Geum.ru

WT/acc/rus/70 wt/min(11)/2

Вид материалаДокументы

Содержание


support of activities of people living in the Far North and similar territories; - carrying out of fundamental scientific resear
support of small enterprises engaged in high-priority activities; - social services provided for the population; and
Подобный материал:
1   ...   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   ...   75

- support of activities of people living in the Far North and similar territories;

- carrying out of fundamental scientific research;

- protection of the environment;

- development of culture and preservation of the cultural inheritance;

- agricultural production;

- support of small enterprises engaged in high-priority activities;

- social services provided for the population; and

- social support of jobless citizens.

  1. The Sub-Federal Governments of the Russian Federation generally provided the same forms of State support to industrial production sectors as did the Federal Government. Such support was mostly aimed at the financial rehabilitation of enterprises, resolution of social problems, and reimbursement of losses. For details, he referred to the Notifications on Industrial Subsidies Granted within the Territory of the Russian Federation, circulated to Members in documents WT/ACC/RUS/52, WT/ACC/RUS/51, WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/31 and WT/ACC/RUS/57.
  2. The representative of the Russian Federation stressed that in accordance with the principles established by the budget and anti-monopoly legislation of the Russian Federation, including those related to the respective responsibilities of the Federal and Regional Authorities, the Ministry of Finance and the Federal Antimonopoly Service ensured that the subsidies provided both on Federal and Sub-Federal levels were consistent with the national legislation and international commitments of the Russian Federation. He added that, according to Order of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1505-r of 19 October 1998 (as amended of 23 July 2001), the executive authorities of the subjects of the Russian Federation reported on a regular basis (quarterly) the forms and amounts of industrial and agricultural subsidies, granted from the regional budgets, specifying its purposes, to the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation. This allowed the Federal Authorities to control the conformity of the subsidies, granted by the regional governments, with all Federal legislation and the obligations under international treaties of the Russian Federation.
  3. Some Members of the Working Party asked to what extent loans at below market interest rates provided under Government Resolution No. 538 of 15 May 1999 "On Providing Budgetary Loans to Finance the Implementation of High-Return Contracts for Production and Supply of Products, Including Export Supplies" were contingent upon export performance, and requested clarification whether that Resolution had been repealed. Some Members of the Working Party also noted that certain subsidy programmes, such as production sharing agreements and other programmes for the automotive, farm equipment, and civil aircraft industry appeared to provide subsidies, which constituted prohibited subsidies pursuant to Article 3.1(b) of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. In addition, aspects of certain rail freight tariffs, as well as programmes for the consumer goods industry and textile industry also appeared to conflict with Article 3.1(a) of that Agreement. Members of the Working Party requested that the Russian Federation eliminate all such programmes from the date of accession.
  4. The representative of the Russian Federation replied that pursuant to Government Resolution No. 538 of 15 May 1999 "On Providing Budgetary Loans to Finance the Implementation of High Return Contracts for Production and Supply of Products, Including Export Supplies" loans equal to RUB 50.0 million had been granted from the Federal Budget to OAO "Rostselmash" in 1999. Since 2000, that Resolution had not been applied and no funds had been granted from the Federal Budget. He further stated that production-sharing agreements and the automotive programmes established under Presidential Decree No. 135 of 5 February 1998 "On Additional Measures to Attract Investments for Development of Domestic Car Making", and Government Resolution No. 413 of 23 April 1998 "On Additional Measures to Attract Investments for Development of Domestic Car Making" and the Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 166 of 29 March 2005 "On Introduction of Amendments to the Customs Tariff of the Russian Federation with Respect to the Spare Parts Imported with Aim of Industrial Assembling", Joint Order No. 73/81/58n of the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Industry and Energy of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation of 15 April 2005 "On Approval of the Order, Defining the Term "Industrial Assembling" (as amended on 24 December 2010 by Joint Order No. 678/1289/184n) and Establishing Conditions for Its Application to Imports to the Territory of the Russian Federation of Car Parts for Motor Vehicles (Tariff Positions 8701-8705) and Their Components" were discussed in the Section "Trade-Related Investment Measures" of this Report. Regarding civil aircraft programmes, he referred to the information in the Section "Trade in Civil Aircraft" of this Report. As to the issue of certain rail freight tariffs, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that this issue, from his view,>
