PRINT

EU STATEMENTS AT THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY MEETING, 24 February 2026

24.02.2026
Geneva
EU mission to the WTO in Geneva - Press and information team

Statements delivered by 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.243)

  • 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.206)

  • We recall that the EU approval system is not covered by the DSB’s recommendations and rulings.

  • On 14 October 2025, the European Commission presented two 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 one GM sugar beet([1]) and renewing one authorisation for GM maize([2]). The votes taken during the meeting resulted in ‘no opinion.’ The draft decisions were submitted to the Appeal Committee on 28 November 2025. The votes taken during the meeting resulted in ‘no opinion’. The Commission will now decide on these authorisations. 

  • On 12 December 2025, the European Commission presented four 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 one GM soybean ([3]), and renewing three authorisation, one for GM maize ([4]) and two for GM cottons ([5]). The votes taken during the meeting resulted in ‘no opinion.’ The draft decisions were submitted to the Appeal Committee on 27 January 2026. The votes taken during the meeting resulted in ‘no opinion’. The Commission will now decide on these authorisations. 

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.6)

  • Madam Chair, regarding the recommendations and rulings of the DSB relating to the timely review of the data used to determine which biofuels are high-Indirect Land Use Change (“ILUC”) risk, as explained at the last meeting of 27 January, the European Union has reviewed Delegated Regulation 2019/807 of 13 March 2019. As a result of this review, on 20 January 2026, the European Commission adopted a Report on the Status of Production Expansion of Relevant Food and Feed Crops Worldwide pursuant to Article 7 of the Delegated Regulation 2019/807. On 21 January 2026, public consultations were launched on draft amendments to the Delegated Regulation 2019/807, to inter alia, reflect the updated scientific data. The public consultations closed on 18 February, following which the European Commission will adopt the amendments to the Delegated Regulation.
  • Regarding the recommendations and rulings of the DSB relating to firstly, the design and implementation of the low ILUC-risk criteria and certification procedure, and secondly, the French TIRIB (Taxe Incitative Relative à l'Incorporation de Biocarburant), the European Union refers to the Status Report for more details. 

Second intervention

  • The EU has taken important steps to comply and rest assured is working hard and in good faith to complete the remaining procedural steps as soon as possible. The EU looks forward to reporting additional progress to the DSB in due course.

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

1.8 EUROPEAN UNION AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES  CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING PALM OIL AND OIL PALM CROPBASED BIOFUELS: STATUS REPORT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION (WT/DS593/19/Add.1)

  • Madam Chair, regarding the recommendations and rulings of the DSB relating to the timely review of the data used to determine which biofuels are high-Indirect Land Use Change (“ILUC”) risk, as explained at the last meeting of 27 January, the European Union has reviewed Delegated Regulation 2019/807 of 13 March 2019. As a result of this review, on 20 January 2026, the European Commission adopted a Report on the Status of Production Expansion of Relevant Food and Feed Crops Worldwide pursuant to Article 7 of the Delegated Regulation 2019/807. On 21 January 2026, public consultations were launched on draft amendments to the Delegated Regulation 2019/807, to inter alia, reflect the updated scientific data. The public consultations closed on 18 February, following which the European Commission will adopt the amendments to the Delegated Regulation.
  • Regarding the recommendations and rulings of the DSB relating to firstly, the design and implementation of the low ILUC-risk criteria and certification procedure, and secondly, the French TIRIB (Taxe Incitative Relative à l'Incorporation de Biocarburant), the European Union refers to the Status Report for more details.

Second intervention

  • The EU has taken important steps to comply and rest assured is working hard and in good faith to complete the remaining procedural steps as soon as possible.

    AGENDA POINT 2: COLOMBIA - ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON FROZEN FRIES FROM BELGIUM? GERMANY AND THE NETHRLANDS (DS591)

  • The European Union would like to thank Colombia for this update. We reiterate that, since the matter is not yet resolved, it remains subject to surveillance by the DSB, in accordance with Article 21.6 DSU.
  • The European Union welcomes Colombia’s efforts to comply.

AGENDA POINT 3: EUROPEAN UNION – COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON STAINLESS STEEL COLD-ROLLED FLAT PRODUCTS FROM INDONESIA (DS616)

  • We thank the US for its intervention that touches on an important issue which arose in this dispute.
  • The EU is also concerned about the impact this panel ruling would have on the effectiveness of the subsidies disciplines in the SCM Agreement. It would allow governments to circumvent the disciplines by subsidising companies via a third country, while causing the same injurious effects to the domestic industry as if the subsidy was given directly. This risk is not merely theoretical, and such practices also exist in other cases.
  • The EU legal position in this dispute is very well known. We consider that the panel report contains serious errors of law or legal interpretation in relation to the findings on subsidisation that needed to be corrected.
  • This is precisely why the EU exercised its right to appeal on these issues pursuant to Article 16.4 of the DSU. 

  • We will not repeat those reasons of appeal here today. We would refer you to the European Union’s notice of appeal of 21 November 2025. We will elaborate in more detail when an appeal instance becomes available for this dispute.

    In the meantime, it goes without saying that we do not consider the panel’s findings to be persuasive, and we would not expect them to be relied upon by panels in other disputes.

