ECFR’s Differentiation Tracker provides a snapshot of third state relations with Israel – and the extent to which these contain a clearly defined territorial definition that explicitly excludes Israeli settlements constructed on occupied territory in line with UNSCR 2334.
Findings
In December 2013, the EU vowed to include a differentiation clause in all new agreements and memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Israel, stating that, “in accordance with EU policy, this agreement shall not apply to the geographic areas that came under the administration of the State of Israel after 5th June 1967.”
In addition to the publication of guidelines on the correct labelling of settlement products (November 2015) and financial guidelines excluding Israeli settlement-linked entities from EU funding (July 2013), the EU has initiated corrective processes to address some of the regulatory deficiencies in pre-existing aspects of its relationship with Israel. These relate to matters such as organic and veterinary certification.
However, in some important areas – including trade with settlements, cross-border data transfers, police cooperation, and marketing standards for fruit and vegetables – the EU has not enforced differentiation requirements properly, or even at all in some domains. In 2020, the European Commission also signed an MoU with Israel relating to the export of natural gas. The document lacked a territorial clause, which is in contravention of existing EU positions, legal requirements, and member state demands.
In addition, the European Commission and EU member states continue to oppose calls to bar Israeli settlement products and financial services.
The picture is even patchier at the level of EU member state relations with Israel. ECFR research indicates that a majority of European bilateral agreements with Israel potentially benefit its settlements, their companies, and residents – including with regard to social security, taxation provisions, and burgeoning cooperation in research and development areas.
Of the more than 260 agreements reviewed by ECFR, few contain a definition of their territorial scope. Those that do often have vague or ambiguous clauses, including definitions of Israeli territory according to ‘the laws of the State of Israel’ or ‘the territory where it levies taxation.’ This ambiguity has undoubtedly benefited Israeli settlements and their residents, and has created confusion among European authorities tasked with monitoring and implementing these agreements.
Uneven progress
Since the publication of ECFR’s Differentiation Tracker in 2018, there have been some positive developments. France and Belgium have announced that all future agreements with Israel will include clear differentiation clauses, and have stressed the non-applicability of existing agreements to occupied territory. The Belgian government has gone further, by including support for differentiation within its 2020 coalition agreement. This has led to the formation of an ‘inter-cabinet group’ to support national compliance with differentiation requirements, and to work with like-minded states to advance similar efforts at the EU level.
Elsewhere, Denmark and Germany have both confirmed that their research and development cooperation with Israel can only take place within Israel’s internationally recognised territory from before 1967. In 2016 the Netherlands restricted payments to Dutch pensioners residing in Israeli settlements. France, Ireland, and Switzerland have also confirmed that individuals and companies that reside in Israel’s settlements cannot benefit from the provisions of bilateral treaties with Israel, including with regards to the avoidance of double taxation. In addition, Norway has ended tax deductions for charities acting in contravention of UN Security Council resolutions, including those supporting Israeli settlements.
Judging by interviews with European officials, some negotiations over new agreements (including those on social security provisions) have stalled over EU member states’ insistence on the inclusion of a differentiation clause, with Israel refusing to accept such provisions. In 2017 the Israeli government backed out of the EU’s Creative Europe programme over its exclusion of Israeli settlements.
Nevertheless, Israel has occasionally put ideology aside by signing up to EU differentiation requirements when doing so is in its interests. In December 2021, the government of Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, a former head of the YESHA settlement council, agreed to EU conditions that excluded Israeli settlement entities and activities. This enabled Israel to join Horizon Europe, the EU’s new flagship research and development programme (and the successor to Horizon 2020). Previous Israeli governments agreed to exclude occupied territory from Israel’s 2019 post-Brexit Trade and Partnership Agreement with the United Kingdom. In 2017 Israel also signed a labour agreement with China without the settlements, in deference to Beijing’s demands on the issue.
But there have been setbacks. The Trump administration reversed US labelling requirements for products originating in occupied territory. As a result, all products originating in Area C of the West Bank (in which Israeli settlements are located) must be marked as Israeli. This also applies to Palestinian products. This decision has yet to be reversed by President Biden. The Canadian government has also fought to maintain the labelling of settlement wine as “made in Israel”.
Arab normalisation of Israeli settlements
Perhaps the biggest potential challenge to UNSCR 2334 could come from Arab states which have normalised their relations with Israel as part of the US-orchestrated Abraham Accords. The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco have all signed agreements with Israel relating to trade and investment, scientific research and development, and tourism. So far, none of these agreements include differentiation clauses. And, indeed, the UAE’s agreements with Israel on the double taxation and investment protection contain territorial clauses extending their provisions to the settlements, in contravention of UNSCR 2334. This comes to the backdrop of meetings between Emirati businessmen and settler representatives and reports that Israeli settlement products are on sale in the UAE. These include the sale of Israeli settler wine from the occupied Syrian Golan Heights at Dubai airport duty free.
Business and human rights
European businesses and financial organisations remain deeply implicated in Israel’s settlement activities. The extent of these linkages has been revealed through extensive research by European civil society organisations, as well as the UN Human Rights Council’s report on business enterprises involved in the settlements.
To date, governments have adopted a light touch when it comes to private business dealings with Israeli settlements. Fifteen EU member states have issued business advisories warning of the legal, financial, and reputational consequences of dealing with Israeli settlement entities. But they continue to avoid an outright ban on such activities of the kind they have applied to Russian-occupied Crimea.
However, parliaments in countries such as Denmark, Finland, France, and Norway are exploring other potentially important measures. These have passed legislation requiring domiciled companies to undertake mandatory due diligence and reporting, to ensure respect for human rights in their business activities and supply chains. The European Parliament is set to debate similar legislation. Such moves could provide some crucial oversight of business dealings in occupied territories.
At times, though, the private sector has found itself ahead. Pension funds have often led the way, with several of them having now divested from companies connected to Israel’s settlements. Several companies have also ended their business ties with the settlements, most notably Ben and Jerry’s – owned by British conglomerate Unilever.
Introduction
ECFR’s Differentiation Tracker provides a detailed snapshot of European relations with Israel – and the extent to which these comply with UN Security Council Resolution 2334 and the European Union’s policy of differentiation.
To comply with UNSCR 2334, every bilateral agreement signed with Israel should contain a ‘differentiation’ clause defining the territorial scope of its application to Israel’s pre-June 1967 borders (the Green Line).
But, as this project shows, despite noticeable progress in advancing differentiation measures at the level of EU relations, member state practices have often lagged behind.
The absence of differentiation clauses compromises bilateral agreements with Israel, exposing third states to the internationally unlawful situation the settlement project has created in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Allowing Israeli settlements and their residents to benefit from these agreements undermines the norms of international law and the integrity of the domestic legal order of these states. In such situations, there is a clear risk that European states are directly supporting Israeli settlements, their residents, and businesses – in contravention of European policy positions.
The EU has been closely associated with this process of differentiation between Israel and the settlements – located in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. And, in many ways, it has acted as an important trailblazer over the last decade, with many European measures predating the adoption of Resolution 2334 by the UN Security Council in December 2016. The EU has already set down important markers for others to follow. But its job is by no means finished. The EU still needs to consistently apply its differentiation principle to all areas of its relations with Israel. And it needs to do much more at the levels of member states and private businesses.
This regularly updated project aims to provide a springboard towards corrective action – with a view to ensuring the full and effective implementation of EU rules and international law in Europe’s relations with Israel. There is a particular need for more work at the state level to assess the extent to which some agreements may have been compromised by Israel’s settlement project and, if so, elaborate appropriate fixes. It is also hoped that this project can support work to advance third state responsibilities and the concept of differentiation in other situations of occupation and annexation.
Methodology
Given the scale and complexities of the research, this remains an ongoing project. Its content will be steadily expanded and refined, and the assessment of each agreement’s compliance with UNSCR 2334 will be reviewed as new information emerges. As such, we welcome all feedback, additions, and amendments.
Updates will be temporarily tagged as New and can be identified through the search function.
As part of this project, ECFR has reviewed over 260 bilateral agreements with Israel signed by the EU, EU member states, and Norway. Primary research has been complemented through follow-up engagement with European officials and parliamentary questions. The project also draws on valuable research conducted by organisations in the US, Europe, Israel, and Palestine.
In order to evaluate whether agreements conform to UNSCR 2334 and the EU’s differentiation policy, we have chosen to look at whether agreements contain a differentiation clause defining the territorial scope of its implementation; and, if so, how it defines Israeli territory.
A definition of Israeli territory limiting the scope of an agreement to Israel’s pre-June 1967 borders is judged to be in conformity with UNSCR 2334 and EU differentiation policy. In some cases, agreements lacking a correct territorial definition may still conform to UNSCR 2334 if (a) they refer to a previous agreement with a strong differentiation clause; or (b) have been subsequently corrected through domestic legislation or regulations (often the case with the EU’s own agreements).
While this project has focused primarily on a textual analysis of European bilateral agreements, there may be secondary issues relating to implementation and enforcement in some instances. Where significant issues remain in this regard, agreements have been marked as “partially” in line with UNSCR 2334. Where needed, additional clarifications have been added in [brackets].
To facilitate searches, these agreements are tagged according to the following categories: Agricultural; Aviation; Civil; Communication; Conservation; Criminal; Cultural; Data; Defence; Development; Diplomatic; Economic; Educational; Energy; Film; Financial; Health; Industrial; Intellectual Property; IT; Judicial; Labour; Law Enforcement; Maritime; Postal; R&D; Scientific; Security; Social; Social Security (including pensions); Taxation; Technological; Telecommunication; Tourism; Trade; Veterinary; and Water.
In addition to information on bilateral agreements, ECFR’s Differentiation Tracker provides information on relevant domestic legislation, regulations, and statements by European officials and governments. The project also includes European business advisories relating to Israeli settlement dealings, as well as relevant business and human rights news.
Caveats
While the Tracker attempts to be as comprehensive as possible, there will inevitably be gaps. Research relies heavily on the UN Treaties database and, where applicable, those of third states. These resources are not exhaustive, especially when it comes to more recent agreements. In a few cases, the texts and territorial definitions of some agreements have been kept confidential (marked as “unknown” in the country tables). Others have been excluded from the scope of this this project if (a) the issue of a territorial definition is not deemed relevant, such as agreements relating to visas, driving licenses, and customs assistance; or (b) if the agreement has been abrogated by a subsequent EU-level agreement, such as bilateral trade agreements concluded prior to EU accession.
Policy
Differentiation is legally necessary and politically beneficial. Given the failure of international efforts to curtail Israel’s policy of settlement and annexation of occupied territory, a fuller and more diligent implementation of legally required differentiation measures remains one of the few effective means of countering Israel’s annexation and settlement of occupied territory – which contravenes international law.
The UN Security Council enshrined this ‘differentiation’ policy in Resolution 2334 in December 2016, which calls on all states to distinguish between the territory of the state of Israel and the territories it has occupied since 1967.
Differentiation is primarily grounded in the national policies of EU member states, as well as their obligations under international law – which recognises Israel’s pre-1967 borders and prohibits acts such as Israel’s settlements and extension of its domestic administrative regime to these settlements.
In the last 100 years, this duty of non-recognition has become deeply embedded in the international legal order – with the aim of disincentivising wars and the forcible acquisition of foreign territory. This has created a powerful legal means of challenging Israel’s unlawful annexation of occupied Palestinian and Syrian territory. And it has the potential to challenge the incentive structure that underpins Israeli public support for open-ended occupation.
If third parties are serious about opposing Israel’s annexation of the West Bank and preserving the territorial basis for a two-state solution (through respect for the Green Line), differentiation is the minimum requirement. Israel’s shift from de facto to de jure annexation of the West Bank makes it all the more important that they implement differentiation measures fully and effectively. This would allow third states to apply a legal tourniquet to their relations with Green Line Israel, to ensure these relations do not extend into annexed territory – to the detriment of Europe’s legal order and foreign policy objectives.
Beyond occupied Palestine
Defenders of Israel’s settlement enterprise regularly criticise the EU, and international law advocates more broadly, of a disproportionate focus on the Israeli occupation, at the expense of other conflict areas. These ‘pro-settlement’ talking points are a mixture of spin and disinformation, ignoring important factual and legal differences.
Nevertheless, it is true that governments often underappreciate the importance of third states’ responsibilities, and business and human rights practices, in situations of occupation and annexation. It is also true that what limited implementation there has been is often uneven. For example, the EU has been much more diligent in enforcing its non-recognition of Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian territory than it has been towards Morocco’s annexation of Western Sahara.
Instead of deconstructing international law to make internationally unlawful actions permissible – as supporters of the settler movement seem to advocate – a more viable approach would surely be to improve implementation and respect across the board. In other words, third states should be doing more, not less, to meet their international law-based duties in all situations of annexation and occupation.
As Valentina Azarova explained in her 2017 ECFR report Israel’s unlawfully prolonged occupation, “the same [international law] framework may be applied to other ongoing situations of prolonged occupation that resemble annexation or otherwise permanently transform the occupied territory, including northern Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia.” And indeed, repeated rulings by the Court of Justice of the EU determining that the territory of Western Sahara falls outside of EU-Moroccan agricultural and fishery agreements offers another window through which to examine third state responsibilities and EU differentiation practices.
Recommendations
EU-level differentiation measures:
- Launch a comprehensive technical review of EU-Israel relations across relevant commission directorates-general by an inter-service group to ensure the full and effective implementation of EU differentiation requirements across the entire range of bilateral dealings with Israel. This should also address missing territorial clauses in European Commission Implementing Regulations. Where deficiencies are identified, work to elaborate appropriate technical or regulatory fixes.
- Ensure that EU differentiation requirements are systematically addressed at EU-Israel subcommittee meetings and reported to member states.
- Discuss further in EU council working groups how best to implement UNSCR 2334 provisions and exchange best practices, including the possibility of the EU and member states voluntarily transmitting a report to the UN secretary general on their implementation of differentiation measures.
- Resume regular audits by the European Commission’s DG SANTE to verify whether Israel continues to abide by its commitment to enact and provide institutional guarantees of its own differentiation measures to meet EU requirements, including within Israeli domestic poultry and dairy processing lines.
- Publish an EU-level advisory to strengthen awareness among EU citizens and businesses on the risks of business activities in the settlements, including financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements, and services.
- Review the 2004 technical arrangement between Israel and the EU to address ongoing deficiencies and ensure that settlement products do not benefit from preferential treatment under the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Devise a new proposal to replace the 2004 Technical Arrangement with a more efficient, reliable, and legally adequate mechanism. This should oblige Israeli exporters to correctly designate the origin of settlement products prior to their entry to the EU market and remove the administrative burden of monitoring and enforcement currently placed on member state customs authorities.
- Publish guidelines for tour operators to prevent support for settlement businesses in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Ensure that tour packages sold within the EU, and related tourism advertisements, correctly identify East Jerusalem and West Bank locations (such as East Jerusalem and Bethlehem) as the Occupied Territories – OPT (and not Israel), in line with existing regulations relating to consumer protections and advertisement standards.
- Ensure the non-applicability of the European Commission’s existing “adequacy decision”, currently under review, for data transfers to settlement-based entities.
- Tighten the European Commission 2013 funding guidelines to exclude Israeli public authorities (ministries and government agencies) located in the OPT, such as Israel’s Ministry of Science and Technology and Antiquities Authority, from grants, prizes, and financial instruments funded by the EU.
- Ensure that twinning programmes with Israel do not directly or indirectly benefit settlements, building on the EU’s 2018 commitment that twinning programmes should contribute to the two-state solution.
- Require Israeli settlement products to obtain EUR.1 movement certificates issued by the Palestinian Authority – replicating measures taken by the EU in relation to products from Northern Cyprus and Crimea.
National-level differentiation measures:
- Publicly clarify that all existing bilateral agreements with Israel are inapplicable to the OPT. Systematically include territorial clauses in all future member state agreements with Israel modelled on EU practice. Governments should also ensure that these positions are correctly implemented by their domestic authorities. This could be done in a coordinated way among a group of willing member states.
- Ensure full compliance with the European Commission’s 2015 labelling guidelines, including through targeted controls of importers and retailers selling settlement products.
- Replicate the European Commission’s 2013 funding guidelines at member state level to ensure that Israeli settlement entities are fully excluded from member state financial instruments and grants.
- Review the validity within member state jurisdictions of certificates, including higher education certificates and property deeds, issued by Israeli entities established in the OPT or on the basis of Israel’s application of its legislation to the OPT.
- Review whether financial support given by registered charities to settlement-linked entities and activities serves a legitimate charitable purpose under member state tax rules and charity regulations; and whether this contravenes international law. This could include removing charitable organisations from tax-deductible gifts schemes – as Norway has done.
- Raise awareness among public bodies and private actors of the legal risks associated with financial transactions, investments, purchases, and procurements linked to Israeli settlement activities. This can build on existing member state business advisories and should highlight the imposition of double taxation requirements and the non-recognition of contributory pension entitlements acquired through a beneficiary’s employment by an Israeli operator established in the OPT.
- Open a discussion among like-minded member states on a unified and consistent approach to the provision of consular services (especially visa applications) to residents of settlements by member state consulates in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem/Ramallah in line with Article 6 of the EU Visa Code and following the EU visa/passport policy on Crimea and Donetsk and Luhansk regions.
- Support the UN database of companies involved in settlements and push for its continued updating, so that companies can be added or de-listed as appropriate.
Sanctions:
- Exclude all settlement products and related financial services. Additionally, prohibit nationals and domiciled companies from buying real estate or entities, financing companies, and supplying services in relation to the settlements. This would replicate EU restrictive measures in response to Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian territory.
- Deny entry to known Israeli citizens who have engaged in, or called for, violent acts (including ‘Price Tag’ attacks) against Palestinians as well as those suspected of human rights abuses. As a first step towards this, EU and member state delegations in Jerusalem could be charged with identifying known individuals via the Schengen Information System.
- Impose asset freezes and travel bans against, or make persona non grata: officials of regional settlement councils in the West Bank; and Israeli government officials involved in planning and implementing annexation measures.
Resources
Testimony to the European Parliament’s Subcommittees on International Trade and Human Rights, 16 March 2022 (video)
In defending the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine, the EU is drawing on a modern legal order that has outlawed wars of aggression and done away with the old-world order – where might was once right.
Western Sahara, Morocco, and the EU: How good law makes good politics, 30 September 2021
The EU’s highest court has again backed Western Sahara self-determination. It is now time for the EU’s political institutions to bring their policy into line with the law – for the benefit of regional peace.
Joint Testimony to Ireland’s Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Houses of the Oireachtas, 9 July 2021
Ireland should become the champion of the EU’s ‘differentiation policy’ which aims to fully and effectively exclude the OPT (and the illegal settlements located there) from bilateral relations with Israel.
From trade to international law: Why the EU should untangle its relationships with Morocco and Western Sahara, 21 December 2020
Europe has a legitimate interest in maintaining close relations with Morocco. But this should not come at the expense of its commitment to international law and Sahrawi rights.
The UN is right to track businesses in Israeli settlements (972), 14 February 2020
The disinformation campaign against a new UN database aims to legitimize the Israeli settler movement and those who illegally profit from it.
Can EU Differentiation Save the Two-State Solution? (dis:orient), 17 November 2017
The adoption and streamlining of differentiation measures represents a unique and effective European contribution towards Israeli-Palestinian peace at a time in which the Middle East Peace Process in its current configuration has failed.
Israel’s unlawfully prolonged occupation: consequences under an integrated legal framework, 2 June 2017
Third party states and international actors are legally obligated to ensure non-recognition of Israel’s internationally unlawful acts. They should be at the forefront of efforts to further Israel’s compliance with international law.
Will FIFA Give Israeli Settlement Clubs a Yellow Card? (Lobelog), 9 May 2017
As FIFA’s legislative body, the congress is due to address a number of pressing issues facing world football, of which the most politically sensitive will be the fate of the six Israeli football clubs in West Bank settlements.
After the UN, the EU must lead the way on Israeli settlements (972), 28 December 2016
Resolution 2334 should be seen as a belated step towards mobilizing the international consensus. But to give it any real effect, states will need to build on the resolution with a view to making it operational. The EU is best positioned to do so.
EU differentiation and the push for peace in Israel-Palestine, 31 October 2016
The adoption and streamlining of differentiation measures represents a unique and effective European contribution towards Israeli-Palestinian peace at a time in which the Middle East Peace Process in its current configuration has failed.
Time for EU courage on Israeli settlements (EUObserver), 14 October 2016
The obligation not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used in connexion with its settlements is also something that has been laid out in numerous UN Security Council Resolutions. But none of this has translated into any real willingness to enforce internationally endorsed policy positions and respect for the rule of law.
Why does FIFA still recognise Israeli settlement teams? (Al Jazeera), 29 June 2016
This is a case where FIFA’s own laws need to be applied, not negotiated or bent.
EU Labelling and the Challenge to “Greater Israel” (Lobelog), 12 November 2015
The levels of hysteria and name-calling emanating from Israel neared crescendo-levels yesterday as the European Commission published its long overdue guidelines on the correct labelling of Israeli settlement products.
EU Differentiation and Israeli settlements, 22 July 2015
The EU needs to act faster and further in ensuring that Israeli settlements in no way benefit from EU-Israel bilateral relations.
-
Austria
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Memorandum of understanding on modification and extension for the years 2019 – 2021 of the memorandum of understanding on cultural, scientific and educational cooperation for the years 2015 – 2018 02/2019 Cultural; Film; Scientific No Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital 28/11/2016 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel and when used in a geographical sense includes its territorial sea, as well as those maritime areas adjacent to the outer limit of the territorial sea, including seabed and subsoil thereof over which the State of Israel, in accordance with international law and the laws of the State of Israel, exercise its sovereign rights or jurisdiction.” Memorandum of understanding on cultural, scientific and educational cooperation for the years 2015 – 2018 16/05/2016 Cultural; Film; Scientific No Agreement on film co-production 01/10/2014 Cultural No Memorandum of understanding on cultural, scientific and educational cooperation for the years 2011 – 2014 31/03/2011 Cultural; Film; Scientific No Amendment to the Convention of 29 January 1970 for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and capital 20/03/2007 Taxation No [See 1970 agreement] Additional agreement on social security 13/01/2000 Social Security No [See 1973 agreement] Agreement on scientific-technological cooperation 02/02/1994 R&D No Convention on social security 28/11/1973 Social Security No “”Israel” means the State of Israel.” Convention for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and capital 29/01/1970 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel.” Convention concerning the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions in civil and commercial matters 06/06/1966 Civil; Judicial; Economic No Convention concerning judicial assistance in criminal matters 06/06/1966 Law Enforcement; Judicial No -
Business guidance
Date Link Information No date Information on Israel’s economy, issued by the Austrian Embassy in Tel Aviv “The European Union and its member states point out to European citizens and economic operators the risks associated with financial and economic activities in the settlements. Financial transactions, investment, purchases, procurement as well as other economic activities (including in services such as tourism) in Israeli settlements or for the benefit of Israeli settlements, involve legal and economic risks due to the fact that the Israeli settlements are established in occupied territory according to international law and are therefore not a legitimate part of the Israeli state. This may result in disputed titles to land, water, mineral or other natural resources purchased or invested in. “Similarly, possible violations of international humanitarian law and human rights should be taken into account. Prospective buyers and investors should be aware that a future peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians or between Israel and Syria could have consequences for acquired property and economic activities in these settlements. In disputes, it could be very difficult for the EU.
“EU citizens and economic operators should also be aware of the potential impact on their reputation when they are involved economically and financially in the settlements.
“EU citizens and businesses contemplating any economic or financial involvement in settlements should seek appropriate legal advice before proceeding.”
-
Official announcements
Date Link Statement 08/11/2024 Report to UN Secretary General on Implementation of Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice “(…) the international agreements Austria has concluded with Israel do not extend to the Occupied Palestinian Territory and apply only to Israel within its internationally recognized borders.” -
Business and Human Rights (BHR) news
Date Information 28/04/2019 Globes reveals that Austrian company Wiener Linien is part of an international consortium bidding to build and operate the new Israeli ‘Jerusalem light rail project’ which will include occupied East Jerusalem and the Israeli settlement of Pisgat Ze’ev.
-
-
Belgium
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Social security agreement 24/03/2014 Social Security Partially “The term “Israel” means: the State of Israel.” ***
[In June 2021, the Belgian government clarified that “Belgians living in Israeli settlements cannot claim the application of bilateral treaties between Belgium and Israel, which under international law apply only to the territory of the State of Israel.”]
Agreement on gainful occupation for family members of a member of a diplomatic mission or consular post 11/11/2013 Labour; Diplomatic Partially [In November 2021, Foreign Minister Sophie Wilmès confirmed: “Past and future bilateral agreements relate to the territory of the State of Israel, and not the territories occupied since 1967.”]
Agreement on cooperation in the field of research and development in industry 11/02/2000 R&D; Industrial Partially [In November 2021, Foreign Minister Sophie Wilmès confirmed: “Past and future bilateral agreements relate to the territory of the State of Israel, and not the territories occupied since 1967.”]
Agreement concerning cooperation in the field of medical sciences and public health 11/07/1991 Health Partially [In June 2021, the Belgian government clarified that “Belgians living in Israeli settlements cannot claim the application of the bilateral treaties between Belgium and Israel, which under international law apply only to the territory of the State of Israel.”] Convention for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and capital 13/07/1972 Taxation Partially “The term “Israel” when used in a geographical sense, means the territory of the State of Israel.” ***
[In June 2021, the Belgian government clarified that:
“Belgians living in Israeli settlements cannot claim the application of the bilateral treaties between Belgium and Israel, which under international law apply only to the territory of the State of Israel.”
This was followed by a confirmation in November 2021 that:
“Past and future bilateral agreements relate to the territory of the State of Israel, and not the territories occupied since 1967.” ]
Convention on social security 05/07/1971 Social Security Partially [In November 2021, Foreign Minister Sophie Wilmès confirmed: “Past and future bilateral agreements relate to the territory of the State of Israel, and not the territories occupied since 1967.”]
Agreement on film co-production 08/10/1971 Film; Cultural Partially [In November 2021, Foreign Minister Sophie Wilmès confirmed: “Past and future bilateral agreements relate to the territory of the State of Israel, and not the territories occupied since 1967.”]
Cultural agreement 23/03/1967 Cultural Partially [In November 2021, Foreign Minister Sophie Wilmès confirmed: “Past and future bilateral agreements relate to the territory of the State of Israel, and not the territories occupied since 1967.”]
-
Bills and resolutions
Name Information Status Resolution on Belgian support to relaunch the Middle East peace process “Requests the Federal Government (…) “4. Encourage at the European level and bilaterally the deepening of the policy of differentiation between Israeli settlements and Israel to safeguard the two state solution; to ensure that Israeli settlements do not enjoy bilateral relations between the EU and Israel; to ensure that the application of this policy of differentiation does not in any way lead to a limitation of European investments in entities whose activities are solely implemented outside of Israeli settlements and settlement related infrastructure, and ensure that this does not lead to economic sanctions or a boycott of Israel (…)”
Adopted on 24 November 2016 -
Business guidance
Date Link Information 19/12/2019 (last update) Labelling of food and other goods from the territories occupied by the State of Israel, issued by the Ministry of Economy “A recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union specifies and makes compulsory the labeling of the origin or the provenance of foodstuffs from the territories occupied by Israel hitherto recommended by the European Commission. It also has consequences for other goods from these territories and imported and sold on European territory. “In order to be able to make an informed choice when purchasing products, the consumer must have accurate information and cannot be deceived as to their origin. Whether the mention of the origin of a product is compulsory or optional, it must correspond to reality and cannot mislead the consumer. The labeling of goods from the territories occupied by Israel has been the subject of discussion for many years.
“In the case of goods originating in the territories occupied by Israel, it was not clear until now how a product from there could be properly labeled with regard to the indication of the origin or provenance of the product.
“The Golan Heights and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) are not part of Israeli territory under international law and therefore cannot bear the indication “produced in Israel” as this would be inaccurate and misleading.
“On November 12, 2019, the European Court of Justice ruled on this question as regards foodstuffs (Judgment of the Court in Case C ‑ 363/18).
“This decision means that if there is a legal obligation to indicate the country of origin or the place of provenance on a product and that it comes from a territory occupied by the State of Israel, the indication must meet a double obligation: to indicate that the product in question comes from this particular territory and to indicate that it comes from an Israeli settlement.
“In this case, the territory indicated in the mention of the origin or the provenance must be indicated as follows:
“West Bank (Israeli settlement);
“Golan Heights (Israeli settlement).
“The general provisions concerning the indication of the country of origin or the place of provenance of food products are laid down in Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 concerning consumer information on food.
“Under this article 26, the indication of the country of origin or the place of provenance is compulsory:
“When its absence on the foodstuff risks misleading the consumer as to the true country of origin or place of provenance thereof;
“For fresh, chilled and frozen meats of pigs, sheep, goats and chickens.
“In addition, when the country of origin or place of provenance of a food is indicated and it is not identical to that of its primary ingredient, the country of origin or place of provenance of the the primary ingredient concerned must also be indicated, or it must be indicated that the country of origin or the place of provenance of the primary ingredient is different from that of the foodstuff.
“Furthermore, Book VI of the Code of Economic Law provides that a commercial practice is considered to be misleading if it contains inaccurate information, in particular concerning the main characteristics of the product, such as its geographical or commercial origin, which lead to or are likely to lead the average consumer to make a business decision they would not have made otherwise. Therefore, if an indication of origin is mentioned on a product, it must be exact.
“It can therefore be concluded that the indications which the Court of Justice of the European Union has declared compulsory with regard to foodstuffs can be extended to all other products.
“Therefore, if the indication of origin or provenance is mentioned on any product from the territories occupied by the State of Israel, it is strongly recommended to use the same terminology as that mentioned above.”
08/03/2018 (last update) Common messages aimed at raising awareness among EU citizens and businesses regarding involvement in financial and economic activities in the settlements, issued by the Ministry of Economy “The European Union and its member states are raising awareness among European businesses and citizens of the risks of financial and economic activities in the settlements. Financial transactions, investments, purchases, acquisitions and other economic activities (including tourism) in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements include economic and legal risks. These arise from the fact that, under international law, Israeli settlements are developed on occupied territory and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israeli territory. This may result in disputed titles to land, water, mineral or other natural resources purchased or invested in. “Possible violations of international humanitarian law and the law on human rights should also be considered.
“Potential buyers and investors should be aware that a future peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, or between Israel and Syria, could have consequences for the property purchases or economic activities promoted in these settlements. In case of disputes, it could be very difficult for member states to ensure national protection of their interests.
“Companies and EU citizens should also be aware of the potential implications, in terms of their reputation, which could arise from their participation in economic and financial activities in the settlements.
“Companies and EU citizens contemplating financial or economic interest in the settlements should seek appropriate legal advice before taking any steps.
“For further information on the relevant guidelines and guiding principles promoted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations, cf. the following websites:
“The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises – 2011 Edition
“Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights – United Nations“
July 2014 Common messages aimed at raising awareness among EU citizens and businesses regarding involvement in financial and economic activities in the settlements, issued by the Foreign Ministry “The European Union and its member states are raising awareness among European businesses and citizens of the risks of financial and economic activities in the settlements. Financial transactions, investments, purchases, acquisitions and other economic activities (including tourism) in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements include economic and legal risks. These arise from the fact that, under international law, Israeli settlements are developed on occupied territory and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israeli territory. This may result in disputed titles to land, water, mineral or other natural resources purchased or invested in. “Possible violations of international humanitarian law and the law on human rights should also be considered.
“Potential buyers and investors should be aware that a future peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, or between Israel and Syria, could have consequences for the property purchases or economic activities promoted in these settlements. In case of disputes, it could be very difficult for member states to ensure national protection of their interests.
“Companies and EU citizens should also be aware of the potential implications, in terms of their reputation, which could arise from their participation in economic and financial activities in the settlements.
“Companies and EU citizens contemplating financial or economic interest in the settlements should seek appropriate legal advice before taking any steps.
“For further information on the relevant guidelines and guiding principles promoted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations, cf. the following websites:
“www.oecd.org/fr/daf/inv/mne/48004355.pdf
“https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf“
01/08/2014 Notice to retailers regarding the origin labeling of products from the territories occupied by Israel, issued by the Ministry of Economy “In 2012, the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union undertook to implement in a comprehensive and effective manner existing EU legislation as well as bilateral agreements applicable to products from settlements. These are settlements on territories under Israeli administration in 1967. However, there remains a lack of clarity for importers and traders regarding the labeling of products from colonies. Businesses and civil society have asked to clarify this issue. “Objective
“The purpose of this notice is to provide the clarifications requested concerning the legislation applicable to the labeling of products from the territories occupied by Israel.