  5. Concerning "OAO Rosagroleasing", a Russian agricultural equipment leasing company, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that the open Joint Stock Company Rosagroleasing had been established in February 2001 to support agricultural producers using the new national system of agricultural leasing. He mentioned that the activity of this entity was described in the Section "Polices Affecting Foreign Trade in Agricultural Products" of this Report. In addition the representative of the Russian Federation noted that under Government Resolution No. 90 of 4 February 2009, the Ministry of Agriculture provided loans to farmers at an interest rate below the market rates for the purchase of farm machinery manufactured in the Russian Federation. In 2009, the total funding of the programme for purchase of such farm machinery was RUB 1,200 million (US$40 million).
  6. Some Members noted that the loan programme of the Ministry of Agriculture for farm machinery was limited to purchases of domestically-produced farm machinery. These Members expressed concerns regarding this limitation and sought a commitment that any programme that the Russian Federation made available would comply with WTO requirements and would not provide subsidies contingent upon the use of domestic rather than imported products and would not otherwise discriminate against imported products.
  7. Some Members expressed concerns regarding subsidies granted under Government Resolution No. 1194 of 31 December 2009 to private persons purchasing automobiles, and in particular with regard to the limitations of this programme to automobiles produced in the Russian Federation. These Members sought a commitment that, in the future, any programme that the Russian Federation made available would comply with WTO requirements, would not provide subsidies contingent upon the use of domestic rather than imported products and would not otherwise discriminate against imported products.
  8. Some Members expressed concerns regarding subsidies granted to those purchasing or leasing civil aircraft in the Russian Federation and, in particular, on the limitations of this programme to civil aircraft produced in the Russian Federation. These Members sought a commitment that, in the future, any programme that the Russian Federation made available would comply with WTO requirements and would not discriminate against imported products. These Members also referred to the discussions and commitment undertaken by the Russian Federation in relation to civil aircraft in the Section on "Trade in Civil Aircraft" of this Report.
  9. Some Members noted that the Ministry of Industry and Trade loan programme for consumer goods and textiles industries on technical retooling, reportedly, was contingent upon the export of the subsidised products. These Members sought a commitment that any programme that the Russian Federation made available in the future would comply with WTO requirements and would not provide subsidies contingent upon the export of the subsidised goods and would not discriminate against imported products.
  10. In response to concerns from some Members about the loan programme for consumer goods and textiles industries referred to in paragraph , the representative of the Russian Federation explained that, in accordance with the Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 993 of 29 December 2007, the programme was neither in law nor in fact contingent upon export performance.
  11. Some Members stated that the Russian Federation should recognise that the government regulation of natural monopoly prices could constitute a subsidy under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. These Members asked the Russian Federation to provide a description of the existing pricing mechanisms and any reforms under way to bring domestic prices for oil, natural gas and electricity closer to market prices. In particular, those Members requested that the Russian Federation provide details of the recent reforms of the pricing of electricity to commercial consumers.
  12. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation pointed out that his authorities continued to believe that the government regulation of natural monopoly prices did not constitute a subsidy under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Regarding domestic prices for oil, natural gas and electricity, he referred to the information provided in the Section "Pricing Policies" of this Report.
  13. Several Members asked the Russian Federation to confirm that all subsidy programmes at all levels of government would be administered in line with the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and that, upon accession, all necessary information on all subsidies programmes at all levels of government would be notified to the WTO Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures in accordance with Article 25 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
  14. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, except as otherwise provided in the Working Party Report, upon accession, the Russian Federation would eliminate all subsidies programmes administered within its territory falling within the scope of Article 3 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures or modify these programmes so that any subsidy provided would not be contingent upon exportation or the use of domestic over imported goods. He also confirmed that any subsidy programme in place or established after accession within the territory of the Russian Federation would be administered in conformity with the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. In addition, the Russian Federation would provide a subsidies notification in accordance with Article 25 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures to the WTO Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures as provided in paragraph . He also confirmed that the Russian Federation would not invoke any of the provisions of Articles 27 and 28 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The Working Party took note of these commitments.

