FEDERATION TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION 30 страница

804. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would, from the date of accession, ensure that a procedure was maintained to review complaints concerning the operation of conformity assessment procedures and ensure that corrective actions were taken in response to justified complaints in accordance with the requirements of Article 5.2.8 of the WTO TBT Agreement. The Working Party took note of these commitments.

805. In response to a question from a Member regarding the number of products subject to mandatory certification, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that, as more low risk products would become subject to supplier's declaration of conformity, the overall number of products currently subject to mandatory certification could be expected to decline in future compared to today.

806. In response to the question from one Member regarding the perspectives of transferring electronic equipment to the sphere of declaration of conformity, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that, while taking a decision of transferring of particular types of electronic equipment to the sphere of declaration of conformity, the factor of risk to cause harm is considered. Taking into account that electronic equipment, which was intended for non-professional users (those not having special education), carried elevated risk, currently such products should be subject to certification, in accordance with the existing norms of technical regulation based on international rules. Electronic equipment such as computers and audio-visual equipment, intended for professional users, would be subject to declaration of conformity. He stated that the Russian Federation would seek and duly consider a position of interested WTO Members regarding changes of the form of conformity assessment (certification) for electronic equipment such as television (TV), audio-visual (AV) and personal computers, within the procedures described in paragraph 724. He also explained that the Russian Federation would permanently conduct a review of products under certification, with the purpose to expand the scope of products under declaration of conformity, on the base of new data, provided, inter alia, by manufacturers. In addition, he stated that in accordance with the adopted CU technical regulation on safety of low-voltage equipment (which regulated also electrical safety of TV, AV and personal computers) the validity of certificates was extended from three to five years.

807. In response to a request from a Member regarding automatic extension of the term of validity of automobile-type approval, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that, according to the technical regulation on Safety of Wheeled Vehicles, adopted by the Russian Federation, for extension of the term of validity of automobile-type approval, analysis of the changes affecting the safety of the vehicle should be done. If there were no such changes, the automobile-type approval would be extended without additional tests. The representative of the Russian Federation assumed that such approach, aimed at simplification of automobile-type approval procedure, complied with the provisions of the WTO TBT Agreement. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that the same approach, as described above in this paragraph, would be reflected in the corresponding technical regulation of the Customs Union which was currently under development.

808. In response to the request of a Member to eliminate duplicative certification requirements applied to industrial products, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation abolished the duplicative certification requirement for industrial products on 1 July 2010, and that it would seek to ensure that such duplicative certification requirements would not be contained in any future CU technical regulations.

809. In response to questions from some Members concerning matters of transparency in the area of technical regulation, the representative of the Russian Federation informed Members of the Working Party that the Federal Data Bank of Technical Regulations and Standards had been established to perform all information procedures, including WTO notifications. He also informed Members that within this structure a Single Enquiry Point, as contemplated under the WTO TBT Agreement and the WTO SPS Agreement, were operative, providing access to, technical regulations, standards, rules, and conformity assessment procedures applied on the territory of the Russian Federation, as well as drafts of respective documents. Rosstandartinform, a State Unitary Enterprise, was the enquiry point and its website and e-mail address were the following: http://www.gostinfo.ru; [email protected].

810. In response to a question from a Member about the mandatory labelling requirement for GMO products, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that this requirement, in his view, complied with the legitimate objective of preventing deceptive practices, as provided for by Article 2.2 of the WTO TBT Agreement and reflected in Article 6.1 of Federal Law No. 184-FZ and Article 4.2 of the CU Agreement on the Common Policy on Technical Regulations. This requirement did not restrict entering of products containing GMOs into the market of the Russian Federation. It did not require from the producer any special labelling for a product containing GMOs but rather just a listing of the GMOs amongst other elements of the product's content. Furthermore, this requirement applied in the same manner to many WTO Members and there was no definitive provision in the WTO legislation establishing that it was inconsistent with the WTO rules.

811. Some Members expressed concern about the statement by the representative of the Russian Federation that a mandatory labelling requirement for GMO products "complied with the legitimate objective of "preventing deceptive practices". In the view of these Members, such mandatory labelling was itself deceptive, because it incorrectly implied that products made from GMOs were not as safe as comparable, non-GMO products. One Member stated that it did not share the opinion of the Russian Federation that mandatory special labelling for a product containing GMOs complied with WTO TBT legislation and would like this labelling requirement to be removed.