“Labeling of Origin
“The basic premise of the labeling legislation is that the consumer has the right to be informed when making choices and therefore that the labeling can not be misleading. Where labeling is mandatory, the geographical origin must be correctly labeled. When it is optional, traders are free to decide whether to mention the origin, unless the omission of this information may mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product. If the origin is indicated, the information must be correct so as not to mislead the consumer.
“With regard to fresh fruit and vegetables, wine, honey, olive oil, fish, beef and veal, poultry from third countries, eggs, organic products and cosmetics, the original labeling is mandatory. As of April 2015, labeling will also become mandatory for fresh, chilled and frozen meat of swine, sheep, goat and poultry.
“Since the Golan Heights and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) are not part of Israeli territory under international law, the labeling of goods originating in these territories as “Israel’s product” is considered to be misleading within the meaning of the aforementioned legislation.
“Labeling of goods originating from Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights and in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) with no indication that they originate from a colony, is also considered to be misleading.
“In order to clarify that these products actually come from an Israeli settlement, the following statements are recommended on the labels: -“Product of the Golan Heights (Israeli Settlement)” -“Product of the West Bank (Israeli Settlement)”. For West Bank products that do not originate from settlements, the label “West Bank product (Palestinian product)” is recommended.”
-
Official announcements
Date Link Statement 08/11/2024 Report to UN Secretary General on Implementation of Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice “Belgium carefully implements the differentiation policy, arising among others from Security Council resolution 2334 (2016). All treaties signed with Israel contain the so-called territorial clause. Belgium carries out strengthened controls of goods imported from Israel and raises awareness of Belgian travellers or private companies envisaging to go to the Occupied Territory.” 07/11/2022 General Policy Note for Belgian Chamber of Representatives, from the Economy Minister
Pierre-Yves Dermagne“Israel’s settlement policy is firmly condemned by the European Union and its Member States. Several international and European instruments have therefore been set up in recent years to reinforce the policy of differentiation between Israel and Israeli settlements. The High Commissioner for Human Rights published a database of commercial enterprises (currently 112) involved in activities directly or indirectly directly linked to Israeli settlements. “It is important to educate consumers and distributors on the origin of products from the occupied territories to make them aware of their social responsibility, particularly in the framework of ongoing European work relating to the proposal for a directive on the duty of vigilance for companies relating to sustainability issues.
“In this regard, I have requested a study on the possibility for Belgium to sanction Belgian companies who have economic and/or commercial relations and/or financial services with companies that appear on the United Nations list, as well as proposals for
targeted and proportionate measures aimed at deterring Belgian companies for developing activities of this type that contribute to Israel’s settlement policy. I also want to make proposals to engage companies and their leaders that encourage international law violations on their responsibilities.“In addition, I have mandated the SPF Economy [Ministry] to cooperate with the Belgian customs services to strengthen controls on the labelling of imported products from the territories occupied by Israel.”
16/11/2021 Answer given by Foreign Minister Sophie Wilmès to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Belgian Parliament “We are evolving when it comes to differentiation. On 31 October we approved the conclusions of an inter-Cabinet group. There are five baskets: - The differentiation [policy] is coordinated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Economy and Finance Ministries have operational responsibilities in terms of trade.
- Future agreements between Belgium and Israel will include the EU clause stipulating that agreements do not apply to territories brought under Israeli control after 1967. Past and future bilateral agreements relate to the territory of the State of Israel, and not the territories occupied since 1967.
- Finance and Economy departments will tighten controls on goods from Israel. Belgium will, together with other countries, engage the European Commission on the technical arrangement. Our customs authorities must check the origin of goods against this list [of post codes]; this reversal of the burden of proof is not effective. The Finance and Economy Ministries can exchange information with their counterparts in other EU member states, which can feed into the diplomatic debate.
- The EU’s trade policy is common and steered by the Commission. […] Belgium will consult EU member states on a possible proposal for EC trade policy towards occupied territories.
- Belgium would like to see the mandate of the [UN] High Commissioner for Human Rights contained in resolution 31/36 carried out. This includes updating of the UN database of companies involved in Israeli settlements. Belgium calls for sufficient resources to be allocated to implement this resolution. Regarding the possible consequences of the database, Belgium acknowledges the importance of the European directive on “due diligence” which will be soon tabled. Discussions on this subject will be continued at European and multilateral level.”
08/07/2021 Answer given by Foreign Minister Sophie Wilmès “In conformity with international law and the application of the European policy of differentiation, in particular the adoption of the principle of the “territorial clause” by the Foreign Affairs Council in December 2021, I can confirm to you that the bilateral agreements between Belgium and Israel apply to the territory of the state of Israel, stricto sensu. These bilateral agreements do not apply to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, namely the Golan Heights, West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.” 22/06/2021 Answer given by Foreign Minister Sophie Wilmès
“About 500 Belgian nationals reside in settlements in the West Bank and are registered in the consular population registers. These persons are registered in the consular registers of the Belgian Consulate General in Jerusalem under whose jurisdiction they fall. The embassy in Tel Aviv only has jurisdiction over the territory of Israel within the Green Line and thus has no jurisdiction over Belgians living in the settlements, even if they are also Israeli citizens. “Belgians born in these settlements (outside Jerusalem) are registered in the [Belgian] national register under the heading “country of birth” as “Palestinian Territory”. These Belgians are not deprived of the right to vote and they receive election notices regardless of where they live.
“The address of the convocations will be indicated as follows: “Palestinian Territory” for Belgian nationals residing in a settlement in the West Bank; “Jerusalem” for Belgian nationals based in Jerusalem.
On the other hand, under the territorial clause, Belgians living in Israeli settlements cannot claim the application of bilateral treaties between Belgium and Israel, which under international law apply only to the territory of the State of Israel.”
04/05/2021 Answer given by Foreign Minister Sophie Wilmès to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Belgian Parliament
“At the bilateral level, the implementation of the differentiation policy is imperfect. I have instructed my services to develop operational proposals regarding the labelling practices for settlements products and the implementation of bilateral agreements in compliance with the territorial clause. My services are already in dialogue with European partners to examine how the differentiation policy can be strengthened, including through a possible update of common messages.” 30/09/2020 Agreement on the formation of new Belgian federal government “The government is taking further steps with regard to a bilateral and multilateral differentiation policy towards the Israeli settlements.” 30/03/2020 Statement by the Permanent Representative of Belgium to the United Nations Ambassador Marc Pecsteen “The publication of the OHCHR database on businesses with a connection to the settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories will hopefully create more transparency.” 17/12/2019 Answer given by Minister of Employment, Economy and Consumer Affairs Nathalie Muylle to the Committee on Consumer Protection of the House of Representatives “I asked ‘SPF Economie’ for an analysis of the judgment which the Court of Justice delivered two days earlier. I received this analysis earlier this month. The information on the ‘SPF Economie website will be adapted and the various professional associations concerned will be updated with this analysis. This will normally be done before the end of the year, therefore within the next few days. “It will emphasise that these are binding rules. It is obvious that the Economic Inspectorate will ensure that the rules are observed as specified by the Court of Justice. The penalties for infringements will be those of level 2 (80,000 euros maximum) or, in bad faith, those of level 3 (200,000 euros maximum). These amounts include additional taxes.
“Customs is also competent in this matter. To ensure traceability, customs cooperation is important. On this subject, I refer you to the Minister of Finance.
“Information will normally reach professional associations in the coming days.”
17/10/2018 Statement by Foreign Minister Didier Reynders to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives “As confirmed by UN Resolution 2334, settlements violate international law and the obligations of Israel as an occupying force. The pursuit of settlement policy amounts to a gradual annexation of the West Bank, undermines the possibility of a solution to the conflict through the creation of two states and hinders the search for lasting peace. This is why it is necessary to distinguish between activities in Israel and those carried out by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories. “This distinction forms the basis of the differentiation policy supported by Belgium at the bilateral, European and United Nations levels. As I have often said before this Committee, the logical corollary of this policy of differentiation between the territories and Israel is that it does not aim at introducing a boycott or sanctions against Israel itself. I am convinced that this too could help to promote a climate in which a return to dialogue and the search for negotiated solutions would become possible again.
“Several European measures have been adopted to help define this policy of differentiation: in particular, the territorial clause, in 2012, and the interpretative communication on the indication of the origin of goods from territories occupied by Israel since June 1967, in 2015. With regard to the implementation of the provisions of this Interpretative Communication of the European Commission in Belgium, I refer you to my colleague in charge of the Economy, Mr Kris Peeters.
“I have already wished, on several occasions, to see the process progress at the Benelux level and, failing that, at the Belgian level, and I have transmitted this request to the successive Ministers of Economy that I have known in the various governments.”
-
Business and Human Rights (BHR) news
Date Information March 2024 The commune of Brussels votes to exclude Israeli settlement linked entities from its public procurement. September 2020 The newly formed Belgian government undertakes to participate actively and constructively in the negotiations on the future United Nations convention on business and human rights. The Government will play a leading role in the development of a European legislative framework on due diligence. To the extent possible, a national support framework will be put in place for this purpose. April 2019 Civil society organisations publish an open letter calling for a Belgian law mandating companies to conduct human rights due diligence March 2018 Dexia sells its 58.9% participation in Dexia Israel Bank as part of its financial recovery plan. August 2016 Brussels Airlines returns the ‘Vanilla Halva’ patisserie made in an Israeli settlement to its on-board menus. The decision came after pressure by the Israeli government, including a threat by Israel’s Tourism Minister Yariv Levin to ban the airline from the country. The u-turn came after Brussels Airlines had removed the patisserie’s following a complaint by an Israeli passenger over its settlement origin. May 2009 Chairman of the board of Dexia and former Belgian Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene acknowledges that Dexia Israel has previously extended loans to Israeli settlements, but: “that no new loans would be granted to the settlements, and noted that outstanding credits and loans would not be extended.” In the past,” Dehaene said at the meeting, “Dexia Israel granted 5 million Euros of loans to the settlements, this was only 1% of the total budget of Dexia Israel.” He added, however, that “the loans to the Jerusalem municipality are not included in this amount, as Dexia Group feels that Jerusalem is not contested territory.”” (via MannNews) June 2001 Dexia buys Israeli bank Otzar Hashilton Hamekomi which becomes Dexia Israel.
-
-
Bulgaria
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Memorandum of understanding between InvestBulgaria Agency with Bulgaria-Israel Chamber of Commerce and Industry 02/06/2016 Economic; Industrial; Financial Unknown [Text not found] Memorandum of understanding for cooperation in military industry 15/01/2012 Defence; Industrial Unknown [Text not found] Employment agreement 20/12/2011 Labour Unknown [Text not available] Amendment to 1993 agreement for the promotion and reciprocal protection of investments 07/07/2011 Financial No [See 1993 agreement] Agreement on social security 25/03/2008 Social Security No Agreement on economic cooperation 25/03/2008 Economic No Agreement on double taxation 18/01/2000 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel and, when used in a geographical sense, means the territory and the territorial sea over which it exercises its state sovereignty and jurisdiction, as well as the continental shelf, the exclusive economic zone and that part of the seabed and subsoil under the sea over which it exercises sovereign rights according to international law.”
Agreement on cooperation in the fields of posts and telecommunications 15/06/1998 Communications No Agreement for cooperation in the field of tourism 30/04/1998 Tourism No Agreement for the promotion and reciprocal protection of investments 06/12/1993 Financial No “The term “territory” shall mean with respect to each Contracting Party, the territory of that Contracting Party including the territorial sea, as well as the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone over which that Contracting Party exercises sovereign rights or jurisdiction in conformity with international law.” Agreement on cooperation in the field of health care and medical science 14/03/1991 Health No Agreement on cooperation in the field of culture, science and education 04/07/1991 R&D; Cultural; Educational No Air Transport Agreement for air services between and beyond their respective territories 15/03/1991 Aviation No “The term “territory” in relation to a State means the land areas, the territorial waters belonging to it and the airspace above under the sovereignty of that state.”
-
-
Croatia
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Work program for scientific and technological cooperation 29/05/2018 Scientific; Technological No Agreement on cooperation in the field of agriculture 13/11/2017 Agricultural No Program of cultural and educational cooperation for the years 2016-2019 30/05/2016 Cultural; Educational No Additional Protocol on amendments to the agreement for the reciprocal promotion and protection of investments 30/03/2011 Financial Unknown [Text not available] Program of cultural and educational cooperation for the years 2010-2012 26/07/2010 Cultural; Educational Unknown [Text not available] Agreement on the fight against crime 16/09/2009 Law Enforcement Unknown [Text not available] Agreement on the gainful occupation for family members of members of diplomatic missions and consular posts 07/11/2007 Labour; Diplomatic No Agreement for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital 26/09/2006 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel and when used in a geographical sense comprises the territory in which the Government of the State of Israel has taxation rights including its territorial sea, as well as those maritime areas adjacent to the outer limit of the territorial sea, including seabed and subsoil thereof, over which the State of Israel, in accordance with international law and the laws of the State of Israel, exercises its sovereign rights and jurisdiction.” Agreement on co-operation in the fields of culture, education and science 30/10/2001 Cutlural; Educational; Scientific No Agreement for the reciprocal promotion and protection of investments 01/08/2000 Financial No “The term “territory” means: with respect to the State of Israel: the territory of the State of Israel including the territorial sea, as well as the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone over which the State of Israel exercises sovereign rights or jurisdiction in conformity with international law.” Agreement on cooperation in the field of tourism 11/05/1998 Tourism No Air services agreement 11/05/1998 Aviation Unknown [Text not available] -
Business guidance
Date Link Information 04/06/2013 Draft common messages with the aim of raising awareness of citizens and entrepreneurs from the EU regarding participation in financial and economic activities in OPT settlements, issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Affairs “Citizens and entrepreneurs from the EU who are willing to participate in economic or financial activities in these settlements should therefore be aware of all the risks arising from it. All financial transactions, investment, purchasing, procurement, as well as all other economic activities (including in service industries such as tourism) in Israeli settlements or that are in any way connected with Israeli settlements include legal and economic risks associated with the fact that Israeli settlements are built on occupied territory and are not recognised as a legitimate part of the national territory of Israel. “Potential buyers should be aware that a future peace agreement between Israel and Palestinians and between Israel and Syria could affect the property they buy or economic activities carried out in these areas. Furthermore, in case of disputes, it could be very difficult for member states to ensure national protection of these interests from a legal and political point of view. Citizens and entrepreneurs from the EU should also be aware of the potential damage to their reputation as a result of their participation in economic and financial activities in the settlements, also taking into account possible violations of international humanitarian law and human rights arising from the occupation.
“Given the above, the European Union and its member states have a duty to raise the awareness of European citizens and businesses of the need for careful treatment relating to potential involvement in any activity in the settlements or in activities that could contribute to legitimising and sustaining Israeli settlements.”
-
-
Cyprus
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Memorandum of understanding regarding defence and military cooperation 09/01/2012 Defence Unknown
[Text not available] Agreement on mutual protection of classified information 09/01/2012 Defence Unknown [Text not available] Agreement on cooperation in the fields of renewable energy and energy efficiency 03/11/2011 Energy No Agreement on bilateral cooperation in industrial research and development 03/11/2011 R&D; Industrial No Memorandum of cooperation between the Departments of Antiquities 03/11/2011 Cultural; Archaeology Unknown [Text not available] Agreement in the field of telecommunication and information technology services 03/11/2011 Telecommunication No Agreement on cooperation in the fields of renewable energy and energy efficiency 03/11/2011 Energy No
Agreement on bilateral cooperation in industrial research and development 03/11/2011 R&D; Industrial No
Joint declaration in the areas of social protection and social inclusion 22/02/2010 Social Unknown [Text not available] Agreement on the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone 17/12/2010 Economic; Maritime Yes Map Plan of cooperation in the fields of health and medicine for 2010-2015 03/08/2010 Health Unknown [Text not available] Agreement on the reciprocal promotion and protection of investments 13/10/1998 Financial Unknown [Text not available] Agreement on co-operation in the field of agriculture 29/07/1994 Agricultural Unknown [Text not available] Agreement on cooperation in the fields of culture, education and science 22/07/1994 Cultural; Educational; Scientific No Agreement on cooperation in the field of posts and telecommunications 12/04/1994 Telecommunication; Postal No Agreement in the field of tourism 23/02/1994 Tourism Unknown [Text not available] Air services agreement 21/12/1993 Aviation Unknown [Text not available] Agreement on cooperation in the fields of health and medicine 17/11/1993 Health Unknown [Text not available]
-
-
Czech Republic
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Agreement on cooperation in the area of environment 27/11/2018 Environment No Agreement on social security 16/07/2000 Social Security No “”Territory” means in relation to the State of Israel its territory [sic].” Agreement for the reciprocal promotion and protection of investments 23/09/1997 Financial No “With respect to the State of Israel, the territory of the State of Israel including the territorial sea, exclusive economic zones and continental shelf where the State of Israel exercises sovereignty, sovereign rights or jurisdiction in accordance with international law.” Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income 12/12/1993 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel in accordance with its laws and when used in a geographical sense includes, but it is not limited to, the territorial waters of Israel and any area outside such territorial waters which in accordance with the laws of Israel is an area within which the rights of Israel with respect to the exploration and exploitation of the natural biological and mineral resources existing in the sea waters, sea bed and subsoil of these waters may be exercised.” -
Business guidance
Date Link Information Common messaging aimed at raising awareness among EU citizens and businesses regarding involvement in financial and economic activities in the settlements, issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affars “The European Union and its member states consider that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict impossible. The EU and its Member states will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties. The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights are territories that have been occupied by Israel since 1967. “As a result of the above, the European Union and its member states are raising European citizens’ and businesses’ awareness of the risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements. Financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements as well as other economic activities (including in services like tourism) in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements, entail legal and economic risks stemming from the fact that the Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israel’s territory. This may result in disputed titles to land, water, mineral or other natural resources purchased or invested in.
“Possible violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law should also be borne in mind.
“Potential buyers and investors should be aware that a future peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, or between Israel and Syria, could have consequences for property they purchase or economic activities they promote in these settlements. In case of disputes, it could be very difficult for member states to ensure national protection of their interests.
“EU citizens and businesses should also be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in settlements.
“EU citizens and businesses contemplating any economic or financial involvement in settlements should seek appropriate legal advice before proceeding.”
-
Official announcements
Date Link Statement 17/12/2015 Reuters: Czech parliament rejects labelling goods from Israeli settlements Reuters: “The Czech parliament’s lower house called on the government on Thursday to ignore EU rules on labelling goods from Israeli settlements, joining Hungary in breaking ranks over the divisive regulations. The Czech Assembly said new EU guidelines which require the labelling of exports from Israeli settlements in the West Bank were “motivated by a political positioning versus the State of Israel”.
-
-
Denmark
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income 09/09/2009 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel and when used in a geographical sense comprises the territory in which the Government of the State of Israel has taxation rights, including its territorial sea, as well as those maritime areas adjacent to the outer limit of the territorial sea, including seabed and subsoil thereof over which the State of Israel, in accordance with international law and the laws of the State of Israel, exercises its sovereign or other rights and jurisdiction.” Memorandum of understanding on bilateral cooperation in private sector industrial research and development 29/08/2007 R&D; Industrial Partially [The accompanying 2016-2019 Action Plan contains the following ‘special attention points’: “Implementation of the action plan, including establishment and operation of an innovation center in Tel Aviv, will be done in accordance with Denmark and EU policy for cooperation with Israel. This action plan will only cover cooperation with Israeli institutions located within Israel’s internationally recognised territory from before 1967. This is in line with the so-called territorial clause that Israel and the EU entered into when Israel became associated Horizon 2020.”
In a June 2018 parliamentary answer, the government added:
“When entering into agreements with companies and research institutions a standard clause is included in the contracts (referenced below), referring to the EU Guidelines of July 2014, and to Parliamentary Decisions V13 (2014), V53 (2016) and V30 (2018) and reiterates that Israeli settlements should not be legitimised or obtain improved economic opportunities through agreements between Israel and the EU, or through Danish public or private involvement.”]
Convention on social security 03/07/1995 Social Security; Pensions No “”Territory” means, in relation to the State of Israel its territory [sic]” Cultural agreement 15/06/1972 Cultural No Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and capital 27/06/1966 Taxation No -
Bills and resolutions
Name Information Status Investments of investment associations and municipalities in companies with activities in illegal settlements (V30) “The parliament refers to V 53 of 2016, taking note of the call made by UN Security Council Resolution 2334 to distinguish in relevant actions between Israel’s territory and occupied territories. The parliament calls for new agreements between Denmark and Israel, in accordance with Resolution 2334 and EU policy, to clearly indicate that they could not be used in these areas. The Folketing calls on the government to strengthen the guiding effort towards private and public investors to make it easier to identify exposures and activities that take place in or benefit settlements, including continuously updating the government’s guidance on responsible investments based on the UN, the OECD Guidelines, and opinions of MKI [the Complaints Handling Institution for Responsible Business Conduct]. At the same time, the Danish Parliament expresses its support for OHCHR’s ongoing work in this area.” Approved on 23 January 2018 Financial Statements Act “§99a. Large companies must supplement the management’s report with a statement of corporate social responsibility, cf. 2-9. Corporate social responsibility is understood to mean that companies integrate considerations into: human rights, social conditions, environmental and climate issues and the fight against corruption in their business strategy and business activities.” [More info] Approved on 10 December 2015 About the EU, Israel and the West Bank (V13) “The parliament encourages the government to work for the parties’ compliance with the Geneva Conventions and other international commitments, including “(…) that Israeli settlements will not have their existence legitimised or obtain improved economic opportunities through agreements between Israel and the EU or through Danish public or private involvement.”
Approved on 21 January 2014 -
Business guidance
Date Link Information (No date) Information regarding financial and economic activities in the settlement, issued by the Foreign Ministry “The European Union and its member states are raising European citizens’ and businesses’ awareness on the risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements. Financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements as well as other economic activities (including in services like tourism) in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements, entail legal and economic risks stemming from the fact that the Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israel’s territory. This may result in disputed titles to land, water, mineral or other natural resources purchased or invested in. “Possible violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law should also be borne in mind.
“Potential buyers and investors should be aware that a future peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, or between Israel and Syria, could have consequences for property they purchase or economic activities they promote in these settlements. In case of disputes, it could be very difficult for member states to ensure national protection of their interests.
“EU citizens and businesses should also be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in settlements.
“EU citizens and businesses contemplating any economic or financial involvement in settlements should seek appropriate legal advice before proceeding.”
(No date) Israel as a market, issued by the Dannish Embassy in Tel Aviv “The European Union and its Member States consider that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict impossible. As a result, the European Union and its Member States are raising European citizens’ and businesses’ awareness on the risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements. Financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements as well as other economic activities (including in services like tourism) in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements, entail legal and economic risks stemming from the fact that the Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israel’s territory.” 27/08/2019 Regulatory reporting requirements “Since 2009, the largest companies in Denmark have been obliged to account for their work on corporate social responsibility. In 2015, the Parliament passed a change in the rules. “All large companies in accounting class C and all companies in accounting class D are subject to the same rules for fiscal years beginning January 1, 2018.
“It is voluntary for Danish companies if they want to work with corporate social responsibility. However, the statutory requirements in the Danish Financial Statements Act mean that the largest Danish companies are obliged to submit a statement of corporate social responsibility.
“Note that financial companies are not covered by the Danish Financial Statements Act, but by the regulations of the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority.
“In 2018, the Danish Parliament passed a change in the rules for reporting on corporate social responsibility. The new rules apply to financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2020.
“Smaller companies can strengthen the company by working systematically with corporate social responsibility.
“Unlike large companies, there is no legal requirement for small businesses to account for the company’s work on corporate social responsibility. Although there is no legal requirement to report on corporate social responsibility, clear communication about small business efforts can strengthen the business.”
Indication of origin for food from Israel and Israeli occupied territories, issued by the Ministry of Environment and Food “The Commission published on 12 November 2015 (Official Journal (2015 /C375/05) a communication reflecting the Commission’s interpretation of the relevant EU legislation on the indication of origin for products originating in Israel and the Israeli occupied territories. Since a large proportion of the goods with a mandatory origin declaration are food, the Commission notice and the associated fact sheet are published on the website of the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration. “Interpretative declaration of origin for goods from the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 [Danish language version]
“Fact sheet with “Questions and Answers” in relation to “Interpretative Notice of Indication of Origin of Goods from the Areas Occupied by Israel since June 1967” [Danish language version]
“The European Commission publishes a list of names of sites including zip codes, from which products originating in these areas may not be indicated by “Israel” as the indication of origin. The list is available on the EU website relating to the EU-Israel technical arrangement.
“See also SKAT’s website with a description of Special conditions for preferential documentation – Israel and Palestine.”
Special conditions of preferential documentation – Israel and Palestine(FA9.6.4.1), issued by the Tax Administration (SKA) “Israel is also a Euro-Med country, but it is a special case when it comes to controlling origin. Goods from the territories occupied by Israel (the Golan, the West Bank and East Jerusalem) cannot achieve Israeli preferential status upon entry into the EU. “A special regime for subsequent control of origin has therefore been introduced in cooperation with the Israeli customs authorities. A communication from the Commission to EU importers was published on 3 August 2012 in the Official Journal of the European Union C 232, 03.08.2012, page 5.
“The Arrangement (“Technical Arrangement”) with Israel implies that proof of origin (EUR.1 certificates, EUR-MED certificates, invoice declarations and EUR-MED invoice declarations) from Israel must be compared to a list of cities, settlements and industrial zones and non-eligible locations, from which goods cannot obtain Israeli origin and thereby obtain preferential tariff preferences for imports into the EU.
“If the goods originate from one or more of the addresses appearing on the list, preferential tariff treatment is rejected.
“Please note that the list of settlements has been updated and applies from 1 June 2015. The new updated list can be found on the Commission’s website at this link.
“In Case C-386/08 Brita GmbH, the European Court of Justice has given judgment on the geographical scope of the Association Agreement between the EU and Israel.
“The company Brita GmbH, based in Germany, imported some goods from an Israeli company located on the West Bank east of Jerusalem. The country of origin was stated on the invoice declarations as “Israel” and therefore a preferential tariff application was sought under the EC-Israel Association Agreement on importation into the EU. The German customs authorities granted, on a temporary basis, the preferential tariff applied for, but subsequently initiated a check. The Israeli authorities replied that ” it is clear from the checks that we have made that the goods in question originate in a zone under the responsibility of the Israeli customs authorities “. The German customs authorities refused to grant the preferential treatment since it could not be established with certainty that the imported goods were part of the EC-Israel Association Agreement. The EU Court concluded that products originating in the West Bank are not covered by the geographical scope of the EC-Israel Association Agreement and are therefore not covered by the preferential treatment introduced by this Agreement. Against this background, the German authorities were entitled to refuse preferential tariff treatment on the grounds that they originated in the West Bank. See paragraphs 53 and 54.
“The EU Commission has also issued an Explanatory Memorandum of Origin for goods from the areas occupied by Israel since June 1967. The note can be found on this link. For more information about marking goods from Israel, please see the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration’s website on this link.”
-
Official announcements
Date Link Statement 04/07/2018 Answer to parliamentary question 261 asked by Rasmus Nordqvist (ALT) on 25 June 2018 to the Minister of Foreign Affairs “Resolution V53 of 2016, emphasised that settlements should not be legitimised or obtain improved economic opportunities through agreements between Israel and the EU, or through Danish public or private involvement. The government supports this policy. In relation to Danish companies and investors, this is a political statement [put forward in Question 261], as no international sanctions have been adopted that prohibit investment in, or for the benefit of settlements. But engagements that benefit settlements weaken the potential for a two-state solution. “Therefore, the government discourages commitments and activities aimed at strengthening settlements. In addition, the government supports the common messages to citizens and businesses in the EU, which are aimed at raising awareness of the risks associated with a commitment to settlements, and which Danish investors must always be aware of. Further, the government supports the call in UN Security Council Resolution 2334 to distinguish between Israel and the occupied territories. The EU and Denmark are already distinguishing because we operate with a territorial clause to avoid settlements being covered by agreements with Israel.
“In response to this, I have received contributions from the Minister of Business, which state: “The Government is continuously working to strengthen its guidance for private and public investors based on the UN guidelines on human rights and business, and the OECD guidelines on multinational companies, and is following on an ongoing basis the work of the Complaints Handling Institution for Responsible Business Conduct. As part of ongoing guidance efforts, I can refer to the preparation of the Responsible Investment Guidance from March 2018. The guidance points out important issues that investment managers should be aware of, including establishing due diligence processes to identify, prevent and remedy current and potential negative impacts in accordance with the aforementioned international guidelines on corporate social responsibility.”
“In addition, I can state that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Embassy in Tel Aviv on their websites have links to, among other things, the guidance and common messages to citizens and businesses in the EU to ensure awareness of this, just as Danish and EU policy on settlements are included in the dialogue with companies and others when applicable.
“The government’s mandate is to clarify the corporate social responsibility requirements of Danish investors, and to specifically advise against investments in favour of settlements by engaging in dialogue with Danish investors.”
22/06/2018 Answer to parliamentary
question 214 asked by Rasmus Nordqvist (ALT) on 30 May 2018 to the Minister of Foreign Affairs“In connection with the creation of Innovation Center Denmark in Tel Aviv the Ministry of Education and Research drew up an action plan for knowledge cooperation with Israel. The action plan included [the following clause]: “The implementation of the action plan, including the establishment and operation of an innovation center in Tel Aviv, will be in accordance with Denmark and the EU’s policy of cooperation with Israel. Thus, the plan of action will only include cooperation with the Israeli institutions located within Israel’s internationally recognised territory from before 1967. This is in line with the so-called territorial clause that Israel and the EU entered into when Israel became associated Horizon 2020.”
“When entering into agreements with companies and research institutions a standard clause is included in the contracts (referenced below), referring to the EU Guidelines of July 2014, and to Parliamentary Decisions V13 (2014), V53 (2016) and V30 (2018) and reiterates that Israeli settlements should not be legitimised or obtain improved economic opportunities through agreements between Israel and the EU, or through Danish public or private involvement.
“Finally, the clause states that the innovation center will not be able to arrange or attend meetings with potential partners located at the other side of the Green Line.
“Default contract clause:
“Guidelines for business collaboration between the EU and Israel: In July 2014 Denmark, along with several EU countries, published an advisory for EU citizens and companies, drawing attention to the risks associated with economic and financial activities in the settlements and the reputation that companies risk from such activities. The guidelines are published on the websites of the Danish Foreign Ministry and the Embassy in Tel Aviv. Furthermore, the government is following resolutions passed by the Danish Parliament (V13 of 2014, V53 of 2016 and V30 of 2018) stating inter alia that Israeli settlements should not be legitimised or obtain improved economic opportunities through agreements between Israel and the EU, or through Danish public or private involvement. The Innovation Center will not be able to arrange or participate in meetings with potential partners located beyond the so-called the Green Line.””
-
Business and Human Rights (BHR) news
Date Information August 2019 Information.dk: The pension company VELLIV has announced that they will no longer invest in Motorola and Heidelberg Cement, which operate in occupied areas [including the West Bank]. Both companies have been put on VELLIV’s black list, but the divestment itself has proved difficult because they are owned through an index that the pension company does not manage itself. In a written response to ‘Information’ [news website], VELLIV states that they have now “identified a solution” which they are working to get implemented “as soon as possible”. May 2019 Industriens Pension blacklists Motorola over its activities in occupied territories. February 2019 MP Pension excludes three companies in which the pension fund currently has investments. These include the state-owned Moroccan company, the OCP Group, the German company Heidelberg Cement and the US technology company Motorola Solutions. This comes after the board of directors of MP Pension publishes position paper on companies operating in armed conflicts or conflict-affected areas. 2019 Pensam excludes two Israeli companies — Jerusalem Economy and Industrial Buildings Corporation — from its investment portfolio. October 2017 Sampension, Denmark’s third largest pension fund, excludes two Israeli banks, Hapoalim and Leumi, as well as Heidelberg Cement and Bezeq, for violating its investment guidelines relating to occupied territories. ”Based on our new policy we have reviewed whether or not there are companies in our portfolio which are listed in Vigeo Eiris’ BIOL-database (Business in Occupied Lands).” (via Danwatch) January 2017 Danwatch publishes report finding that Europe’s five largest pension funds — including Arbejdsmarkedets Tillaegspension — have €7.5 billion invested in companies with business activities in and around Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land. 2016 Pensam excludes Heidelberg Cement and Motorola Solutions — from its investment portfolio. December 2015 PFA Pension, Denmark’s largest commercial pension fund, blacklists Heidelberg Cement over its “extraction of natural resources [in the West Bank] in a way that is incompatible with PFA’s policy for responsible investments”. Autumn 2015 Danske Bank re-includes Bank Hapoalim in its investment portfolio based on “a thorough and constructive dialogue” surrounding the settlements: “It is our understanding that the bank [Hapoalim]handles the dilemmas associated with running a bank in Israel in a good and responsible manner and therefore we see no reason to continue to exclude them from our investment universe”. February 2014 Danske Bank excludes Bank Hapoalim from its investment portfolio. The reason given was that Israeli settlements are in violation of international law, and it is contrary to Danske Bank’s policy to invest in companies that contribute to such violations. Danske Bank had already excluded companies Danya Cebus Ltd. and Africa Israel Investments Ltd. over their involvement in settlement construction. January 2010 PKA Ltd — one of the largest funds administrating workers’ pension funds in Denmark — announces it would no longer invest in Elbit Systems, and US companies Megal Security Systems and Detection Systems due to their supplying of equipment for Israel’s ‘Separation Wall’: “The ICJ [International Court of Justice, the Hague] stated that the barrier only serves military purposes and violates Palestinian human rights. Therefore we have looked at whether companies produce custom-designed products [for] the wall and thus has a particular involvement in repressive activities. We cannot rule out the inclusion of other companies in our blacklist for their role in this area,” said Michael Nellemann, investment director of PKA, in the statement. (via Maan News) January 2010 Danske Bank divests from Elbit and Africa Israel Investments Ltd given their failure to adhere to its Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) policy. According to the bank, its SRI policy obliges it to examine the willingness of potential investments to follow international conventions in human rights and employment standards among others. 2010 Pensam excludes Elbit Systems from its investment portfolio.
