PRINT

EU Statement at the Regular Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), 25 September 2026

25.09.2026
Geneva
EU mission to the WTO in Geneva - Press and information team

Statements made by Mr Davide Grespan, Minister-Counsellor and Mr Victor García Lopez Berges, Attaché

AGENDA POINT 1: SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB 

1.2. UNITED STATES – SECTION 110(5) OF THE US COPYRIGHT ACT: STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS160/24/ADD.248) 

  • We thank the United States for its status report and its statement today. 
  • We refer to our previous statements. We would like to resolve this case as soon as possible. 

AGENDA POINT 1: SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB 

1.3. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – MEASURES AFFECTING THE APPROVAL AND MARKETING OF BIOTECH PRODUCTS: STATUS REPORT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION (WT/DS291/37/ADD.211) 

  • We recall that the EU approval system is not covered by the DSB’s recommendations and rulings. 
  • On 10 June 2026, the European Commission presented three draft decisions for a vote to the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed. These decisions included authorising the placing on the market of two GM soybeans (1
  • (1) GM soybeans MON 94313 and GMB151 x DAS-44406- 6. ) and renewing one authorisation for GM maize (2
  • (2) GM maize MON 87460. ). The votes taken during the meeting resulted in ‘no opinion.’ The draft decisions were presented to the Appeal Committee on 15 July 2026. The vote taken during the meeting for the authorisations and renewal decisions resulted in ‘no opinion’. The Commission has adopted these decisions on 23 September 2026. 
  • On 9 September 2026, the European Commission presented the draft decision renewing one authorisation for GM soybean (3
  • (3) GM soybean MON 87769. ) for a vote to the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed. The vote taken during the meeting resulted in ‘no opinion.’ The draft decision will be presented to the Appeal Committee in October. 

AGENDA POINT 1: SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB 

1.7 EUROPEAN UNION AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING PALM OIL AND OIL PALM CROP-BASED BIOFUELS: STATUS REPORT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION (WT/DS600/12/ADD.10) 

  • The European Union refers to the status report that it provided for this meeting. 
  • The European Union is considering the appropriate way forward. 
  • In that context, the European Union remains ready to engage with Malaysia on the next steps. 

AGENDA POINT 1: SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB 

1.8 EUROPEAN UNION – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING PALM OIL AND OIL PALM CROP-BASED BIOFUELS: STATUS REPORT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION (WT/DS593/19/ADD.5) 

  • The European Union refers to the status report that it provided for this meeting. 
  • The European Union is considering the appropriate way forward. 
  • In that context, the European Union remains ready to engage with Indonesia on the next steps. 
  1. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DSB 

AGENDA POINT 2: EUROPEAN UNION – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF FATTY ACID FROM INDONESIA (DS622) 

  • At its last special meeting on 28 August, the DSB adopted the Panel report in this dispute which recommended that the European Union bring its measures into conformity with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994, to the extent that the measures at issue were found to be inconsistent with those agreements. 
  • The EU intends to implement the above recommendations by bringing the concerned measures into conformity with the WTO Agreements. 
  • Given the implementation task at hand, it is impracticable for the EU to comply immediately. The EU needs a reasonable period of time to do so. 
  • The EU is ready to discuss and agree with Indonesia the length of this period of time at the earliest available opportunity. 

AGENDA POINT 3: EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS MEMBER STATES: CARBON BORDER ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM 

A. REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (WT/DS639/3)

  • The European Union refers to its communication relating to this dispute that was circulated yesterday to WTO Members (WT/DS639/4). 
  • The request under the current agenda item creates an extraordinary situation in which a panel may be established to assess the international law compatibility of a regulatory, climate-oriented, environmental measure of the European Union at the request of the Russian Federation – a Member that for more than four and a half years continues to wage a war of aggression against another Member, in violation of the most fundamental rules of international law. 
  • The European Union reiterates its condemnation in the strongest possible terms of the Russian Federation’s war of aggression against Ukraine and reaffirms its unwavering support for Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders. The European Union further recalls that the obligation of all States under Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (“UN Charter”) to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force is a peremptory norm. 
  • The European Union has been and remains a firm supporter of the rules-based multilateral trading system, underpinned by a binding, two-tier and independent dispute settlement mechanism dedicated to settling trade disputes among Members. 
  • Such rules-based multilateral trading system is based on the fundamental tenet of public international law that disputes should be resolved peacefully and in accordance with the law governing the relations between States, if necessary, through adjudication. However, by continuing to wage its war of aggression against Ukraine, the Russian Federation is blatantly disregarding those same core principles. 
  • The actions of the Russian Federation cannot be reconciled with it having respect for international institutions, disciplines, and norms and they bring into serious question the Russian Federation’s motives for bringing this dispute in the WTO under international law and whether these proceedings are being engaged in good faith. 
  • Moreover, the purpose of WTO dispute settlement is to secure positive solutions to trade disputes. However, the European Union stresses that as long as the Russian Federation is waging its war of aggression against Ukraine, it cannot expect to be able to rely on WTO rules for improved access for its exports to the market of the European Union. In that regard, the European Union refers in particular to the Joint Statement on Aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine with the support of Belarus, dated 14 March 2022 (WT/GC/244). As indicated therein, to protect its essential security interests, the European Union has 
  • effectively suspended its concessions or other obligations with respect to the Russian Federation under the WTO rules. 
  • For those reasons, the European Union objects to the Russian Federation’s request for the establishment of a panel. 
  • That said, if a panel is established by the DSB pursuant to Article 6.1 of the DSU, consistent with the principle of negative consensus, the European Union will participate in the proceedings before the panel. The European Union will do so not because it considers the Russian Federation’s actions legitimate but because of its firm support for the rules-based multilateral trading system. 
  • Moreover, the European Union is confident that the Carbon Boder Adjustment Mechanism and free allocation under the European Union Emissions Trading System are WTO-compatible and has, therefore, a strong interest in ensuring an objective assessment of the matter by the panel, consistently with the DSU. 
  • The European Union will engage in these panel proceedings only to the extent necessary to ensure an adequate defence and proper representation of its measures. The European Union will only engage with the panel and not directly with the Russian Federation. 
  • The European Union’s participation in these proceedings should not be construed as acknowledgment that the Russian Federation’s actions, including this particular request, are legitimate. 

AGENDA POINT 5: APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS 

  • The European Union refers to its previous statements on this issue and thanks all Members that have co-sponsored this proposal. 
  • Since 11 December 2019, the WTO no longer guarantees access to a binding, two-tier, independent and impartial resolution of trade disputes. 
  • A fully functioning WTO dispute settlement system is crucial to support rule-based international trade and a key priority. The present agenda item as well the large number of Members co-sponsoring the present proposal remind us of that every month. 
  • The EU remains committed to reforming the dispute settlement system so that it meets the interests of all Members and supports rules-based trade. We welcome the statements of other Members to that effect. 
  • That said, despite the substantial work done by Members in dispute settlement reform discussions since MC12, it has now been more than six years that the system is not functioning fully. That work should resume when the conditions are ripe. 
  • Against this backdrop, the MPIA is ever more important. 
  • In that respect, we refer to the ministerial statement issued by the MPIA participants in Yaoundé (WT/MIN(26)/30), highlighting the role of the MPIA in supporting the rules-based multilateral trading system, welcoming new Members and encouraging other WTO Members to join the MPIA. 
  • We welcome Cambodia to the MPIA and we encourage other WTO Members to join, pending the establishment of a fully and well-functioning WTO dispute settlement system. 

AGENDA POINT 6: UPDATE BY THE DSB CHAIR REGARDING DS REFORM CONSULTATIONS 

  • As stated under the previous agenda point, for the European Union, dispute settlement reform remains a matter of fundamental importance for the proper functioning of the rules-based multilateral trading system. 
  • The EU remains ready to engage constructively, building on the substantial progress achieved in the discussions following MC12, when the conditions are ripe.