812. Some Members noted that quality management systems based on ISO 9000 should be recognised without Mutual Recognition Agreement. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that the Russian Federation considered quality management systems as voluntary certification systems. This was a sphere that was not regulated. Thus, authorities may not persuade anybody to recognise such systems, rather they could take actions promoting and facilitating voluntary recognition of such systems, inter alia by means of Mutual Recognition Agreements, concluded on a voluntary basis. Furthermore, quality management systems on particular kinds of products, based on ISO 9000, were recognised within the international ISONET system, and this practice took place in the Russian Federation.

813. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, the Russian Federation would ensure that all laws, regulations, and other measures within the scope of the WTO TBT Agreement, such as technical regulations, standards, and conformity assessment procedures, applied in the Russian Federation complied with the provisions of the WTO TBT Agreement. The Working Party took note of this commitment.

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

(a) General Regulatory Framework for Trade in Agricultural Products and Compliance with WTO SPS Obligations

814. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that the legislative basis for the regulation of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) regime in the Russian Federation was established by the following: Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC) and Customs Union (CU) Agreements; and, EurAsEC and CU Decisions: The EurAsEC Agreement on Implementation of Coordinated Policy in the Field of Technical Regulation, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of 25 January 2008, the EurAsEC Agreement on Establishing the EurAsEC Informative System in the Field of Technical Regulation, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of 12 December 2008, the CU Agreement on Sanitary Measures of 11 December 2009 (as last amended by Decision of the Interstate Council of EurAsEC No. 39 of 21 May 2010), the CU Agreement on Veterinary and Sanitary Measures of 11 December 2009 (as last amended by the Interstate Council of EurAsEC Decision No. 39 of 21 May 2010), Decision of the Interstate Council of the EurAsEC No. 83 of 19 May 2011 "On Entering into Force of Protocols of 21 May 2010 in the Sphere of Implementation Sanitary, Veterinary-and-Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures", the CU Agreement on Plant Quarantine of 11 December 2009 (as last amended by the Decision of the Interstate Council of EurAsEC No. 39 of 21 May 2010), CU Commission Decision No. 299 of 28 May 2010 "On the Application of Sanitary Measures in the Customs Union" (as last amended by CU Commission Decisions No. 342 of 17 August 2010, No. 455 of 18 November 2010, and No. 622 of 7 April 2011), CU Commission Decision No. 317 of 18 June 2010 "On the Application of Veterinary-Sanitary Measures in the Customs Union" (as last amended by CU Commission Decision Nos. 342 of 17 August 2010, 455 of 18 November 2010, 623 of 7 April 2011, and 724 of 22 June 2011), CU Commission Decision No. 455 of 18 November 2010 adopted "The Unified List of Dangerous and Quarantine Diseases of Animals of the Customs Union", CU Commission Decision No. 607 of 7 April 2011 "On Common Forms of Veterinary Certificates on Imported Goods Subject to Veterinary Control into the Customs Union Territory", CU Commission Decision No. 624 of 7 April 2011 "On the Regulation on the Procedure of Development and Maintenance of the Register of Companies and Persons which Carry out Production, Reprocessing and (or) Storing Products Subject to Veterinary Control (Surveillance) and Imported into the territory of the Custom Union", CU Commission Decision No. 318 of 18 June 2010 "On Assurance of Plant Quarantine in the Customs Union" (as last amended by CU Commission Decision No. 454 of 18 November 2010), CU Commission Decision No. 625 of 7 April 2011 "On Harmonization of CU Legal Acts in the Field of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures with International Standards" as amended by CU Commission Decision No. 722 of 22 June 2011, CU Commission Decision No. 721 of 22 June 2011 "On Application of International Standards, Recommendations, and Guidelines", CU Commission Decision No. 724 of 22 June 2011 "On Amendment of the Regulation on Common Procedure for Conduct of Veterinary Control at the Customs Border of the Customs Union and within the Customs Territory of the Customs Union", CU Commission Decision No. 726 of 15 July 2011 "On Veterinary Measures", CU Commission Decision No. 801 of 23 September 2011 "On Regulation on the Uniform Procedure of Carrying Out Examination of Legal Acts of the Customs Union in the Sphere of Implementation of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures", CU Commission Decision No. 830 of 18 October 2011 "On Amendments to the Common Veterinary (Veterinary And Sanitary) Requirements Applicable to the Goods Subject to Veterinary Control (Surveillance)", CU Commission Decision No. 831 of 18 October 2011 "On Amendments to the Common List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control (Surveillance)", CU Commission Decision No. 832 of 18 October 2011 "On Amendments to the Forms of Common Veterinary Certificates for the Importing to the CU Customs Territory of the Controlled Goods from Third Countries", CU Commission Decision No. 833 of 18 October 2011 "On Equivalence of Systems of Inspection of Objects of Veterinary Control (Surveillance)", CU Commission Decision No. 834 of 18 October 2011 "On Regulation on Common System of Joint Inspections of Objects and Sampling Goods (Products), Subject to Veterinary Control (Surveillance)", CU Commission Decision No. 835 of 18 October 2011 "On Equivalence of Sanitary, Veterinary or Phytosanitary Measures and Conduct of Risk Assessment".