-
-
Estonia
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Agreement on film co-production 12/11/2012 Film No Program of educational, scientific, cultural, youth and sports cooperation
12/11/2012 Cultural; Educational; Scientific; Sporting No Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income 29/06/2009 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel and when used in a geographical sense comprises the territory in which the Government of the State of Israel has taxation rights, including its territorial sea, as well as those maritime areas adjacent to the outer limits of the territorial sea, including seabed and subsoil thereof over the State of Israel, in accordance with international law and the laws of the State of Israel, exercises its sovereign rights and jurisdiction.”
Agreement concerning cooperation in the fields of telecommunications, posts and informatics 14/05/1997 Telecommunication; Postal Unknown [Text not available] Agreement for the promotion and reciprocal protection of investment 14/03/1994 Financial No “The term “territory” shall mean with respect to each Contracting Party, the territory of that Contracting Party including the territorial sea, as well as the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone over which that Contracting Party exercises sovereign rights or jurisdiction in conformity with international law.” Agreement on cultural, educational and scientific cooperation 12/07/1993 Cultural; Educational; Scientific No
-
-
Finland
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Agreement on gainful occupation for family members of a member of a diplomatic mission or consular post 11/03/2015 Labour; Diplomatic Unknown [Text not available] Programme for cultural, educational and scientific cooperation for 2002-2006 11/11/2006 Cultural; Educational; Scientific No Memorandum of understanding on trade and industry 03/09/2001 R&D; Technological; Industrial No Agreement on social security 15/09/1997 Social Security; Pensions No Agreement for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital 08/01/1997 Taxation No Air services agreement 24/06/1997 Aviation No “The terms “territory” […] have the meanings respectively assigned to them in Articles 2 and 96 of the Chicago Convention.” Cultural agreement 23/04/1985 Cultural No Exchange of notes constituting a Supplementary Convention to the 1965 Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and capital 19/10/1970 Taxation No Convention between the Government for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and capital 21/01/1965 Taxation No -
Business guidance
Date Link Information July 2014 Common messages aimed at raising awareness among EU citizens and businesses regarding involvement in financial and economic activities in the settlements “The European Union and its member states are raising European citizens’ and businesses’ awareness on the risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements. Financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements as well as other economic activities (including in services like tourism) in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements, entail legal and economic risks stemming from the fact that the Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israel’s territory. This may result in disputed titles to land, water, mineral or other natural resources purchased or invested in. “Possible violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law should also be borne in mind.
“Potential buyers and investors should be aware that a future peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, or between Israel and Syria, could have consequences for property they purchase or economic activities they promote in these settlements. In case of disputes, it could be very difficult for member states to ensure national protection of their interests.
“EU citizens and businesses should also be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in settlements.
“EU citizens and businesses contemplating any economic or financial involvement in settlements should seek appropriate legal advice before proceeding.”
-
Official announcements
Date Link Statement 03/06/2019 Result of negotiations on the Government Program “A study is being carried out with the aim of enacting a corporate responsibility law. The Act is based on the duty of care that companies impose on both domestic and foreign operations. The survey will be conducted with trade, business and employee organizations with special regard to the role of SMEs. A similar target is being promoted in the EU.” [More info]
-
-
France
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Agreement on co-operation in the field of tourism 10/11/2011 Tourism Partially ** [In July 2023, the French government confirmed that
“The 2011 tourism cooperation agreement is not applicable in the occupied Palestinian territories.”]
Agreement on cooperation in the fields of posts and telecommunications 23/11/2009 Telecommunication; Postal No Agreement on cooperation in the fields of environmental matters, water resource management, nature conservation and energy efficiency 23/06/2008 Environment No Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion and fraud with respect to taxes on income and on capital 31/07/1995 Taxation Partially “The terms “Contracting State” and “other Contracting State” mean, as the case may be, Israel or France.” **
[In November 2022, the French government confirmed that:
“natural persons residing in Israeli settlements, companies established there and activities carried out there are not entitled to benefit from the provisions of this agreement.”]
Agreement on cooperation in the field of research and development 26/11/1992 R&D Partially [In a July 2015 parliamentary answer, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development stated: “In line with the EU position, France is vigilant in the application of its bilateral agreements with Israel. In particular, it ensures that the High Council for Franco-Israeli Cooperation for Science and Technology does not finance programs involving Israeli companies and universities located in the Occupied Territories.”]
Agreement on the reciprocal promotion and protection of investments. 09/06/1983 Financial No Exchange of letters constituting an agreement on the establishment of an association for scientific and technological research 12/03/1984 R&D No Agreement on the co-production and exchange of films 28/04/1970 Film; Cultural No Convention on social security 17/12/1965 Social Security No Protocol concerning social insurance arrangements for students. 17/12/1965 Social Security; Educational No Cultural agreement 30/11/1959 Cultural No -
Bills and resolutions
Name Information Status Corporate duty of vigilance law “Establishes a legally binding obligation for parent companies to identify and prevent adverse human rights and environmental impacts resulting from their own activities, from activities of companies they control, and from activities of their subcontractors and suppliers, with whom they have an established commercial relationship.” [FAQ] Law approved on 21 February 2017 Law to increase the penalties for offenses of a
racist, anti-Semitic or xenophobic nature“The aggravating circumstance defined in the first paragraph is constituted when the offense is preceded, accompanied or followed by words, writings, images, objects or acts of any kind which affect the honor or the consideration of the victim or a group of people of which the victim is a part because of their membership or their non-membership, true or supposed, to a specific ethnicity, nation, race or religion.” [This law has been used to criminalise the BDS movement and calls to boycott Israeli products] Law approved on 10 December 2002 -
Business guidance
Date Link Information 08/03/2019 Letter to Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS), from the Director General of Business France Christophe Lecourtier “Business France is also mobilised to ensure that French companies receive full information on the risks they incur by conducting projects in Israeli settlements located in these occupied territories (…) I will ensure that they are regularly reminded by the services of Business France in their contacts with companies (…)” 24/06/2014 (updated 13/12/18) Activities within Israeli settlements, published by the Foreign Ministry “The West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights are territories occupied by Israel since 1967. Settlements are illegal under international law. As a result, there are risks associated with economic and financial activities in Israeli settlements. “Financial transactions, investments, purchases, supplies and other economic activities in the colonies, or benefiting the settlements, entail legal and economic risks related to the fact that Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied territories and are not recognised as part of the territory of Israel. This may result in disputes over titles to land, water, mineral or other natural resources relating to potential purchases or investments, as well reputational risks.
“Citizens and businesses planning economic or financial activities in the settlements are asked to seek appropriate legal advice before proceeding with these activities.”
2018 Reminder on business activities in the territories occupied by Israel, published by Business France [Website links to Foreign Ministry business advisory — posted above.] 24/11/2016 Notice to traders concerning the indication of the origin of goods from territories occupied by Israel since June 1967, published by the Ministry of Economy and Finance “Regulation No 1169/2011 of 25 October 2011 concerning consumer information relating to food products stipulates that labeling information must be accurate. Such information must not risk misleading the consumer, especially as to the origin of the products. Also, food from the territories occupied by Israel must be labeled with that origin.Consequently, the DGCCRF [*] draws the operators’ attention to Interpretative Notice on indication of origin of goods from the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 12 November 2015. This states in particular that under international law the Golan Heights and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are not part of Israel. Consequently, the labeling of food products, in order not to mislead the consumer, must accurately indicate the exact origin of the products, whether their indication is mandatory under Community rules, or whether affixed voluntarily by the operator. “For products originating from the West Bank or the Golan Heights that originate from settlements, a reference to “product from the Golan Heights” or “product from the West Bank” is not acceptable. Although these terms actually refer to the wider area or territory from which the product originates, the omission of additional geographic information stating that the product is from Israeli settlements is likely to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product. In such cases it is necessary to add, in parentheses, the term “Israeli settlement” or equivalent terms. For example, “product from the Golan Heights (Israeli settlement)” or “product from the West Bank (Israeli settlement)” may be used.
“*DGCCRF: Direction générale de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes (Directorate-General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control)”
-
Official announcements
Date Link Statement 07/11/2024 Report to UN Secretary General on Implementation of Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice “Policy of differentiation “France ensures compliance with Security Council resolution 2334 (2016), which aims to establish the distinction between the internationally recognized territory of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.
“With a view to differentiating between the territory of the State of Israel within its borders of 4 June 1967 and the occupied Palestinian territories, France is implementing specific measures adopted at the European level in accordance with international law. (…)
“France is also extremely vigilant in the application of its bilateral agreements with Israel.”
25/07/2023 Answer to National Assembly question 6153 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development “In accordance with international law, France and the European Union do not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the geographical areas which came under the administration of the State of Israel after June 5, 1967. “France is concretely ensuring, with its partners, the respect for international law. The policy of differentiation thus aims to materialize the legal distinction between the internationally recognized territory of Israel and the occupied territories. The violation of international law constituted by the creation of settlements in the Palestinian Territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, was recalled by Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016), from which follows the obligation for States to take the necessary discriminatory measures to ensure non-recognition of the illicit situation.
“The 2011 tourism cooperation agreement is therefore not applicable in the occupied Palestinian territories. Individuals residing in Israeli settlements, businesses established there and activities carried out there are not eligible to benefit from the provisions of this agreement.
“The Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs, like several other European countries, has published information for investors since 2014 which highlights the legal, economic and reputational risks linked to the pursuit of economic and financial activities in Israeli settlements. It is available to companies to provide them with more precise information on the context and the risks to which they would be exposed by carrying out activities linked to the settlement policy.”
17/11/2022 Answer to Senate question 01130 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development “In accordance with international law, France and the European Union do not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the geographical areas that came under the administration of the State of Israel after June 5, 1967. France takes concrete care, with its partners, to comply with international law. The differentiation policy thus aims to materialize the legal distinction between the internationally recognized territory of Israel and the occupied territories. “The violation of international law constituted by the creation of settlements in the Palestinian Territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, was recalled by Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016), from which stems the obligation for States to take the measures of distinction necessary for the non-recognition of the illegal situation.
“The 1995 Franco-Israeli convention on double taxation is therefore not applicable in the occupied Palestinian territories, and natural persons residing in Israeli settlements, companies established there and activities carried out there are not entitled to benefit from the provisions of this agreement.”
26/01/2021 Statement to the United Nations Security Council “We recall the obligation for all States to make a distinction in their exchanges between the territory of Israel and the territories occupied in 1967. This distinction must in particular materialise in bilateral agreements and in all trade, for example through the differentiated labelling of products from the West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements.” 17/12/2020 Statement to the United Nations Security Council “France…recalls the obligation for all States to distinguish in their relevant dealings in their exchanges between the territory of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967. This distinction must be made in particular in bilateral agreements and in all trade, for example through the differentiated labeling of products from the West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements.” 24/06/2020 Remarks by Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian to the French Senate France “will introduce into all bilateral agreements with Israel territorial clauses, in order to materialise the legal distinction…between the territory of Israel and the occupied territories. This does not at all mean that we are ending all the agreements that bind us to Israel. We obviously have common interests with this country, including in matters of security in the region. It is not a question of suspending all cooperation, but of clearly and systematically marking a legal distinction which reflects our political positions. It will also be up to us to systematically institute measures to control the implementation of differential labeling of products from the settlements. It is now an obligation under the European consumer’s right to information. It was confirmed this year by a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union.” 11/06/2020 Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights: Baldassi and Others v. France The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) rules that the criminal conviction of French activists involved in the BDS campaign boycotting products imported from Israel had no relevant and sufficient grounds and violated their freedom of expression. [Press release] 31/12/2019 Decision Number 407147 of the Conseil d’Etat: Organisation juive européenne and Psagot Vineyard vs Minister of Economy and Finance “The requests made by the ‘Organisation juive européenne’ and the PSAGOT LTD vineyard company are rejected.” 18/12/2019 Statement to the United Nations Security Council, by the Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations Nicolas de Rivière “Three years after the adoption of resolution 2334, it is time to implement it. The credibility of this Council and our credibility are at stake. In this regard, the UNSG’s report mentions the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 November 2019 on the obligation to label products originating in the occupied Palestinian territories, and in the Israeli settlements. The labeling measures meets the requirement of resolution 2334 to implement a differentiation policy. “France will continue to work towards the implementation of resolution 2334.”
30/05/2018 Decision Number 407147 of the Conseil d’Etat, Organisation juive européenne and Psagot Vineyard vs Minister of Economy and Finance “Requests the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to assess the compatibility of the disputed notice with Regulation No 1169/2011 depends on whether EU law requires, for a product originating in a territory occupied by Israel since 1967, an indication of that territory and an indication that the product comes from an Israeli settlement if that is the case, or, if not, whether the provisions of Regulation No 1169/2011 allow a Member State to require such products to carry such labels.” 14/06/2016 Answer to National Assembly question 93478
asked by Christophe Premat on 23 February 2016 to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs“The European Union and Israel reached, on November 26, 2013, an agreement guaranteeing that the provisions of this [Horizon 2020] program would not apply to the Territories occupied by Israel since June 1967. France is therefore showing the greatest vigilance in the application of its bilateral agreements with Israel and ensures that no Israeli entity carrying out activities in the settlements benefits from French subsidies.” 23/07/2015 Answer to Senate question 16735 asked by Michelle Demessine on 11 June 2015 to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development “In line with the EU position, France is vigilant in the application of its bilateral agreements with Israel. In particular, it ensures that the High Council for Franco-Israeli Cooperation for Science and Technology does not finance programs involving Israeli companies and universities located in the Occupied Territories.” 04/07/2013 Answer to Senate question number 06778
asked by Guy Fischer on 6 June 2013 to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs“In accordance with the technical arrangement concluded between the European Union and Israel in December 2004, products produced in the Israeli settlements cannot benefit from the preferential customs regime granted to products originating in Israeli territory under the Association Agreement of 20 November 1995. (…) “France fully supports the work currently underway in this direction within the European Union [including with regards to the correct labelling of settlement products.”
-
Business and Human Rights (BHR) news
Date Information April 2023 Carrefour supermarket announces its decision to close its outlets located in Israeli settlements. November 2022 A coalition of French and Israeli NGOs publish a report documenting a deal by Carrefour supermarket with two Israeli companies — Electra Consumer Products and Yenot Bitan — implicated in settlement business activities. February 2020 The UN Human Rights Council’s database of business enterprises involved in settlement related activities lists three French companies: Egis Rail, Egis S.A., and Alstom, October 2019 Egis partially withdraws from the consortium bidding for the construction of a new line that would expand Jerusalem’s light rail system through East Jerusalem to the Israeli settlement of Pisgat Ze’ev. It remains involved in the construction and extension of other lines. Egis is the last French business involved in the extension project. July 2019 International consumer advocacy group SumOfUs releases report “AXA: Financing War Crimes” arguing that AXA’s financial ties to Elbit Systems (through AXA Equitable Holdings) and five Israeli banks contradict its strict “Group Policy on Controversial Weapons” and may expose the company to criminal prosecution for complicity in gross human rights violations (including war crimes under both French and international law). May 2019 Alstom withdraws from the Jerusalem Light Rail consortium bidding for project to extend an Israeli tramway through East Jerusalem and the Israeli settlement of Pisgat Ze’ev. April 2019 AXA IM reportedly divests from Israeli Arms Manufacturer Elbit Systems. June 2018 Systra announces “it is withdrawing from the red [which includes East Jerusalem and Pisgat Ze’ev] and purple line [unclear designation] of the Jerusalem light-rail”. June 2018 French NGOs release report on The Jerusalem LightRail System and How French Companies Contribute to the Settlement of Occupied Palestinian Territory which denounces the participation of three French companies – Egis and Systra (which are subsidiaries of public companies (SNCF and RATP, Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations)) and Alstom – in the construction of the Jerusalem light-rail project as a “complete violation of international law”. March 2017 French NGOs publish report exploring the extent to which French banks are implicated in Israeli settlement activities. The research highlights how five French financial groups (BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole, Société Générale, BPCE and AXA) manage financial holdings or hold shares in Israeli banks and companies which contribute to the Israeli settlements and supply the services. August 2015 Transdev (half-owned by Veolia) exits the Jerusalem Light Rail consortium of investors to extend Israeli rail tracks through East Jerusalem and the Israeli settlement of Pisgat Ze’ev. June 2015 Orange — which has been criticised for supplying services to Israeli settlements — announces plans to terminate its contract with the Israeli Partner Communications Company. May 2015 French NGOs publish report highlighting the risks that business activities with Israeli settlements undertaken by French telecoms company Orange — in which the French state is a shareholder — could implicate it in international law and human rights violations. March 2015 Safege pulls out of East Jerusalem cable car project. Its parent company Suez Environment says this is to “avoid giving any political interpretation [to its activities].” Another company, Poma, also distances itself from the project. September 2014 The National Scientific Council of INRA calls on INRA (The National Institute for Agricultural Research) to suspend the licensing agreement ENTAV‐INRA for grapevines, signed in 2008 with the Golan Heights Winery, located in an Israeli settlement in the occupied Syrian Golan. [N.B.: As of September 2019, Golan Heights Winery remains a member of the ENTAV‐INRA sponsored R&D project.]
March 2013 French court finds AFPS/PLO lawsuit against Alstom and Veolia (see October 2007) to be inadmissible, ruling that international law creates state level responsibilities but cannot be used to hold private companies liable. November 2010 Veolia announces its intention to sell its five per cent stake in the Jerusalem Light Rail consortium to build an Israeli tramway through East Jerusalem and the Israeli settlement of Pisgat Ze’ev: “Like every business, the Veolia Israel group weighs its activities according to financial and business considerations…According to those considerations it makes its decisions.” November 2010 Veolia announces its intention to sell its five per cent stake in the Jerusalem Light Rail consortium to build an Israeli tramway through East Jerusalem and the Israeli settlement of Pisgat Ze’ev: “Like every business, the Veolia Israel group weighs its activities according to financial and business considerations…According to those considerations it makes its decisions.” October 2007 Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS) and the PLO fill a lawsuit against Alstom and Veolia in Nanterre’s Tribunal de Grande Instance alleging that that the companies violated international law through their involvement in a consortium which contracted with the Israeli Government in July 2005 to construct and operate a light rail project in East Jerusalem.
-
-
Germany
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Agreement for the avoidance of double taxation and of tax evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital 21/08/2014 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel and when used in a geographical sense includes its territorial sea, as well as those maritime areas adjacent to the outer limit of the territorial sea, including seabed and subsoil thereof over which the State of Israel, in accordance with international law and the laws of the State of Israel, exercises its sovereign rights or jurisdiction.” Arrangement concerning a working holiday programme 25/02/2014 Labour; Cultural; Visa No Agreement on bilateral cooperation in industrial research and development and in the area of vocational education and training 19/06/2011 R&D; Industrial Unknown [Text not available] Agreement on the gainful occupation for members of the families of a diplomatic mission or career consular post 22/06/2007 Labour; Diplomatic Unknown [Text not available] Agreement concerning financial cooperation in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 (International Centre for Combating Desertification in Sede Boker) 02/02/2000 Financial Unknown [Text not available] Agreement on cooperation in the area of intellectual property 03/03/1989 Intellectual Property No Agreement on the establishment of a foundation for scientific research and development [German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Developmen (GIF)] 04/07/1986 R&D; Scientific Yes “Projects sponsored by the Foundation in Israel shall be conducted only within the geographic areas under the jurisdiction of the State of Israel prior to June 5, 1967.” ***
[The website of the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Development further states:
“According to the GIF Founding Agreement of 1986 signed by the Ministers of Science of the Federal Republic of Germany and the State of Israel, “Projects sponsored by the Foundation in Israel shall be conducted only within the geographic areas which were under the jurisdiction of the State of Israel prior to June 5, 1967.”]
Agreement for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on estates and inheritances (with amending protocol of 20 January 1984) 20/01/1984 Taxation No Agreement supplementing the European Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters 20/07/1977 Law Enforcement No Agreement for the avoidance of double taxation and of tax evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital 20/07/1977 Taxation Unknown [Text not available] Treaty concerning the encouragement and reciprocal protection of investments 24/06/1976 Financial No Treaty concerning the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions in civil and commercial matters 17/12/1973 Civil; Judicial; Economic No Convention on social security 17/12/1973 Social Security No “”Territory” means, in relation to the State of Israel, the territory of the State of Israel.” Agreement for the avoidance of double taxation and of tax evasion with respect to taxes on income and to the Gewerbesteuer (trade tax) 09/07/1962 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel.” -
Bills and resolutions
Name Information Status Sustainable value chain law Legislation introduced by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development seeks to mandate human rights due diligence for German companies and their global business partners, including suppliers. [More information] Introduced on 01/02/2019 -
Business guidance
Date Link Information November 2019 (last update) Occupied Territories, information issued by the Foreign Ministry “The Palestinian Territories (East Jerusalem, West Jordan and Gaza) and the Golan have been occupied by Israel since 1967. The Federal Government distinguishes strictly between the territory of the State of Israel and the occupied territories. The Israeli government distinguishes between the territories under Israeli sovereignty (The Golan and East Jerusalem, which by Israeli law are an integral part of Israel by annexation and fall under its full sovereignty), and the non-annexed areas (West Bank and Gaza). “Settlements
“It is the long standing position of the European Union and its Member States not to accept any changes to the 1967 borders, which have not been agreed between the conflict parties. Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are also contrary to international law, a hindrance to peace and a threat to the foundations of the two-state solution.
“There are therefore considerable risks with regard to economic and financial activities in and for settlements. Financial transactions, investment, purchasing and procurement, as well as other economic activities (including tourism and other sectors of the service sector) in or for the benefit of Israeli settlements result in legal and economic risks resulting from the establishment of Israeli settlements. From the perspective of international law these are not recognised as a legitimate part of the Israeli territory. German companies and private individuals should also be aware of the possible reputational risks associated with economic and financial activities in and for settlements. The Federal Government also points to the possibility of violations of international humanitarian law and of human rights conventions related to settlements in the occupied territories.
“For reasons of consumer protection, products manufactured in settlements [and sold] in the European Union may not be labelled “Israel”. (Interpretative notice from the European Commission)
“Customs preference treatment
“Goods produced in Israeli settlements in the Palestinian Territories or in the Golan do not benefit from preferential treatment under the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, on the one hand, and the State of Israel on the other (so-called EC-Israel Association Agreement) because these goods do not originate in Israel. However, importation of goods is not subject to any specific import restrictions. This was confirmed in a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) in a preliminary ruling procedure on 25.02.2010. The case related to products that had been produced in an Israeli settlement in the West Bank.
“Press release of the ECJ on the Brita judgment
“Property acquisition / investment
“In the case of property acquisition and investment in the Occupied Territories, particularly in the Israeli settlements, it should be noted that a future Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement could have an impact. Among other things, there may be disputes regarding the acquisition of land, water, mineral and other natural resources. The Foreign Office does not take sides in the disputes.
“The Federal Government promotes projects and project partners in publicly funded programs only if they are within the territory which was already under Israeli jurisdiction before 5 June 1967. This practice is in line with EU funding guidelines for cooperation with Israel.”
**
[Business advisory previously included under Israel: Travel and Safety Advice. After 2019 this information was moved to its own discreet section on the German Foreign Ministry’s website titled Occupied Territories.]
January 2018 (last update) Information on the economy of the Palestinian territories, issued by the Foreign Ministry “The Federal Government strictly distinguishes between the territory of the State of Israel and the Palestinian Territories. In doing so, the Federal Government bases the borders of the Israeli state on the 5 June 1967 Green Line. This also applies to Jerusalem.” -
Official announcements
Date Link Statement 08/11/2024 Report to UN Secretary General on Implementation of Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice “Germany does not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations and distinguishes, in its relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967. (…) “Germany follows the practices established by the European Union to
differentiate between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory in the field of trade and economic relations and, with regard to eligibility for funding, in the fields of culture, education and research.”18/11/2020 Statement to the United Nations Security Council VTC by Ambassador Jürgen Schulz “We remind all states to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967 in accordance with their obligations under international law, in particular resolution 2334.” 23/04/2020 Statement to the United Nations Security Council by Ambassador Jürgen Schulz “Germany will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, unless agreed to by both parties and we will continue to distinguish between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.” 20/09/2019 Statement to the United Nations Security Council by Ambassador Christoph Heusgen United Nations summary: “Heusgen advocated respect for the rule of law and international law, including resolution 2334 (2016), “which is part of international law” and was adopted “without the slightest opposition” three years ago. Had that resolution been implemented over the last three years, the world would be witnessing negotiations leading to the creation of two States, under internationally defined parameters. He called for renewed efforts to implement resolution 2334 (2016), which is instrumental for the well-being of both Israelis and Palestinians.” 27/11/2018 Response of the Federal Government to the parliamentary question of Mr Petr Bystron and the AfD Group “The distinction, called for by ECFR, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967 is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 of 23 December 2016. In the view of the Federal Government, this is mandated under international law, and must be clearly differentiated from calls to boycott Israel.” -
Business and Human Rights (BHR) news
Date Information June 2021
The German parliament passes a new law on mandatory human rights due diligence law (Lieferkettengesetz) in supply chains. According to Human Rights Watch, the law requires large companies to regularly and systematically identify and address human rights and environmental risks in their direct supply chains. Companies will have to publish a report annually outlining the steps they have taken to identify and avert human rights risks, and national authorities will be empowered to initiate administrative action or impose fines on companies that fail to carry out their obligations. February 2021 The German government reportedly agrees to move forward a mandatory human rights due diligence law (Lieferkettengesetz). Statement by the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights: “With this compromise, the German government is finally taking a step, which is long overdue, to protect human rights in global supply chains. But the announced due diligence law must be improved. We are skeptical about the fact that the law initially only applies to large companies with 3000, later 1000, employees. Small and medium-sized companies, especially those in high-risk sectors such as the textile industry, urgently need to be required to protect human rights. In addition, the law’s strongest language only applies to direct suppliers. Indirect suppliers are included only with weaker measures. (…)”
November 2020 Standardkessel Baumgarte reportedly joins consortium competing for tender to build a major waste incineration plant in the illegal West Bank settlement Maale Adumim. May 2019 Heidelberg Cement replies to letter from the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre: “From HeidelbergCement’s perspective, the quarrying activity is compatible with international humanitarian law as it produces substantial advantages for the local Palestinian population and at the same time it hardly affects the raw material reserves. In addition to royalties and leasing fees that are used by the civil administration for local projects (as mentioned in reports by the administration), for example infrastructure projects, in Area C of the West Bank, the local Palestinian population benefits especially from the creation of atractive jobs in a region that is otherwise characterized by high unemployment and long-term economic stagnation. […]” [Full correspondence]
February 2019 Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development introduces draft legislation to mandate human rights due diligence for German companies and partners in their supply chain. November 2015 Berlin-based KaDeWe department store returns settlement wines to its shelves and apologises after their withdrawal sparked condemnation by Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. The store’s spokesperson initially stated that “the products removal was meant to correct their labels in accordance to the new EU guidelines.”
-
-
Greece
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Agreement on film co-production 08/10/2013 Film No Agreement on cooperation in combating crime and public security issues 08/10/2013 Law Enforcement No Air services agreement 18/10/2010 Aviation No “The term “territory” in relation to a State has the meaning assigned to it in Article 2 of the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation.” Agreement on bilateral cooperation in private sector, industrial research and development 13/03/2007 R&D; Industrial No Agreement on bilateral cooperation in private sector industrial research and development 14/02/2006 R&D; Industrial No Program for educational, scientific and cultural cooperation, for the years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 10/07/2002 Educational; Scientific; Cultural No Agreement for cooperation in the fields of posts and telecommunications 24/09/2001 Telecommunication; Postal No Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and for the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income 24/10/1995 Taxation No Agreement on economic, industrial and technological cooperation 18/05/1992 R&D; Industrial No Agreement on cooperation in the fields of health and medicine 09/03/1992 Health No Agreement for co-operation in the field of tourism 20/01/1969 Tourism No Exchange of letters constituting an agreement for the avoidance of double taxation of certain profits derived from sea and air transport 22/07/1952 Taxation No -
Official announcements
Date Link Statement 30/11/2015 Times of Israel: Greek Foreign Minister announces opposition to EU settlement labeling Times of Israel: “The Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias has sent a letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu informing him of Athens’s opposition to the EU guidelines on the labeling of goods produced in Israeli settlements, The Times of Israel learns. Kotzias’s message to Netanyahu came three day after Greek PM Alexis Tsipras visited Israel on Wednesday of last week.” -
Business and Human Rights (BHR) news
Date Information 28/04/2019 Globes reveals that two Greek companies (infrastructure company GEK Terma and the Athens metro operator) are leading an international consortium bidding to build and operate the new Israeli ‘Jerusalem light rail project’ which will include occupied East Jerusalem and the Israeli settlement of Pisgat Ze’ev.
-
-
Hungary
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Agreement on bilateral cooperation in private sector industrial research and development 19/01/2009 R&D; Industrial No Agreement on economic cooperation 05/02/2006 Economic No Agreement on technical cooperation 06/01/1997 Technical No Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and for the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income 14/05/1991 Taxation No “The term “Israel” when used in a geographical sense includes the territory in which the Government of the State of Israel may enforce the collection of taxes according to international law and the laws of the State of Israel.” Agreement for the promotion and reciprocal protection of investments 14/05/1991 Financial No “The term “territory” shall mean with respect to each Contracting Party, the territory of that Contracting Party.” Agreement on scientific and technological cooperation 14/05/1991 R&D; Scientific; Technological No Agreement on cooperation in the fields of culture, education and sciences 07/01/1990 R&D; Cultural; Educational; Scientific No Agreement on cooperation in the field of health 23/11/1989 Health No Air transport agreement 01/03/1989 Aviation No “The term “territory” has the meaning specified in Articles 2 and 96 of the 1944 Chicago Convention.” Agreement on cooperation in the field of tourism 11/10/1988 Tourism No -
Official announcements
Date Link Statement 19/03/2019
Comments by Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó (via Times of Israel)
Times of Israel: “During the opening ceremony [of Hungary's new trade mission in Jerusalem] Szijjártó also said Budapest was against efforts to “combine restrictive economic and commercial measures with political issues,” presumably referring to the EU’s position to links [sic] progress in bilateral ties with any advancement in the peace process.” 19/02/2019
Statement by Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó
“With relation to the Middle-East peace process one must not confuse trade and economic sanctions with establishing peace, because the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. (…) We also reject attempts to resolve a conflict through economic and trade restrictions, bans and blockades on principle, because it simply won’t work. (…) Hungary does not use the method of labelling despite the European Commission’s recommendation, meaning it does not indicate if a product was made in settled areas. Because the EU’s goal with this is clearly to reduce demand for these products.” 16/11/2015
Jerusalem Post: Hungary Says No to Settlement Labeling Jerusalem Post: “Hungary will not place special labels on products from the West Bank and the Golan Heights, Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó told a breakfast meeting of the Israel Council on Foreign Relations in Jerusalem on Monday, characterizing the European Union’s decision to affix special labels on such products as “irrational”. Szijjártó, 37, who has been in politics since 1998, and a member of the National Assembly of Hungary since 2002, said on a lightning 24-hour visit to Israel labeling these products will not contribute to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and could cause more problems and damage.”
-
-
Ireland
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Memorandum of understanding (MOU) for a framework of co-operation in the field of industrial scientific research and technological development 27/10/1999 R&D Partially [In January 2021, Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney confirmed: “Ireland’s bilateral agreements with Israel do not apply to territories occupied by Israel in 1967.”]
Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income 20/11/1995 Taxation Partially “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel, and when used in a geographic sense, includes the territorial sea, Continental Shelf and economic zone thereof as well as that area of the high seas in respect of which Israel is entitled, in accordance with international law, to exercise sovereign rights over the sea bed and subsoil and their natural resources.” ***
[In January 2021, The Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe clarified:
“The provisions of the Double Taxation Treaty between Ireland and Israel do not apply to territories occupied by Israel in 1967.
According to Government Minister Simon Harris:
“There has been no bilateral activity under the MoU since the early 2000s.”]
-
Bills and resolutions
Name Information Status Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018 “Bill entitled an Act to give effect to the State’s obligations arising under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and under customary international humanitarian law; and for that purpose to make it an offence for a person to import or sell goods or services originating in an occupied territory or to extract resources from an occupied territory in certain circumstances; and to provide for related matters.” Passed Senate (Seanad Éireann) on 29/11/18; still needs to pass 3 readings in the Lower House (Dáil Éireann) -
Business guidance
Date Link Information Advice on investment in Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory, issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade “Ireland and its EU Partners have a clear position on Israeli settlements. The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights are territories which have been occupied by Israel since 1967. Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict impossible. The EU and its Member States will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties. “The Government accordingly wishes to offer advice to both the general public and, in particular, Irish companies and businesses of the risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements and to make clear that we do not encourage or offer support in any way to such activity.
“Financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements as well as other economic activities (including in services like tourism) in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements, entail legal and economic risks stemming from the fact that the Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israel’s territory. This may result in disputed titles to the land, water, mineral or other natural resources which might be the subject of purchase or investment.
“Irish citizens and businesses should be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in settlements as well as possible abuses of the rights of individuals. Any person or company contemplating any economic or financial involvement in settlements should seek appropriate legal advice before proceeding.
“Potential buyers and investors should be aware that a future peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, or between Israel and Syria, could have consequences for property they purchase or economic activities they promote in these settlements. In case of disputes, it could be very difficult for Member States to ensure national protection of their interests.
“The Government also wishes to reiterate its long-standing policy of complete opposition to any form of boycott directed against Israel as well as its continued strong commitment to promoting our trade and business ties with Israel to the full.”
-
Official announcements
Date Link Statement 08/11/2024 Report to UN Secretary General on Implementation of Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice “Ireland continues to engage with fellow European Union member States on re-framing European Union policy, including trade policy, in respect of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory to fully align with the obligations contained in the advisory opinion. In the interim, and in the context of the obligations set out in the advisory opinion, Ireland is examining what measures could be taken at a national level with regard to trade with the settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
It is Ireland’s intention that any measures adopted should focus solely on the illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This will, therefore, maintain and revisit as necessary in light of the advisory opinion, Ireland’s longstanding policy of
differentiation between the State of Israel on the one hand and territories in which Israel’s continued presence is illegal on the other.”27/05/2021 Answer to parliamentary question, provided by Foreign Minister Simon Coveney “The Department of Foreign Affairs ensures that there is information available for the public and companies regarding Ireland’s policy on settlements via the Department’s website. A whole of Government approach is applied to the policy of differentiation and my Department also supports other Government Departments by providing guidance and clarification on the policy of differentiation.” 25/05/2021 Statement by Minister of State Jack Chambers, during Dáil Éireann debate
“Ireland distinguishes in all its dealings between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.” 10/02/2021 Answer to parliamentary question, provided by Foreign Minister Simon Coveney “With regard to the agreement on visas (…) This is given effect through the exemption of Israeli passport holders from Irish Visa Requirements, as provided for under the Immigration Act 2004 (Visas) Order 2014.” 28/01/2021 Answer to parliamentary question, provided by Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe “The provisions of the Double Taxation Treaty between Ireland and Israel do not apply to territories occupied by Israel in 1967. An individual will not be treated as a resident of Israel for the purposes of the Treaty by virtue of their residing in occupied territories nor will a company be treated as resident in Israel by virtue of its being established in occupied territories. Similarly, for the purposes of the Treaty, income arising in Israel does not include income from sources within occupied territories. Such circumstances are not within the scope of the Treaty. There is no entitlement to benefits under the terms of the Treaty by virtue of such circumstances involving individuals residing, or companies established, in occupied territories nor with respect to income from sources within those territories. “I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that all double taxation treaty reliefs or benefits must be in accordance with the scope of the double taxation treaty concerned and that, while there are not procedures or inspections specific to the Ireland-Israel Treaty, Revenue will challenge any relief or benefit that it has reason to believe is not in accordance with the terms of a relevant treaty.”
13/01/2021 Answer to parliamentary question, provided by Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney “Ireland’s bilateral agreements with Israel do not apply to territories occupied by Israel in 1967. This includes the bilateral agreements referred to in my reply to Parliamentary Question No. 285 of 10 December 2020. “With regard to the Double Taxation Treaty between Ireland and Israel, any claim for Treaty benefits must adhere to the conditions of the Treaty. It is for the competent authority, which is the Revenue Commissioners in the case of Ireland, to ensure the correct interpretation and application of the Treaty.
“Ireland has consistently and strongly opposed settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, and will continue to do so. Such settlements are illegal under international law and actively undermine the viability of a negotiated Two-State solution in line with the internationally agreed parameters.
“Ireland continues to call on the Israeli Government to halt all settlement construction. Our longstanding support for a Two-State solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains an integral aspect of our foreign policy.”
10/12/2020 Answer to parliamentary question, provided by Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney “There are a number of bilateral agreements between Ireland and Israel, including in the fields of visas, taxation and scientific research. “Ireland’s position on settlement expansion and related infrastructure development is very clear. Settlements are illegal under international law. Ireland’s position on the illegality of Israeli settlements informs our engagement with the State of Israel across a range of bilateral issues and will continue to do so.
“UN Security Council Resolution 2334, adopted on 23 December 2016, states that Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory have no legal validity and are a major obstacle for peace. The Resolution calls for an immediate end to settlement activities and also calls on all States to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967. In all these aspects, the Resolution reflected the position already held by Ireland and the UN for many years, and the EU position, to which Ireland has made a significant contribution.
“The legal basis for relations between the EU and the State of Israel is the EU-Israel Association Agreement that entered force in 2000. On 10 December 2012, the Foreign Affairs Council adopted conclusions on the Middle East Peace Process, supported by Ireland, which state that ‘all agreements between the State of Israel and the EU must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. In 2013, guidelines were produced which differentiate between Israeli activities in the occupied territory, including illegal settlements, and in the State of Israel for the purpose of EU funding from 2014 onwards.
“The participation of Israel in the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme is governed by a 2014 agreement between the EU and Israel that makes Israel subject to the relevant EU legislation establishing Horizon 2020 and its implementing rules. Article 6 of the agreement states that the agreement does not apply to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967.”
-
Business and Human Rights (BHR) news
Date Information April 2024 Finance Minister Michael McGrath announces Ireland’s Strategic Investment Fund will divest €2.95 million from 6 Israeli firms with links to Israeli settlements. These are: Bank Hapoalim, Bank Leumi, Israel Discount Bank, Mizrahi Tefahot Bank, First International Bank, and Rami Levi Stores (one of Israel’s leading supermarket chains). April 2021 Foreign Minister Simon Coveney launches new human rights guidance for business enterprises as part of the implementation of the National Plan on Business and Human Rights. The guidelines aim to give effect to aspects of the 2011 United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
-
-
Italy
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Agreement on social security into effect01/12/2015 Social Security No Agreement with the local government of the autonomous province of Trento on bilateral cooperation in industrial research and development 26/03/2012 R&D; Industrial No Agreement on cooperation in combatting illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, terrorism and other serious crime 10/02/2005 Law Enforcement No Agreement on cooperation in the field of network security 29/09/2004 IT No Agreement on cooperation in the fields of health and medical sciences 08/10/2002 Health No Agreement on industrial, scientific and technological research and development cooperation 13/06/2000 R&D; Scientific; Industrial; Technological No Agreement on mutual administrative assistance for the prevention, investigation and repression of customs offences 27/04/1999 Law Enforcement No Convention for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and on capital and for the prevention of fiscal evasion 08/09/1995 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel; and when used in a geographical sense, the term “Israel” includes its territorial sea, continental shelf, and other maritime areas over which it exercises rights according to international law.” Convention for the avoidance of double taxation on estates and inheritances 22/04/1968 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel.” Agreement concerning cooperation in energy research 26/01/1992 Energy No Exchange of notes constituting an agreement concerning the legislation on social security applicable to workers of one State who are temporarily working in the other State 07/01/1987 Social Security No Agreement on film co-production 02/01/1985 Film; Cultural No Agreement on air services between their respective territories 18/05/1979 Aviation No “The term “territory” in relation to a State has the meaning assigned to it in article 2 of the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation.” Convention for the prevention of double taxation on estates and inheritances 22/04/1968 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel.” Cultural agreement 11/11/1971 Cultural No Exchange of notes constituting an agreement for the avoidance of double taxation of income derived from sea and air navigation in the two countries 10/06/1955 Taxation No -
Business guidance
Date Link Information 27/06/2014 Common messages aimed at raising awareness among EU citizens and businesses regarding involvement in financial and economic activities in the settlements, issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation “The European Union and its Member States consider that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict impossible. The EU and its Member States will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties. The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights are territories which have been occupied by Israel since 1967. “As a result of the above, the European Union and its Member States are raising European citizens’ and businesses’ awareness on the risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements. Financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements as well as other economic activities (including in services like tourism) in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements, entail legal and economic risks stemming from the fact that the Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israel’s territory. This may result in disputed titles to the land, water, mineral or other natural resources which might be the subject of purchase or investment.
“Possible violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law should also be borne in mind.
“Potential buyers and investors should be aware that a future peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, or between Israel and Syria, could have consequences for property they purchase or economic activities they promote in these settlements. In case of disputes, it could be very difficult for Member States to ensure national protection of their interests.
“EU citizens and businesses should also be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in settlements.
“EU citizens and businesses contemplating any economic or financial involvement in settlements should seek appropriate legal advice before proceeding.”
-
Business and Human Rights (BHR) news
Date Information November 2020 Termomeccanica Ecologia reportedly joins consortium competing for tender to build a major waste incineration plant in the illegal West Bank settlement Maale Adumim.
-
-
Latvia
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Agreement on cooperation in the fields of health 10/11/2009 Health Unknown [Text not available] Agreement on gainful occupation for family members of a member of a diplomatic mission or consular post 22/09/2009 Labour; Diplomatic No Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital 20/02/2006 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel and when used in a geographical sense comprises the territory in which the Government of the State of Israel has taxation rights, including its territorial sea, as well as those maritime areas adjacent to the outer limit of the territorial sea, including seabed and subsoil thereof over which the State of Israel, in accordance with international law and the laws of the State of Israel, exercises its sovereign or other rights and jurisdiction.”
Agreement regarding mutual protection of classified information in the field of defence and military cooperation 06/03/2006 Defence No Memorandum of understanding regarding defence industrial cooperation 16/02/2005 Defence Unknown [Text not available] Agreement on co-operation in the field of tourism 06/12/2001 Tourism No Agreement on cooperation in combating illicit trafficking and abuse of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and precursors, terrorism and other serious crimes 27/07/1998 Law Enforcement No Agreement concerning cooperation in the field of telecommunications and posts 14/05/1997 Telecommunication; Postal Unknown [Text not available] Agreement in the fields of education, culture and science 27/02/1994 Cultural; Educational; Scientific No Agreement for the promotion and reciprocal protection of investments 27/02/1994 Financial No “The term “territory” shall mean with respect to each Contracting Party, the territory of that Contracting Party including the territorial sea, as well as the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone over which that Contracting Party exercises sovereign rights or jurisdiction in conformity with international law.” Air transport agreement 03/11/1993 Aviation No “The term “territory” (…) have the meaning specified in Articles 2 and 96 of the Chicago Convention.”
-
Business guidance
Date Link Information July 2014 Involvement in the financial and economic activities of Israeli settlements “(…) the European Union and its member states want to increase the awareness of European citizens and companies about the risks associated with the financial and economic activities of settlements. Financial transactions, investments, procurement, as well as other economic activities (including services such as tourism) in Israeli settlements create legal and economic risks, because according to international law, Israeli settlements are established on occupied land and are not recognized as a legal part of Israeli territory . This can result in disputes over rights to land, water, minerals and other natural resources that may be acquired or invested in. “Possible violations of international laws in the field of human rights and human rights should also be kept in mind.
“Potential buyers and investors should be aware that the conclusion of a peace agreement – between Israel and the Palestinians or between Israel and Syria – could have an impact on the properties they purchase or the economic activities they carry out in these settlements. In case of disputes, it will not be easy for member states to ensure that their interests are protected at the national level.
“Likewise, EU citizens and businesses need to be aware of the potential impact that involvement in the financial and economic activities of settlements can have on their reputation.
“EU citizens and companies who intend to engage in the economic or financial activities of the settlements should first receive appropriate legal advice.”
-
-
Lithuania
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Agreement on film co-production
07/01/2022 Cultural No Agreement on cooperation on public security and the fight against crime 06/12/2018 Law Enforcement No Memorandum of understanding between Enterprise Lithuania and Lithuania-Israel Chamber of Commerce creating a start partnership 19/01/2017 Economic Unknown [Text not found] Agreement on gainful occupation for family members of a member of a diplomatic mission or consular post 03/06/2012 Labour; Diplomatic No Agreement on bilateral cooperation in private sector in industrial research and development 19/12/2010 R&D; Industrial No Agreement on cooperation in the field of tourism 14/06/2010 Tourism No Program of cultural, educational and scientific cooperation 22/06/2009 Cultural; Educational; Scientific Unknown [Text not available] Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital 11/05/2006 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel and when used in a geographical sense comprises the territory in which the Government of the State of Israel has taxation rights, including its territorial sea, as well as those maritime areas adjacent to the outer limit of the territorial sea, including seabed and subsoil thereof over which the State of Israel, in accordance with international law and the laws of the State of Israel, exercises its sovereign or other rights and jurisdiction.” Agreement concerning cooperation in the fields of telecommunications, posts and informatics 16/05/1997 Telecommunication; Postal No Agreement on cooperation in the fields of health and medicine 01/03/1995 Health No Agreement on cultural, educational and scientific cooperation 02/10/1994 Cultural; Educational; Scientific No Agreement for the promotion and reciprocal protection of investments 02/10/1994 Financial No “With respect to the State of Israel: The term “territory” shall mean the territory of the State of Israel including the territorial sea, as well as the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone over which the State of Israel exercises sovereign rights or jurisdiction in conformity with international law.”
-
-
Luxembourg
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Cooperation agreement between the Luxembourg Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Israeli Chambers of Commerce (FICC) 09/2016 Economic Unknown [Text not found] Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital 13/12/2004 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel and when used in a geographical sense comprises the territory in which the Government of the State of Israel has taxation rights, including its territorial sea, as well as those maritime areas adjacent to the outer limit of the territorial sea, including seabed and subsoil thereof over which the State of Israel, in accordance with international law and the laws of the State of Israel, exercises its sovereign or other rights and jurisdiction.” Air transport agreement 14/06/1994 Aviation No “The term “territory” has the meaning specified in Articles 2 and 96 of the 1944 Chicago Convention.” -
Business guidance
Date Link Information July 2014 Common messages aimed at raising awareness among EU citizens and businesses regarding involvement in financial and economic activities in the settlements, issued by the Ministry for Foreign and European Affairs “The European Union and its member states are raising awareness among European businesses and citizens to the risks of financial and economic activities in the settlements. Financial transactions, investments, purchases, acquisitions and other economic activities (including tourism) in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements incur economic and legal risks arising from the fact that, under international law, Israeli settlements are developed on occupied territory and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israeli territory. This can result in disputes over rights to building, water, mineral resources and other natural resources that can be the subject of purchases or investments. “Potential implications for corporate reputations should also be taken into account as well as possible violations of international humanitarian law and the law on human rights.
“Potential buyers and investors should be aware that a future peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, or between Israel and Syria, could have consequences for their rights to the property they buy and economic activities they engage in with the settlements. In the case of disputes, it could be very difficult for member states to ensure national protection of their interests.
“Companies and EU citizens should also be aware of the potential implications, in terms of their reputation, that could arise from their participation in economic and financial activities in the settlements.
“Companies and EU citizens contemplating financial or economic interest in the settlements should seek appropriate legal advice before taking any steps.”
-
Business and Human Rights (BHR) news
Date Information February 2020 The UN Human Rights Council’s database of business enterprises involved in settlement related activities lists one Luxembourg company: eDreams. March 2018 Sixteen civil society organisations launch initiative calling for the introduction of binding legislation establishing a duty of vigilance for transnational companies domiciled in Luxembourg. The proposal aims to integrate respect for human rights, labour standards and international environmental agreements and provisions throughout the business supply chain. February 2014 Luxembourg’s state pension fund FDC excludes nine major Israeli banks and firms, and one US company, due to their “association to supporting construction of illegal settlements in occupied territories.” This is based on its ‘socially responsible’ investment strategy which included a list of 61 excluded firms. Excluded entities include: Bank Leumi, Bank Hapoalim, First International Bank of Israel, Israel Discount Bank and Mizrahi Tefahot Bank AFI (Africa Israel Investments), Jerusalem Economy, Ltd., and Real Estate Management & Development. The arms manufacturer Elbit Systems was excluded for its role in “providing security systems for [the] illegal separation barrier on occupied territories.” The US firm Motorola Solutions was also specifically barred from inclusion in the pension fund because of its “association to assisting in human rights violations in occupied territories.”
-
-
Malta
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Memorandum of understanding on cooperation in the water sector 19/06/2018 Water No Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion 28/07/2011 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel and when used in a geographical sense comprises the territory in which the Government of the State of Israel has taxation rights, including its territorial sea, as well as those maritime areas adjacent to the outer limits of the territorial sea, including seabed and subsoil thereof over which the State of Israel, in accordance with international law and the laws of the State of Israel, exercise its sovereign or other rights and jurisdiction.” Agreement on cooperation in the fields of health and medicine 18/04/2005 Health No Agreement on co-operation in compiling illicit trafficking and abuse of narcotic drugs etc 28/05/1999 Law Enforcement No Agreement on technical cooperation 22/02/1994 Technical; Energy; Health No Agreement on cultural, educational and scientific cooperation 22/02/1994 Cultural; Educational; Scientific No -
Business guidance
Date Link Information Until June 2017 Common messaging “The European Union and its member states are raising European citizens’ and businesses’ awareness on the risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements. Financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements as well as other economic activities (including in services like tourism) in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements, entail legal and economic risks stemming from the fact that the Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israel’s territory. This may result in disputed titles to land, water, mineral or other natural resources purchased or invested in. Possible violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law should also be borne in mind. “Potential buyers and investors should be aware that a future peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, or between Israel and Syria, could impact their rights to property they purchase or economic activities they promote in these settlements. In case of disputes, it could be very difficult for member states to ensure national protection of their interests.
“EU citizens and businesses should also be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in settlements. EU citizens and businesses contemplating any economic or financial involvement in settlements should seek appropriate legal advice before proceeding.”
-
-
Netherlands
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Agreement on the status of armed forces 13/10/2021 Defence Partially “Activities are carried out under the Convention within the international recognized borders of both countries.” Protocol amending the convention on social security signed at Jerusalem on 25 April 1984 and revised on 17 July 2001 04/12/2017 Social Security Partially [The agreement’s implementation was retro-actively fixed as of January 2016. See the 2001 agreement for more details.] Agreed Minutes amending the annex to the air transport Agreement 12/02/2013 Aviation No [See 1950 agreement] Memorandum of Understanding for bilateral economic and scientific cooperation 15/06/2011 Economic; Scientific Unknown [Text not found] Convention on social security concerning revision of the Convention signed on 25 April 1984 17/07/2001 Social Security Partially [As of January 2016, the Netherlands implemented restricted pension payments to Dutch nationals living in Israeli settlements. The measure was first announced in September 2002 by then state secretary for social affairs and employment Mark Rutte:
“On the basis of international law, Israel is an occupying power in the occupied territories, not a sovereign ruler. That is why Israel has no authority to enter into treaty obligations for the occupied area. Israel can therefore not enter into a Treaty obligation for Dutch residents residing in the occupied territories within the framework of the BEU Act (…) The Netherlands and Israel did not pay explicit attention to the occupied territories within the social security treaty, because it was known that Israel has no say over this territory (…) This also applies to [Dutch] benefit recipients residing in the Western Sahara.” (link)
The Social Insurance Bank provides additional details:
“Israel (Gaza Strip, West Bank, East Jerusalem and Golan): If you live in this area, the export restrictions of the BEU Act will apply from 1 January 2016. As a result, your AOW pension and AOW income support are limited or withdrawn.” (link)]
Amendment of the 1950 Air transport agreement 13/01/1999 Aviation No Protocol amending the 1973 Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital 16/01/1996 Taxation Partially [See 1973 agreement] Exchange of notes amending the schedules in the Annex to the Air Transport Agreement of 23 October 1950 between the parties 04/10/1994 Aviation No [See 1950 agreement] Agreement on scientific and technological cooperation in the field of agricultural research 02/11/1992 R&D; Agricultural; Scientific Partially [In October 2019, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Stef Blok stated: “The agreement in question does not contain any specific provision regarding its territorial applicability. In view of the Dutch position that Israel has no sovereignty over the territories that it has occupied since 1967 (Gaza Strip, West Bank including East Jerusalem, Golan Heights) and that, in the view of the Netherlands, these territories therefore do not belong to the territory of the “State of Israel”, this means that this agreement only applies within Israel on the basis of the internationally recognised borders of the country and does not apply to Israeli settlements.
The government also points out that the agreement in question was concluded in 1993 for a period of seven years.”
Convention on social security 25/04/1984 Social Security Partially “”Territory” means, in relation to Israel, its territory.” ***
[As of January 2016, the Netherlands implemented restricted pension payments to Dutch nationals living in Israeli settlements.]
Cultural agreement 10/11/1975 Cultural; Educational No Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital 09/09/1974 Taxation Partially “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel.” ***
[In October 2019, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Stef Blok stated:
“In view of the Dutch position that Israel has no sovereignty over the territories it has occupied since 1967 (Gaza Strip, West Bank including East Jerusalem, Golan Heights) and that, according to the Dutch view, these territories therefore do not belong to the territory of the “State of Israel”, this means that the treaty only applies within Israel on the basis of the internationally recognised borders of the country and does not apply to persons and companies established in Israeli settlements. The Cabinet has already stated its position on the territorial application of the tax treaty with Israel on earlier occasions. See the letter to Parliament dated 8 December 2015, Parliamentary Papers 23432, no. 417.
“In a letter to Parliament dated 19 September 2018 in response to the motion of MP Kuzu, the government has reaffirmed that all bilateral treaties between the Netherlands and Israel only apply within Israel on the basis of the 1967 borders. See Parliamentary Paper 23432, no. 471.”
***
[In December 2015, the State Secretary for Social Affairs and Employment stated:
“On the basis of the Netherlands-Israel tax treaty, Israel is allowed to levy tax on the AOW and V&O benefits of persons living in Israel. The Netherlands is not allowed to do this. The Netherlands-Israel tax treaty does not apply to residents of territories occupied by Israel. This means that under Dutch tax laws in the Netherlands tax must be paid on Dutch benefits.
“So far, the SVB has not withheld wage tax and national insurance contributions on the benefits of AOW claimants and / or V&O claimants residing in Israel-occupied territory. The reason is that initially the distinction was not made between living in Israel and living in Israel-occupied territory. […]”
Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital 02/07/1973 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel and the part of the seabed and sub-soil under the sea over which the State of Israel has sovereign rights in accordance with international law (…) For the purposes of this Convention, the term “resident of one of the States” means any person who, under the law of that State, is liable to taxation therein by reason of his domicile, residence, place of management or any other criterion of a similar nature.” Letter of agreement on scientific co-operation in the field of life sciences 01/09/1970 Scientific No Agreement regarding the payment of old age pensions and widows’ and orphans’ pensions (with exchange of notes) 25/04/1963 Social Security No Air transport agreement 23/10/1950 Aviation No -
Bills and resolutions
Name Information Status Motion about withdrawing investments from Dutch pension funds in occupied Palestinian territory “Noted that Dutch pension funds invest in companies that are active in the illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory; calls on the government to enter into talks with these investors to urge them to withdraw these investments.” Passed 08/07/2021 Amended motion on labeling for products from all occupied territories (34300-V-36), proposed by Joël Voordewind “Calls on the government to speak out against inequalities at the EU level with regard to Israel’s treatment and to actively argue at the EU level that such regulations should only apply if they also apply to all other occupied territories.” [Government response provided on 26/11/2019 – see ‘Official Announcements’ tab]
Passed 19/11/2019 Adoption of the budget statements of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with Amended Motion (34300-V-22), proposed by Ten Broeke “Calls on the government (…) to argue in the Foreign Affairs Council that the European Commission should also issue [labelling] guidelines for all products from all areas occupied under international law, or illegally annexed, in order to inform consumers correctly, clearly and consistently about the actual origin of products.” [Government response provided on 26/05/2016 – see ‘Official Announcements’ tab]
Passed 24/11/2015 Law Restricting Export Benefits (BEU Act) “The Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem are under Palestinian authority and do not fall under the treaty concluded with Israel over control of the right to benefits.” [External Link] Passed 27/05/1999 -
Business guidance
Date Link Information 08/11/2024 Report to UN Secretary General on Implementation of Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice “Since 2006 the Dutch Government has pursued a policy of dissuasion with regard to activities engaged in by Dutch companies either within or for the benefit of Israeli settlements in occupied territory. In line with this policy the Dutch Government does not provide any services to Dutch companies with regard to activities that contribute directly to the construction and maintenance of settlements or that directly facilitate settlements. If Dutch companies make inquiries with the Government about the possibilities of engaging in activities in occupied territory, they are informed
about possible risks, including those related to human rights. The Government’s policy of dissuasion is over and above companies’ own social responsibility to respect human rights. The Government expects companies to do business in line with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct. Companies are free to decide what activities they wish to engage in”17/01/2018 Engagement by the Dutch Embassy in Tel Aviv with the Israeli supermarket chain Shufersal in relation to the discouragement policy “For years the Dutch government has been discouraging economic relations with companies in Israeli settlements in occupied territory. If Dutch companies turn to the government, they will be informed about this policy. The Dutch government does not provide services to Dutch companies with regard to activities that they develop in or for the benefit of Israeli settlements in occupied territory. In addition, the government informs Dutch companies actively in cases in which it is itself involved, such as the bilateral cooperation forum. It is up to companies themselves to determine which activities they develop and with which partners they collaborate. In the context of International Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Dutch companies are expected to make a well-considered decision under their own responsibility, subject to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, based on which they are prepared to make public accounts. “In terms of economic relations with companies in Israeli settlements the Cabinet uses, as known, a discouragement policy. Within the framework of that policy, each occurring case is assessed separately. The policy applies to activities of Dutch companies, if they contribute directly to the construction and maintenance of settlements or if they directly facilitate the construction or maintenance thereof. This concerns activities in settlements, activities with companies located in settlements and activities outside settlements that benefit settlements. It can be complicated in some cases to assess this. In cases where it is not clear in advance whether an activity will benefit settlements, the Cabinet advises Dutch companies to enter into discussions with the relevant Israeli company. It is ultimately up to companies themselves to determine which activities they develop and with which partners they work together.
“The European Commission’s Implementing Regulation of February 2014, referred to in question 24, concerns an amendment to a Regulation on certification requirements for imports into the EU of meat from farmed ratites from Israel which stipulates that the certificates shall only cover the territory of the state Israel and not the territories occupied by Israel since 1967.”
22/04/2015 Answers to questions put forward by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Dutch Parliament “The Dutch government has been discouraging economic relations with companies in Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory for years. If Dutch companies turn to the government, they will be informed about this policy. The Dutch government does not provide services to Dutch companies when it comes to activities that they develop in or for the benefit of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory. In addition, it informs Dutch companies actively in cases in which it itself is involved, such as the bilateral cooperation forum with Israel. The government has no overview of the effects of the discouragement policy. “The policy applies to activities of Dutch companies if they contribute directly to the construction and maintenance of settlements or if they directly facilitate the construction or maintenance thereof. This concerns activities in settlements, activities with companies located in settlements and activities outside settlements that benefit settlements. In cases where it is not clear in advance whether an activity will benefit settlements, the Cabinet advises Dutch companies to enter into discussions with the relevant Israeli company. An adjustment of this policy is not an issue.
“The policy will be fully implemented at the next edition of the cooperation forum with Israel. Only Israeli companies based in Israel (within the 1967 borders) participate in the forum with Israel and whose activities within the framework of the cooperation forum are also carried out within those boundaries. To this end, a screening of Israeli companies applying for participation takes place within the framework of the cooperation forum with Israel.”
22/07/2013 Letter from Foreign Minister Timmermans to the President of the House of Representatives “The Dutch government discourages economic relations between Dutch firms and businesses in settlements in the occupied territories. Dutch government institutions do not provide services to any businesses established in Israeli settlements. The Dutch Embassy in Tel Aviv advises Dutch firms on the international law implications of doing business in occupied territories. Dutch firms will, where necessary, be held to account.” -
Official announcements
Date Link Statement 08/11/2024 Report to UN Secretary General on Implementation of Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice “Because Israel has never acquired sovereignty over the land it has
occupied since June 1967, the Netherlands takes a strict line when it comes to the validity of bilateral treaties between itself and Israel: treaties concluded by Israel in its own name are not permitted to be applied to the occupied territory; these treaties apply only within Israel, on the basis of that country’s internationally recognized borders. An example of this is the Convention on social security between the Netherlands and Israel, which does not apply in the territory occupied by Israel. Under the Export of Benefits (Restrictions) Act (Wet beperking export uitkeringen), which is premised on the principle that the Netherlands can only export social security benefits to countries with which it has concluded a treaty, there are restrictions on the export of Dutch social security payments to benefit claimants residing in Israeli settlements.”26/11/2019 Response on the implementation of the motion proposed by Voordewind (34300-V-36) on labeling for products from all occupied territories, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs Stef Blok “The Netherlands and the EU consider Israeli settlements in these areas to be contrary to international law and an obstacle to peace. As an occupying power, Israel has no sovereignty over these areas, and the Netherlands and the EU do not consider these areas as part of Israeli territory. “EU legislation on correct and non-misleading origin marking is generally applicable, regardless of the country or region where the product comes from. There is no exception for Israel or the territories occupied by Israel or for any other country or territory. If a consumer believes that the indication of origin on a product is wrong, regardless of the country or region from which it originates, he or she can submit a complaint to the Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA). (…)
“The additional explanation given by the European Commission does not mean that the relevant Union law would from now on only apply to Israel and the territories occupied by Israel, but helps to answer the specific questions of consumers about these areas and enables companies to ensure that they do not provide incorrect information on products from these areas and violate their obligations under Union law. (…)
“The ruling of the Court is in line with long standing government policy and the written observations submitted on behalf of the Dutch government in these proceedings. The input of the Dutch government is in line with what the Ten Broeke Motion (34300-V-22) and now the Voordewind Motion which also demands from the cabinet that the Netherlands is committed in a European context to non-misleading indications of origin, wherever a product comes from.
“As EU legislation on correct and non-misleading origin marking applies to all countries and territories, there is no unequal treatment of Israel and the territories occupied by Israel. (…)
“The Netherlands and the EU address Israel’s settlement policy and implement the call in UN Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016) to distinguish between Israel and the territories that Israel has occupied since 1967.”
30/10/2019 Answers to parliamentary questions, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs Stef Blok “In view of the Dutch position that Israel has no sovereignty over the territories it has occupied since 1967 (Gaza Strip, West Bank including East Jerusalem, Golan Heights) and that, according to the Dutch view, these territories therefore do not belong to the territory of the “State of Israel”, this means that the treaty [on double taxation] only applies within Israel on the basis of the internationally recognised borders of the country and does not apply to persons and companies established in Israeli settlements. The Cabinet has already stated its position on the territorial application of the tax treaty with Israel on earlier occasions. “In a letter to Parliament dated 19 September 2018 in response to the motion of MP Kuzu, the government has reaffirmed that all bilateral treaties between the Netherlands and Israel only apply within Israel on the basis of the 1967 borders. […]
“The agreement in question [on scientific and technological cooperation in the field of agricultural research] does not contain any specific provision regarding its territorial applicability. In view of the Dutch position that Israel has no sovereignty over the territories that it has occupied since 1967 (Gaza Strip, West Bank including East Jerusalem, Golan Heights) and that, in the view of the Netherlands, these territories therefore do not belong to the territory of the “State of Israel”, this means that this agreement only applies within Israel on the basis of the internationally recognised borders of the country and does not apply to Israeli settlements. […]”
08/02/2019 Answering parliamentary questions about incorrect registration in the BRP, from State Secretary Raymond Knops “To register the country of birth in the Basic Registration of Persons (BRP), use must be made of the Country Table. The policy of the State Secretary for the Interior and Kingdom Relations and the Minister for Foreign Affairs is based on the premise that only states and territories recognized as constituting a state recognized by the Kingdom of the Netherlands can be included in the Country Table. Under Article 23 of the BRP Decree, the State Secretary for Home Affairs and Kingdom Relations may exceptionally decide to include other areas in the Country Table. The mention of areas must fit within the system of the Country Table as an administrative / political list and must also be in accordance with the foreign policy of the Dutch government. “The designation “(occupied) Palestinian territory” does not fit within the system of the Country Table and is therefore not included in the Country Table.
