European Union law requires that a product originating in a territory occupied by Israel since 1967 must mention the geographical name of that territory, and indicate, where applicable, that the product comes from an Israeli settlement, the Irish Advocate General Gerard Hogan (Case C-363/18) said on Thursday 13 June.
The European Jewish Organisation and the company Vignoble Psagot, Ltd, which specialises in the operation of vineyards in the occupied Palestinian territories, have asked the French Council of State to annul an opinion of the Minister of the Economy and Finance of November 2016.
This opinion, with reference to Regulation (1169/2011) on food information to consumers, considered that “foodstuffs from the territories occupied by Israel should be labelled to reflect this origin” and required that these products be labelled as “Israeli settlement” or equivalent terms.
The Council of State referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on whether the provisions of the Regulation required such labelling or, if not, whether they allowed a Member State to require such labelling on these products.
In his Opinion, the Advocate General considers that the Regulation makes it possible to determine the ‘place of provenance’ of a foodstuff by words which are not necessarily limited to the name of the geographical area concerned, in particular where the only geographical indicator used is likely to be misleading.
According to Mr Hogan, it cannot be excluded that the situation in a territory occupied by an occupying power – especially when the territorial occupation is accompanied by settlements – is a factor that may have a significant impact on the choice of a typically informed consumer. A violation of international law is the type of ethical consideration that the Union legislature has recognised as legitimate in the context of the requirement for country of origin, the Advocate General adds.
He therefore concludes that the absence of an indication of origin or provenance of a product from a territory occupied by Israel and, in any event, of a settlement could mislead the consumer as to the true country of origin or place of provenance.
In addition, the regulation requires that the consumer be provided with “correct, neutral and objective” information that does not mislead the consumer. The Israeli occupation and settlements could be “an objective element that could change the expectations of a reasonable consumer”, says Mr Hogan.
He therefore concludes that Union law requires, for a product originating in a territory occupied by Israel since 1967, the indication of the geographical name of that territory and the indication, where applicable, that the product comes from an Israeli settlement.
On the other hand, the Advocate General considers that Member States cannot, under EU law, adopt national measures providing for the compulsory indication of the territory of a product originating in a territory occupied by Israel since 1967 or that it comes from an Israeli settlement.
He recalls that, according to the Regulation, national measures concerning the compulsory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance of foodstuffs are only authorised if there is a “proven link between certain properties of the food and its origin or provenance”. It is therefore not sufficient that the country of origin or place of provenance is, as such, of some importance in the consumer's decision, but that it has a tangible impact on the product itself.
However, according to the Advocate General, the fact that a territory is occupied or that a foodstuff is manufactured by a person residing in a settlement is not likely to confer certain qualities on a foodstuff or to modify them.
See the findings: http://bit.ly/2MPfN6u (Original version in French by Camille-Cerise Gessant and Marion Fontana)