815. In addition, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the following Federal laws remained in effect to the extent that they did not contradict the CU Agreements and CU Commission Decisions: Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On the Basis of Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity" (as last amended on 8 December 2010), Law of the Russian Federation No. 4979-1 of 14 May 1993 "On Veterinary Practices" (as last amended on 28 December 2010; this amendment entered into force on 29 June 2011), Federal Law No. 99-FZ of 15 July 2000 "On Quarantine of Plants" (as last amended on 28 December 2010; this amendment entered into force on 29 June 2011), Federal Law No. 29-FZ of 2 January 2000 "On Quality and Safety of Food Products" (as last amended on 28 December 2010; this amendment entered into force on 29 June 2011), Federal Law No. 52-FZ of 30 March 1999 "On Sanitary and Epidemiological Well-being of the Population" (as last amended on 28 December 2010; this amendment entered into force on 29 June 2011), Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 "On Technical Regulation" (as last amended on 28 September 2010), Federal Law No. 88-FZ of 12 June 2008 "On Technical Regulations for Milk and Milk Products" (as last amended on 22 July 2010), and corresponding secondary normative legal acts, e.g. Order of the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) No. 404 of 7 November 2011 "On Adoption of Administrative Regulation of the Federal Service on Veterinary and Phytosanitary Control on Provision of State Service on Issuance of Authorizations for Imports to the Russian Federation and Exports from the Russian Federation, as well as Transit within its Territory of Animals, Products of Animal Origin, Medicines for Veterinary use, Feeds and Feed Additives for Animals". The representative of the Russian Federation stated that, in his view, the provisions of these laws did not violate the provisions of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (WTO SPS Agreement). The representative of the Russian Federation noted that a new law "On Plant Quarantine" was being drafted and had been posted on the MOA website for public comment. It was expected that this draft law would be presented to the Duma and enacted in 2011. The plan was for it to enter into effect on 1 January 2012. Similarly, a new law on veterinary practices was also being prepared. Finally, he noted that his Government had provided detailed information on the implementation of WTO SPS obligations in the domestic regulatory system in document WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/36/Rev.1 of 11 July 2011.

(b) Competent Authorities for the Regulation of Trade in Agricultural Products

(i) Customs Union Authorities

816. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that within the CU institutional framework for regulating in the sphere of SPS measures, the role of the CU Commission was to coordinate the development and implementation of SPS measures by CU Parties, which involved their respective sanitary, veterinary, and phytosanitary authorities. The CU Commission laid out common general principles and adopted common safety requirements for goods marketed within the territory of the Customs Union. These safety requirements covered sanitary and epidemiological, veterinary, and phytosanitary regulations that governed production and trade of the CU.

817. The representative of the Russian Federation further explained that pursuant to CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 18 June 2010 (as amended by CU Commission Decision No. 431 of 14 October 2010 and last amended by CU Decision No. 454 of 18 November 2010), the CU Commission had established a Coordination Committee on Technical Regulation and Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures (Coordination Committee). The Coordination Committee was composed of nine members, three from each CU Party at the deputy minister level, and ensured that the competent authorities of the CU Parties adopted agreed decisions in the area of technical regulation and application of SPS measures. The main objectives of the Committee were:

- ensuring coordinated activities of the Competent Bodies of the CU Parties, as well as consideration of issues arising in the process of implementation of the policy in the area of technical regulation and application of sanitary, veterinary and phytosanitary measures;

- analysing issues, related to the assessment of the status of and the ways to improve CU technical regulations and application of sanitary, veterinary and phytosanitary measures within the CU;

- ensuring implementation of CU Agreements and CU Acts, involving or related to establishing technical regulations for the protection of life and health of humans, property, the environment, and life and health of animals and plants;

- monitoring and preparation of analytical materials and proposals in the area of technical regulation and application of sanitary, veterinary and phytosanitary measures within the CU;

- preparing relevant recommendations and draft decisions on the issues of introduction, implementation, modification or termination of technical regulations and application of sanitary, veterinary and phytosanitary measures within the CU; and

- considering unresolved differences between the Competent Bodies of the Parties in respect of draft technical regulations and other acts related to technical regulation and application of sanitary, veterinary and phytosanitary measures within the CU.