“[But] I intend to amend the Country Table (Table 34) and include the designation “Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jerusalem” for persons who were born in those areas from 15 May 1948. This change fits within the system of the Country Table as an administrative / political list. The name derives from the Oslo Accords and resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, including Resolution 478 (1980). The name is also in line with the Dutch position that Israel has no sovereignty over these areas and the position with regard to the non-recognition of the ‘State of Palestine’.”
19/09/2018 Letter to Parliament, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs Stef Blok “One of the threats to the two-state solution is Israel’s settlement policy, where the distinction between Israel and the occupied territories is blurring. Under international law, the Netherlands and the EU do not recognise Israeli sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967, and do not regard these territories as part of Israeli territory. This position is also laid down in EU Council conclusions and is in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016). That is why the Dutch government has been discouraging economic relations with companies in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory for years. Furthermore, bilateral treaties between the Netherlands and Israel only apply within Israel on the basis of the borders of 1967. Steps have also been taken at EU level to clarify the distinction between the territories. In 2015, for example, the European Commission published an interpretative notice on the application of EU legislation on the indication of origin for products originating in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967. In addition, it was agreed in Council conclusions that all new agreements between the EU and Israel should explicitly state that they do not apply to territories occupied by Israel since 1967. By making this distinction, the Netherlands can strengthen relations with Israel within the 1967 borders, without at the same time granting legitimacy to the settlements.”
17/01/2018 Engagement by the Dutch Embassy in Tel Aviv with the Israeli supermarket chain Shufersal and in relation to the discouragement policy “The Cabinet is against a boycott of Israel and is committed to the strengthening of economic relations with Israel within the 1967 borders. “The Government and the EU do not pursue a general ‘differentiation policy’. Under international law, the Netherlands and the EU do not recognize Israeli sovereignty over territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 and do not consider these territories as part of Israeli territory. The Netherlands and the EU consider Israeli settlements in occupied territory as contrary to international law. This position, moreover, is also laid down in European Council conclusions and is in line with UN Security Council resolution 2334 (2016).”
26/05/2016 Response on the implementation of the motion proposed by Ten Broeke (34300-V, no. 22), from the Minister of Foreign Affairs A.G. Koenders “It has emerged that no support exists to establish guidelines for all products from all territories occupied under international law or illegally annexed. Among EU Member States and EU institutions there is broad consensus on the situation in the territories occupied by Israel. This is due to the combination of both a demand from consumers and businesses for clarity and also a clearly articulated EU position with regard to the territories occupied by Israel, set out in Council conclusions, based on international law. Both elements are missing in relation to other areas (…) “The probe reveals that there is no demand in other Member States for interpretative communications on origin marking for products from other areas. A large group of Member States and the EU institutions, believe that such areas are too different to compare or to relate to each other. It is also doubtful whether from the perspective of international law there is a clear vision for these areas. In addition, a group of Member States indicatrf that a broader approach is not feasible and / or ineffective because it is estimated that [sufficient] support does not exists among Member States and that implementation will be difficult due to the large differences. A number of Member States do not have an interest in this issue. There is a small number of Member States that have no objection to hearing a proposal (…) [But] it is clear that the great majority of Member States are resistant to such a proposal. Additional statements that explain about the method of interpretation of existing directives on consumer protection should come from a broad, shared, European need for clarification relating to other areas, which does not exist.
“The government points out that the application of EU legislation relating to the indication of origin must be accurate and non-misleading, regardless of where the product comes from. The business continues to be responsible for accurate and non-misleading origin marking. Consumers can, if they suspect that there is fraud concerning a product, lodge a complaint with the Consumer and Market Authority and / or the Dutch Food and Goods Authority.”
08/12/2015 Letter to the President of the Lower House, from the State Secretary for Social Affairs and Employment “On the basis of the Netherlands-Israel tax treaty, Israel is allowed to levy tax on the AOW and V&O benefits of persons living in Israel. The Netherlands is not allowed to do this. The Netherlands-Israel tax treaty does not apply to residents of territories occupied by Israel. This means that under Dutch tax laws in the Netherlands tax must be paid on Dutch benefits. “So far, the SVB has not withheld wage tax and national insurance contributions on the benefits of AOW claimants and / or V&O claimants residing in Israel-occupied territory. The reason is that initially the distinction was not made between living in Israel and living in Israel-occupied territory. […]”
22/04/2015 Answers to questions put forward by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Dutch Parliament “The drafting of guidelines [on the eligibility of Israeli entities for EU funding] is a decision of the European Commission following the conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Council in May and December 2012. These guidelines came into effect on 1 January 2014. They stipulate that Israeli entities may be eligible for EU grants if they are registered in Israel (with the pre-1967 borders being adhered to) and that the activities to be subsidized must also be implemented within those limits. The guidelines are not legally binding and form a guideline for the European Commission’s own actions. Although the EU guidelines on eligibility are therefore not directly applicable to bilateral cooperation fora, these guidelines are in line with Dutch policy on illegal Israeli settlements in occupied territory.” 20/09/2002 Answer to a Parliamentary Question, from State Secretary Rutte “On the basis of international law, Israel is an occupying power in the occupied territories, not a sovereign ruler. That is why Israel has no authority to enter into treaty obligations for the occupied area. Israel can therefore not enter into a Treaty obligation for Dutch residents residing in the occupied territories within the framework of the BEU Act (…) The Netherlands and Israel did no pay explicit attention to the occupied territories within the social security treaty, because it was known that Israel has no say over this territory (…) This also applies to [Dutch] benefit recipients residing in the Western Sahara.” -
Business and Human Rights (BHR) news
Date Information July 2024 Lawyers from the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC), Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq, SOMO and The Rights Forum file a criminal complaint in the Netherlands, alleging Booking.com is profiteering from the commission of war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territory. April 2021
Dutch authorities fine Dutch importer over its mislabelling of wine produced in Israeli settlements. This came after a first warning in July 2020. July 2020 Following an inspection, the Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority warns ‘Israel Products Center’ that they risk a fine if they do not correctly label their wine products from Israeli settlements. Currently, they market wine from a settlement near Hebron as “made in an Israeli village in Judea and Samaria.” The center refuses to comply. June 2020 Dutch pension fund ABP divests from Israeli banks Hapoalim and Leumi. According to ABP’s spokesperson: “We expect companies operating in areas with high risk of human rights violations to have a human rights policy” which is lacking at both Israeli banks. February 2020 The UN Human Rights Council’s database of business enterprises involved in settlement related activities lists four Dutch companies: Booking.com, Tahal, Altice, amd Kardan. January 2019 Amnesty International releases report highlighting Booking.com’s contribution to the settlement economy and, indirectly, to Palestinian human rights violations. November 2018 Human Rights Watch releases report arguing that Booking.com helps make Israel’s settlement more profitable, thereby making them more sustainable and facilitating Israel’s internationally unlawful actions. January 2017 Danwatch publishes report finding that Europe’s five largest pension funds—including Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP and Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn—have €7.5 billion invested in companies with business activities in and around Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land. January 2014 PGGM announces it will no longer invest in five Israeli banks, namely Bank Hapoalim, Bank Leumi, First International Bank of Israel, Israel Discount Bank and Mizrahi Tefahot Bank. According to PGGM: “For several years PGGM has been in dialogue with these banks. The reason for this engagement was their involvement in financing Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. This was a concern, as the settlements in the Palestinian territories are considered illegal under international humanitarian law. Moreover, international observers have indicated that the settlements constitute an important obstacle to a peaceful (two-state) solution of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.
“In 2004 the International Court of Justice concluded in an Advisory Opinion that the settlements in the Palestinian territories are in breach of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Population in Time of War. This article prohibits an occupying power to transfer its own citizens to occupied territory. International bodies, including the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council have adopted various broadly supported resolutions, which state that the settlements are considered illegal. Israel disputes this interpretation of the applicability of international law.
“In line with the Responsible Investment policy a dialogue has taken place with the before mentioned banks. Engagement is an important tool to allow PGGM to act as a responsible owner on behalf of its clients. The dialogue showed however that, given the day-to-day reality and domestic legal framework they operate in, the banks have limited to no possibilities to end their involvement in the financing of settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. Therefore, it was concluded that engagement as a tool to bring about change will not be effective in this case. As concerns remain and changes are not expected in the foreseeable future, PGGM no longer invests in the companies concerned as of January 1st 2014.
“PGGM continues its dialogue with a small number of other companies on the same issue and will report on progress through its regular reporting.”
December 2013 Vitens, the largest Dutch water company, ends its collaboration with Israel’s Mekorot national water company over its servicing of Israeli settlements. As reported in Haaretz, Vitens explained that “following consultations with the parties involved, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the company concluded that it would be very difficult jointly to develop possible future projects, considering that these projects cannot be seen separately from the political context [of Israel’s West Bank settlements].” September 2013 The Royal Haskoning DHV engineering firm pulls out of plan to build Israeli waste water treatment plant in East Jerusalem after concluding that future involvement in the project could be in violation of international law. According to Haaretz: this came after the Dutch government asked the company to rethink its participation because the project was based on the Palestinian side of the 1967 border, and that this would violate international law. May 2013 National Prosecutor’s Office closes investigation of Lima Holding B.V. – known in the Netherlands under the trade name Riwal – after allegations by Al Haq that it was involved in war crimes under the Geneva Conventions and the International Crimes Act. According to the Public Prosecution Service: “Dutch companies are not expected to be involved in any way in violations of the International Crimes Act or the Geneva Conventions. The relevant company was also called to account in 2006 and 2007 by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Economic Affairs. The question of whether the aforementioned activities constitute such a violation is complex and cannot be answered with certainty without further investigation. Such a further investigation is not proceeding now that it has been found that Lima Holding BV, after a declaration has been made, is terminating the activities in Israel and the occupied territories and has taken far-reaching steps to that end.” [Al Haq backgrounder]
February 2013 Anglo-Dutch multinational consumer goods company Unilever relocates its factory from the industrial park of Barkan (in the settlement of Ariel) to within Israel proper. December 2006 ASN Bank divests from French firm Veolia involved in the East Jerusalem light rail construction project because such activity “is not in line with the United Nation’s [sic] demand to stop all support for Israel’s settlement activities.”
-
-
Poland
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Agreement on cooperation in the field of study visits of organised youth groups 22/03/2023 Cultural No [Annex 1 of the agreement contains a list of “recommended sites and places of visits”, all within Israel] Agreement on social security 22/11/2016 Social Security No Agreement on cooperation in industrial research and development 28/10/2014 R&D; Industrial No Agreement on the co-production of films 13/06/2013 Film No “under the terms of each party’s legislation” Agreement on cooperation in the fields of health and medicine 11/09/2006 Health No Protocol to amend the agreement for the promotion and reciprocal protection of investments 27/06/1997 Financial No Agreement on cooperation in tourism 14/01/1997 Tourism No Agreement on cooperation in the field of posts and telecommunications 14/01/1997 Telecommunication; Postal Unknown [Text not available] Agreement on technical cooperation in dairy development 19/12/1996 Agricultural Unknown [Text not available] Agreement on economic and scientific-technical cooperation 04/10/1991 Economic; Scientific; Technical No Agreement on youth exchange 29/08/1991 Cultural No Agreement for the promotion and reciprocal protection of investments 22/05/1991 Financial No “The term “territory” shall mean with respect to each Contracting Party, the territory of that Contracting Party.” Agreement on co-operation in culture, science and education 22/05/1991 Cultural; Educational; Scientific No Agreement for the avoidance of double taxation and for the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income 22/05/1991 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel and when used in a geographical sense includes territory in which the Government of Israel may enforce the collection of taxes according to international law and the laws of the State of Israel, including the sea, seabed and subsoil of the maritime areas adjacent to the coast thereof, but beyond the territorial sea, over which Israel exercises sovereign rights, in accordance with international law, for the purpose of exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of such areas.” Agreement on the reciprocal establishment of culture and information centres and their activities 22/05/1991 Cultural No Air transport Agreement 27/02/1990 Aviation No “The terms “territory” (…) have the meaning specified in Articles 2 and 96 of the Chicago Convention.”
-
-
Portugal
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Memorandum of understanding on scientific cooperation program 20/05/2014 Scientific No Agreement for the avoidance of double taxation and for the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income 26/09/2006 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel and when used in a geographical sense includes territory in which the Government of Israel may enforce the collection of taxes according to international law and the laws of the State of Israel, including the sea, seabed and subsoil of the maritime areas adjacent to the coast thereof, but beyond the territorial sea, over which Israel exercises sovereign rights, in accordance with international law, for the purpose of exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of such areas.” Agreement on economic, industrial, technical and scientific cooperation 25/10/1992 Economic; Scientific; Industrial; Technical No Cultural agreement 25/10/1992 Cultural No -
Official announcements
Date Link Statement June 2014 Common lines of action by the EU to draw the attention of European citizens and
businesses on involvement in economic and financial activities
in Israeli settlements“Portugal considers that any cooperation activity between national institutions and Israeli institutions, as well as the granting of any type of support, should not take place, or be developed, with institutions based in territory that corresponds to the Palestinian Territory Occupied since 1967, following the Six Day War, as well as in territory over which Israel has proclaimed its sovereignty through annexation, as in the case of East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights.” “Portugal considers, therefore, that under international law, cooperative actions should not be conducted in occupied territories, nor in illegally annexed territories, nor should trade be facilitated or permitted which has a direct impact on those territories and which is not for the exclusive benefit of the territories of their original populations (therefore excluding, among others, settlements).”
-
-
Romania
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Agreement on bilateral cooperation in technological and industrial research and development 24/06/2014 R&D; Technological; Industrial No Agreement on social security 28/02/2011 Social Security No Amendment to agreement on reciprocal promotion and protection of investments 12/08/2010 Financial Unknown [Text not available] Memorandum of understanding concerning cooperation in the field of housing and urban development 17/07/2001 Development No Agreement on cooperation in combatting illicit trafficking and abuse of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and other serious crimes 17/07/2001 Criminal No Agreement for the reciprocal promotion and protection of investments 03/08/1998 Financial No “The term “territory” shall comprise the State territory of each Contracting Party, including the territorial sea as well as the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone over which the State concerned exercises, in conformity with internal and international law, sovereignty, sovereign rights or jurisdiction.” Agreement for cooperation in the field of agriculture 03/08/1998 Agricultural No Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income 15/06/1997 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel and when [it] is used in a geographical sense, indicates the territory of the State of Israel including its territorial sea as well as the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf over which the State of Israel exercises sovereign rights, in accordance with its internal law and with the international law, concerning the exploration and exploitation of the natural, biological and mineral resources existing in the sea waters, sea bed and subsoil of these waters.” Agreement in the field of tourism 29/03/1995 Tourism No Agreement concerning cooperation in the field of telecommunications and posts 20/06/1991 Telecommunication; Postal No Agreement on cooperation in the fields of health and medicine 24/04/1991 Health No Agreement on bilateral investment 02/09/1991 Financial Unknown [Text not available] Agreement on cultural and scientific co-operation 17/09/1979 Scientific No
-
-
Slovakia
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Program on cultural cooperation for the period 2017-2019 12/09/2016 Cultural Unknown [Text not found] Agreement on social security 15/06/2010 Social Security No Agreement on cooperation in the field of agriculture 08/02/2000 Agricultural No Agreement for the promotion and reciprocal protection of investments 08/09/1999 Financial No “The term “territory” shall mean with respect to each Contracting Party, the territory of that Contracting Party including the territorial sea, as well as the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone over which that Contracting Party exercises sovereign rights or jurisdiction in conformity with international law.” Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital 08/09/1999 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel in accordance with its law and when used in a geographical sense includes, but it is not limited to, the territorial waters of Israel and any area outside such territorial waters which in accordance with the laws of Israel is an area within which the rights of Israel with respect to the exploration of the natural, biological and mineral resources existing in the sea waters, sea bed, and subsoil of these waters may be exercised.” Agreement on cooperation in the field of veterinary medicine 29/04/1996 Agricultural; Veterinary No Agreement on cooperation in the field of plant quarantine and plant protection 29/04/1996 Agricultural No Agreement on cooperation in the fields of health and medicine 27/02/1995 Health No
-
-
Slovenia
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Agreement on the gainful occupation for family members of a member of a diplomatic mission or consular post 16/08/2017 Labour; Diplomatic Unknown [Text not available] Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital 30/01/2007 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel (…) For the purposes of this Convention, the term “resident of a Contracting State” means any person who, under the laws of that State, is liable to tax therein by reason of his domicile, residence, place of management or any other criterion of a similar nature, and also includes that State or local authority thereof.” Agreement on bilateral cooperation in private sector technological and industrial research and development 12/07/06 R&D; Technological; Industrial No Agreement on cooperation in the fields of health and medicine 21/08/2002 Health No Agreement for the reciprocal promotion and protection of investments 13/05/1998 Financial No “The term “territory” shall mean with respect to each Contracting Party the territory of that Contracting Party and includes the territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf where that Contracting Party exercises sovereignty, sovereign rights or jurisdiction in accordance with international law.” Agreement on cooperation in the fields of culture, science and education 16/06/1993 Scientific; Cultural; Educational No -
Business guidance
Date Link Information July 2014 Joint communications aimed at raising awareness among EU citizens and business entities of their participation in financial and economic activities in Israeli settlements in occupied territories, issued by the Slovenian Embassy in Tel Aviv “The European Union and its members represent the view that Israeli settlements in occupied territories are illegal under international law to constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the sense of two countries. The EU and the Member States will not recognize any changes to the borders before 1967, including Jerusalem, with the exception of those agreed upon by both parties. The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights, are the territories Israel has occupied since 1967. “Consequently, the European Union and the Member States are warning European citizens and business entities of the risks associated with economic and financial activities in settlements. Financial transactions, investments, purchases, purchases, as well as other economic activities (including services such as tourism) in Israeli settlements, or which benefit them, include legal and economic risks arising from the fact that, according to international law, Israeli settlements are built on occupied territory and not recognized as a legitimate part of Israeli territory. This may result in disputes concerning the ownership of land, water resources, mineral and other natural resources that could be the subject of purchase or investment.
“Possible violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law should also be taken into account.
“Potential buyers and investors should be aware that a future peace agreement between Israel and Palestine, or between Israel and Syria, could have implications for the acquired ownership or economic activities in these settlements. In the event of disputes, it would be very difficult for Member States to ensure the protection of their interests.
“EU citizens and business people must also be aware of the potential implications for their reputation, in the case of cooperation with settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.”
-
Official announcements
<
Date Link Statement 08/11/2024 Report to UN Secretary General on Implementation of Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice “Slovenia ensures that in its diplomatic, economic and political relations, it distinguishes between the territory of the State of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This includes implementing and monitoring the European Union 2015 Interpretative Notice on indication of origin of goods from the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967, which specifies that products from the Occupied Palestinian Territory cannot be labelled as “products of Israel” and provides guidelines to ensure accuracy and avoid misleading information. “Furthermore, Slovenia adheres to the 2019 ruling of the European Union Court of Justice mandating clear and accurate labelling for products originating from illegal settlements. Slovenia supports European Union initiatives that call for preventing trade with businesses operating in illegal settlements.”
-
-
Spain
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Agreement on film co-production 17/12/2012 Film; Cultural No Agreement on the protection of classified information 07/02/2011 Security; Data No Agreement on remunerated employment for dependants of diplomatic, administrative and technical personnel of diplomatic missions 31/03/2009 Labour; Diplomatic Unknown [Text not available] Agreement on co-operation in combating crime 18/04/2007 Law Enforcement; Data No Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital 30/11/1999 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel and, when used in a geographical sense, it comprises the territory of the State of Israel including any area outside the territorial sea upon which, in accordance with international law and on application of its domestic legislation, the State of Israel exercises or may exercise in the future jurisdiction or sovereign rights with respect to the seabed, its subsoil and superjacent waters, and their natural resources.” Agreement on cooperation in the field of desertification (with exchange of notes of 28 December 1993 and 25 January 1994) 09/11/1993 Conservation No Agreement on cooperation in environmental matters and nature conservation 09/11/1993 Conservation No Agreement on cooperation in the field of agriculture (with exchange of notes dated 15 and 30 September 1994) 09/11/1993 Agricultural No Agreement for cooperation in the field of energy (with list and exchange of notes dated 15 and 30 September 1994) 09/11/1993 Energy No Convention on scientific and technological cooperation 23/10/1989 Scientific No Convention for the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters 30/05/1989 Civil; Judicial No Air transport agreement 31/07/1989 Aviation No “The terms “territory” […] have the meaning specified in Articles 2 and 96 of the [Chicago] Convention.” Agreement on cooperation in tourism 01/11/1987 Tourism No Cultural convention 09/02/1987 Cultural No -
Business guidance
Date Link Information June 2017 Communication from the Customs and Excise Department to Importers “In relation to the notice to importers about imports from Israel into the EU published in the OJEU series No. 232 of 3 August 2012, it is recalled that, in accordance with the agreement technical agreement reached between the EU and Israel, since 1 February 2005, there is an obligation that all EUR1 and invoice declarations issued or completed in Israel include the postal code and the name of the city, town or industrial production area in which the carried out the manufacturing that gives the product its original character. This obligation is done, also, extends to all EUR MED and EUR MED invoice declarations. “The inclusion of this additional geographical information in certificates of origin and in invoice declarations are intended to allow the customs administrations of the States members adequately identify those that are effectively valid proofs of origin preferential, from those that are not, to be able to reject preferential claims on this last without the need for additional verification.
“While customs administrations may identify relevant information when carries out a documentary control, they cannot, however, directly determine the information geographical location mentioned in the proof of origin. Furthermore, the existing system does not allow Member States collect statistical information on the volume and types of goods imported from the settlements.
“Taking these elements into account, there is scope to make the system more robust and ensure that settlement assets do not benefit from trade preferences.
“To address these issues, the Commission has created a new TARIC certificate code (Y864), indicating that the proof of origin held by the operator does not refer to a place that cannot benefit from preferential treatment under the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Through the footnote CD 906 the operator will find information on the website of the Commission containing the list of such places.
“This new certificate must be declared, starting next 16 May, in box 44 of the DUA of import when the operator requests the tariff preferences established in the EU-Israel Association Agreement or when requesting a preferential tariff quota established in the
same Association Agreement.”(no date) Possible implications for citizens and companies of the European Union relating to economic and financial activities in the settlements, issued by the Foreign Ministry “The European Union and its member states wish to draw the attention of their citizens and businesses to the risks associated with economic and financial activities in the settlements. Financial transactions, investments, procurement, contracting, and other economic activities (including services such as tourism) or in Israeli settlements that will benefit them, pose legal and economic risks derived from the fact that Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied territory are not recognized as a legitimate part of the territory of Israel. This may result in disputed titles to land, water, mineral or other natural resources purchased or invested in. “Possible violations of international Humanitarian Law and Human Rights should also be taken into account.
“Potential buyers and investors should be aware that a future peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, or between Israel and Syria, could have consequences for those who have acquired properties as well as economic activities promoted in such settlements. In case of disputes, it could be very difficult for member states to ensure the protection of their interests.
“Citizens and EU companies should also be aware of the potential implications for their reputation in participating in economic and financial activities in the settlements.
“Citizens and EU companies that include some form of economic or financial activity in the settlements must, before proceeding, procure suitable legal advice.”
-
Business and Human Rights (BHR) news
Date Information August 2019 In August 2019, TransJerusalem J-Net Ltd, a consortium comprised of the Spanish multinational company CAF- Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles and the Israeli public company Shapir Engineering and Industry, won the tender to expand the Jerusalem light rail, connecting Israeli settlements in occupied East Jerusalem (such as Gilo) with the western part of the city. [more information]
-
-
Sweden
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Agreement in the sphere of industrial research and development 18/12/2000 R&D; Industrial No Convention on social security 30/06/1982 Social Security No “”Israel” means the State of Israel.” Air Services agreement 18/10/1978 Aviation No “The terms “territory” (…) shall have, in the application this agreement, the meaning specified in Articles 2 and 96 of the [Chicago] Convention.” Agreement on the co-production of films 10/09/1971 Film; Cultural No Agreement for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to death duties 15/05/1962 Taxation No “”Territory” means Israel.” Agreement for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and capital 22/12/1959 Taxation No “The terms “territory of one of the Contracting Governments” (…) mean Sweden or Israel” Exchange of notes constituting an agreement between Israel and Sweden regarding the exemption from income tax and all other taxes on income derived from the exercise of shipping activities and the operation of aircraft services 17/06/1956 Taxation No -
Business guidance
Date Link Information November 2015 (last update) Trade with Israel and Palestine, information issued by the Government Offices of Sweden “The EU and Sweden believe that the existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem is a violation of international law. Therefore, products from Israeli settlements are not handled as if they were from Israel. Sweden has offered a much more detailed business advisory compared to other member states. “There is no ban on trade in products from the settlements, but according to the Association Agreement between the EU and Israel, the EU and Sweden have an obligation to ensure that settlement products do not benefit from preferential tariff measures that are otherwise applicable to Israeli products. A judgment of the European Court of Justice in February 2010 (the “Brita” case) confirms this demarcation of Israel based on the 1967 borders.
“According to a technical agreement between the EU and Israel, Israeli products are labelled with the postal code of the place of production. On entry into an EU country the postal code is controlled, and products from the settlements are subject to the tariff generally applied to imports to the EU from third countries. Both the EU Commission and individual EU countries have made regular checks to ensure that these tariff rules are followed.
“In Sweden, it is the Swedish Customs authority that is responsible for such checks. The Customs’ website provides a list of those Israeli postal codes that do not give preferential treatment given that they come from the settlements. Customs Administration urges Companies that import from Israel to regularly consult this list.
“Origin labelling for settlement goods in Swedish shops
“There are common EU rules on origin and labelling that say that information to consumers must not be false or misleading. In the case of Israel and Palestine, there has been a demand from various stakeholders, including consumers in the EU, for clearer guidance on how products can and should be marked so as not to mislead consumers. Demand for clearer guidance has specifically applied to the labelling of products from Israeli settlements.
“In 2012, the EU foreign ministers and member states committed themselves to the full and effective implementation of EU legislation relating to products from Israeli settlements. The practice is to apply this principle of differentiation between Israel within its internationally recognised 1967 borders and the illegal settlements.
“For many foods and all cosmetic products labelling of origin is mandatory. For other foods indicating their origin is obligatory if failure to do so would mislead consumers. Moreover, the EU ruled that its food law aims to protect consumer interests and opportunities to make informed decisions about the food they consume.
“On 12 November 2015, the European Commission published guidelines, or an “interpretative notice” relating to the origin of products from territories occupied by Israel since June 1967. The aim is to clarify and to help EU importers correctly apply existing legislation in the consumer area. Clarifying when and how a product can or must be marked strengthens the ability of consumers to make informed purchases. If products from Israeli settlements in occupied territory are marketed as products from Israel, this is misleading according to EU regulations and therefore not acceptable. The trader has a duty to ensure that the current rules are applied. Supervision is handled by the relevant authorities.
“The EU countries that previously published national guidelines for labelling of products from Israeli-occupied territories have not noticed any negative impact on trade volumes. On the contrary, there are signs that clearer consumer information may have contributed to an increase in imports from Israel, at least in the case of the UK.
“Corporate activities and investments in settlements
“EU member states have decided to publish common messages that aim to raise awareness among citizens and businesses in the EU regarding participation in financial and economic activities in the settlements. The jointly agreed text reads as follows:
“The European Union and its member states consider that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make impossible a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The EU and its member states will not recognise any change to the 1967 borders other than those agreed between the parties. This also applies to Jerusalem. The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights are the areas occupied by Israel since 1967.”
“The European Union and its member states therefore want to raise European citizens and enterprises’ awareness of the risks associated with economic and financial activities in the settlements. Financial transactions, investments, purchases, contracts and other economic activities (also in tourism and other services) in Israeli settlements or for the benefit of Israeli settlements, are associated with legal and financial risks since under international law the Israeli settlements are built on occupied land and are not recognised as a rightful part of Israeli territory. This may result in disputed titles to land, water, mineral or other natural resources purchased or invested in.
“It is also important to consider possible violations of international humanitarian law and human rights.
“Prospective buyers and investors should be aware that a future peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, or between Israel and Syria, could have consequences for property they purchase or economic activities they support in these settlements. In the event of a dispute, it can be very difficult for member states to ensure national protection of their interests.
“Citizens and businesses in the EU should also be aware that their reputation could be affected if they are involved in economic and financial activities in the settlements.
“Citizens and businesses in the EU considering to participate in the economic or financial settlements should seek legal advice before taking any action.
“EU guidelines for cooperation with Israel
“From 1 January 2014 the EU has specific guidelines in place for its cooperation with Israel (“Guidelines on the eligibility of Israeli entities and their activities in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 for grants, prizes and financial instruments funded by the EU from 2014 onwards”). The guidelines implement the EU’s long-standing policy on Israeli settlements and apply the principle of differentiation. This means that only Israeli entities established or operating within the 1967 borders can apply for EU funds.
“The guidelines cover regional and local Israeli authorities, state and private companies and NGOs. Individuals are exempt and guidelines do not apply to exports or public procurement. Some examples of EU programs affected by this are Erasmus for All, Mondus Erasmus, Tempus, the EU’s research program Horizon 2020 and the European Instrument for Human Rights.
“Dialogue on boycott
“Sometimes voices arise calling for the boycott of Israel and Israeli goods. The government’s position is that restrictions on trade are not an appropriate way to resolve the conflict. The government wants to maintain good relations with both Israel and Palestine and works for more exchanges in a number of areas, including trade, with both countries.”
-
Official announcements
Date Link Statement 20/09/2018 Swedish Statement at the UN Security Council “In line with resolution 2334 and well-established EU policy, we call for the distinction between Israel within pre-1967 borders and occupied territory. As is obvious from the Special Coordinator’s briefing today, progress on implementing this part of resolution 2334 is lacking. We urge all states to act in this regard.” -
Business and Human Rights (BHR) news
Date Information January 2017 Danwatch publishes report finding that Europe’s five largest pension funds — including Alecta Pensionsförsäkring — have €7.5 billion invested in companies with business activities in and around Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land.
-
-
Switzerland
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Agreement on scheduled air services 31/10/2018 Aviation No The term “territory” has the meaning assigned to it by article 2 of the [Chicago] Convention. Convention for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and capital 02/07/2003 Taxation Partially The term “Israel” means the State of Israel; and when used in a geographical sense, the term “Israel” includes its continental shelf and other maritime areas over which it exercises sovereign rights and jurisdiction according to international law ***
In an explanatory note provided to parliament in September 2003, the Swiss government clarified its position that “the applicability of the agreement is intended only for Israel’s territory; hence its applicability to the territories occupied by Israel is excluded.”
In March 2021, Swiss authorities re-confirmed that the convention only applies within Israel’s pre-June 1967 borders.
Convention on social security 23/03/1984 Social Security No “Territory” means, in the case of Switzerland, the territory of the Swiss Confederation and, in the case of Israel, the territory of the State of Israel Extradition convention 31/12/1958 Law Enforcement No Agreement concerning the exchange of postal parcels 01/07/1953 Postal No Agreement relating to air services 19/11/1952 Aviation No The term “territory” has the meaning assigned to it by article 2 of the Chicago Convention. -
Official announcements
Date Link Statement 17/12/2003 Answer by Federal Councillor Kaspar Villiger during National Council debate “The agreement [on double taxation], on the Israeli side, applies to the national territory of Israel and does not apply to the occupied territories that do not belong to Israel under international law. Israeli settlers on Palestinian territory cannot refer to this agreement.” 19/09/2003 Message on a double taxation treaty with Israel “Paragraph 1(a)(ii) provides for the application of the Agreement [on double taxation] to the territory of Israel; this excludes its application to the territories occupied by Israel.” 13/08/1980 Minutes of the Federal Council “The Federal Council decides to propose to the Israeli government that the treaty on social insurance be signed in Bern or at any location on Israeli territory, excluding the occupied territories. At the time of signature, a letter specifying that the stipulations of the treaty do not prejudge the attitude of Switzerland on the question of Jerusalem will be submitted.”
