Source: European Parliament
Question for written answer E-002559/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Danilo Della Valle (The Left), Mimmo Lucano (The Left), Carolina Morace (The Left), Cecilia Strada (S&D), Brando Benifei (S&D), Leoluca Orlando (Verts/ALE), Alessandro Zan (S&D), Dario Tamburrano (The Left)
Article 2 of Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP lays down binding criteria for the granting of arms export licences by Member States, including:
— Criterion Two: regarding the recipient country’s compliance with international humanitarian law, which requires licences to be denied if there is a clear risk that the technology might be used in breach of the law of conduct during war (jus in bello);
— Criterion Six: regarding the behaviour of the recipient country, including compliance with international commitments.
In view of the serious violations of international humanitarian law by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, documented by the UN, independent NGOs and academic institutions, and given the dual-use or military nature of the technologies involved, can the Commission please answer the following:
- 1.With regard to Criteria Two and Six in Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP, does it consider the export of arms and military technology by Member States to Israel to be compatible with their obligations under the Common Foreign and Security Policy?
- 2.In the context of military agreements or transfers of technology from third countries, are Member States required to apply the Council Common Position’s criteria mutatis mutandis, in line with Articles 21 and 24 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 205 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?
- 3.Does the Commission plan to recommend the reassessment of licences and military cooperation programmes with Israel under Article 5 of the Council Common Position?
Supporter[1]
Submitted: 25.6.2025
- [1] This question is supported by a Member other than the authors: Cristina Guarda (Verts/ALE)