Burden of proof 119
7.3.3.2
Application. 121
7.3.3.2.1
Nature of the claims. 121
7.3.3.2.2
Applicability of Article 5.1.2 and order of analysis. 121
7.3.3.2.3
Article 5.1.2, second sentence. 121
7.3.3.2.3.1
Contribution to giving Russia adequate confidence that the products conform to
the technical regulations. 122
7.3.3.2.3.2
Strictness of the manner of applying the conformity assessment procedure. 123
7.3.3.2.3.3
Risks that non-conformity would create. 124
7.3.3.2.3.4
Less trade-restrictive manners of application. 124
7.3.3.2.3.5
Overall assessment of whether Russia has applied its conformity assessment
procedure more strictly than necessary. 138
7.3.3.2.3.6
Conclusion. 139
7.3.3.2.4
Article 5.1.2, first sentence. 139
7.3.3.2.5
Overall conclusion. 139
7.3.4
Consistency of the suspensions with Article 5.2.2 of the TBT Agreement 139
7.3.4.1
Interpretation of the second and third obligations in Article 5.2.2. 140
7.3.4.2
Application of the third obligation in Article 5.2.2. 142
7.3.4.2.1
Applicability of Article 5.2.2. 142
7.3.4.2.2
Overview of relevant facts. 143
7.3.4.2.3
Consistency with the third obligation in Article 5.2.2. 143
7.3.4.2.4
Conclusion. 146
7.4
Claims concerning the rejections of applications for new certificates. 147
7.4.1
Measures at issue. 147
7.4.1.1
Overview of CU legal framework on conformity assessment procedures. 147
7.4.1.2
Challenged FBO decisions. 148
7.4.1.3
Panel's terms of reference. 152
7.4.2
Consistency of the rejections with Article 5.1.1 of the TBT Agreement 152
7.4.2.1
Nature of the claims. 152
7.4.2.2
Applicability of Article 5.1.1 and order of analysis. 153
7.4.2.3
Decisions 1 and 2: Impossibility to carry out a certification procedure in full 154
7.4.2.3.1
Whether Russia has granted access
for specific suppliers of products from another Member under
conditions less favourable. 154
7.4.2.3.2
Whether Russia has granted less favourable access conditions for specific
suppliers of products, "in a comparable
situation". 156
7.4.2.3.3
Like products analysis. 157
7.4.2.3.4
Conclusion. 157
7.4.2.4
Decision 3: Absence of documents. 157
7.4.2.4.1
Whether Russia has granted access
for specific suppliers of products from another Member under
conditions less favourable. 157
7.4.2.5
Overall Conclusion. 159
7.4.3
Consistency of the rejections with Article 5.1.2 of the TBT Agreement 159
7.4.3.1
Nature of the claims. 159
7.4.3.2
Applicability of Article 5.1.2 and order of analysis. 159
7.4.3.3
Decisions 1 and 2. 160
7.4.3.3.1
Article 5.1.2, second sentence. 160
7.4.3.3.1.1
Contribution to giving Russia adequate confidence that the products conform to
the technical regulations. 160
7.4.3.3.1.2
Strictness of the manner of applying the conformity assessment procedure. 162
7.4.3.3.1.3
Risks that non-conformity would create. 162
7.4.3.3.1.4
Less trade-restrictive manners of application. 162
7.4.3.3.1.5
Overall assessment of whether Russia has applied its conformity assessment
procedure more strictly than necessary. 172
7.4.3.3.1.6
Conclusion. 173
7.4.3.3.2
Article 5.1.2, first sentence. 173
7.4.3.3.3
Overall conclusion. 174
7.4.3.4
Decision 3. 174
7.4.3.4.1
Article 5.1.2, second sentence. 174
7.4.3.4.1.1
Contribution to giving Russia adequate confidence that the products conform to
the technical regulations. 175
7.4.3.4.1.2
Strictness of the manner of applying the conformity assessment procedure. 176
7.4.3.4.1.3
Risks that non-conformity would create. 177
7.4.3.4.1.4
Less trade-restrictive manners of application. 177
7.4.3.4.1.5
Overall assessment of whether Russia has applied its conformity assessment
procedure more strictly than necessary. 178
7.4.3.4.1.6
Conclusion. 178
7.4.3.4.2
Article 5.1.2, first sentence. 178
7.4.3.4.3
Overall conclusion. 179
7.4.4
Consistency of the rejections with Article 5.2.2 of the TBT Agreement 179
7.4.4.1
Application of the second and third obligations in Article 5.2.2. 179
7.4.4.1.1
Applicability of Article 5.2.2. 179
7.4.4.1.2
Overview of relevant facts. 179
7.4.4.1.3
Consistency with the third obligation in Article 5.2.2. 180
7.4.4.1.3.1
Conclusion. 182
7.4.4.1.4
Consistency with the second obligation in Article 5.2.2. 182
7.4.4.1.4.1
Conclusion. 185
7.5
Claims concerning the non-recognition of CU certificates issued in other CU
countries under CU Technical Regulation 001/2011. 186
7.5.1
The measure at issue. 186
7.5.1.1
Terms of reference. 187
7.5.1.2
Existence of the measure at issue. 190
7.5.1.2.1
Conclusion. 197
7.5.2
Ukraine's claim under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement 198
7.5.2.1
Obligation to ensure no less favourable treatment "in respect of technical
regulations". 199
7.5.2.2
Conclusion. 202
7.5.3
Ukraine's claim under Article I:1 of the GATT 1994. 202
7.5.3.1
Matters referred to in Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. 203
7.5.3.2
Like imported products. 203
7.5.3.3
Non-extension of an advantage. 205
7.5.3.4
Conclusion. 206
7.5.4
Ukraine's claim under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. 206
7.5.4.1
Internal requirement affecting the internal sale and offering for sale. 206
7.5.4.2
Like imported and domestic products. 207
7.5.4.3
Less favourable treatment 208
7.5.4.4
Conclusion. 209
7.5.5
Claim under Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994. 209
7.5.5.1
Conclusion. 210
7.6
Claims concerning the alleged systematic import prevention. 210
7.6.1
Measure at issue. 211
7.6.1.1
Ascertaining the existence of an unwritten systematic measure. 211
7.6.1.2
Precise content and evidence of the existence of the measure. 212
7.6.1.2.1
The components of the measure and its systematic nature. 212
7.6.1.2.2
Import trade data. 218
7.6.1.2.3
Overall assessment of the evidence submitted in support of the existence of the
measure 221
7.6.2
Conclusion. 221
8 Conclusions and Recommendation.. 222