-
-
United Kingdom
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Memorandum of Understanding on cooperation in science, technology, research and innovation 20/09/2023 Science; Technology; R&D No “This MoU does not constitute an international agreement and does not create any legally binding obligations between the Sides under either international or national law. Cooperation under this MoU will take place within the framework of applicable national legislation and international obligations. “All activities carried out by either MOST or DSIT under this MoU will be performed in compliance with its internal laws, regulations, and policies and within the limits of their available resources.”
2030 roadmap for UK-Israel bilateral relations 21/03/2023 Security; Education; Health; R&D No “On the part of Israel, references to academic collaboration are without prejudice to the autonomy and authority of the Council of Higher Education and the autonomy of higher education institutions. For Israel, The Planning and Budgeting Committee of the Council for Higher Education [which includes Ariel University] is responsible for approving the specific details of the joint programming.” ***
[In April 2023, Parliamentary Under-Secretary David Rutley stated:
“The Roadmap does not apply to the Occupied Palestinian Territories.”]
Memorandum of Understanding on the UK-Israel Strategic Partnership 29/11/2021 Security; Economic; Health; R&D No Protocol further amending the convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income 17/09/2019 Taxation No “This convention shall apply to persons who are resident of one or both of the territories.” **
[See 1962 agreement for further details from the UK government]
Trade and partnership agreement 25/01/2019 FTA Partially “For the avoidance of doubt in relation to incorporated Article 83 [of the EU’s 1995 Euro-Mediterranean agreement establishing an Association with Israel], this Agreement shall apply, …to the extent that, and under the conditions under which the EU-Israel Trade Agreements applied immediately before they ceased to apply to the United Kingdom.” **
[The British government also published this Explanatory Memorandum on the Trade and Partnership Agreement:
“With regard to Israel, the EU-Israel Trade Agreements apply to the State of Israel. The same position is being incorporated into the UK-Israel Trade Agreement (pursuant to Articles 3 and 4). The UK does not recognise the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs), including the settlements, as part of the State of Israel. The OPTs are not covered by the current EU-Israel Trade Agreements, nor by the UK-Israel Agreement. Products produced in the Israeli settlements located within the territories brought under Israeli administration since June 1967 are not entitled to benefit from preferential tariff treatment under the EU-Israel Trade Agreements. The arrangement by which this is achieved will be replicated under the UK-Israel Agreement.”
And in February 2019, Minister of State for International Trade George Hollingbery stated:
“The OPTs are not covered by the current EU-Israel Association Agreement, nor by the Continuity Agreement agreed in principle between the UK and Israel.”]
Memorandum of understanding on bilateral cooperation in research, development and technological innovation 2017 R&D; Science; Technology No ** In response to a freedom of information request, the FCDO stated it had no information on whether Israeli settlement entities and activities benefit from this MoU.
Memorandum of Understanding concerning science cooperation 2017 R&D; Science No ** In response to a freedom of information request, the FCDO stated it had no information on whether Israeli settlement entities and activities benefit from this MoU.
Film Co-production agreement 03/11/2010 Film; Cultural No Memorandum of Understanding concerning scientific cooperation 23/05/2013 R&D; Science No ** In response to a freedom of information request, the FCDO stated it had no information on whether Israeli settlement entities and activities benefit from this MoU.
Exchange of notes amending the 1970 Convention providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil matters 18/09/2002 Civil; Judicial No [See 1970 agreement] Agreement on bilateral cooperation in private sector industrial research and development 24/05/1999 R&D No Protocol amending the 1957 Convention on social security 17/06/1983 Social Security Yes [See 1957 agreement] Agreement for air services between and beyond their respective territories 24/09/1975 Aviation No “The term “territory” in relation to a State means the areas and territorial waters adjacent thereto under the sovereignty, suzerainty, protection or trusteeship of that State.” Convention providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil matters 28/10/1970 Civil; Judicial No “This convention shall apply…to the territory within the jurisdiction of the courts of Israel.” Protocol amending the 1962 convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income 20/04/1970 Taxation No [See 1962 agreement] Cultural convention 10/06/1969 Cultural No “The terms “territory” and “country” shall mean, in relation to the Government of Israel, the State of Israel.” Convention regarding legal proceedings in civil and commercial matters 05/07/1966 Civil; Commercial No “This Convention shall apply (…) in the case of the Government of Israel to the territory within the jurisdiction of the Courts of Israel.” Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income 26/09/1962 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the territory in which the Government of Israel levy taxation.” ***
[In May 2019, Secretary of State for International Trade Liam Fox stated:
“This agreement applies on the basis of whether a person is tax resident in the UK or in Israel. The exception to that is Article XXI of that agreement which prevent discrimination on the basis of nationality. Whether the agreement applies to a UK national residing in the Occupied Territory will therefore depend on the particular circumstances of that person.”]
Convention on social security 29/04/1957 Social Security Yes “Territory” means, in relation to Israel, the territory of Israel, which, for the purpose of this Convention, shall mean the territory administered by the Government of Israel on the 19th of July, 1956.” ***
[In May 2019, Secretary of State for International Trade Liam Fox stated:
“I can confirm that the Department for Work and Pensions continues to apply and enforce the 1957 social security agreement to the territory administered by the Government of Israel on the 19th of July, 1956, to the extent applicable.”]
Agreement for the settlement of financial matters outstanding as a result of the termination of the Mandate for Palestine 30/03/1950 Financial Yes “”Israel” shall mean the territory administered by the Government of Israel at the date of signature of this Agreement.” -
Business guidance
Date Link Information 25/02/2022 (last update) Overseas Business Risk – The Occupied Palestinian Territories, issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) “The UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements: The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights have been occupied by Israel since 1967. Settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties. “There are therefore clear risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements, and we do not encourage or offer support to such activity. Financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements as well as other economic activities (including in services like tourism) in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements, entail legal and economic risks stemming from the fact that the Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israel’s territory. This may result in disputed titles to the land, water, mineral or other natural resources which might be the subject of purchase or investment.
“UK citizens and businesses should be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in settlements, as well as possible abuses of the rights of individuals. Those contemplating any economic or financial involvement in settlements should seek appropriate legal advice.
“On 24 March 2016, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UN HRC) adopted Resolution 31/36. The resolution included a requirement that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN OHCHR) create a database listing all business enterprises involved with/operating in the settlements. The UK has made clear its opposition to this database initiative. Nonetheless, the UN OHCHR issued a report on business enterprises involved in certain activities relating to settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories on 12 February 2020, in response to UN HRC Resolution 31/36. A small number of British business enterprises were named in the report.
“Since 2005, products produced in Israeli settlements located within the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 are not entitled to benefit from preferential tariff treatment upon entry into the United Kingdom. This approach is maintained under the UK-Israel Trade and Partnership Agreement, which came into force on 1 January 2021. The United Kingdom published a Notice to Importers, on 1 January 2021, concerning imports from Israeli settlements into the United Kingdom, including a list of non-eligible locations.
“The United Kingdom (2009) and European Union (2014) introduced guidelines outlining how products originating from the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 should be labelled in order to comply with UK and EU legislation, and so as not to mislead the consumer. This guidance states that produce originating from Israeli settlements, located within the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, should be specifically labelled as such. The UK’s approach following the end of the UK-EU transition period remains in line with this approach.
(…)
Products produced in the Israeli settlements located within the territories brought under Israeli administration since June 1967 are not entitled to benefit from preferential tariff treatment.”
04/01/2021 Notice to importers: imports from Israel into the United Kingdom “Operators are reminded that products produced in the Israeli settlements located within the territories brought under Israeli administration since June 1967 are not entitled to benefit from preferential tariff treatment under the Trade and Partnership Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the State of Israel. “It is recalled that according to the arrangement between the Israel and the United Kingdom for the implementation of Protocol 4 to the UK-Israel Trade and Partnership Agreement, all movement certificates EUR.1 and invoice declarations issued or made out in Israel, include, the postal code and the name of the city, village or industrial zone where production conferring originating status has taken place.”
“The same applies to all movement certificates EUR-MED and invoice declarations EUR-MED that may be issued or made out in Israel for export to the United Kingdom on the basis of Protocol 4 to the UK-Israel Trade and Partnership Agreement.
“Operators intending to present documentary evidence of origin with a view to securing preferential treatment for products originating in Israel are informed that the preferential treatment will be refused to the goods for which the proof of origin indicates that the production conferring originating status has taken place in a location within the territories brought under Israeli administration since June 1967.
“While the procedures in place allow for an adequate application of the arrangement, the way it is implemented in the United Kingdom should be streamlined in the light of experience. For that purpose, importers are informed that the up-to-date list of non-eligible locations and their postal codes is from now on available on GOV.UK.
“Operators are advised to consult the list regularly and at least before lodging a customs declaration for releasing goods for free circulation in support of which they intend to provide a proof of preferential origin issued or made out in Israel.”
22/08/2014 Scottish Procurement Policy Note “The Scottish Government strongly discourages trade and investment from illegal settlements. A decision to exclude a company from a public procurement exercise on the basis of its involvement in such a settlement has, however, to be taken in compliance with procurement legislation. “For a company to be excluded from competition it will have had to have been convicted of a specific offence and/or committed an act of grave misconduct in the course of its business;
“Exploitation of assets in illegal settlements is likely to be regarded as constituting “grave professional misconduct” for the purposes of procurement law;
“Decisions should be taken on a case by case basis and appropriate legal advice should be sought.”
-
Official announcements
Date Link Statement 20/01/2022 Statement by Minister for International Trade Ranil Jayawardena
“Settlements are illegal under international law, damaging the peace efforts and they do call into question Israel’s commitment to the two state solution. Goods imported from illegal settlements are not entitled to the benefits from trade preferences and we remain committed to that approach.” 05/08/2020 Answer to Welsh parliamentary question, provided by the Welsh Minister for Finance and Trefnydd “The Welsh Government will be publishing a new Procurement Advice Note (PAN) for all the public sector in Wales, along the same lines as the Scottish Policy Note. The PAN will advise buyers that they may exclude from tendering any company that conducts business with occupied territories either directly or via third parties, including with Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory, on the grounds of grave professional misconduct under Regulation 57(8)(c), of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015.” 22/06/2020 Answer to parliamentary question, provided by Parliamentary Under-Secretary Victoria Prentis, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs “Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs take steps to exclude the possibility that goods of West Bank origin enter the United Kingdom incorrectly described as being Israeli. This is to prevent them benefitting from preferential tariffs in accordance with the terms of EU-Israel Association Agreement and the technical arrangements which flow from this.”EU rules do not allow the authorities in any exporting third country (such as the State of Israel) to issue valid certificates of conformity with EU marketing standards for fruit and vegetables originating outside that third country. This includes territories under Israeli administration since June 1967, for example, the West Bank. The situation referred to by the hon. Member in respect of imports originating in Israeli settlements on the West Bank cannot, therefore, arise. “EU rules allow third countries to issue a certificate of conformity, confirming compliance with marketing standards. However, that does not mean that every import consignment will be accompanied by such a document. Importers can also apply for a certificate directly from an EU Member State’s authority.
“For dairy products, certificates of conformity with marketing standards are not required regardless of the origin of imports. The EU marketing standards legislation will form part of UK statute and will continue to apply in the UK after the transition period.“
22/06/2020 Answer to parliamentary question, provided by Parliamentary Under-Secretary Victoria Prentis, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs “Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs take steps to exclude the possibility that goods of West Bank origin enter the United Kingdom incorrectly described as being Israeli. This is to prevent them benefitting from preferential tariffs in accordance with the terms of EU-Israel Association Agreement and the technical arrangements which flow from this. “EU rules do not allow the authorities in any exporting third country (such as the State of Israel) to issue valid certificates of conformity with EU marketing standards for fruit and vegetables originating outside that third country. This includes territories under Israeli administration since June 1967, for example, the West Bank. The situation referred to by the hon. Member in respect of imports originating in Israeli settlements on the West Bank cannot, therefore, arise.
“EU rules allow third countries to issue a certificate of conformity, confirming compliance with marketing standards. However, that does not mean that every import consignment will be accompanied by such a document. Importers can also apply for a certificate directly from an EU Member State’s authority.
“For dairy products, certificates of conformity with marketing standards are not required regardless of the origin of imports. The EU marketing standards legislation will form part of UK statute and will continue to apply in the UK after the transition period.”
16/06/2020 Answer to parliamentary question, provided by Financial Secretary Jesse Norman, Treasury “Under the technical arrangement of the EU-Israel Association Agreement a proof of preferential origin document is required that must contain the postal code and the name of the city, village or industrial zone in which the goods were produced. Where HMRC’s risk assessment indicates that the goods may have been produced in non-eligible locations, HMRC perform physical examinations of goods or check proof documents. HMRC refuse preference where the goods cannot be shown to be produced in an eligible location. HMRC can also request that the Israeli Customs Authorities verify the accuracy of the information provided on the proof of preferential origin document. “HMRC raised verification requests with the Israeli Customs Authorities to confirm that claims to preferential tariff treatment were made in compliance with the EU-Israel Association Agreement and the technical arrangement on:
“17 occasions in 2017
“10 occasions in 2018, and
“7 occasions in 2019.“The number of agricultural consignments imported from Israel claiming preferential tariff treatment under the EU-Israel Association Agreement and checked by HMRC was:
“52 in 2017
“70 in 2018, and
“29 in 2019“In accordance with the terms of EU-Israel Association Agreement and the technical arrangement, when confirming eligibility to preferential treatment, HMRC should only verify the details on the preferential proof of origin. A certificate of marketing standards is not a preferential proof of origin.”
11/06/2020 Answer to parliamentary question, provided by provided by Parliamentary Under-Secretary Ranil Jayawardena, Department for International Trade “The Department for International Trade does not provide direct support to business activity in the settlements and my officials work closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to encourage companies to put rights and responsibilities at the centre of everything they do.“ 08/06/2020 Answer to parliamentary question, provided by Parliamentary Under-Secretary Ranil Jayawardena, Department for International Trade “All committee decisions made within the framework of the European Union-Israel Association Agreement were carried across into the United Kingdom-Israel Trade and Partnership Agreement, which will enter into force after the end of the Transition Period on 1st January 2021.” 09/03/2020 Answer to parliamentary question, provided by Parliamentary Financial Secretary (HM Treasury) Jesse Norman “The information requested [the portion of goods imported to the UK from Israel that were produced in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories in 2019] is not available. “HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) are responsible for the collection of statistics on goods imported to and exported from the United Kingdom, including (separately) those to and from Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. However, HMRC do not produce estimates or hold data on goods imported into the UK from Israel that were produced in Israeli settlements of the occupied Palestinian Territories.”
17/05/2019 Answer to parliamentary question, provided by Secretary of State for International Trade Liam Fox “As we leave the EU we are seeking to replicate all existing EU free trade agreements and other preferential arrangements. (…) The UK government will be considering all options in the design of those future agreements. (…) “You asked whether the UK would replicate the EU’s 2013 Guidelines on the eligibility of Israeli entities and their activities in the illegal settlements, for grants, prizes, and financial instruments funded by the EU. (…) Until such a point that the UK ceases to fund and participate in EU programmes, the EU’s 2013 guidelines will continue to apply. The UK will review all options, including the subsequent rules that would apply, should we develop UK-led programmes in the future. (…)
“With regard to your question about the territorial application of 1962 UK-Israel agreement on the avoidance of double taxation (amended in 1970). This agreement applies on the basis of whether a person is tax resident in the UK or in Israel. The exception to that is Article XXI of that agreement which prevent discrimination on the basis of nationality. Whether the agreement applies to a UK national residing in the Occupied Territory will therefore depend on the particular circumstances of that person.(…)
“You asked about the territorial definition of the 1957 social security agreement. I can confirm that the Department for Work and Pensions continues to apply and enforce the 1957 social security agreement to the territory administered by the Government of Israel on the 19th of July, 1956, to the extent applicable.”
26/02/2019 Explanatory Memorandum on the Trade and Partnership Agreement between the UK and Israel, published by Minister of State for Trade Policy George Hollingbery, Department for International Trade “With regard to Israel, the EU-Israel Trade Agreements apply to the State of Israel. The same position is being incorporated into the UK-Israel Trade Agreement (pursuant to Articles 3 and 4). The UK does not recognise the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs), including the settlements, as part of the State of Israel. The OPTs are not covered by the current EU-Israel Trade Agreements, nor by the UK-Israel Agreement. Products produced in the Israeli settlements located within the territories brought under Israeli administration since June 1967 are not entitled to benefit from preferential tariff treatment under the EU-Israel Trade Agreements. The arrangement by which this is achieved will be replicated under the UK-Israel Agreement.” 05/02/2019 Answer to parliamentary question, provided by Minister of State for Trade Policy George Hollingbery, Department for International Trade “We do not recognise the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs), including the settlements, as part of Israel. The OPTs are not covered by the current EU-Israel Association Agreement, nor by the Continuity Agreement agreed in principle between the UK and Israel. “We are also working to finalise the transition of the current EU Interim Association Agreement with the Palestinian Authority.
“We have committed to informing Parliament as soon as agreements are signed with partner countries. The agreement will be laid in Parliament and we will be publishing a full report on trade agreements, once they are signed.”
October 2017 Statement by Charity Commission (quoted by Middle East Monitor) The UK Charity Commission warned UK Toremet that making grants to Israeli settlements could potentially constitute a breach of the Geneva Conventions Act of 1957. This came in response to questions about UK Toremet which Middle East Monitor revealed acts as a conduit for donations to Israeli settlements. The Commission noted that it “has previously informed the charity that it must consider the risk of making a grant to a charity operating in the occupied territories, including whether it would breach the Geneva Conventions Act 1957. That being said, a grant to a charity in the occupied territories does not automatically constitute a criminal offence in the UK and therefore it is for the trustees to manage the risk of doing so and to consider whether it is in the charity’s best interests. The charity has an approved list of organisations which it distributes funds to—this list is currently being legally reviewed by a QC appointed by the charity. The Commission is in continued engagement with the charity and, when completed, will provide a report detailing the engagement.”
26/04/2017 Written evidence from Middle East and North Africa Directorate, Foreign and Commonwealth Office “The UK has a range of capabilities which we can deploy in support of a settlement: “(…) EU policies to differentiate between Israel and the OPTs: In 2012 the EU agreed that all agreements between the State of Israel and the EU must indicate their inapplicability to the OPTs. This principle applies to all EU agreements and funding programmes, and these all now make a distinction between the State of Israel and Israeli settlements. In particular, products from settlements do not benefit from the current EU-Israel Association Agreement which governs EU (and hence British) trade with Israel, and in November 2015 the EU issued an interpretative notice advising Member States that products from Israeli settlements should be labelled as such, and not labelled as products of Israel. Such differentiation ensures that the privileges the EU affords Israel is not extended to its occupation of the OPTs. This principle of differentiation is also enshrined in the new UN Security Council Resolution 2334, agreed in December 2016. (…)”
05/02/2014 Richardson and another v Director of Public Prosecutions (On appeal from [2012] EWHC 1238) “The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses the appeal. An activity is ‘unlawful’ for the purposes of s. 68 only if it involves a criminal offence integral to the core activity carried on, not when any criminality is only incidental, collateral to, or remote from the activity. Applying that to the facts of this case, none of the offences alleged by the Defendants are integral to Ahava’s activities.” [Press release] -
Business and Human Rights (BHR) news
Date Information November 2021
Amnesty International releases new report looking at use of JCB products for the unlawful destruction of Palestinian homes and construction of Israel’s illegal settlements. November 2021 The UK National Contact Point (UK NCP) for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises ruled that JCB failed to fully observe the Guidelines by not having a policy commitment to respect human rights and not carrying out human rights due diligence in its supply chain. This came after an investigation into the use of JCB construction machinery in the demolition of Palestinian properties and settlement-related construction. March 2021
Lothian Pension Fund divests from Bank Hapoalim. October 2020 The UK National Contact Point (part of the Department for International Trade) has reportedly accepted in an Initial Assessment that JCB is in apparent non-compliance with three responsible business conduct standards under the government-backed OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. These relate to the use of its heavy machinery in Israeli demolitions and settlement construction in the oPt. June 2020 The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) publishes research looking at local government pension fund investments in companies with ties to Israel’s occupation. February 2020 The UN Human Rights Council’s database of business enterprises involved in settlement related activities lists three British companies: JCB, Opodo, and Greenkote. April 2019 Civil society organisations launch campaign calling for an effective law to require companies and investors to take action to prevent human rights abuses, worker exploitation and environmental harm in their global operations, activities, products, services, investments and supply chains. February 2019 Tayside Pension Fund divests from Bank Hapoalim. December 2018 HSBC announces it is divesting its holdings in Elbit Systems, according to its spokesperson, based on its “stated defense policy with respect to cluster munitions, not in response to any [BDS] campaign”. July 2018 Falkirk Pension Fund sells its stock in Bank Hapoalim based on a re-evaluation “of its risk and return characteristics”. March 2016 G4S announces its intention to sell its Israeli subsidiary ‘G4S Israel’. This came after BDS pessure, and after a complaint was submitted in the UK about G4S contracts with Israeli prisons. After UK unresponsiveness, the OECD National Contact Point (NCP) issued a comment on G4S’s inability to act on those guidelines and on their refusal to retract from those contracts with Israeli prisons. April 2012 The Co-operative Group announces that it will no longer engage with any supplier of produce known to be sourcing from Israeli settlements: “Since 2009, The Co-operative Group has operated a Human Rights and Trade Policy, which sets out the exceptional circumstances under which we will withdraw trade from a state, area or settlement.
“One such circumstance is where there is a broad international consensus that the status of a designated region or state is illegal.
“While there are many disputed territories throughout the world, there are currently only two examples of such illegal areas: the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian Occupied Territories and the Moroccan settlements in Western Sahara.
“On this basis, we do not source any produce or own-brand products from the Israeli settlements.
“In April 2012, our Board determined that, going forward, we will additionally no longer engage with any supplier of produce known to be sourcing from the Israeli settlements.
“We can categorically state that this position does not constitute a boycott of Israeli businesses. We remain committed to sourcing produce from and trading with Israeli suppliers that do not source from the settlements.”
-
-
Norway
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Convention on social security 23/05/2006 Social Security No “”Territory” means: in relation to Israel, the territory of the state of Israel.” Agreement relating to air services 09/11/1977 Aviation No “The term “territory” has the meaning specified in Articles 2 and 96 of the 1944 Chicago Convention.” Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and capital 02/11/1966 Taxation No “The term “Israel” means the State of Israel.” Cultural agreement 26/11/1957 Cultural No Exchange of notes constituting an agreement for the reciprocal exemption from income tax and all other taxes on income derived from the exercise of shipping activities and the operation of aircraft services 01/02/1955 Taxation No -
Bills and resolutions
Name Information Status Law on taxation of wealth and income (Tax Act) “With immediate effect from, and including, the 2012 tax year, authority has been granted through the Law on Taxation Paragraph 6 – 50 to enable the Ministry of Finance to exclude organisations from the tax deductible gifts scheme with the purpose of ensuring Norwegian compliance with resolutions taken by the UN Security Council.” Approved 6 April 1999 (last modified 21 June 2019) Act on annual accounts (Accounting Act) “Large companies will explain what the company does to integrate human rights, labor rights and social conditions, the external environment and the fight against corruption in its business strategies, in its day-to-day operations and in relation to its stakeholders. The statement should at least contain information on the policies, principles, procedures and standards the company uses to integrate the aforementioned considerations into its business strategies, in its day-to-day operations and in relation to its stakeholders.” [More info] Approved 17 July 1998 (last modified 20 December 2018) Prop. 1 LS (2011–2012) For the financial year 2012 Taxes, fees and customs 2012 “In the Ministry’s view, it is not desirable that the gift deduction scheme in section 6-50 of the Tax Act benefits organizations that actively support or contribute to certain acts that are or may be contrary to international law. The Ministry of Finance has therefore, in consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, considered whether it is possible to introduce a mechanism that can exclude such organizations from the gift deduction scheme in section 6-50 of the Tax Act. (…) “The Ministry points out that Norway has international law obligations in the form of clear requests or preconditions expressed by the UN Security Council, as part of the main responsibility for maintaining international peace and security under the UN Charter. These can, in the Ministry’s opinion, form the basis for an objective assessment of verifiable conditions that may lead to the exclusion of organizations. The criteria for such exclusion can be linked to specific requirements laid down in resolutions issued by the UN Security Council. (…)
“Income deduction can be seen as a form of indirect government subsidization of a type of activity. This may indicate that an exclusion mechanism should be linked to the international law obligations Norway must have to refrain from supporting this type of activity. In some cases, there are clear requests or assumptions expressed by the UN Security Council, as part of the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security under the UN Charter. The Ministry believes that such requests, etc. from the UN Security Council can be used as a basis for an objective assessment of verifiable conditions that can lead to exclusion. The exclusion criteria can be linked to specific requirements set by resolutions issued by the UN Security Council. (…)
“The purpose of the exclusion mechanism is that Norway will avoid indirectly contributing financial support to activities / purposes that are in conflict with the UN Security Council decision. Various NGOs may also receive direct public support, for example through grants administered and distributed by various ministries. In cooperation with other relevant ministries, the Ministry of Finance will look into whether there may be a need for similar exclusion mechanisms in connection with other support schemes, etc.”
Submitted 30 September 2011 -
Business guidance
Date Link Information 22/10/2024 Do not engage in trade and business cooperation that serves to perpetuate Israel’s occupation of Palestine “The Norwegian Government is updating its advice to Norwegian companies not to engage in business cooperation or trade that serves to perpetuate Israel’s illegal presence in Palestine – i.e. in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza. “‘Such trade and business cooperation may be associated with serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and could in certain cases be considered activity that enables violations of these rights to continue. The Government is therefore advising Norwegian companies not to engage in trade or business cooperation that serve to perpetuate Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,’ said Minister of Foreign Affairs Espen Barth Eide.
“The advice has been further strengthened in response to developments in Israel’s efforts to facilitate Israeli settlements and business activity in Palestinian territory. In its advisory opinion issued on 19 July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated that Israel’s practices are in violation of international law, including international humanitarian law, international human rights, and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
“The Government expects Norwegian companies to operate in a responsible manner and to comply with the Norwegian Transparency Act (Åpenhetsloven), the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.
“The Government urges the Norwegian business sector and companies to:
“Assume that business relations that can serve to perpetuate Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory entail a clear risk that a company may be associated with serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. In certain cases, this could be considered activity that enables these violations to continue.
Assume that maintaining business relations that serve to perpetuate the illegal Israeli presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory could have legal, economic, and/or reputational impacts for the company.
Immediately assess whether business relations with entities that serve to perpetuate Israel’s illegal presence in the occupied Palestinian territory should be terminated.“‘When the International Court of Justice issues such a clear statement as the one issued on 19 July, it has an effect on businesses from Norway and other countries. The UN’s principal judicial body has determined that Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is in violation of international law and must cease as soon as possible. If we are to succeed in ending the occupation, all those who contribute to this activity must take responsibility,’ said Mr Eide.
“The new advice further strengthen the Government’s statement in March advising Norwegian companies not to engage in business cooperation or trade that serves to perpetuate the illegal settlements.”
07/03/2024
Government advice against trade and business activities with Israeli settlements“The government underlines its stance on the Israeli settlement policy on occupied land by discouraging Norwegian companies from conducting trade and business activities that contribute to the maintenance of the Israeli settlements in violation of international law. “For many years, Norway has been clear that the settlement policy in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is in violation of international law, including humanitarian law and human rights, and undermines the possibility of a future Palestinian state and a peaceful solution to the conflict, says Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide.
“The advice comes against the backdrop of Israel’s settlement policy, which violates international law, which has been intensified over the past year, as well as new settlement expansions and increased settlement violence against the Palestinians. Several Western countries, including the United States, have taken measures against the settlements, such as entry restrictions and freezing funds for violent settlers. Several European countries have already issued advice to the business community about trade with the settlements.
“Norwegian industry has requested guidance guidelines from the Norwegian authorities. With this clarification, we make it clear that Norwegian businesses should be aware that, through economic or financial activity in the Israeli settlements that violate international law, they risk contributing to violations of international humanitarian law or human rights, says Eide.
“The situation in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is very serious. Since 7 October 2023, 400 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank. Of these, 102 are children. In 2023, the Israeli government implemented several changes that have facilitated increased development and settlement activity in the West Bank.
“Palestinians are driven from their homes, which are then destroyed. Last year was also the deadliest year for Palestinians in the West Bank since the UN began recording. I repeat that the injustice to which the Palestinians are subjected must stop, says Eide.
“The clarification vis-à-vis the business sector includes trade in goods produced in Israeli settlements.
“The government expects Norwegian companies to act responsibly and comply with the Openness Act, the UN’s Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights (UNGP) and the OECD’s guidelines for multinational companies.”
10/06/2022 Foodstuffs originating in areas occupied by Israel “Foodstuffs originating in areas occupied by Israel must be marked with the area from which the product comes, and that it comes from an Israeli settlement if that is the case. “A ruling by the European Court of Justice from 12.11.2019 states that the Food Information Regulation must be interpreted so that food from areas occupied by Israel must be labeled separately so that consumers are not misled by a lack of labeling about the origin of the products.
“Foodstuffs originating in areas occupied by Israel must be marked with the area from which the product comes, and that it comes from an Israeli settlement if that is the case. It is especially wine, olive oil, fruit, vegetables and potatoes that come from the relevant areas.
“In line with resolutions of the UN Security Council and assessments by the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Norway’s position is that “Israel” and “Israeli territory” include the territory that was under Israeli control before June 4, 1967. The Israeli occupied territories include the Golan, Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Norway considers the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories to be contrary to international law. This territorial delimitation of the State of Israel is also the basis for understanding the geographical scope of the EFTA Free Trade Agreement with Israel.
See European Court of Justice Decision C-363/18.
See also information on the Norwegian Food Safety Authority’s website“. -
Official announcements
Date Link Statement 05/04/2019 Mandate for the Commission appointed to review the ethical guidelines for the GPFG “Ethically motivated guidelines were established for the Government Pension Fund Global in 2004 (then named the Government Petroleum Fund) on the basis of the Graver Commission’s report NOU 2003: 22, Management for the Future. (…) “A new conduct-based climate criterion and a product-based coal criterion were introduced in 2016. (…)
“It is, at the same time, appropriate to review the ethical guidelines anew in view of various developments over the intervening period. The Fund is now much larger than in 2004, the Fund’s ownership stakes have increased and the investments are spread across more countries. Besides, the practices of other funds have changed, international responsible investment standards have evolved and the international community has been confronted with new ethical challenges. (…)
“The Commission shall assess whether there is a need for amending the Guidelines for Observation and Exclusion from the Government Pension Fund Global.”
September 2012 Statement by Norwegian People’s Aid: “the Norwegian Ministry of Finance announced today announced their decision to exclude the Norwegian organisation “Karmel-instituttet” from the list of organisations that the Norwegian public may get tax deductions for providing funds to. The reason behind the decision is that the organisation provides financial support to Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.” [via Electronic Intifada] January 2012 In a letter to Norwegian People’s Aid (NPAID), the Norwegian Ministry of Finance confirmed that “with immediate effect from, and including, the 2012 tax year, authority has been granted through the Law on Taxation Paragraph 6 – 50 to enable the Ministry of Finance to exclude organisations from the tax deductible gifts scheme with the purpose of ensuring Norwegian compliance with resolutions taken by the UN Security Counci (…). It is not desirable that the tax deductible gifts scheme of the Law on Taxation Paragraph 6 – 50 benefits organisations which actively support or contribute to certain actions which are in breach of international law”. [see NPAID’s report Dangerous Liaisons] -
Business and Human Rights (BHR) news
Date Information December 2024 Norway’s sovereign wealth fund divests from Bezeq, Israel’s largest telecoms group, due to its ties to Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. According to Reuters, the move comes after the pension fund’s ethics watchdog, the Council on Ethics, “adopted a new, tougher interpretation of ethics standards for businesses that aid Israel’s operations in the occupied Palestinian territories”. In explaining its decision, the fund noted that Bezeq “through its physical presence and provision of telecom services to Israeli settlements in the West Bank, is helping to facilitate the maintenance and expansion of these settlements, which are illegal under international law”. April 2024 Government-owned alcoholic beverage retailer Vinmonopolet considers stopping sales of wine from illegal settlements. February 2024 Storebrand asset manager excludes First International Bank of Israel due to its financial contribution to the establishment, expansion and maintenance of illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories. April 2023 Oslo municipality announces that it will no longer procure goods and services from companies that contribute directly or indirectly to the illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories in violation of international law. December 2022 Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is reportedly reviewing investments in Israel to ensure that its funds do not finance Israeli businesses or settlements in occupied territory. September 2021 Norges Bank excludes 4 Israeli companies (Elco, Ashtrom Group and Electra) from its Government Pension Fund Global due to the “unacceptable risk that the companies contribute to systematic violations of individuals’ rights in situations of war or conflict.” July 2021 KLP pension fund divests from 16 companies including Alstom, Motorola, Bezeq, Cellcom Israel, and Bank Leumi due to their links with Israeli settlements: “In KLP’s assessment, there is an unacceptable risk that the excluded companies are contributing to the abuse of human rights in situations of war and conflict through their links with the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.” May 2021 Norway’s sovereign wealth fund excludes Shapir Engineering and Industry, and Mivne Real Estate KD, for their activities associated with Israeli settlements activities in the West Bank. March 2020 In its sixth periodic report on Norway, the UN’s Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) expresses its concern “about [serious human rights implications of some investment portfolios of the [Government Pension] Fund, which include companies found to be engaged in home demolition, Israeli settlements or other activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It is also concerned that not all investments of the Fund are subject to the ethics assessment process of the Council on Ethics. (…) “The Committee recommends that the State party review the investment of the Government Pension Fund Global in business entities involved in operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, in the light of its obligations stipulated in the International Court of Justice’ advisory opinion of 9 July 2004 on the legal consequences of the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It also recommends that the State party ensure the ethically motivated guidelines for observation and exclusion from the Government Pension Fund Global are in line with its territorial and extraterritorial obligations under the Covenant, as elaborated in paras. 25-37 of the Committee’s general comment No. 24 (2017) on State obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the context of business activities. It further recommends that the State party pursue a rigorous process of ethics assessment by the Council of Ethics.
