European Union

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has won a vote of confidence in parliament, with 243 votes in favour of his government and 210 against. The governing coalition holds 242 of the 460 seats in the Sejm. Tusk called the vote after liberal presidential candidate Rafał Trzaskowski lost the runoff presidential election. The press sees little new momentum for the government despite this victory.

EU's ECHR accession is expected “shortly” amid mounting pressure on rethinking the Convention's human rights court.

The Council formally adopts a decision granting Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova equivalence with EU requirements for field inspections and seed production standards.

The Council agreed to render permanent the current transitional liquidity rules for certain short-term transactions undertaken by EU banks.

WS and Others v Frontex
Law governing the institutions
Advocate General Ćapeta: Return Operations - the General Court erred in its assessment of the causal link in an action for damages brought by a Syrian family against Frontex

OHB System v Commission
Public procurement
Galileo Programme: the judgment of the General Court dismissing OHB System’s action against the award of the contract for transition satellites is set aside

Written by Carmen-Cristina Cîrlig.

On 20 May 2025, the European Union (EU) High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission (HR/VP) announced the launch of a review of Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The review will assess Israel’s compliance with human rights and democratic principles, which is an essential element of the agreement. This is the first step in a procedure that could eventually lead to the suspension of the agreement.

The EU-Israel Association Agreement

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 (EU-Israel AA), provisionally applied since 1996 and in force since 2000, provides the framework for political and economic cooperation between the EU and Israel. It includes provisions on regular political dialogue, and establishes a free trade area between the parties, including the progressive liberalisation of the provision of services, of capital movements and of public procurement. It also includes rules on fair competition and the protection of intellectual property. Furthermore, under the AA, the parties commit to strengthening their cooperation in various economic sectors, in research and technology, and in audiovisual, cultural and social matters. The agreement sets up governing bodies, most importantly an Association Council, made up of representatives of the Council of the EU and the Commission, on the one side, and Israel on the other, meeting at ministerial level and having the power to take decisions binding on the parties and to make recommendations, as well as an Association Committee meeting at officials’ level.

The EU-Israel action plan, adopted in 2005 and extended several times by the Association Council, implements the Association Agreement. On 26 March 2025, the Commission issued a proposal for a Council decision on the extension of the action plan, which expired in January 2025.

Reviewing Israel’s compliance with Article 2 of the Association Agreement

Respect for human rights and democratic principles constitutes an essential element of the EU-Israel AA, Article 2 of which states: ‘Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement.’ This is a standard human rights clause reflecting the EU’s longstanding poli cy on human rights conditionality in its external policy. The violation of the human rights (or essential elements) clause by one party to the agreement enables the other to take ‘appropriate measures’, including ultimately the suspension of the agreement. However, the human rights clause does not contain any explicit provisions about the grounds for its activation, leaving the Parties with a wide margin for interpretation.

On 20 May 2025, Kaja Kallas said there was ‘a strong majority in favour of [the] review of Article 2 of our Association Agreement with Israel. So, we will launch this exercise and, in the meantime, it is up to Israel to unblock the humanitarian aid.’ The formal request to review Israel’s compliance with Article 2 (backed by 17 EU Member States) was made by the Netherlands, citing Israel’s blockade of humanitarian aid deliveries to the Gaza Strip and the proposed new system for aid distribution as seemingly being incompatible with international humanitarian law and principles. Pending the review, the Netherlands will withhold its approval of the extension of the EU-Israel Action Plan.

The review is being led by the European External Action Service, possibly with the Commission’s participation, but its timeline is undefined. Reports point to the next meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 23 June 2025 as an opportunity to present the review to Member States.

Should the review conclude that Israel has breached Article 2, the likely outcome would be a Commission and/or HR/VP proposal to the Council to open consultations with Israel on the matter, in accordance with Article 79 of the EU-Israel AA (the non-execution clause) which sets out the provisions applicable in case a party fails to fulfil obligations under the agreement, including in relation to human rights.

Article 79 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement
1. The Parties shall take any general or specific measures required to fulfil their obligations under the Agreement. They shall see to it that the objectives set out in the Agreement are attained.
2. If either Party considers that the other Party has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Agreement, it may take appropriate measures. Before so doing, except in cases of special urgency, it shall supply the Association Council with all relevant information required for a thorough examination of the situation with a view to seeking a solution acceptable to the Parties. In the selection of measures, priority shall be given to those which least disturb the functioning of the Agreement.

