LUXEMBOURG (Press Release) – The Court of Justice of the European Union issued a decision Tuesday that Israeli-made products from East Jerusalem and other disputed Israeli territories be labeled with the designation “colonies israéliennes” (“Israeli colony or settlement”). The controversial regulation was driven by foreign policy concerns, and contributes in no demonstrable way to food safety or consumer protection. The Lawfare Project and Cabinet Briard initiated legal action in 2017 on behalf of Israeli winemaker Psâgot, challenging the regulation before France’s administrative supreme court (Conseil d’État), which asked for guidance from the CJEU.
A spokesperson for the Lawfare Project said it was assessing the legal implications of the Court’s decision, and had serious concerns it could create new barriers and disruptions to international trade, contrary to EU policy and in possible violation of the EU’s WTO obligations, as The Lawfare Project has previously warned.
Boycotts of Israel are illegal in the United States. High ranking U.S. Senators and Representatives, both Democrats and Republicans, have warned of the negative implications for U.S.-E.U. relations and trade. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, said this decision would “create policy tensions with the United States”.
François-Henri Briard, lead counsel on the case, released the following statement: “EU rules are there to provide fair and relevant information to consumers, not to cater to political prejudices. If such labelling is applied to Israeli products, surely it will also need to be applied to scores of other countries around the world who could be argued to be in violation of international law. Our work with The Lawfare Project to challenge anti-Israel discrimination in trade is far from over.”
Brooke Goldstein, Executive Director of The Lawfare Project, released the following statement: “The decision to codify religious discrimination into law is embarrassing for Europe. There is no reason for products produced by Muslims and Jews in the same geographic place to be labelled differently. In fact, treating people differently because of their religion is the definition of bigotry and we know what happens when Europe goes down that track. Muslims living under the PLO are as much ‘settlers’ as Jews – they are both legally allowed to settle under the same binding treaty, the Oslo Accords.”
Yaakov Berg, Director of Psâgot Winery, released the following statement: “The Winery is proud of its contribution to combating this decision and intends to continue the struggle. We are happy to see the support of all the relevant people in Israel and the United States, including the State Department, Senators and Congressmen. We regard this as an important mission for Israelis and Jews, second generation to the Holocaust. As Israeli citizens, living in a community that has been approved by the Israeli government, we only wish to produce and export high standard wine that has earned its reputation worldwide.”
Gabriel Groisman, legal adviser for Psâgot Winery, released the following statement: “While there are many efforts to discriminate against and boycott Israel, those affected by those boycotts must continue to stand up for their rights in courts of law in every corner of the world. Despite the unfavorable ruling by this Court, rest assured that Psagot will not stop fighting for its rights to be treated equally and fairly under the law.”
*
Preceding provided by the Lawfare Project
Just relabel it “made in the only democracy in the Middle East.”
The following news release was received from Congress members Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Lee Zeldin, a Republican:
U.S. Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23) and Lee Zeldin (NY-1) condemned Tuesday’s ruling by the European Court of Justice that determined food products made or produced in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights must be labeled as originating in an “Israeli settlement.”
The Members agreed that this will ruling will open the door for discrimination against Israel and against specific Israeli businesses, and both of them urged Federica Mogherini, the Vice President of the European Commission, to mitigate the consequences of the ruling.
“This mandate to all EU Member States will apply only to products from Israel and associated disputed territories, and thereby discriminate against Israel and against specific Israeli businesses,” Wasserman Schultz and Zeldin wrote to Mogherini. “This ruling empowers those who may wish to discriminate based upon ethnicity, religion, and nationality.”
Wasserman Schultz and Zeldin wrote that the ruling will also “facilitate Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) tactics and de facto boycotts and discrimination against Israel, and its products, contrary to existing EU policies and laws against BDS campaigns, Israel boycotts and discrimination.”
Read the entire letter below.
November 13, 2019
Ms. Federica Mogherini
High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
Vice President of the Commission
European Commission
Rue de la Loi / Wetstraat 200
1049 Brussels
Belgium
Dear High Representative Mogherini,
We write to condemn the recent ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) on whether a French interpretation of EU Food Labelling Regulation No. 1169/2011 is consistent with EU law. The CJEU’s ruling will require EU states to identify products imported from those disputed territories the EU identifies as “occupied by Israel since 1967,” and as well those that originate in Israeli settlements by indicating their origin on the label.
This mandate to all EU Member States will apply only to products from Israel and associated disputed territories, and thereby discriminate against Israel and against specific Israeli businesses. This ruling empowers those who may wish to discriminate based upon ethnicity, religion, and nationality.
