The world trade organization sided with Russia in a dispute on the limitation of Ukrainian exports of railway equipment.

The world trade organization on Monday, July 30 must publish a report on the results of the second trade dispute between Ukraine and Russia on restricting Ukrainian exports of railway equipment. The result of the dispute was not favor of Kiev, writes the online edition of the Chronicle.info with reference to EuroPride.

The publication notes that suddenly a new solution was even greater defeat than the first.

We will remind, a week ago it was announced the result of the complaint of the Russian Federation against Ukraine concerning the duties on ammonium nitrate. The WTO declared the violation of the anti-dumping investigation, but acknowledged that Kyiv’s right to conduct a new investigation.

But in the new case number DS499 and the name “the Russian Federation – measures relating to the import of railway rolling stock, turnouts and other railway equipment” the WTO ruling was worse.

As writes the edition, the result of the complaint disappointing – the expert panel rejected the key claims and arguments of Ukraine. The only question in favor of Ukraine – to the WTO called the wrongful refusal of the Russians to recognize the certificates issued by Belarus and Kazakhstan.

In addition, the experts took the side of Ukraine, recognizing some procedural violations by the Russian Federation.

But at the same time experts of the WTO has recognized the legality of Russia’s refusal of certification of Ukrainian products. The world trade organization explained that security in Ukraine in 2014-2016 differed from the total in the region, Russia had a reason not to allow the departure of its certification specialists on the Ukrainian enterprises, fearing for their safety.

Thus, the expert Commission rejected the Ukrainian arguments about alternative opportunities for verification that do not require visits to companies, the newspaper writes.

In addition, the expert group has refused to see the systematic violations by Russia, the newspaper writes. Such recognition would be extremely important to us, because then in the case of Russia’s refusal to remove the disorders in Ukraine would be the possibility of imposing retaliatory restrictions on compensation for their losses.

Theoretically, the Ukrainian producers an opportunity to return to the market of the Russian Federation, Belarus and Kazakhstan using certificates, but it is likely Russia will continue their policy of non-recognition, journalists said.

Unlike ammonium dispute, where independent experts initially pointed to the problems in the Ukrainian position, the case of railway constraints was considered very promising for Ukraine.

The authors add that, in view of the decision, there is reason to talk about the illegal influence of the Russian Federation to the Commission. Also the edition notes that this defeat is not final. Ukraine has the right to appeal – and most likely, Kiev take advantage of this opportunity.