Second intervention

  • The EU would like to recall that it had repeatedly invited Indonesia to join the Multi-party appeal arbitration arrangement (“MPIA”) or to agree to similar appeal arbitration procedures on a bilateral and reciprocal basis in the context of this dispute and other disputes, including Indonesia — Raw Materials (DS592).
  • It was up to Indonesia to take up these offers but it failed to do so.
  • Instead, Indonesia decided to appeal the panel report in Indonesia — Raw Materials (DS592) before the non-functioning Appellate Body, de facto blocking the final and binding resolution of that dispute while alternative appeal arrangements were on the table.

  • We are therefore puzzled by Indonesia’s statement, in its Notice of other appeal of 27 November 2025, where it expressed its disappointment on the EU's appeal “in the absence of any initiative or offer from the EU towards ad hoc bilateral appeal arbitration […] to maintain the two-tier dispute settlement mechanism”. Obviously, the right to a functioning appeal stage under the DSU works both ways and should benefit both parties, in any dispute. 

    AGENDA POINT 5: CHINA - WORLDWIDE LICENSING TERMS FOR STANDARD ESSENTIAL PATENTS

    5.1 Request for the establishment of a Panel by the European Union (DS632/5)

  • Today, the EU is requesting the establishment of a panel in the dispute with China relating to the authority of Chinese courts to issue binding and enforceable decisions fixing the worldwide licensing conditions for portfolios of patents (especially patents forming part of standards), including for non-Chinese patents, without the consent of both parties.

  • The EU considers that this measure is inconsistent with China’s obligations under the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (trips agreement). It unduly restricts the ability of patent owners to exercise and enforce their rights for non-Chinese patents in the territories of the WTO members that granted those patents. Moreover, it undermines the principle of territoriality of patents. 

  • Let us illustrate this with an example. patent owners have obtained patents in various WTO members (for example on 3G, 4G and 5G mobile communication technologies) which form part of technical standards that are used globally. Under China’s law, Chinese courts have the authority to set the worldwide royalty rates that potential licensees (implementers of patented technology) must pay to patent owners for the use of their non-Chinese patents that are part of global patent portfolios. this is the case even if the patent owner does not agree to the Chinese courts’ rate-setting and despite the fact that Chinese patents form only a part of the global patent portfolios for which the worldwide rates are set. under China’s law, these worldwide rates are legally binding and enforceable on both parties. this means that patent owners cannot enforce their exclusive rights arising from non-Chinese patents in the courts of the WTO members that granted the patents. Moreoever, they cannot freely negotiate and conclude licensing contracts for the use of their non-Chinese patents in other territories.

  • Unfortunately, the consultations we held with China failed to solve the matter at hand.

  • Therefore, in order to ensure consistency with WTO rules, the EU requests the establishment of a panel to adjudicate on the measure at issue. 

    AGENDA POINT 7: STATEMENT BY CHINA REGARDING THE PANEL REPORT IN "UNITED STATES - CERTAIN TAX CREDITS UNDER THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT (DS623)

  • The EU takes note that the panel report has been appealed but that this appeal cannot be currently heard by the Appellate Body, given that it cannot function.
  • Appeal is a right under the DSU, but its exercise amounts to effectively blocking this dispute in the current circumstances. This is why we encourage all parties, in any dispute, to find a solution that preserves the rights of both the complainant and the respondent under the DSU, such as the MPIA.
  • The circumstances of this case demonstrate, once again, the need for an appeal review to verify and, where needed, correct legal interpretations by panels. While every case is different on its facts, there is only one Article XX in the GATT and it is the same for all WTO Members.
  • With respect to the substance of this dispute, the EU has made its views clear during the panel proceedings, and we will not repeat them today.
  • The EU continues to study the report and reserves its rights for the purposes of any appeal proceedings.

AGENDA POINT 8: APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS

  • The European Union refers to its previous statements on this issue and thanks all Members that have co-sponsored the proposal to launch the appointment processes.

  • 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 and a key priority. That is evidenced by the large number of Members co-sponsoring the present proposal relating to the appointment of members of the Appellate Body.

  • The EU remains committed to reforming the dispute settlement system so that it meets the interests of all Members and supports rules-based trade.

  • 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.

  • Against this backdrop, the MPIA is ever more important, as it supports rules-based trade. The MPIA preserves a fully functioning dispute settlement system among the willing Members. The MPIA now covers 58 WTO Members and close to 60% of world trade. 

  • While we continue to hope to find a long-lasting solution, we invite other Members to join the MPIA to strengthen the multilateral rules-based trading order.

Re Ukraine/Russia

  • The EU reiterates its resolute condemnation of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, which constitutes a manifest violation of the UN Charter, and reaffirms its continued and unwavering support for Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders. 

  • It also reconfirms the European Union’s unwavering commitment to providing continued political, financial, economic, humanitarian, military and diplomatic support to Ukraine and its people.

  • We underscore the need to reach, as soon as possible, a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace in Ukraine, in full respect of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, based on the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.


 

([1])          KWS20-1.

([2])          NK 603.

([3])          DBN-09004-6.

([4])          T25.

([5])          GHB614 x LLCotton25 and T304-40.