- Technical Barriers to Trade

- (a) Legal Framework
  1. The representative of the Russian Federation informed Members of the Working Party that the legal framework of his country for technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment systems was governed by international agreements of the EurAsEC7 and of the CU8, by other EurAsEC and CU Acts, and the national legislation of the Parties to these agreements. He noted that the legal framework outlined in these Agreements and Acts required certain products circulating in the territories of the EurAsEC and CU Parties respectively to meet established mandatory technical, as well as sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS), requirements. In particular, trade (including both importation and circulation in the domestic market) in products in the territory of the Russian Federation could be restricted or banned if the products in question did not meet these requirements. The CU Parties, all of whom also were members of EurAsEC, had agreed to harmonize their policies and regulatory systems in the area of technical regulation within the established EurAsEC system and sought to confirm and to intensify their cooperation in this area within the framework of the CU. The goal of this harmonization was to ensure uniform requirements for the circulation of goods within the territories of the CU Parties in the area of technical regulation, realized through common technical regulations that had been developed using procedures established in conformity with CU or EurAsEC Acts adopted as international agreements or decisions among the participating EurAsEC and CU Parties. These technical regulations were applied directly in the territories of the CU Parties, and no separate national legislation was necessary. The provisions of the EurAsEC and CU Agreements and other EurAsEC and CU Acts were based on the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), and technical regulations were applied with the purpose of protecting the life and (or) health of humans, property, environment, animal and plant life and (or) health, and preventing actions that might mislead consumers, as well as for the purpose of ensuring energy efficiency and saving resources. The representative of the Russian Federation emphasized that technical regulations adopted and applied within the EurAsEC and CU were not adopted for any other purposes.
  2. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that the legal basis for the common policy was the EurAsEC Agreement on the Basics of Harmonization of Technical Regulations of the Member States of the Eurasian Economic Community of 24 March 2005 (hereafter: EurAsEC Agreement on Basics of Technical Regulation Harmonization) and the EurAsEC Agreement on Implementation of Coordinated Policy in the Field of Technical Regulation, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of 25 January 2008 (hereafter: EurAsEC Agreement on Technical Regulation Policy Coordination), as well as the Agreement on Uniform Principles and Rules of Technical Regulation in the Republic of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation of 18 November 2010 (hereafter: CU Agreement on Uniform Technical Regulation Principles); Regulation on Development of Technical Regulations of Eurasian Economic Community, approved by EurAsEC Interstate Council Decision No. 1175 of 17 August 2008, Regulation on Development of Technical Regulations of Eurasian Economic Community; and CU Commission Decision No. 527 of 28 January 2011, Regulation on Development, Adoption, Amendment and Cancellation of Technical Regulations of the Customs Union (CU Commission Decision No. 527). These Agreements and Decisions established the main instruments of the common policy applied in the Russian Federation in the following areas:

- harmonization of national legislation in the area of technical regulation;

- development and adoption of technical regulations of the CU and of EurAsEC stipulating mandatory and binding requirements for the goods subject to technical regulation;

- implementation of common procedure on development of technical regulations in the territory of each CU and EurAsEC Party;

- harmonization of standards and the implementation of relevant international standards as a basis for the elaboration of technical regulations;

- implementation of common forms and rules for conformity assessment;

- conducting conformity assessment (confirmation) of products or product-related production processes, installation, set-up, operation (use), storage, carrying (transportation), sale and disposal, including testing and certification; as well as