“While welcoming the adoption of a national action plan to follow up the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the Committee is concerned about the insufficient level of implementation of the plan. While noting a draft law prepared by the Ethics Information Committee to promote respect for human rights in business operations and supply chains, the Committee is also concerned about the insufficient level of human rights risk assessment, carried out by business entities, in relation to their operations overseas and the insufficient capacities of the State party to assess the human rights risks in their host countries. It is further concerned about inadequate access to remedies in the State party by non-nationals whose rights have allegedly been violated by Norwegian companies abroad.
“The Committee recommends that the State party fully implement the national action plan to follow up the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and improve the effectiveness of the plan, including by setting measurable goals and concrete timelines. It also recommends that the State party ensure that business entities properly carry out assessments of human rights risks in relation to their operations overseas and strengthen the capacity of the State party, including through its embassies, to assess the human rights risks of their host countries. It further recommends that the State party adopt a legislative framework that stipulates human rights due diligence of business entities; holds business entities under the State party’s jurisdiction accountable for violations of economic, social and cultural rights; and provides for access to remedy in the State party by non-national victims.”
March 2020 UNI Global Union and the International Trade Union Confederation write to the Ethics Committee of the Norwegian Government Pension Fund calling on it to ensure that the Fund does not support practices illegal under international law or contribute to human rights violations. They recommend, inter alia, exercising increased caution when investing in high risk or conflict areas in line with international standards for business and human rights such as the UNGP and OECD Guidelines. October 2019 Oslo City Council becomes sixth Norwegian municipality to ban the purchase of goods and services from Israeli settlements by municipal departments and other local authorities. April 2019 Essex Business and Human Rights Project publishes report on Investor Obligations in Occupied Territories concluding that investments made by the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global (Statens Pensjonsfond Utland) are directly linked to a wide variety of adverse human rights impacts in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. January 2017 Danwatch publishes report finding that Europe’s five largest pension funds — including the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global (Statens Pensjonsfond Utland) — have €7.5 billion invested in companies with business activities in and around Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land. June 2016 NPAID publishes Dangerous Liaisons II: Norwegian ties to the Israeli Occupation finding that the Norwegian government and private Norwegian parties have ties to activities that contribute to the violations of international law and human rights under the Israeli occupation. June 2015 KLP Kapitalforvaltning insurance excludes Heidelberg Cement and Cemex from its investment portfolio because of their operations in the West Bank: “”KLP is excluding Heidelberg Cement and Cemex on the grounds of their exploitation of natural resources in occupied territory on the West Bank,” the company announced Thursday. “In KLP’s opinion this activity constitutes an unacceptable risk of violating fundamental ethical norms.” (…) From the perspective of international law, an assessment of this case has proved more difficult than similar assessments with respect to Western Sahara,” said Jeanett Bergan, head of responsible investment at KLP, about its divestment from Heidelberg and Cemex. “Nevertheless, the international legal principle that occupation should be temporary has carried the most weight. New exploitation of natural resources in occupied territory offers a strong incentive to prolong a conflict.”” (Link)
June 2012 Finance Ministry excludes Shikun & Binui from the Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG): “The decision to exclude the company follows an exclusion reccommendation from the Council on Ethics to the GPFG. The company is a construction company involved in the building of settlements in breach of international humanitarian law in East-Jerusalem. The Council emphasises that the construction of such settlements on occupied territory represents a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the convention for the protection of civilian persons in time of war. The Convention shall protect civilians in situations of war or occupation. The exclusion is based on an evaluation of the future risk that the company will contribute to serious violations of the rights of individuals in war or conflict. The Ministry of Finance has earlier excuded the companies Africa Israel Investments and Danya Cebus on the basis of similar activities on occupied territory. The divestment from the company has been concluded.” (Link)
August 2010 Finance Ministry excludes Africa Israel Investments and Danya Cebus from the Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG): “”The decision to exclude these companies from the GPFG is based on the Council on Ethics assessment that they are contributing to or are themselves responsible for grossly unethical activity,” says Minister of Finance Sigbjørn Johnsen. Africa Israel Investments Ltd. is the parent company of several subsidiaries with interests in property development, infrastructure and energy. The company holds a majority stake in Danya Cebus, a construction company involved in developing settlements in occupied Palestinian territory. The Council on Ethics emphasises that the construction of settlements in occupied areas is a violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (the fourth Geneva Convention) and that the GPFG runs an unacceptable risk of contributing to serious violations of individual rights in situations of war and conflict by investing in these two companies.
“The Council on Ethics bases its recommendation on the fact that the international community is united in the view that the area east of the 1967 line is occupied territory and as such comes under the purview of the fourth Geneva Convention. Several United Nations Security Council resolutions and an International Court of Justice advisory opinion have concluded that the construction of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory is prohibited under this Convention. I have therefore accepted the recommendation of the Council on Ethics and am excluding Africa Israel Investments and Danya Cebus from the fund’s investment portfolio,” says Minister of Finance Sigbjørn Johnsen.
The GPFG owned shares worth NOK 7.2 million in Africa Israel Investments at year end 2009. Africa Israel Investments is the majority shareholder in Danya Cebus.” (Link)
September 2009 Finance Ministry excludes Elbit Systems from the Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG): “”We do not wish to fund companies that so directly contribute to violations of international humanitarian law,” Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen said in a statement. (…) “The freedom of movement of the people living in the Occupied Territory has been unacceptably restricted” (…) Halvorsen said the government’s ethics council generally bases its evaluation on a company’s conduct, not on possible violations committed by states or other entities, but Elbit’s activities could be linked to “violations of human rights”. “The council has assessed the extent to which companies can be regarded as contributing to human rights violations committed by states in previous cases too, such as companies’ activities in Burma,” her statement said.” (Link)
-
-
European Union
-
Bilateral agreements
Name Date Signed Type Complies with UNSCR 2334? Territorial Definition Draft agreement on the exchange of Personal Data between the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and the authorities of Israel competent for fighting serious crime and terrorism Law Enforcement Partially “In accordance with European Union policy, this Agreement shall not apply to the geographic areas that came under the administration of the State of Israel after 5 June 1967. This provision should not be construed as prejudicing the Contracting Parties’ respective principled and long-standing positions regarding the status of these areas. This provision is also without prejudice to the possibility to use Personal Data received under this Agreement pursuant to Article 7 of this Agreement. “By way of derogation, a Competent Authority of Israel which has received Personal Data under this Agreement, or another authority in Israel to which such Personal Data has been transferred pursuant to Article 8, may exceptionally use such Personal Data in the geographic areas that came under the administration of the State of Israel after 5 June 1967, in accordance with the conditions and safeguards set out in this Agreement, and solely for the protection of the civilian population, if the use is:
(a) essential for the prevention of a criminal offence in case of an imminent threat to life; or
(b) necessary for the prevention, investigation, detection, or prosecution of Criminal Offences, and Europol has given its prior authorisation for such use following a corresponding request.”Memorandum of understanding on cooperation related to trade, transport, and export of natural gas to the European Union 15/06/2022 Energy Partially [No territorial clause] **
In an answer to the European Parliament, the European Commission clarified:
“The implementation of such Memorandum of Understanding will not apply in any form to the occupied Palestinian territory, which entails that Israeli supplies of natural gas as per the implementation of the memorandum of understanding may not originate from resources appropriated from Palestinian territories occupied by Israel.”
Agreement on the participation of the State of Israel in the culture sub-programme and cross-sectoral strand of “Creative Europe”, and on cooperation in the MEDIA sub-programme of “Creative Europe” Blocked by Israel’s Alternate Prime Minister Naftali Bennett in September 2022 R&D; Cultural Yes “In accordance with EU policy, this agreement shall not apply to the geographic areas that came under the administration of the State of Israel after 5 June 1967. This position should not be construed as prejudicing Israel’s principled position on this matter. Accordingly, the Parties agree that the application of this agreement is without prejudice to the status of those areas.” ENPI Cross-Border Co-operation (CBC) ‘Mediterranean Sea Basin Programme’ financing agreement 02/01/2018 Development Yes “In accordance with EU policy, this agreement shall not apply to the geographic areas that came under the administration of the State of Israel after 5 June 1967. This position should not be construed as prejudicing Israel’s principled position on this matter. Accordingly, the Parties agree that the application of this agreement is without prejudice to the status of those areas.” ***
[In addition, the Guidelines for Grant Applicants states that:
“The eligibility criteria formulated in the Commission Notice Nr. 2013/C- 205/05 (OJEU C-205 of 19.07.2013) establishing Guidelines on the eligibility of Israeli entities and their activities in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 for grants, prizes and financial instruments funded by the EU from 2014 onwards, shall apply for all actions under this ENI CBC MED Programme, including with respect to third parties receiving financial support in the cases where the respective action involves financial support to third parties by grant beneficiaries in accordance with article 137 of the EU’s Financial Regulation.”]
Protocol amending the 2013 Euro-Mediterranean aviation agreement 07/03/2015 Aviation Partially [See 2013 agreement] Agreement associating Israel to the Horizon 2020 – Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) 08/06/2014 R&D; Scientific Yes “In accordance with EU policy, this agreement shall not apply to the geographic areas that came under the administration of the State of Israel after 5 June 1967. This position should not be construed as prejudicing Israel’s principled position on this matter. Accordingly, the Parties agree that the application of this agreement is without prejudice to the status of those areas.” Euro-Mediterranean aviation agreement 10/06/2013 Aviation Partially “”Territory” means, for Israel, the territory of the State of Israel. (…) The application of this Agreement is understood to be without prejudice to the status of the territories that came under Israeli administration after June 1967.” Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures on agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fish and fishery products amending the Annexes to Protocols 1 and 2 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association 18/06/2012 Association; Trade; Agricultural Partially [The territorial scope has been clarified, inter alia, Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 on animal products; Regulation (EU) 2016/1842 on organic products, and Regulation (EU) No 594/201 on fruit and vegetables. However, enforcement of the territorial clause remains deficient in some instances given that Israeli authorities continue to enter “Israel” on the proofs of origin of all products, including settlement products, as well as on the Certificates of Conformity with Marketing Standards.]
Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association on conformity assessment and acceptance of industrial products (ACAA) 06/05/2010 Association; Trade; Industrial Partially [In July 2012 the European Commission clarified: “First, the ACAA is a Protocol to the EU-Israel association agreement. Therefore, while not defining it, its scope of application is the same as set out in Article 83 of the association agreement. As it results from international obligations of the EU and as confirmed by the European Court of Justice in 2010 in the Brita case, the EU does not recognise Israeli jurisdiction over the territories placed under Israeli administration after 1967. The Commission will observe this position in the implementation of the ACAA.”]
Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the State of Israel concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures on agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fish and fishery products, the replacement of protocols 1 and 2 and their annexes and amendments to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association 04/11/2009 Association; Trade; Agricultural Partially [The territorial scope has been clarified, inter alia, Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 on animal products; Regulation (EU) 2016/1842 on organic products, and Regulation (EU) No 594/201 on fruit and vegetables. However, enforcement of the territorial clause remains deficient in some instances given that Israeli authorities continue to enter “Israel” on the proofs of origin of all products, including settlement products, as well as on the Certificates of Conformity with Marketing Standards.]
Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement on the general principles governing the State of Israel’s participation in Community programmes 15/04/2008 *Provisionally applied pending ratification by the European Parliament
Association; R&D Partially “This Protocol shall apply, on the one hand, to the territories in which the Treaty establishing the European Community is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty, and, on the other hand, to the territory of Israel.” ***
[The territorial scope has been clarified, inter alia, through the 2013 Commission Notice Nr. 2013/C- 205/05 (OJEU C-205 of 19.07.2013) establishing Guidelines on the eligibility of Israeli entities and their activities in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967.]
Agreement on scientific and technical cooperation 16/07/2007 R&D No “This Agreement shall apply, on the one hand, to the territories in which the Treaty establishing the European Community is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty and, on the other hand, to the territory of the State of Israel.” ***
[This agreement has been superseded by the 2014 ‘Horizon 2020’ agreement.]
Technical arrangement adopted by the EU-Israel Customs Co-operation Committee 12/12/2004 Customs Partially “Requirement that all proofs of preferential origin covering imports from Israel under the provisions of the EU-Israel Association Agreement must indicate the imported goods’ place of production and an accompanying postcode. This is to ensure the full rate of Customs duty is payable on any consignment which is indicated as originating in an Israeli settlement so that it does not benefit from the reduced tariff by claiming Israeli preferential origin.” ***
[The territorial scope was confirmed in February 2010 by the CJEU’s ‘Brita’ judgement and subsequent EC regulations.
However, implementation of the Technical Arrangement remains deficient and unreliable given that Israeli authorities continue to enter “Israel” on the proofs of origin of all settlement products, making it hard and burdensome for EU member state customs to detect the settlement products based on postcodes.]
Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures and the replacement of Protocols Nos 1 and 2 to the EC-Israel Association Agreement 23/12/2003 Trade Partially *** [The territorial scope was confirmed in February 2010 by the CJEU’s ‘Brita’ judgement and subsequent EC regulations.
However, enforcement of the territorial clause remains deficient in some instances given that Israeli authorities continue to enter “Israel” on the proofs of origin of all products, including settlement products, as well as on the Certificates of Conformity with Marketing Standards.]
Agreement on good laboratory practice 26/07/1999 Scientific No Agreement on government procurement 10/07/1997 Procurement No “Shall apply to the same territories respectively of the EC and of Israel as the [1996 Government Procurement Agreement] GPA applies.” Agreement on procurement by telecommunications operators and on government procurement 10/07/1997 Telecommunications No Euro-Mediterranean agreement establishing an Association 20/11/1995 Association; Trade Partially [The territorial scope was confirmed in February 2010 by the CJEU’s ‘Brita’ judgement and subsequent EC regulations. However, enforcement of the territorial clause remains deficient in some instances given that Israeli authorities continue to enter “Israel” on the proofs of origin of all products, including settlement products, as well as on the Certificates of Conformity with Marketing Standards.]
-
Regulations and decisions
-
Business guidance
Date Link Information 12/06/2024 Common messages aimed at raising awareness among EU citizens and businesses regarding involvement in financial and economic activities in the settlements “The European Union and its Member States consider that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict impossible. The EU and its Member States will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties. The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights are territories which have been occupied by Israel since 1967. 16/05/2023 New code Y864 for goods imported into the EU with preferential origin from Israel “As from 16 May 2023, importers and economic operators involved in imports into the European Union of products originating in Israel, must declare the new code Y864 in box 44 of the import declaration, in addition to the code of the proof of origin, to benefit from the preferential tariff and quotas of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. “This new code indicate that the proof of origin held by the operator does not refer to a place that cannot benefit from the tariff reductions or preferential quotas established in the EU-Israel Association Agreement and allows EU Member States to collect statistics on trade with Israeli settlements located within the territories brought under Israeli administration since June 1967. If code Y864 is not included in the import declaration, the preferential tariff treatment will be refused.
“Notice on imports from Israel to the EU (C-232 03/08/2012) states that products produced in those settlements are not entitled to benefit from preferential tariff treatment under the EU-Israel Association Agreement and recalls that EUR.1 and invoice declarations issued or made out in Israel should bear the postal code and the name of the city, village, or industrial zone where production conferring originating status has taken place. The same applies to all movement certificates EUR-MED and invoice declarations EUR-MED that may be issued or made out in Israel for export to the EU on the basis of Protocol 4 to the EU – Israel Association Agreement.”
EU-Israel Technical Arrangement “Products produced in the Israeli settlements located within the territories brought under Israeli administration since June 1967 are not entitled to benefit from preferential tariff treatment under the EU-Israel Association Agreement (see Commission Notice to importers, OJ C 232 of 3 August 2012, page 5). “Since 1 February 2005, the exclusion of settlement goods from preferential treatment has been implemented in the EU as follows:
“- in accordance with a ‘Technical Arrangement’ concluded by the EU and Israel, the postal code and the name of the city, village or industrial zone where production conferring originating status has taken place appear on all proofs of preferential origin issued or made out in Israel;
“- Member States’ customs authorities check whether the postal codes appearing on Israeli proofs of origin presented to them correspond to any of the postal codes appearing in the list of non-eligible locations made available to them by the Commission and refuse preference where such is the case.
“The list of non-eligible locations initially made public in August 2012 has been updated further to Israel’s move, as of 1 February 2013, to a 7 digit postal code system instead of the 5 digit system used until then. A new update was made available, as of 1 June 2015, to take account of a number of changes in the postal codes of the non-eligible locations. Recent new changes of postal codes by Israel require a new update in 2018 of the previous list.
“See the updated list of non-eligible locations for available translations in the English/international version (update 28 of September 2018). The previous list (update of 1June 2015) remains available.
“To be noted:
“1) The list is available in a format allowing to carry out searches, using the ‘find’ command of Adobe Reader; this means that carefully entering in the ‘find’ box the first five digits of the postal code appearing on a proof of origin will allow to determine whether preference may be claimed or not.
“2) This list only exists in English (or more precisely with a transliteration of the Hebrew alphabet into the Latin/English alphabet).
“3) P.O. boxes are not a sufficiently reliable indication of the place where production conferring origin takes place and cannot be used to determine whether products may be eligible for preferential tariff treatment.
“Operators are advised to consult the list before lodging a customs declaration for releasing goods for free circulation in support of which they intend to provide proof of preferential origin issued or made out in Israel. If they find the postal code appearing on the proof of origin in their possession in Part I of the list of non-eligible locations, they should refrain from claiming preference.
“If they find the postal code appearing on the proof of origin in their possession in Part II of the list, they are advised to consult the customs office where they intend to lodge the relevant declaration for release for free circulation in order to verify the exact position, and thus eligibility for preference, of the place of production conferring originating status.”
28/09/2018 Updated list of Israeli settlement postcodes “The list below is drawn up for the purpose of determining whether products may be eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the EU-Israel Association Agreement (1). It applies as of 28/09/2018 and replaces the previous list which remains available on the webpage for consultation purposes. “PO boxes are not a sufficiently reliable indication of the place where production conferring origin takes place.
“Preferential tariff treatment will be refused to products for which the proof of origin indicates that the production conferring originating status has taken place in a locality within the territories brought under Israeli administration since June 1967, the postal code of which appears in Part I of the list.
“For postal codes of localities appearing in Part II of the list, importers are invited to consult the customs office where they intend to lodge the relevant declaration for release for free circulation in order to verify the exact position, and thus eligibility for preference, of the place of production conferring originating status.”
11/11/2015 Interpretative Notice on indication of origin of goods from the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 (2015/C 375/05) (‘Labelling Guidelines’), issued by the European Commission “The European Union, in line with international law, does not recognise Israel’s sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967, namely the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and does not consider them to be part of Israel’s territory, irrespective of their legal status under domestic Israeli law. The Union has made it clear that it will not recognise any changes to pre-1967 borders, other than those agreed by the parties to the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP). “The application of existing Union legislation on indication of origin of products to products originating in Israeli-occupied territories has been the subject of notices or guidance adopted by the relevant authorities of several Member States. There is indeed a demand for clarity from consumers, economic operators and national authorities about existing Union legislation on origin information of products from Israeli-occupied territories. The aim is also to ensure the respect of Union positions and commitments in conformity with international law on the non-recognition by the Union of Israel’s sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967. This notice also aims at maintaining open and smooth trade, is not hindering trade flows and should not be construed to do so.
“This Notice does not create any new legislative rules. While this Notice reflects the Commission’s understanding of the relevant Union legislation, enforcement of the relevant rules remains the primary responsibility of Member States. According to the case-law, while the choice of penalties remains within their discretion, Member States must ensure that penalties for infringements of provisions of Union law are effective, proportionate and dissuasive. The Commission ensures, as guardian of the Treaties, compliance with these obligations of Member States if need be by way of infringement proceedings. This Notice is without prejudice to other requirements established by Union legislation, and to the interpretation which the Court of Justice may provide.” [See also Fact Sheet]
01/06/2015 Updated list of Israeli settlement postcodes “The list below is drawn up for the purpose of determining whether products may be eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the EU-Israel Association Agreement (1). It applies as of 1/6/2015 and replaces the previous list which remains available on the webpage for consultation purposes. “Preferential tariff treatment will be refused to products for which the proof of origin indicates that the production conferring originating status has taken place in a locality within the territories brought under Israeli administration since June 1967, the postal code of which appears in Part I of the list.
“For postal codes of localities appearing in Part II of the list, importers are invited to consult the customs office where they intend to lodge the relevant declaration for release for free circulation in order to verify the exact position, and thus eligibility for preference, of the place of production conferring originating status.
“PO boxes are not a sufficiently reliable indication of the place where production conferring origin takes place.”
03/08/2012 Notice to importers: Imports from Israel into the EU 2012/C 232/03 “It is recalled that according to the arrangement between the EU and Israel for the implementation of Protocol 4 to the EU-Israel Association Agreement, all movement certificates EUR.1 and invoice declarations issued or made out in Israel bear, as from 1 February 2005, the postal code and the name of the city, village or industrial zone where production conferring originating status has taken place. The same applies to all movement certificates EUR-MED and invoice declarations EUR-MED that may be issued or made out in Israel for export to the EU on the basis of Protocol 4 to the EU-Israel Association Agreement as amended by Decision No 2/2005 of the EU-Israel Association Council. “Operators intending to present documentary evidence of origin with a view to securing preferential treatment for products originating in Israel are informed that the preferential treatment will be refused to the goods for which the proof of origin indicates that the production conferring originating status has taken place in a location within the territories brought under Israeli administration since June 1967.”
20/02/2005 Notice to importers: Imports from Israel into the EU (2005/C 20/02) “According to the Community, products coming from places brought under Israeli Administration since 1967 are not entitled to benefit from preferential tariff treatment under the EU-Israel Association Agreement. “Operators are informed that the EU and Israel have arrived to an arrangement for the implementation of Protocol 4 to the Agreement. As a result, all movement certificates EUR.1 and invoice declarations made out in Israel will bear, as from 1 February 2005 the name of the city, village or industrial zone where production conferring originating status has taken place.”
23/11/2001 Commission issues notice to traders importing goods from Israeli settlements “The European Commission has issued in the Official Journal of the European Communities a formal notice addressed to traders importing goods originating in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights that have been placed under Israeli administration since 1967. The notice indicates that the EU does not recognise these goods as being entitled to benefit from lower rates of customs duties under the EU/Israel Association Agreements. “The notice informs importers within the EU that the Israeli authorities have confirmed to the EU that they issue proofs of Israeli origin for products coming from places brought under Israeli Administration since 1967. Yet according to the European Community, these products are not entitled to benefit from preferential treatment under the EU/Israel Association Agreements. Products originating from Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights may become subject to the full rate of customs duties rather than duties at the preferential tariff treatment accorded by the EU/Israel Association Agreements.
“The Commission is under a legal obligation to publish such notices to inform importers whenever there are doubts that the terms of a preferential trade agreement are being implemented correctly. Such notices allow traders to be forewarned that they may subsequently be required to pay additional customs duties (i.e. the difference between the preferential rate of customs duty due under the terms of the Association Agreements and the full rate).
“In parallel, and in order to protect the financial interests of the Community (as customs duties form part of the ‘own resources’ of the Community), the Commission has notified the same information to the customs administrations of the fifteen Member States. The Commission invites Member States’ customs administrations to ask the importers to provide guarantees for the amount of additional customs duties that may become due subsequently. Member States are required to send back to Israel the certificates of origin for products whenever the products in question originate in Israeli settlements (or if they have reason to believe they may come from the settlements).
“The new notice replaces a notice issued on 8 November 1997 (O.J. C 338/97) that indicated that there were grounds for doubts about the validity of certificates for imports of orange juice from Israel.The new notice informs economic operators that the certificates for orange juice, found to be invalid, have since been withdrawn by Israel and that the necessary measures have been taken to allow administrative co-operation as foreseen in the agreements.”
23/11/2001 Notice to importers: Imports from Israel into the Community (2001/C 328/04) “In an earlier Notice to importers published on 8 November 1997 in Official Journal of the European Communities C 338 (page 13), operators were informed that there were grounds for doubts about the validity of EUR.1 movement certificates submitted to the Community for importations of orange juice coming from Israel, that there was a lack of effective administrative cooperation as foreseen in the different preferential agreements signed between the Community and Israel and of the existence of certain substantial errors in the application of the Agreements, to the extent that the validity of all preferential certificates issued by Israel were put in doubt. “Operators are informed that the EUR.1 movement certificates for orange juice, found to be invalid, have been withdrawn by Israel and that the necessary measures have been taken to allow administrative cooperation as foreseen in the Agreements.
“As to the substantial errors in the application of the Agreements, operators are informed that arising from the results of the verification procedures carried out, it is now confirmed that Israel issues proofs of origin for products coming from places brought under Israeli administration since 1967, which, according to the Community, are not entitled to benefit from preferential treatment under the Agreements.
“Community operators presenting documentary evidence of origin with a view to securing preferential treatment for products originating from Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, are informed that they must take all the necessary precautions and that putting the goods in free circulation may give rise to a customs debt.”
08/11/1997 Notice to importers: Importations from Israel into the Community (97/C 338/10) “Arising from facts revealed during joint inquiries carried out in Israel by the competent local authorities and an EU delegation made up of representatives of the Commission and some of the Member States it would seem that there are grounds for doubts about the validity of EUR.l movement certificates submitted to the Community in recent years for importations of orange juice coming from Israel. “This specific situation is aggravated by the fact that since the inquiry got under way, various elements have come to light which confirm a lack of effective administrative cooperation, as foreseen in the different preferential agreements signed between the Community and Israel, and in particular certain substantial errors in the application of those same agreements, to the extent that the validity of all preferential certificates issued by Israel, for all products, are put in doubt.
“Community operators submitting such certificates in order to receive preferential treatment are informed that they must take the necessary precautions from now on, bearing in mind that, should they prove invalid, such certificates have already engendered or could give rise to a customs debt.”
-
Official announcements
Date Link Statement 08/09/2023 Answer given by Mr Reynders on behalf of the European Commission General Data Protection Regulation “As indicated by the Honourable Member and as required by the General Data Protection Regulation[1], the adequacy decision for Israel is currently being reviewed as part of a periodic review of the 11 adequacy decisions adopted under the previous Data Protection Directive. […] “With respect to the territorial scope of application of the decision, Article 2 of the decision provides that it should be applied in accordance with international law.
“Therefore, the decision does not apply to the geographic areas that came under the administration of the State of Israel after 5 June 1967. As a consequence, it cannot be relied upon for transfers of personal data between the EU and the Occupied Territories. Moreover, Recital 14 of the decision further clarifies that ‘onward transfers to a recipient outside the State of Israel, as defined in accordance with international law, should be considered as transfers of personal data to a third country’.
“Moreover, Recital 14 of the decision further clarifies that ‘onward transfers to a recipient outside the State of Israel, as defined in accordance with international law, should be considered as transfers of personal data to a third country’.”
25/04/2024 Answer given by Mr Gentiloni on behalf of the European Commission on settlement trade “The information requested by the Honourable Member, concerning products originating in the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, is not available. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1470 of 12 October 2020 on the nomenclature of countries and territories for the European statistics on international trade in goods and on the geographical breakdown for other business statistics, provides a single geographical code ‘PS’ (Occupied Palestinian Territory), that applies to both the imports referred to in the question and those coming from other parts of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip.” 07/08/2023 Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on Europol “Since their launch in 2021, considerable progress has been made in the negotiations between the EU and Israel for an agreement on the exchange of personal information between European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and Israel. “Like for the similar agreement with New Zealand, which was welcomed by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) as a ‘model’ for future agreements, one of the main objectives is to ensure that such exchanges of personal data are accompanied by sufficient data protection safeguards, taking into account all relevant domestic aspects.
“In the case of Israel, it is mandatory to ensure that the agreement respects the EU’s consolidated position on territorial application by not applying to the geographic areas that came under the administration of the State of Israel after 5 June 1967.
“In this respect, as explained by the Commission in the meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of the European Parliament on 5 December 2022, the provisions on the territorial application in the draft text remains under discussion and the negotiations with Israel continue to find a mutually acceptable agreement.”
10/05/2023 European Parliament resolution: Discharge 2021: EU general budget
“Expressing its commitment to ensure that all agreements between Israel and the Union must unequivocally and explicitly indicate the inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, as well as to continue the effective implementation of existing Union law and bilateral arrangements applicable to settlement products” 28/07/2022 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Borrell i Fontelles on behalf of the European Commission on natural gas MoU “The EU is committed to ensure that all agreements between the State of Israel and the EU must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. This is in line with United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution 2334, which calls on all United Nations states to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967. “The Memorandum of Understanding [on cooperation related to trade, transport and export of natural gas to the European Union] that was signed on 15 June 2022 is of non-binding nature, for which, because of this non-binding nature, in general no territorial clause on the applicability is deemed necessary.
“Nevertheless, the EU is strictly prohibited, also in the implementation of a non-binding instrument, from acting in a way, which would amount to recognise the illegal Israeli occupation.
“Therefore, the implementation of such Memorandum of Understanding will not apply in any form to the occupied Palestinian territory, which entails that Israeli supplies of natural gas as per the implementation of the memorandum of understanding may not originate from resources appropriated from Palestinian territories occupied by Israel.”
13/04/2021 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission on Twinning projects “Financing agreements for Twinning projects with Israel include a territorial clause that indicates their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. They are also subject to the guidelines on the eligibility of Israeli entities and their activities in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 for grants, prizes and financial instruments funded by the EU.” 10/03/2021 Answer given by Mr Reynders on behalf of the European Commission on adequacy decision “As noted by the Honourable Members, the adequacy decision regarding Israel provides, at Article 2, that it should be applied in accordance with international law. “This article shall be read in light of Recital 14 that further clarifies that ‘the adequacy findings pertaining to this decision refer to the State of Israel, as defined in accordance with international law’ and that ‘onward transfers to a recipient outside the State of Israel, as defined in accordance with international law, should be considered as transfers of personal data to a third country’.
“This means that the territorial scope of application of this decision is limited to the internationally recognised, pre-1967 borders of the State of Israel. It also means that this decision cannot be relied upon for transfers of personal data between the EU and the Occupied Territories.
“Under Article 58 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), national data protection authorities have notably the power to suspend data flows to a recipient in a third State if not in line with the requirements of EU data protection law.
“As regards the ongoing review of the adequacy decision, such a review, as required by the article 45 and Article 97 of the GDPR, will evaluate all relevant aspects of the functioning of the adequacy decision.
“It will in particular draw on the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU and the guidance provided by the European Data Protection Board.”
07/07/2020 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Borrell
on behalf of the European Commission on rules of origin“The control and enforcement of the correct implementation of EU rules regarding indication of origin is the primary responsibility of the Member States. “The Commission is not in possession of detailed statistics on goods imported from Israeli settlements to the EU, as requested by the Honourable Member.
“The Commission monitors the implementation of EC law by the Member States with a variety of tools in line with its communication on ‘EC law: Better Results through Better Application’(3). Infringement procedures are measures of last resort in the event of, inter alia, systematic breaches of EC law.”
