PRINT

EU STATEMENTS AT THE REGULAR DSB MEETING OF 26 APRIL 2024

26.04.2024
Geneva
EU mission to the WTO in Geneva - Press and information team

Statements delivered by Davide Grespan, Minister-Counsellor and Victor Garcia-Lopez-Garcia, Attaché

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

B. UNITED STATES – SECTION 110(5) OF THE US COPYRIGHT ACT: STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS160/24/ADD.222)

  • 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

C.     EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – MEASURES AFFECTING THE APPROVAL AND MARKETING OF BIOTECH PRODUCTS: STATUS REPORT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION (WT/DS291/37/ADD.185)

  • We recall that the EU approval system is not covered by the DSB’s recommendations and rulings.
  • The EU continues to propose for vote authorisations for genetically modified organisms that, in the European Food Safety Authority’s risk assessment, have been concluded to be safe.
  • On 26 April 2024, the Commission will present to the Standing Committee two decisions authorising the placing on the market of a GM maize (GM maize DP-023211-2 and maize DP-915635-4) and one decision renewing the authorisation for placing on the market of GM maize MON 810 for food and feed uses. The vote on the draft decisions will be taken during the meeting.

AGENDA POINT 3: EUROPEAN UNION AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING PALM OIL AND OIL PALM CROP-BASED BIOFUELS

  1. Report of the Panel (WT/DS600/R and WT/DS600/R/Add.1)
  • The EU would like to thank the Panel and the Secretariat for their work in this dispute.
  • The Panel confirmed that the legal framework of the second Renewable Energy Directive is WTO compatible, provided certain changes are made.
  • The EU welcomes the Panel’s findings which uphold the ability of Members to protect the environment and combat climate change within the WTO legal framework. They confirm that the EU has the right to take measures to ensure that its policies on renewable fuels do not exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions associated with indirect land use change.
  • The EU is not acting extra-territorially when doing so. Climate change is global in nature, meaning there is a nexus between the EU’s territory and the objective of limiting greenhouse gas emissions, and particularly in avoiding that consumption in the EU leads to increased emissions and adverse environmental effects.
  • The Panel found that the second Renewable Energy Directive and the Delegated Act at issue aim to achieve legitimate environmental objectives and the rules addressing ILUC-risk are science-based.
  • The EU would also like to highlight some concerns about the methodology of the Panel when deciding on what is a “product characteristic” and hence what will constitute a “technical regulation” falling under the scope of the TBT Agreement. In our view this approach is unduly broad and could mean that the TBT Agreement covers more measures than was intended. The EU reserves its rights to raise this issue again should it come up in another dispute.

AGENDA POINT 4: AUSTRALIA – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM CHINA

  1. REPORT OF THE PANEL (WT/DS603/R AND WT/DS603/R/ADD.1
  • The EU wishes to highlight that – since both parties in that dispute are participants in the MPIA – this dispute has benefited from a functioning system, despite the fact that the Appellate Body is currently not functioning.
  • The MPIA has preserved the WTO rights of both parties. This includes in particular the right to a binding outcome and their right to appeal review, even if none of the parties have decided to exercise this right in this particular instance.

AGENDA POINT 6: FACILITATOR OF THE DS REFORM PROCESS

  • We thank you, Ambassador Ølberg, for the explanations provided today and for your efforts to identify a suitable facilitator for the Dispute Settlement reform process.
  • We also thank the Facilitator, H.E. Dwarka-Canabady, for taking on such an important and challenging role. She will have our full support in carrying forward that task.
  • We look forward to working with her and to intensifying discussions with a view to have a fully and well-functioning dispute settlement system as soon as possible.
  • We are aware that process going forward will be challenging as some fundamental issues are outstanding. However, significant progress has already been achieved through the interest-based discussions in Geneva, as reflected in the text contained in the report of the DSB Chair (JOB/GC/385).
  • Future work should focus on the unresolved issues identified at MC13 and, in particular, on the critical issue of appeal review.
  • To that end, the EU is open to consider different options in terms of how the process should look like going forward. The EU is eager to discuss these options with the Facilitator and Members. But the process must be focussed and build on the progress we have already achieved – if we want to have a fully and well-functioning dispute settlement system as soon as possible, as we have reiterated at the Ministerial Conference in Abu Dhabi.

AGENDA POINT 7: APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS

  • In the interest of conciseness, the European Union refers to its previous statements on this issue and in particular to the statement delivered during the last DSB meeting in March on this point.

Re Russia/Ukraine