The food coming from the territories occupied by Israel must include in the labeling a mention of their place of origin and, if necessary, specify that it comes from an Israeli colony, as the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on Tuesday. The Luxembourg Court rejects the demands of Israeli producers in the face of a decision by France in considering that the Golan Heights and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are "territories" with "an own and distinct international status" of Israel. With international law in hand, European judges determine that consumers could be "cheated" if the labeling does not specify the specific origin and the fact that it is a settlement, since they might think that it has been prepared by a Palestinian or Syrian producer. The ruling resolves a confrontation between the European Jewish Organization and Vignoble Psgot wineries with the French Ministry of Finance, which in 2016 approved a regulation on how the labeling of products from the Golan Heights and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, should be. Since they were not part of Israel, in accordance with international law, the French Ministry considered that they should indicate precisely the origin of these foods . But that was not enough in the case of settlements. The regulation stipulated that, in these goods, mention should be made of that occupation, so that they had to be presented with the denomination "product of the Golan Heights (Israeli settlement)" or "product of the West Bank (Israeli settlement)" . The Vignoble Psgot wineries, located north of the mountains of Jerusalem, and the European Jewish Organization turned to the French State Council, who decided to refer questions to the Luxembourg Court for a preliminary ruling . European justice supports the decision of the French Ministry of Finance. "Food originating in a territory occupied by the State of Israel must not only carry the indication of that territory, but also, in the event that they come from an Israeli settlement located in that territory, the indication of that origin." Community law requires that a product specify the country or place of origin when its omission may mislead the consumer and that this designation is not misleading. The ruling argues that in EU law the term "country" is equated with "state," that is, a "sovereign entity that exercises, within its geographical borders, the fullness of the powers recognized by international law. " However, remember the use of the concept “territories”, defined in previous cases on Western Sahara. These are "entities" that "even under the jurisdiction or international responsibility of a State, have, in accordance with international law, their own statute and distinct from that State." "Ethical" issues The Court considers that, in accordance with international humanitarian law, the Golan Heights and the West Bank are "subject to a limited jurisdiction of the State of Israel," which "acts as an occupying power." Even so, he adds that these territories have "an international status of their own and different from that of that State." Specifically, the ruling recalls that the West Bank is a territory whose people, the Palestinian, "enjoy the right to self-determination" and the Golan Heights "are part" of Syria. Therefore, the Luxembourg Court considers that indicating that the origin of these products is Israel “could mislead consumers” and endorses that the indication of the “territory of origin” of food “cannot be omitted”. The opinion analyzes, secondly, whether these products must also specify that it is an "Israeli settlement" so as not to mislead consumers. And, again, he is right again to France. The court recalls that the settlements contravene international law and that this policy has been condemned by the United Nations Security Council. If the food only took the place of origin, the judges reason, the clients might think that it has been produced by a Palestinian or Syrian producer. So the omission that comes from an "Israeli settlement" could be "misleading." The judges add another argument, of an ethical nature, to prove France right. And it is that a consumer can decide not to acquire that food if he knows that it comes from an “established settlement violating the norms of international law”. Therefore, the Court concludes that these foods should not only carry the indication of “occupied territory”, but also specify whether they come from a settlement. https://elpais.com/internacional/2019/11/12/actualidad/1573550701_023269.html