30/06/2020 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Borrell
on behalf of the European Commission on labelling“The European Court of Justice ruling provides for authoritative interpretation, which is binding for the referring court, and which must be followed by the EU institutions as well as by authorities and courts in all the Member States. “The control and enforcement of the correct implementation of EU rules regarding indication of origin is the primary responsibility of the Member States. The Commission monitors the implementation of EU law by the Member States with a variety of tools in line with its Communication on “EU Law: Better Results through Better Application””
05/03/2020 Answer given by Ms Gabriel
on behalf of the Commission relating to the implementation of Horizon 2020“Article 19 of the Horizon 2020 Framework Regulation provides that all the research and innovation activities carried out under Horizon 2020 must comply with ethical principles and relevant national, Union and international legislation, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights and its Supplementary Protocols. Research and innovation activities carried out under Horizon 2020 must have an exclusive focus on civil applications . “Horizon 2020 projects are being closely monitored by the Commission services. This includes a rigorous ethical evaluation through the Horizon 2020 ethics appraisal scheme. This practice is expected to continue under Horizon Europe and further measures could be considered at implementation level once legislation becomes stable.
“In the GEO-CRADLE proposal there was no indication that the Tel Aviv University, one of the partners, intended to take soil samples in occupied territories or cooperate with stakeholders in these areas. Once the violation was detected, the Commission immediately took action recalling the rules to the coordinator who instructed Tel Aviv University to stop cooperation with Ariel University and Golan Heights Winery.
“The project excluded all soil samples in question and did not recognise any related activity for collecting them in the occupied territories. Costs claimed for these activities and the subsequent rectification were considered not eligible and therefore not covered by EU funding.”
12/11/2019 Judgment of the Court, Case C‑363/18, Organisation juive européenne, Vignoble Psagot Ltd v the French Minister for Economy and Finances “Article 9(1)(i) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, read in conjunction with Article 26(2)(a) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that foodstuffs originating in a territory occupied by the State of Israel must bear not only the indication of that territory but also, where those foodstuffs come from a locality or a group of localities constituting an Israeli settlement within that territory, the indication of that provenance.” 13/06/2019 Opinion of the Advocate General Hogan, Case C‑363/18, Organisation juive européenne, Vignoble Psagot Ltd v the French Minister for Economy and Finances “In my view, the reference to ‘ethical considerations’ in the context of country of origin labelling is plainly a reference to those wider ethical considerations which may inform the thinking of certain consumers prior to purchase. Just as many European consumers objected to the purchase of South African goods in the pre-1994 apartheid era, present day consumers may object on similar grounds to the purchase of goods from a particular country because, for example, it is not a democracy or because it pursues particular political or social policies which that consumer happens to find objectionable or even repugnant. (…) “Indeed, adherence to the requirements of international law is regarded by many — and not just by a limited cadre of experts specialising in the field of international law and diplomacy — as playing a vital role in the maintenance of international peace and security and as a harbinger of justice in an otherwise unjust world. This is perhaps especially true in the context of the citizens of the Union who, even within the lifetime of some, witnessed the destructive impact of brute force in an era where some countries had come to believe that international law was simply an empty promise to the oppressed and vulnerable of the world and that it could be disregarded with impunity. (…)
“Accordingly, I propose that the Court should answer to the first question referred by the Conseil d’État (Council of State, France) as follows:
“Article 9(1)(i) and Article 26(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, require, for a product originating in a territory occupied by Israel since 1967, the indication of the geographical name of this territory and the indication that the product comes from an Israeli settlement if that is indeed the case. (…)”
05/07/2018 Letter by HR/VP Federica Mogherini to Israel’s Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan (via Haaretz) “The European Union has not changed its position regarding the so-called ‘Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions’ (‘BDS’) movement. While it upholds its policy of clearly distinguishing between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied by it since 1967, the EU rejects any attempts to isolate Israel and does not support calls for boycott.” 11/06/2018 Answer given by Mr Avramopoulos on behalf of the Commission relating to Israel’s participation in Europol “Paragraph (6) of the annex to the recommendation for a Council decision authorising the opening of negotiations for an agreement between the European Union and the State of Israel on the exchange of personal data between the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and the Israeli competent authorities for fighting serious crime and terrorism clearly states that the agreement shall not apply to the geographic areas that came under the administration of the State of Israel after 5 June 1967. This is in line with the EU position on the Middle East Peace Process, as stated in the Council Conclusions of 10 December 2012. “The Commission has also proposed to the Council that the agreement should contain the provisions necessary to ensure effective monitoring and evaluation of the agreement, including the implementation of the provisions related to the non-application of the agreement to the geographic areas that came under the administration of the State of Israel after 5 June 1967.”
13/06/2017 Answer given by Vice-President Mogherini on behalf of the Commission on financial transactions “While the EU institutions and bodies do not have access to the financial information and financial transactions between EU-based financial institutions and those based in Israel, the EU remains committed to ensure that, in line with international law, all agreements between the State of Israel and the EU must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. “While this does not constitute in any way a boycott of Israel, which the EU strongly opposes, the EU considers that Israeli settlements in territories occupied by Israel since 1967 are illegal under international law, and thus constitute an obstacle to peace that threatens to make a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict impossible. The EU will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties, and will continue to distinguish between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.
“The EU considers that all companies (including European ones with interests in the occupied Palestinian territory) should in all circumstances implement the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights as endorsed by consensus in the United Nations Human Rights Council.
“EU Member States have the primary responsibility for raising awareness among European citizens and businesses of the Guiding Principles, and of the potential risks related to economic and financial activities in these illegal Israeli settlements.”
18/04/2017 Statement to the United Nations Security Council on behalf of the EU and its Member States, including Candidate Countries Montenegro and Albania “The EU will continue to distinguish, in its relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967. As for Jerusalem, the EU will continue to respect the international consensus embodied in resolution 478(1980). A way must be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of both States.” 23/03/2016 Final report of an audit carried out in Israel from 22 November 2015 to 25 November 2015 in order to evaluate the follow-up actions taken by the CA on the application of organic production rules and on the effectiveness of the control system for organic production “Summary of 2013 Audit “DG Health and Food Safety carried out an audit on the control system for organic production in Israel in 2013 (DG(SANCO)/2013-6697). The report of the audit was published on its website (http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/audit_reports/details.cfm?rep_id=3109).
“The audit concluded that the control system provided sufficient guarantees that organic products exported to the EU complied with organic production rules recognised as equivalent, except the origin of products. The audit had found that exports of organic produce from Israel to the EU included consignments produced or processed in the Israeli settlements outside Israel’s internationally recognized borders of 1967, and from Non-EU Countries which are not recognised as equivalent by the EU. This was contrary to the specifications set out for Israel in Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008. Some further shortcomings were detected that weakened the control system. In response to the audit report recommendations, Israel submitted a satisfactory action plan.
“Recommendation No 4 of the report was to “ensure compliance with the specifications for which Israel is listed in Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 and in particular that organic products are exported to the EU only originating from Israel, the EU or from a Non-EU Country recognised as equivalent in accordance with the provisions of Article 33(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007.” In a subsequent letter to DG AGRI, Israel gave further assurances for corrective action regarding this recommendation.
“The CA, CB, and organic operators visited by the auditor stated that the commodities concerned by this recommendation had been mainly dates produced in the Jordan valley (in the West Bank outside Israel’s borders of 1967), and sesame seed imported from Ethiopia for the production of sesame paste (tahini). The export of organic dates to the EU comprised 1,742 tonnes in 2014.
“The exporter of dates visited in this audit stated that since 2013 his clients in the EU stopped accepting organic dates from outside the 1967 borders. This indicates that separately from the official controls, the trade has taken measures to the same effect.
“Overall Conclusions of 2015 Audit
“Israel implemented effective measures to ensure that exports of organic produce to the EU under the equivalence recognition originate only within Israel’s internationally recognized borders of 1967, from the EU or from other third countries recognised as equivalent. These measures are in line with Israel’s assurances given to the EU on 30 January 2014: the CA [Competent Authority] revised their guidelines for control bodies, who effectively changed their inspection procedures accordingly. The CA confirmed implementation of the revised guidelines in inspections of organic operators, and provided additional assurances by regularly updating and cross-checking their list of operators used for issuing of certificates of inspection.”
18/01/2016 Council Conclusion (FAC) on the Middle East Peace Process “The EU and its Member States are committed to ensure continued, full and effective implementation of existing EU legislation and bilateral arrangements applicable to settlements products. The EU expresses its commitment to ensure that – in line with international law – all agreements between the State of Israel and the EU must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. This does not constitute a boycott of Israel which the EU strongly opposes.” 23/12/2015 Letter by HR/VP Federica Mogherini to Congressman Doug Lamborn and the signatories of the letter of 9 November “The EU has decided to make the necessary distinction between Israeli settlments in the occupied territories on the one hand, and Israel within its pre-1967 borders on the other, which has allowed the development of our bilateral relations within the framework of the 1995 Association Agreement.” 10/09/2015 European Parliament resolution on the EU’s role in the Middle East peace process (2015/2685(RSP)) “Welcomes the EU’s commitment – in the spirit of differentiation between Israel and its activities in the occupied Palestinian Territory – to ensuring that all agreements between the EU and Israel must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, as reiterated in the Foreign Affairs Council conclusions of 20 July 2015; takes note of the Commission Guidelines of 19 July 2013 on the eligibility of Israeli entities and their activities in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 for grants, prizes and financial instruments funded by the EU from 2014 onwards, and of the letter sent to the VP/HR by 16 EU Foreign Ministers on 13 April 2015, encouraging her to take the lead within the Commission with a view to completing the work on EU-wide guidelines on the labelling of Israeli settlement produce” 20/07/2015 Council Conclusion (FAC) on the Middle East Peace Process “The EU and its Member States reaffirm their commitment to ensure continued, full and effective implementation of existing EU legislation and bilateral arrangements applicable to settlement products. The EU expresses its commitment to ensure that – in line with international law – all agreements between the State of Israel and the EU must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967.” 15/06/2015 Answer to parliamentary question on the EU response to illegal annexations “The EU closely monitors the situation and its broader implications and remains ready to take further action in order to protect the viability of the two state solution. Two relevant examples would be the recent withdrawal of import authorisations for organic products from Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and the EU’s request for Israel to take the appropriate measures in order to ensure that Israel’s competent authorities do not issue certificates for export to the EU to establishments and farms supplying products of animal origin situated beyond the Green Line, and that the list of establishments and farms is modified accordingly. “Furthermore, Israeli settlement products do not benefit from preferential tariff treatment under the EU-Israel Association Agreement, and this is ensured through a ‘Technical Arrangement’ concluded by the EU and Israel, which identifies the Israeli settlements in question[5]. On 3 August 2012, the Commission published, with effect as of 13 August 2012, a revised Notice to Importers (see OJ C 232, page 5) concerning imports from Israel into the Union.
“The EU is committed to reviewing all import regulations that require documentation indicating origin, and to ensuring that EU legality is fully enforced in this regard.”
13/04/2015 Letter by 16 EU Foreign Ministers to HR/VP Federica Mogherini calling for guidelines on the labelling of settlement produce/products “We would like to draw your attention to the letter dated 13th April 2013 sent to your predecessor on EU wide guidelines on the labelling of settlement produce/products. Following the public commitment made by the Council in May and December 2012 and more recently in November 2014, we remain of the view that this is an important step in the full implementation of EU longstanding policy, in relation to the preservation of the two-state solution. (…)” 17/11/2014 Council Conclusion (FAC) on the Middle East Peace Process “Recalling that settlements are illegal under international law, the EU and its Member States remain committed to ensure continued, full and effective implementation of existing EU legislation and bilateral arrangements applicable to settlement products. The EU closely monitors the situation and its broader implications and remains ready to take further action in order to protect the viability of the two state solution.” 13/08/2014 Letter from Israel’s Ministry of Agriculture to Israeli producers of dairy and animal products Via Maariv news: “In a letter sent this week to all managers of dairy and dairy factories authorized to export milk and dairy products in Israel, the Ministry of Agriculture ordered that milk, dairy products and animal products be separated immediately into two groups: the source of the products supplied to them beyond the Green Line. “It turns out that despite month long efforts from the Ministries of Agriculture and Economy, the European Commission of the European Union decided to ban the import of milk and dairy products from Israel that are somehow related to factories, dairies or farms located beyond the Green Line.
“The European decision was handed over to Israel in February. Since then efforts have been made to dissuade the Europeans from doing so, but they have failed. A letter from the European Union at the end of last month stated that the decision was finally approved and would come into force in September.”
20/05/2014 Comments by EU Ambassador to Israel Lars Faaborg-Andersen “We have implemented our policy when it comes to settlements, which is a policy of disengagement from settlements. We feel, as you know, that settlements are illegal under international law and they are an obstacle to the peace process. And for that reason, we have taken certain decisions, including to ensure that no European tax payers’ money has been in settlements. Settlements are really an obstacle to the economic development of the Palestinian territories.” 10/04/2014 Final report of an audit carried out in Israel from 24 november to 05 December 2013 in order to evaluate the operation of controls over raw milk and dairy products intended for human consumption and infant formulae and follow-on formulae (including the supply chain), destined for export to the European Union, issued by the European Commission “Raw materials (milk powders) were only sourced from EU listed establishments. However, in most cases, procedures and awareness were not fully adequate. According to the CCA, the export of dairy products takes place only from EU listed establishments. However, three facilities were used for the intermediate cold storage although they were not EU-listed. (…) “Although exports only take place from EU listed establishments, storage under controlled temperature conditions takes place in some cases in facilities outside the EU listed establishments, which are not EU listed, contrary to the requirements of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.”
01/04/2014 Letter to the Director of the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Nadav Galon enclosing Final Report, from Michael Scannel, Director of the European Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office “Subject: FVO audit in Israel carried out from 24 November 2013 to 5 December 2013 in order to evaluate the operation of controls over raw milk and dairy products intended for human consumption and infant formulae and follow on formulae (including the supply chain), destined for export to the European Union “Dear Dr Galon,
“I enclose a copy of the final report (ref. no. DG(SANCO)/2013-6890 – MR Final) of the above-mentioned audit.
“I would like to take this opportunity to ask you to thank all the personnel who were involved in this audit for the assistance and co-operation shown to the team.
“I would like to acknowledge receipt of your letter 9 March 2014, in response to the draft audit report in which you indicated the action already taken in relation to the recommendations contained in the report.
“The attached table contains the recommendations made following the above audit, your responses to these recommendations and an assessment of these responses. I am pleased to note that the actions proposed address all of the recommendations made. However, your response in relation to recommendation No 2 is incomplete as no deadline is given for completion of the proposed actions. […]
“end: Report DG(SANCO)/2013-6890 – MR Final; FVO assessment of competent authority Action Plan“
12/03/2014 Annex in reply to Michael Scannel, Director of the European Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office, from the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development “Action to be taken by the Israeli Competent Authority: A circular demanding that all sources of animal products to dairy products destined to the EU market will originate only from European Union listed sources complying with relevant European Union requirements was issued by the head of Control of-Animal Product Department of the IVSAH on the 18/02/2014.” 01/02/2014 Letter to the Director of the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Nadav Galon enclosing Draft Report, from Michael Scannel, Director of the European Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office “Subject: FVO audit in Israel from 24 November 2013 to 05 December 2013 in order to evaluate the operation of controls over raw milk and dairy products intended for human consumption and infant formulae and follow-on formulae (including the supply chain), destined for export to the European Union “Dear Dr Galon,
“Followmg the completion of the above FVO audit, I enclose a copy of the draft report, reference number: DG(SANCO)/2013-6890 – MR Draft.
“Any comments that you may wish to make on the factual content, or other elements, of the report should be sent to the Commission within 25 working days of its receipt. […]
“The audit team identified certain deficiencies in respect of the standards being applied. Your services were informed of these deficiencies during the audit and in the final meeting.
“I would be grateful if you could provide details of any actions taken or planned, mcluding deadlines for their completion, to address the recommendations contained in the report. […]
“end.: Report DG(SANCO)/2013-6890- MR Draft; Table for CA response to recommendations“
09/12/2013 Letter regarding arrangements for implementing Commission Notice Nr.2013/C-205/05 to Director General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State of Israel Nissim Ben-Shetrit, from Executive Secretary General of the European Action Service Pierre Vimont “In the cases where EU legislation establishing the respective EU programme requires the signature of an agreement (Memorandum of Understanding) to enable the participation of the State of Israel in this programme, the EU side will propose the following text for inclusion in the agreement (MoU): “In accordance with EU policy, this agreement shall not apply to the geographic areas that came under the administration of the State of Israel after 5th June 1967. This position should not be constituted as prejudicing Israel’s principled position on this matter. Accordingly, the Parties agree that the application of this agreement is without prejudice to the status of those areas.””
19/07/2013 Guidelines on the eligibility of Israeli entities and their activities in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 for grants, prizes and financial instruments funded by the EU from 2014 onwards (2013/C 205/05), issued by the European Commission. “These guidelines set out the conditions under which the Commission will implement key requirements for the award of EU support to Israeli entities or to their activities in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967. Their aim is to ensure the respect of EU positions and commitments in conformity with international law on the non-recognition by the EU of Israel’s sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967. These guidelines are without prejudice to other requirements established by EU legislation.” “The territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 comprise the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The EU does not recognise Israel’s sovereignty over any of the territories (…)
“These guidelines apply to EU support in the form of grants, prizes or financial instruments”. [See fact sheet]
10/07/2013 Final report of an audit carried out in Israel from 24 February to 07 March 2013 in order to evaluate the application of organic production rules, the effectiveness of the control system for organic production and the supervision carried out by the competent authority “The import procedures and the control system in place do not ensure that only products originating from Israel, the EU and TCs [Third Countries] recognised by the EU for the purpose of equivalence are exported from Israel to the EU contrary to the specifications set out for Israel in Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008.” [Israeli response: this issue is still under discussion between the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and
the EU Commission. Once the issue is solved at this level the Administration will submit the proposed actions.]12/04/2013 Letter by 13 EU Foreign Ministers to HR/VP Catherine Ashton calling for guidelines on the labelling of settlement produce/products “We warmly welcome your commitment to work with fellow Commissioners to prepare EU-wide guidelines on the labelling of settlement produce. This is an important step to ensure correct and coherent implementation of EU consumer protection and labelling legislation (…). You asked for enhanced efforts on the part of Member States’ authorities in the full and effective implementation of existing legislation. We will circulate your letter to our ministries and enforcement bodes, underlining the offer of cooperation with our competent authorities made by the EEAS and the Commission.” 10/12/2012 Council Conclusion (FAC) on the Middle East Peace Process “Recalling its parameters for the resumption of negotiations between the parties, as set out in previous Council Conclusions, including in December 2009, December 2010 and May 2011, the European Union reiterates that it will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties. The European Union expresses its commitment to ensure that – in line with international law – all agreements between the State of Israel and the European Union must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, namely the Golan Heights, the West Bank including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.” 02/10/2012 Answer given by by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission concerning the rules for participation in Horizon 2020 “Although the reference to the place of establishment was eliminated from the ‘legal entity’ definition, it has been maintained in other important provisions such as the minimum conditions for participation of legal entities and funding articles. In this sense, the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme continues the seventh framework programme (FP7) approach. “The FP7 Rules for participation do not contain requirements as regards the place where research should be carried out.
“The Commission confirms the position it has set out in earlier replies (questions 9280 and 9975 of 2011), that the Commission fully respects EU policy which does not recognise Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights, and acts in consequence with respect to all activities involving bilateral or regional cooperation programmes involving Israel. It intends to issue a reminder of EU policy together with precise operational guidance on this matter, to all Directorates-General and agencies involved in potential cooperation with Israel. These guidelines will be in place for the Horizon 2020 programme.”
03/07/2012 Answer given by Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission, to parliamentary question “Madam President, thank you for the opportunity to clarify outstanding issues regarding the Agreement on conformity assessment and acceptance (ACAA) between Israel and the EU. “Let me start by recalling what an ACAA is about. Its objective is to eliminate barriers to trade, through allowing products covered by the agreement to enter the markets of the parties without additional conformity assessment procedures, resulting in mutual recognition of conformity assessment and inspection results, which will reduce costs and time for economic operators.
“This is typically a response to technical barriers to trade. The Commission considers that the current ACAA text is compliant with the Lisbon Treaty and international law and that no change or renegotiation is necessary. The Commission would like to provide the following assurances to the Parliament:
“First, the ACAA is a Protocol to the EU-Israel association agreement. Therefore, while not defining it, its scope of application is the same as set out in Article 83 of the association agreement. As it results from international obligations of the EU and as confirmed by the European Court of Justice in 2010 in the Brita case, the EU does not recognise Israeli jurisdiction over the territories placed under Israeli administration after 1967. The Commission will observe this position in the implementation of the ACAA.
“Secondly, when the agreement enters into force, the Commission will have to acknowledge under Article 9 of the ACAA the responsible Israeli authority which will have to deliver conformity certificates. This acknowledgement will not entail any recognition of Israeli jurisdiction over territories placed under Israeli administration after 1967.
“You can also rest assured that, upon receipt of the Israeli notification of its responsible authority, the Commission will expressly state that acknowledgement is granted only on the basis that the territory covered by the responsible authority does not include the territories brought under Israeli administration in 1967.
“Separately, I would like to recall that the ACAAs are not based on the product origin but on mutual trust in the quality of the certification and inspection bodies. ACAAs recognise that certifiers in third countries certify industrial products in the same way as in EU Member States. In practice, the EU will recognise whatever product is certified by Israel, whatever its origin, Israeli or not.
“For practical reasons, and for reasons of compliance with WTO’s non-discrimination rules, these agreements cannot discriminate or exclude on the basis of origin. This is also in line with the EU acquis.
“These rules also apply under the ACAA to the Israeli Responsible Authority, which could – under certain conditions – certify not only Israeli products but also those from third countries once the ACAA is in force. In the same vein, Israeli and EU Member State Responsible Authorities could also certify products from the occupied territories.
“However, as stated before, this does not and cannot imply any recognition of Israel’s jurisdiction over these territories. According to information received from Israeli authorities and NGOs, there is currently no pharmaceutical production in Israeli settlements. Therefore, Israel cannot discriminate against Palestinian products in the certification process because Israel will have to apply the EU acquis.
“Like any EU Member State, Israel must carry out inspections irrespective of the origin of the product when a request is received. If there were cases of discrimination, the Palestinian manufacturer could lodge a complaint with the Israeli judicial authorities. Of course, the Commission could also use existing means under the association agreement to ensure that Israel implements the ACAA.
“Turning to the 2005 Technical Arrangement which allows the EU to identify and deny preferential treatment under the association agreement to goods produced in areas beyond Israel’s pre-1967 borders, it must be recalled that preferential treatment in terms of customs tariffs is an entirely different issue to conformity assessment and that the origin of the product fully keeps its relevance when the certified product is to enter the territory of the EU.
“There have been cases of abuse, which have been detected and tackled appropriately, but they are few and insignificant in volume of trade. The Commission is presently working on a modification of the system, including the publication of a list of settlement codes, which will increase awareness of EU importers and will allow customs authorities to verify these declarations more effectively.
“Finally, the Foreign Affairs Council, on 14 May, held a substantive discussion on the Middle East peace process and agreed, inter alia, that the EU will assess whether existing legislation, in particular, in the area of labelling, is being fully and effectively implemented.”
14/05/2012 Council Conclusion (FAC) on the Middle East Peace Process “The EU reiterates that it will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties. The EU and its Member States reaffirm their commitment to fully and effectively implement existing EU legislation and the bilateral arrangements applicable to settlement products. The Council underlines the importance of the work being carried out together with the Commission in this regard.” 16/02/2012 European Parliament resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin “Notes that the EU and EFTA member states each have a Technical Arrangement with Israel which deals with the issue of territoriality and which, to a limited extent, offers some solutions; takes the view that the solutions offered by these Technical Arrangements are not satisfactory; points out, moreover, that these Technical Arrangements do not bind the other parties to the regional Convention; is worried, therefore, that the regional Convention might give rise to a proliferation of situations in which other Contracting Parties encounter difficulties in securing cumulation under their agreements with the EU when working and processing in their own territories products imported under their agreements with Israel; “Calls on the Commission to review and, if necessary, renegotiate the Technical Arrangement with the intention of making it more effective and simple; asks the Commission to seek a solution that would also be applicable to goods imported from third parties that have cumulated working or processing in their own territory with materials imported under their agreements with Israel; asks the Commission to promote the incorporation of provisions conducive to the uniform application of the principle of territoriality by all contracting parties as part of any future revision of the regional Convention; (…)
“Urges the Member States to ensure that their customs authorities effectively apply the Technical Arrangement and the spirit of the judgment of the European Court of Justice to Israeli cumulated products entering the EU under the diagonal cumulation provided for in the regional Convention; believes that the Commission should take the lead in coordinating such EU-wide efforts and should also take steps to create awareness among the customs authorities of the individual EU Member States as to how the Technical Arrangement should be applied to Israeli cumulated products; believes that the EU customs authorities should scrutinise the application of the Technical Arrangement more effectively in order to prevent abuse of the system of preferences.”
25/02/2010 CJEU judgment: Firma Brita GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen (C-386/08) “The European Union takes the view that products obtained in locations which have been placed under Israeli administration since 1967 do not qualify for the preferential treatment provided for under that agreement. (…) “It is clear, both from Article 17 of the EC-Israel Protocol and from Article 15 of the EC-PLO Protocol, that proof of origin must be produced in respect of products originating in the territories of the contracting parties if they are to qualify for the preferential treatment. (…)
“The customs authorities of the importing Member State may refuse to grant the preferential treatment provided for under the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, signed in Brussels on 20 November 1995, where the goods concerned originate in the West Bank.(…)” [Analysis]
12/05/1998 Implementation of the interim agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community and Israel, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament “Article 38 of the EC-Israel Interim Agreement on Trade and Trade-related matters specifics that it applies to the territory of the Member States or the European Community and “to the territory of the State of Israel”. “No further definition or that notion is contained in the Agreement or was made in the context of its signature. The territorial scope of application of the the 1995 Association Agreement, currently under ratification, is defined under identical terms.
“The question arises whether Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are part of the State of Israel. Israel has unilaterally annexed hoth East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and thus, as a matter of Israeli law, they form part of the State of Israel. For Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip which have not been formally annexed, Israeli jurisdiction applies in practice.
“However, the international community and international public law take a different view. All relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions lead to the conclusion that neither Israeli settlements in the West Bank. and Gaza Strip, nor East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. can be considered as part of the State of Israel. In addition, the UN General Assembly has adopted many resolutions on the same matters that go beyond the Security Council positions.
“Even if not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, these United Nations Security Council resolutions may be regarded as legally binding, or at least as an authoritative interpretation or international law. In addition the European Union has consistently endorsed the principles enshrined in all relevant Security Council resolutions, notably in the 1980 Venice declaration, the October 1996 Luxembourg Council declaration, the December 1996 declaration of the Dublin European Council and the June 1997 Amsterdam “‘Call for Peace”.
“Pending a permanent status solution it must therefore be concluded that the territorial scope or application of the EC-Israel Interim Agreement on Trade and Trade-related matters is limited to Israel’s pre-1967 borders, thus leaving out Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the unilaterally annexed areas of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
“Given this, the EC-Israel Agreement covers neither exports originating in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip nor exports originating in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Preferential access for such exports would contravene the Protocol on rules of origin annexed to the agreement.
“The Commission has grounds to believe that these violations are taking place at present. In this respect, the European Community should take steps to verify the accuracy of this information according to the procedures of the EC-Israel Interim Agreement.
“Should the violation be confirmed, the European Community should take action to bring them to an end.”
May 1998 EU Bulletin: Commission communication to the Council and Parliament on the implementation of the interim agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community and Israel. “There were indications that the Protocol on Rules of Origin to the EC-Israel interim agreement, concluded pending ratification of the Euro-Mediterranean agreement with Israel, was not being properly applied. The Commission suspected in particular that products originating in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or in Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip were being exported to the European Union as if they originated in Israel. Pointing out that, in line with international law, the EU considered none of these territories to be part of the State of Israel, that the interim agreement applied to the territory of Israel within its pre-1967 borders, and that products originating in the Palestinian Territories were covered by the EC-PLO interim association agreement, the Commission stated that the European Union would take steps to verify the allegations according to the procedures agreed with Israel as a follow-up to the Cooperation Committee, and emphasised that, should violations of the Protocol on Rules of Origin be confirmed, they should be brought to an end.” -
Business and Human Rights (BHR) news
Date Information March 2021 The Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) publishes a new report: “Tainted Tourism: International Tourism and Israel’s Illicit Settlement Economy in Palestinian and Syrian Territories”. The report “explains the ways in which package tourism companies are implicated in the settlement economy, calls on tour operators to remove settlement sites from their itineraries and to halt deceptive marketing practices…” April 2020 European Commissioner for Justice, Didier Reynders, commits to a legislative initiative on mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence obligations for EU companies in early 2021. This which will include liability and enforcement mechanisms and access to remedy provisions for victims of corporate abuse. December 2019 Via Arutz Sheva: “[Israel’s] Bank Leumi has issued loans in cooperation with the European Union Investment Fund to companies and businesses that do not operate beyond the Green Line. (…) “one of the clauses in the agreement on which the EIF signs its customers expressly states that Israeli customers of the Bank operating or residing outside the June 1967 lines, including all of Judea and Samaria [West Bank], East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip, will not be able to enjoy the guarantees and the discounted credit.”
October 2019 As part of a twinning project with the EU to improve Israel’s waste management system [see March 2019], the Israeli government issues a tender for the first of several waste-to-energy (WtE) facilities – to be built in the West Bank settlement of Ma’ale Adumim settlement. March 2019 The European Commission publishes a call for tenders for the project “Establishing a regulatory framework, supporting the implementation of the national strategy and strengthening institutional capacities in the field of waste management”. The project includes a budget of €1,500,000 for the benefit tof the Israel Ministry of Environmental Protection and is part of an EU funded twinning instrument led by Spain. Annex C9 of the project document clarifies that “In line with the generally established EU policy regarding Israel, the activities implemented within this Twinning project should exclusively take place in the pre-1967 territory of Israel.” However, according to a Haaretz from August 2018: “The government is promoting a plan costing billions of shekels for a variety of environmental programs throughout the West Bank. Among other things, the plan will advance the construction of a large waste recycling facility in the area of Mishor Adumim, east of Jerusalem, where waste from inside Jerusalem will be sent to be treated and recycled.
“MK Mossi Raz (Meretz) argued that the plan is an attempt to divert budgets to the settlements. “Although at first glance it looks as though the ministry wants to protect the environment, the government plans clearly demonstrate that the goal is to prepare the ground for annexation. The building of infrastructure in the occupied territories by the state, without cooperation from the PA, deepends [sic] Israeli control in the territories, and thereby in effect is bringing us even closer to the day when the Israeli government will annex the territories.”
“The government has already attained approval for constructing a waste recycling facility in the Ma’aleh Adumim area of the West Bank, on state lands. Between 700 and 800 million shekels ($200 million) will be devoted to this facility, funded by the Environmental Protection Ministry, the Jerusalem municipality and the Ma’aleh Adumim municipality.”
November 2018 Answer given by Mr Moedas on behalf of the European Commission on AHAVA participation in Horizon 2020: “The participation of Israeli entities in Horizon 2020 is governed by the Agreement between the EU and the State of Israel on the participation of the State of Israel in the Union programme ‘Horizon 2020 — the framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)’. The agreement makes the participation of Israeli entities subject to Horizon 2020 rules, which includes the applicability of the Commission Notice Nr. 2013/C-205/05EU (the Guidelines).
“Ahava-Dead Sea Laboratories Ltd (AHAVA) participates in one Horizon 2020 project.[12] Activities carried out by AHAVA in the frame of this project may not take place in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967. AHAVA does have operations in the settlement Mitzpeh Shalem, located in Occupied Territories as well as in the Kibbutz Ein Gedi, located within Israel’s pre-1967 borders. In accordance with the Guidelines, AHAVA was required to declare its commitment to comply with the relevant eligibility criteria upon application for funding.
Verifications made during the course of PEPTICAPS, including through visits by consortium partners to AHAVA, have not questioned AHAVA’s compliance with the Guidelines. The Commission will endeavour to perform reinforced monitoring of the project in its assessment of the final reporting period, which is due on 4 December 2018. Should it be found that the applicable eligibility requirements have not been complied with the Commission may take appropriate actions.”
February 2016 The European Investment Fund (EIF) and Bank Leumi (with LeumiTech, the high-tech banking arm of Leumi) sign agreement “to increase lending to innovative small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as well as small mid-caps in Israel under InnovFin – EU finance for innovators, an initiative supported by the European Commission. (…) “”InnovFin – EU Finance for Innovators”, the new generation of EU financial instruments and advisory services was developed under Horizon 2020 to help innovative firms access finance more easily. “InnovFin – EU Finance for Innovators” will help to inject up to EUR 48 bn in investments in Research and Innovation across Europe.”
October 2014 The European Parliament and Council pass law requiring large companies to publish reports on the policies they implement in relation to.social responsibility and treatment of employees, and respect for human rights. [More information]
-