Today’s CJEU decision mandates that EU imports of food products originating from Israel’s post 1967 boundaries must be labeled with an indication that they were produced in those disputed territories. Further, products that originate from Israeli “settlements” within those “Israeli-occupied territories” must be labeled with “expressions such as product from the Golan Heights (Israeli settlement), product from the West Bank (Israeli settlement).”
The CJEU decision affirms the view that under EU law, specifically its 2011 Food Labelling Regulation, “the provision of information to consumers must enable them to make informed choices, with particular regard to health, economic, environmental, social and ethical considerations.” It refers as well to the “non-exhaustive” nature of this list, and other types of considerations, such as those relating to international law.
We fear that by affirming the use of food/product labels for “ethical,” foreign policy and international law, and a seemingly-unlimited set of other considerations, entirely unrelated to food safety and consumer protection, the EU has opened the door to the politicization of product labeling, which was never intended to be used for political purposes. The “ethical issues” the EU’s Food Law Regulation and Food Labelling Regulation were originally concerned about were matters such as animal welfare and the manner of animal slaughter. In fact, the EU’s own procedures describe the need to determine if the majority of EU consumers would want and highly value such ethical issues included in product labels. We know of no such effort by the EU to make this finding regarding the “Israeli settlements.”
In practice, the judgment of the CJEU opens a Pandora’s box of legal labelling requirements and administrative burdens for Member States and the Commission. The judgment could also negatively impact products that come from any territory around the world that is subject to disputes under international law. We believe that the EU requirement also will create new trade barriers, and may cause tensions between the EU and its trading partners, including the United States. In particular, the EU settlement’s food labeling requirement, which is unrelated to food safety, quality or health risks to consumers, may be inconsistent with the EU’s WTO commitments, including its obligations under the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) agreement.
In these regards, we are also highly concerned that this CJEU decision, which empowers the EU to require its Member States to label Israeli and Palestinian products in the manner proposed, will facilitate Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) tactics and de facto boycotts and discrimination against Israel, and its products, contrary to existing EU policies and laws against BDS campaigns, Israel boycotts and discrimination.
We hope you will consider these perspectives as well as ways to mitigate any negative consequences that may arise in the wake of the CJEU’s decision.
The following news release was received from the American Jewish Committee (AJC):
The AJC Transatlantic Institute regrets today’s EU Court of Justice decision mandating the labeling of Israeli foodstuffs produced beyond the Green Line. The ruling will likely be instrumentalized by those who seek to delegitimize the Jewish state, which is why it’s now more urgent than ever to deepen the mutually beneficial EU-Israel ties.
“As supporters of a negotiated two-state solution, we believe that discriminatory labeling won’t help to advance peace. The weaponization of EU consumer protection law will complicate finding an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians, which can only succeed in the diplomatic – not the judicial – arena,” said Daniel Schwammenthal, Director of the AJC Transatlantic Institute, the Brussels-based EU Office of the American Jewish Committee (AJC).
“The blunt instrument of across-the-board labeling doesn’t do justice to the complexity of the conflict as, for instance, the rules also apply to the settlement blocs adjacent to the Green Line, which will remain Israeli in any conceivable future peace deal. What’s more, labeling is even mandated in the Golan Heights, a territory that has no connection to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and luckily is no longer under the control of the murderous Assad regime and his Iranian and Russian accomplices,” Schwammenthal said.
“Today’s decision is not taking place within a political vacuum but against the background of rising antisemitic attacks across Europe and persistent efforts by an extremist movement that seeks to boycott, divest and sanction (BDS) Israel. This BDS movement, whose activists reject Israel’s very right to exist, will claim today’s decision as a major victory in its campaign against the Jewish state. No doubt, the antisemitic BDS movement will use this ruling to intensify its shameful policy of bullying consumers and business owners into a de-facto ban of Israeli settlement products as a first step in its strategy to boycott all Israeli goods,” Schwammenthal added.
AJC therefore seconds the call of the European Parliament’s Transatlantic Friends of Israel (TFI) group whose leadership said today: “Now more than ever it’s necessary for Europe to set a positive agenda with our key ally and only true democracy in the region:
The EU must therefore immediately
1) Set a date for an Association Council with Israel, which – incredibly – hasn’t been convened since 2012,
2) Upgrade and update the EU-Israel Association Agreement from the year 2000,
3) Finally agree on Partnership Priorities in the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy.”
The full TFI statement of can be found here: https://transatlanticinstitute.org/press-releases/tfi-statement-eu-court…
TFI is the first-ever friendship caucus specifically committed to bolstering the trilateral partnership between the U.S., Israel, and Europe. Founded in July 2019, TFI is headed by Austrian MEP Lukas Mandl (EPP). Vice Chairs include MEPs Frédérique Ries (Renew Europe), Petras Auštrevičius (Renew Europe), and Anna-Michelle Asimakopoulou (EPP).