OMC |

DS639: European Union and its Member States – Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism 

The Russian Federation submitted its first request for the establishment of a dispute panel to determine whether the European Union’s CBAM and alleged export subsidy under the EU scheme for trading greenhouse gas emission allowances are consistent with the EU’s WTO commitments. 

Russia said that as the European Union declined its request for consultations, it will proceed with the next steps in the dispute settlement process. Russia stated that it supports the protection of the environment but considers the EU measures to be overly restrictive and discriminatory and that they are aimed at protecting the EU’s domestic industries and disrupting competition. 

The EU objected to Russia’s request for a panel. The EU noted that it declined the request for consultations in light of “Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine,” which it considers to be a violation of international law. The EU recalled that this position was outlined in a joint statement to the General Council in 2022 (WT/GC/244). The EU assured WTO members that CBAM is designed in a non-discriminatory and even-handed manner to comply with WTO rules. 

El OSD tomó nota de las declaraciones y acordó volver a este asunto, si un miembro solicitante desea hacerlo. 

Propuesta de nombramientos para el Órgano de Apelación 

Colombia, speaking on behalf of 130 members, introduced for the 99th time the group’s proposal to start the selection processes for filling vacancies on the Appellate Body (AB). The extensive number of members submitting the proposal reflects a common interest in the functioning of the Appellate Body and, more generally, in the functioning of the WTO’s dispute settlement system, Colombia said.  

The United States said that it does not support the proposed decision. The US reiterated that it has set out its fundamental concerns on WTO dispute settlement and that the proposal does not address those concerns. The US stated that, despite efforts by the US and other members in recent years to identify suitable reforms, there remains a wide divergence in views among members regarding the necessary changes. 

Over 20 members then took the floor and reiterated their support for the joint proposal and for the urgent need to restore a fully functioning dispute settlement system. Several of the members that took the floor encouraged others to consider taking part in el Acuerdo de Arbitraje de Apelación Interino Multipartito (MPIA, por sus siglas en inglés), which provides the possibility of resorting to arbitration under Article 25 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) in case of an appeal in disputes between any two or more participating members. The list of current members of the MPIA is available aquí. 

Colombia, on behalf of the 130 members, said it regretted that for the 99th occasion members have not been able to launch the selection processes. Ongoing conversations about reform of the dispute settlement system should not prevent the Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully, and members shall comply with their obligations under the DSU to fill the vacancies as they arise, Colombia said for the group.  

Reforma de la solución de diferencias 

The Chair provided members with a detailed update on discussions on dispute settlement (DS) reform held at an informal meeting on 23 June, as well as on the subsequent consultations with groups of members. He said that a clear majority indicated that the dispute settlement system of the WTO is a priority and a key pillar of the system for them. However, views differed among members on when and how best to restart the process of DS reform. 

Overall, he added there was support for maintaining engagement on DS reform, including through information sessions as suggested by many members. The Chair emphasized that his objective is to preserve momentum, maintain institutional memory and prepare the ground for future progress, rather than resuming technical discussions on previous DS reform texts. The chair said he aims to hold monthly consultations. 

The Chair convened an informal meeting after the regular DSB meeting to further hear members’ views on DS reform and to also invite members to make suggestions on which aspects of the DS reform process could be considered in information sessions to be organized after the summer break. 

Vigilancia de la implementación 

En la reunión ordinaria del OSD, Estados Unidos presentó informes de situación con respecto a DS184, “Estados Unidos - Medidas antidumping sobre determinados productos de acero laminado en caliente procedentes del Japón”,  DS160, “Estados Unidos – Sección 110(5) de la Ley de Derecho de Autor de los Estados Unidos”, DS464, “Estados Unidos - Medidas antidumping y compensatorias sobre grandes lavadoras residenciales procedentes de Corea”, y DS471, “Estados Unidos – Ciertas metodologías y su aplicación a los procedimientos antidumping que involucran a China”. 

La UE presentó su informe de situación con respecto a DS600 “Unión Europea y determinados Estados miembros – Determinadas medidas relativas al aceite de palma y a los biocombustibles derivados de cultivos de palma aceitera” y  DS291, “EC – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products” and DS593, “Unión Europea – Ciertas medidas relativas al aceite de palma y a los biocombustibles derivados de cultivos de palma aceitera”. 

Indonesia presentó sus informes de situación en DS477 y DS478, “Indonesia – Importación de productos hortícolas, animales y productos de origen animal”. 

Próxima reunión 

The next regular DSB meeting will take place on 25 September 2026.