818. In response to a question from a Member, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that the CU Parties were preparing a draft CU Commission Decision on harmonising sanctions to be taken in cases of non-compliance of economic operators with CU Agreements and CU Commission Acts.

819. The Coordination Committee had established a senior level Expert Group on "Technical Regulation and Application of SPS measures" that met as needed and six expert groups that focused on the following issues related to technical regulation, including SPS matters:

- Working Group on sanitary measures;

- Working Group on veterinary-and-sanitary measures;

- Working Group on phytosanitary measures;

- Working Group on harmonisation of the sanitary-epidemiological and hygienic requirements;

- Working Group on development and application of common methods of determination of antibiotics residues in milk and dairy products; and

- Working Group on harmonisation of the CU Parties' legislation on penalties for violation of SPS legislative requirements.

Pursuant to the Regulations of the Coordination Committee, each of these Working Groups reported directly to the Coordination Committee. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that the Coordination Committee could create additional working groups. The composition of these working groups was established by Decision of the Executive Secretary of the CU Commission (Decision No. 1 of 18 November 2010, last amended by Decision No. 5 of 7 March 2011). The number of members of these working groups was not limited, and the members were appointed by the competent Ministries of each CU Party. The Secretariat of the CU Commission was responsible for organizing the work of the CU Commission, CU Coordination Committee and its working groups and provided informational and technical assistance to these bodies. The Secretariat included a Department responsible for technical regulations, sanitary and phytosanitary measures.

(ii) National Authorities

820. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that within the Russian Federation, the sanitary authority was the Federal Supervisory Service for Protection of Customers Rights and Human Well-Being ("Rospotrebnadzor"), under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation (MOH). The Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) was the competent authority with regard to veterinary and phytosanitary issues. The MOA was directly responsible for the marketing authorisation (including safety assessment) in the Russian Federation of pesticides, agro chemicals and veterinary medicinal products. The MOA also was responsible for the marketing authorisation (including safety assessment) of feed additives and the MOH was responsible for the marketing authorisation (including safety assessment) of food additives. Both the MOH and the MOA were responsible for ensuring that SPS measures adopted at national level complied with the corresponding SPS norms adopted at the CU level.

821. Rospotrebnadzor shared operational authority for ensuring food safety with the Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision ("Rosselkhoznadzor") which was under the jurisdiction of the MOA. Point 2 of the Regulations "On State Surveillance and Control in sphere of Ensuring in Food Safety and Food Quality" (adopted by Government Resolution No. 987 and Government Resolution No. 1009 of 14 December 2009), set out the respective authorities of Rosselkhoznadzor and Rospotrebnadzor and the implementation of the respective authority of each service was set-out in its regulations (available at: http://www.fsvps.ru/fsvps/laws/11.html and http://www.rospotrebnadzor.ru/federal_service/function). Rosselkhoznadzor was responsible for the implementation of CU and domestic SPS measures related to animal health, quarantine and protection of plants, use of pesticides and agrochemicals, antibiotics residues in non-processed food products, measures applicable in the production of feed for the protection of animal and human health and also protection of humans from diseases common to people and animals. In particular, Rosselkhoznadzor was responsible for enforcing measures related to plant and animal health and life as well as food safety at the border of the territory of the Russian Federation, when such measures were to be applied on a routine basis, including monitoring of imported goods for residues of pesticides, veterinary drugs and contaminants. Rosselkhoznadzor was responsible for ensuring the conformity of goods imported into the Russian Federation (e.g., as regards residues of pesticides or veterinary medical products) to applicable sanitary and phytosanitary requirements and was authorised to reject non-compliant consignments or to prescribe appropriate measures to mitigate a sanitary or phytosanitary risk with regard to imported goods. Officials of Rospotrebnadzor, however, carried out sanitary and epidemiological evaluation of goods at the border in the cases specified in paragraph 971. Rospotrebnadzor was authorised to adopt emergency measures related to food safety concerns, such as import bans or import restrictions, in which case, such emergency measures would be implemented by Rospotrebnadzor officials or the customs services of the relevant CU Party or other law enforcement agencies, as provided for by the national legislation relevant for emergency situations. Rosselkhoznadzor also participated in the activities of the CU Coordination Committee Working Groups under the CU Secretariat, including regarding the implementation of CU Decision No. 319 as amended by Decision No. 431 and the Regulation of the Coordination Committee on Technical Regulation and Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures of 17 November 2010. The State Veterinary Service was subordinated to Rosselkhoznadzor.