- accreditation and/or designation of certification (conformity confirmation) bodies and accreditation of test laboratories (centres) participating in the process of mandatory confirmation of conformity.
  1. He added that the CU Agreement on the Circulation of Goods Subject to Mandatory Conformity Assessment on the Customs Territory of Customs Union of 11 December 2009 (hereafter:  CU Agreement on Mandatory Conformity Assessment) provided for development of a list of goods for which it was possible to issue a certificate and to register a declaration of conformity assessment using a common form during the transition period, until the adoption of CU technical regulations. The CU Agreement on Mutual Recognition of Accreditation of Certification (Conformity Assessment) Bodies and Test Laboratories (Centres) Performing Work on Conformity Assessment of 11 December 2009 (hereafter: CU Agreement on Mutual Recognition of Accreditation Bodies) established the principles for a common CU system of mutual recognition of accreditation, the responsibilities of the accreditation bodies of the CU Parties, and general principles of accreditation, pending the gradual replacement of this mutual recognition system by the adoption and application of common EurAsEC and CU technical regulations by the CU Parties.
  2. Responding to questions from Members on the relationship between EurAsEC and CU technical regulations and international standards, the representative of the Russian Federation affirmed that Article 5.2 of the EurAsEC Agreement on Technical Regulation Policy Coordination and Article 4.4 of the CU Agreement on Uniform Technical Regulation Principles established that the relevant international standards, and other documents (i.e., rules, directives and recommendations or any other documents accepted by international standardizing organizations) would be used as the basis for elaborating the EurAsEC and CU technical regulations, except in cases where such documents were absent, or did not conform with the purposes of the technical regulations of the Customs Union, in particular, due to climatic and geographical factors or technological and other particularities. CU Commission Decision No. 527 which provided for regulations for the development, adoption, amendment and cancellation of technical regulations on the territories of the CU Parties, was amended and improved by CU Commission Decision No. 606 of 7 April 2011 "Amendments to the Regulations on the Development, Adoption, Amendment and Cancellation of the Technical Regulations of the Customs Union" (hereafter: CU Commission Decision No. 606). CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 18 June 2010 "On Technical Regulation in the Customs Union" (hereafter: CU Commission Decision No. 319) established the CU Unified List of Products for which it was possible to use a certificate or to register a declaration of conformity assessment using a CU common form or national form during the transition period until the adoption of CU technical regulations. This list was replaced by CU Commission Decision No. 620 of 7 April 2011 "On the Unified List's Update with Regard to Products Subjected to Mandatory Conformity Assessment (Confirmation) within the Framework of the CU with Issuance of Single Documents", approved by CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 18 June 2010. In accordance with Explanatory Note 1, paragraph 2 to the list of products adopted by CU Commission Decision No. 620, a declaration of conformity based on the CU common form could not be used for goods produced by foreign manufacturers located outside the territory of the CU. However, CU Commission Decision No. 620 still provided for the possibility of using a certificate of conformity for such goods based on the CU common form. In the Russian Federation, a declaration of conformity for goods manufactured outside of the Russian Federation could be done under Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 "On Technical Regulation" (as last amended on 28 September 2010) (hereafter in this Section: Federal Law No. 184-FZ). CU Commission Decision No. 319 also determined the criteria for the inclusion of conformity assessment bodies and test laboratories into a Unified Register of certification bodies and testing laboratories of the Customs Union (hereafter: the CU Unified Register) and established the rules for the formation and maintenance of the Unified List and Unified Register by the national authorised bodies. CU Commission Decision No. 319 also established the regulations for the importation of products listed on the CU Unified Register. Article 4 of the CU Agreement on Uniform Technical Regulation Principles provided that technical regulations could only be developed for goods on the Unified List of 61 "risky" products in respect of which mandatory requirements (technical regulations) could be established in the framework of the Customs Union. The list of 61 products was approved by CU Commission Decision No. 526 of 28 January 2011 "On the Unified List of Products, in Respect of Which Mandatory Requirements are Established in the Frame of the Customs Union" (hereafter:  CU Commission Decision No. 526). This list could be expanded by subsequent CU Commission Decisions if new risks were identified. Of these 61 products, 47 had been identified for priority attention in the development and adoption of CU technical regulations. However, in instances where EurAsEC technical regulations also had been adopted, the EurAsEC technical regulations prevailed to the extent that they duplicated the CU technical regulations in whole or in part. Schedules for the development of priority EurAsEC and CU technical regulations that would establish the desired harmonized regime were provided in the EurAsEC Interstate Council Decision No. 521 of 19 November 2010 "the Schedule of Development of EurAsEC First-Priority Technical Regulations" (hereafter: EurAsEC Interstate Council Decision No. 521) and CU Commission Decision No. 492 of 8 December 2010 "On Schedule of Development of Priority Technical Regulations of the Customs Union" (hereafter: CU Commission Decision No. 492), respectively, with a view to their development during 2011. CU Commission Decision No. 621 of 7 April 2011 "On the Regulation on the Application of Model Schemes of Conformity Assessment (Confirmation) in the Technical Regulations of the Customs Union" (hereafter: CU Commission Decision No. 621), established common forms and regulations on the application of model conformity assessment schemes to ensure compliance with the requirements of technical regulations of the Customs Union. The CU Commission had also approved a draft Agreement submitted for approval by the CU Parties establishing types of administrative violations and charges for the violations in the sphere of technical regulation and the application of the sanitary, veterinary, and phytosanitary measures. Once CU or EurAsEC technical regulations came into effect, they would be applied with direct effect, and relevant national requirements, established by laws of the CU or EurAsEC Parties, would no longer be applied in the territories of those Parties. Additional certification among the CU Parties would no longer be necessary. It was expected that, by 31 December 2012, the CU Commission would have adopted all of the 47 priority CU technical regulations which would enter into force no later than 31 December 2014, after a transitional period before application of the relevant CU technical regulations to allow producers, importers, and exporters to become acquainted with the new technical regulations. By that date, all other national mandatory technical requirements applied on the territory of CU Parties would be replaced by CU technical regulations or would no longer be applied. Notification of when implemented CU technical regulations superseded national technical regulations would be posted on the MIT website and in the official journal of Rosstandart, the Herald. Certificates of conformity issued under national mandatory technical requirements before entry into force of relevant CU or EurAsEC technical regulations could be used for the full term of their validity.
  3. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that these EurAsEC and CU Agreements and the EurAsEC and CU Acts implementing the CU policy on technical regulation substantially had replaced Federal Law No. 184-FZ as the overall legal framework for technical regulations, standards, and conformity assessment systems in the Russian Federation with the establishment of the CU regime on 1 January 2010. Certain provisions of Federal Law No. 184-FZ remained in effect, however (to the extent they did not conflict with CU and EurAsEC Agreements and EurAsEC and CU Acts, including CU Commission Decisions). The development and application of standards, conformity assessment, state control and supervision, metrological control, and liability issues in the Russian Federation would continue to be administered on the national level under the CU and EurAsEC regimes, with regard to the following issues:

