Clarification on suspending trade preferences in the EU-Israel Association Agreement

Priority question for written answer P-002951/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Catarina Vieira (Verts/ALE), Lynn Boylan (The Left), Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D), Brando Benifei (S&D)

In the International Trade Committee meeting of 24 June 2025, the Commission's Directorate-General for Trade claimed that if the EU found Israel to be in breach of its obligations under the Association Agreement, the matter would first have to be discussed in the Association Council. Yet, Article 79 of the Agreement mentions that such a procedure can be bypassed owing to 'special urgencies', meaning the EU would be in a position to adopt unilateral trade measures. It was further stated that any measures in response to a breach would fall under the common foreign and security policy, thus requiring the unanimous support of the Member States.

• 1.Does taking 'appropriate measures' under Article 79 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, including the possibility of suspending the trade pillar of the Agreement, require a unanimous vote by the EU Member States?
• 2.Can the Commission confirm that Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU on the common commercial policy can serve as a legal basis for a decision to suspend trade preferences for a third country, partially or totally, such as the Council made when it suspended trade relations with Syria in 2011?
• 3.Can the Commission confirm that under Article 79.2 of the Agreement, a 'special urgency' enables the EU to take measures without first addressing the Association Council?

Supporters[1]

Submitted: 17.7.2025

• [1] This question is supported by Members other than the authors: Majdouline Sbai (Verts/ALE), Saskia Bricmont (Verts/ALE), Tineke Strik (Verts/ALE), Vicent Marzà Ibáñez (Verts/ALE), Rudi Kennes (The Left)