Article 79 outlines a gradual procedure whereby the alleged breach must first be discussed within the Association Council, in order to find an acceptable solution (i.e. consultations). If a solution is not found, then the aggrieved party may take appropriate measures – for the EU, these would be reflected in a Council decision. Moreover, preference should be given to those measures that would least disturb the functioning of the agreement, thus making suspension a measure of last resort. Nevertheless, Article 79 provides that, in cases of special urgency, appropriate measures may be adopted immediately without prior submission of the matter to the Association Council. Appropriate measures, including suspension, may be subject to the dispute settlement provisions in the agreement (Article 75 of the EU-Israel AA). According to the Commission, this would not prevent suspension.

Suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement or other ‘appropriate measures’?

The suspension by the EU of an international agreement is governed by Article 218(9) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which states that the Council, on a proposal from the Commission or the HR/VP (depending on the areas covered by the agreement), shall adopt a decision suspending application of an agreement. According to Article 218(8) TFEU, the Council ‘shall act unanimously … for association agreements’. Article 218(9) TFEU also applies to ‘establishing the positions to be adopted on the Union’s behalf in a body set up by an agreement’ regarding the adoption of ‘acts having legal effects’. The unanimity requirement would make full suspension of the EU-Israel AA challenging. However, the EU could decide to halt cooperation in specific areas, for example by suspending the free trade area, excluding Israel from research funding programmes (Horizon) or suspending the political dialogue with Israel. Depending on the measures considered, the Council would have to act by unanimity (e.g. suspension of political dialogue) or qualified majority (e.g. trade, research cooperation).

Precedents

The EU has so far invoked the human rights clause of an international agreement only under the Cotonou Partnership Agreement. Article 96 of that agreement (detailing the procedure for opening consultations and adopting appropriate measures) has been applied about 17 times since 2000, following violent government overthrows, election irregularities or human rights violations. While, in some of these cases, EU action did not go beyond opening consultations, in others the EU took appropriate measures, such as cutting development aid and suppressing some forms of cooperation. There is no case to date where the EU has activated the non-execution clause leading to the suspension or termination of the agreement on grounds of the ‘essential elements’ clause being breached. In 2011, the EU partially suspended the application of the 1977 Cooperation Agreement with Syria, invoking the United Nations Charter, as that agreement did not contain a human rights clause.

The European Parliament’s role

Parliament would have to be informed if a proposal were made for a Council decision to suspend fully or partially the EU-Israel AA, in accordance with Article 218(10) TFEU. Parliament’s Framework Agreement with the Commission confirms that Parliament has to be fully and immediately informed of decisions concerning the suspension of agreements and EU positions in a body set up by an agreement (e.g. Association Council). Such decisions are adopted in accordance with the procedure in Article 218(9) TFEU. The Commission also undertakes to ‘inform the Council and Parliament simultaneously and in due time of its intention to propose to the Council the suspension of an international agreement and of the reasons therefor’. In such cases, Parliament may organise a debate and invite the Commission, the HR/VP or the Council to give statements; it may also issue recommendations (Rule 118 of its Rules of Procedure).

Read this ‘at a glance note’ on ‘Review of the EU-Israel Association Agreement‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

In today’s edition of The Capitals, read about human rights in our time, Germany's court battle over the banning of far-right magazine Compact, and so much more.

In today’s edition of The Capitals, read about human rights in our time, Germany's court battle over the banning of far-right magazine Compact, and so much more.

In today’s edition of The Capitals, read about human rights in our time, Germany's court battle over the banning of far-right magazine Compact, and so much more.

Since 2000, efficiency gains across the G20 in industry and services have avoided energy use equivalent to India’s entire consumption. But this is only a fraction of what is possible.

Since 2000, efficiency gains across the G20 in industry and services have avoided energy use equivalent to India’s entire consumption. But this is only a fraction of what is possible.

Since 2000, efficiency gains across the G20 in industry and services have avoided energy use equivalent to India’s entire consumption. But this is only a fraction of what is possible.

As the global race for biosolutions heats up, Europe finds itself at a critical juncture. While China, the Uni- ted States and other regions are rapidly advancing their biotech and biomanufacturing industries through strategic investments and streamlined regulations, Europe has the slowest regulatory system among our competitor regions, risking its position as a leader in this sector. If swift action is not taken, Europe will birth groundbreaking bio-companies that will only grow and flourish elsewhere.