(h)Ěrticle 2.5 of the TBT Agreement as EU has failed, upon the request of Malaysia, to explain the justification for those measures in terms of Articles 2.2 to 2.4 of the TBT Agreement

(g)Ěrticle 2.4 of the TBT Agreement as they are not based on the relevant international standards (f)Ěrticle 2:2 of the TBT Agreement as they are more trade-restrictive than necessary to achieve the objectives pursued by the measures

(e)Ěrticle 2.1 of the TBT Agreement as they have a detrimental impact on the competitive conditions in the EU market of Malaysia's imports of oil palm crop-based biofuels compared with 'like products' imported into the EU from other countries and compared with 'like' domestic products (d)Ěrticle XI:1 of the GATT 1994 as they restrict the importation of palm oil and oil palm crop-based biofuels

(c)Ěrticle X:3(a) of GATT 1994 as they were administered in a manner that is not uniform, impartial and/or reasonable (b)Ěrticle III:4 as they accord less favorable treatment to imported palm oil and oil palm crop-based biofuels than they do to 'like' domestic feedstocks and derived biofuels, thereby modifying the conditions of competition to the detriment of the imported palm oil and oil palm crop-based biofuels, in particular from Malaysia (a)Ěrticle I:1 of the GATT 1994 as they discriminate among 'like' feedstocks and derived biofuels originating in third countries In summary, Malaysia has contended that the EU measures are inconsistent with: Malaysia claimed that certain measures imposed by virtue of RED II, including the criteria for determining the high ILUC-risk feedstock, and the sustainability and GHG emission savings criteria are discriminatory against palm-oil-based biofuels and are therefore inconsistent with various provisions under the TBT Agreement and GATT 1994. On January 15, 2021, Malaysia brought a claim against the EU, France and Lithuania at the WTO. Lithuania also amended its law on renewable energy, providing that by 2030, the share of fuels produced from feedstocks considered as high ILUC-risk feedstocks are to gradually decrease to nil for the calculation of Lithuania's gross final consumption of energy from renewable sources. It provides expressly under the French Customs Code that palm-oil products are not considered as biofuels. The new fuel tax regime provides incentives for the consumption of petrol and diesel that contain certain crop-based biofuels to meet EU renewable energy targets. By contrast, biofuels based on oil crops, which are more likely to be produced domestically in EU, such as sunflower or rapeseed, are not subject to the phase out.įollowing the introduction of RED II and the Delegated Resolution, France introduced a new law on fuel tax. Based on the criteria set by the EU biofuel measures in determining high ILUC-risk fuels, only palm-oil-based biofuels, which are usually imported, will be phased out by 2030 (unless certified as low ILUC-risk). The European Commission’s Delegated Regulation 2019/807 (Delegated Regulation) introduced pursuant to RED II laid down the criteria for determining high-ILUC feedstock and certifying low ILUC-risk biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels. RED II introduces measures to phase out biofuels which pose high risk significant GHG emissions from indirect land-use change (ILUC), which is defined as occurring where there is “cultivation of crops for biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels displaces traditional production of crops for food and feed purposes.” In 2018, the Renewable Energy Directive Recast (RED II) came into force in the European Union. Third Parties: Argentina Australia Brazil Canada China Colombia Costa Rica Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Honduras India Indonesia Japan Korea, Republic of Norway Russian Federation Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Singapore Thailand Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom United States. Respondent: European Union France Lithuania

Palm kingdoms 2