822. The representative of the Russian Federation further explained that Rospotrebnadzor was responsible for performing sanitary and epidemiological assessments pursuant to an administrative procedure which was done prior to circulation of controlled goods on the CU market. This assessment confirmed that the subject goods conformed to the requirements of CU and domestic sanitary measures. Article 2 of the CU Agreement on Sanitary Measures of 11 December 2009 provided that the national governments of the CU Parties maintained the authority to carry out sanitary control measures to prevent the importation into the customs territory of the CU and the circulation of regulated goods which were dangerous to human life and health and the human environment. Rospotrebnadzor exercised this authority according to the CU Regulation "On the Procedure for Carrying out of State Sanitary-Epidemiological Supervision (Control) over Persons and Transport Vehicles Crossing the Customs Border of the Customs Union". Article 51 of the Federal Law No. 52-FZ of 30 March 1999 "On Sanitary and Epidemiological Well-Being of the Population" and Article 21 of the Federal Law No. 29-FZ of 2 January 2000 "On Quality and Safety of Food Products" authorised the Head of Rospotrebnadzor and territorial bodies in regions of the Russian Federation to suspend or ban the production, storage, transportation, circulation and importation of food commodities, food additives, food products, water and other materials and products in contact with those goods. He noted that CU Commission Decision No. 299 required State Registration of categories of goods on the Unified List of goods subject to State Registration. The representative of the Russian Federation indicated that, after the establishment of the CU, the number of products subject to sanitary and epidemiological evaluation had been reduced by 80 per cent. He informed Members that further information on the sanitary and epidemiological assessment and State Registration was provided in paragraphs 959 and 960 of this Section.

823. One Member asked whether authorities of the Russian Federation or CU Bodies certified imports of the Russian Federation or whether the Russian Federation recognized exporting countries' certification as valid. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that CU Parties' recognition of the export veterinary or phytosanitary certificates of an exporting country for import of animal or plant products took into account the type of imported product and in particular the level of risk associated with a particular type of product. Requirements for different types of imported goods were set-out in certain Chapters of CU Common Veterinary Requirements. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that pursuant to CU Commission Decision No. 317, the competent CU Bodies were authorised to accept guarantees from the competent authorities of exporting countries that the relevant goods complied with CU veterinary and sanitary requirements. The representative of the Russian Federation also explained that the CU Commission had adopted Decision No. 607 of 7 April 2011, establishing Common Forms of export certificates for categories of products requiring such certificates. He stated that if other requirements related to export of goods subject to veterinary control were met, CU Parties would recognise veterinary certificates from any third country if such certificates were in line with the 40 CU common forms of veterinary certificates for export to the CU. He also explained that the CU Commission had adopted Decision No. 726 of 15 July 2011 "On Veterinary Measures" which authorised the CU Bodies to negotiate and adopt export certificates with requirements that differed from the CU common form and specific CU Common Requirements if the exporting country made a substantiated request prior to 1 January 2013 to negotiate such an export certificate. The decision also provided that bilateral export certificates initialled by one of the CU Parties before 1 July 2010, 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 until an export certificate was agreed with a CU Party based on the agreed positions of the other CU Parties. Bilateral export certificates initialled by one of the CU Parties between 1 July 2010 and 1 December 2010 would remain valid for import and circulation of relevant goods only in the territory of the CU Party that initialled the certificate until a bilateral export certificate was agreed with other CU Parties based on the agreed positions of the other CU Parties.

824. Some Members expressed concern as regards the overlap of measures required by the Russian Federation to confirm the conformity of goods with CU and national food safety measures: through veterinary export certificates, declarations of conformity, certificates of conformity, listing of establishments authorised to export to the CU, import permits, and State Registration. These Members questioned the utility of such repeated, multiple and overlapping requirements to verify conformity with requirements. In their view, it was burdensome, unnecessary and trade-restrictive to maintain together a declaration of conformity or other forms of conformity assessment and export certificate or additional requirements. Members requested that the Russian Federation eliminate this redundancy.