Russia – Measures affecting the importation of railway equipment and parts thereof

AB‑2018‑7

Report of the Appellate Body

Table of Contents

1   Introduction.. 10

2   Arguments of the Participants. 13

3   Arguments of the third participants. 14

4   Issues Raised. 14

5   Analysis of the Appellate Body. 14

5.1   Russia's claims relating to the Panel's preliminary ruling. 14

5.1.1   The Panel's findings. 15

5.1.2   Claims and arguments on appeal 17

5.1.3   Whether the Panel erred in finding in its preliminary ruling that Russia had failed to establish that Ukraine's panel request was inconsistent with Article 6.2 of the DSU. 19

5.1.3.1   Linkages between measures and legal basis of the complaint 21

5.1.3.2   Identification of the third measure. 22

5.1.4   Conclusion. 25

5.2   Russia's claims concerning the Panel's findings relating to the third measure. 25

5.2.1   The Panel's findings. 25

5.2.2   Russia's claim that the Panel erred in finding the existence of the third measure. 28

5.2.2.1   Arguments on appeal 28

5.2.2.2   Analysis. 29

5.2.2.3   Conclusion. 32

5.2.3   Russia's claim that the Panel erred by relieving Ukraine from the necessity of
establishing a prima facie case that the third measure exists as a single measure. 32

5.2.3.1   Arguments on appeal 32

5.2.3.2   Analysis. 33

5.2.3.3   Conclusion. 34

5.2.4   Russia's claim that the Panel erred in finding that the third measure was within its
terms of reference. 34

5.2.4.1   Arguments on appeal 34

5.2.4.2   Analysis. 36

5.2.4.3   Conclusion. 37

5.2.5   Russia's claim that the Panel erred by making findings with respect to the alleged registration condition. 37

5.2.5.1   Arguments on appeal 37

5.2.5.2   Analysis. 37

5.2.5.3   Conclusion. 41

5.3   Ukraine's claim under Article 5.1.1 of the TBT Agreement 41

5.3.1   The Panel's findings. 41

5.3.2   Claims and arguments on appeal 43

5.3.3   The Panel's interpretation of Article 5.1.1 of the TBT Agreement 44

5.3.4   The Panel's application of Article 5.1.1 of the TBT Agreement 50

5.3.5   Completion of the legal analysis. 54

5.3.6   Whether the Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the matter under
Article 11 of the DSU. 54

5.3.7   Conclusion. 54

5.4   Ukraine's claim under Article 5.1.2 of the TBT Agreement 55

5.4.1   The Panel's findings. 55

5.4.2   Claims and arguments on appeal 58

5.4.3   Whether the Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the matter under
Article 11 of the DSU with respect to the fourth alternative measure. 61

5.4.4   Completion of the legal analysis. 68

5.4.5   Whether the Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the matter under
Article 11 of the DSU with respect to the other alternative measures. 69

5.4.6   Conclusion. 70

5.5   Ukraine's claim concerning the existence of systematic import prevention. 71

5.5.1   The Panel's findings. 71

5.5.2   Claims and arguments on appeal 73

5.5.3   Whether the Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the matter under
Article 11 of the DSU. 76

5.5.4   Conclusion. 83

6   Findings and conclusions. 83

6.1   The Panel's preliminary ruling. 83

6.2   The third measure as a "general" non‑recognition requirement 83

6.3   The third measure as a single measure. 84

6.4   The third measure and the Panel's terms of reference. 84

6.5   The third measure and the local registration condition. 84

6.6   Article 5.1.1 of the TBT Agreement 84

6.7   Article 5.1.2 of the TBT Agreement 85

6.8   Systematic prevention of imports. 85

6.9   Recommendation. 85