- national standards within the meaning of the TBT Agreement (development, adoption) and standards organizations;

- sets of rules;

- state control and supervision (inspection) to ensure compliance with the requirements of technical regulations;

- assurance of uniformity of measurements;

- violations of technical regulations and withdrawal of products from the domestic market;

- operation of the national aspects of developing and maintaining the system of certificates of conformity assessment and declarations of conformity, including national part of the Unified Register of certificates and declarations;

- operation of the national aspects of developing and maintaining the system of certification bodies and testing laboratories (centres) of the CU, including accreditation and national part of the Unified Register of certification bodies and testing laboratories;

- voluntary conformity assessment;

- rights and obligations of applicants in the field of mandatory conformity assessment;

- coordination of the activities, positions and procedures of the Government in the field of technical regulation;

- procedures for the determination of liability in the case of violation of technical regulations and sanctions therefore until the decision to transfer these issues to the CU was made;

- providing required transparency; and

- financing in the field of technical regulation.

Other EurAsEC and CU Acts and domestic legislation pertaining to standards, technical regulations, and conformity assessment in the Russian Federation were listed in Annex 3 to the Report.
  1. A Member noted that the Russian Federation continued to adopt mandatory phytosanitary measures under its national law on plant quarantine, through measures that were not considered to be technical regulations. This Member requested an explanation of this practice. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that technical regulations applied only to matters related to the life and health of humans and animals. Since phytosanitary measures related to plant life and health they were not considered to be technical regulations, but were purely SPS measures and were adopted under procedures that ensured transparency and compliance with the WTO SPS Agreement.