PARIS, 22nd\u00a0July\u00a02026\u00a0\u2013\u00a0Today,\u00a0five\u00a0human rights\u00a0organisations\u00a0filed a legal challenge before the Conseil\u00a0d\u2019\u00c9tat, France\u2019s highest administrative court, seeking an order\u00a0requiring\u00a0the French government to adopt effective measures to prevent French corporate and financial actors from contributing to Israel\u2019s unlawful occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT).\u00a0<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs \u2013\u00a0the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH),\u00a0Jurists for the Respect of International Law\u00a0(JURDI),\u00a0the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP), La Ligue des Droits\u00a0Humains\u00a0(LDH), and Law\u00a0for\u00a0Palestine\u00a0\u2013\u00a0\u00a0argue that France has failed to meet its obligations under international law by not\u00a0implementing effective measures to\u00a0prevent companies and financial institutions from engaging in trade, investment, and other commercial activities that sustain Israel\u2019s continued unlawful presence in the OPT.\u00a0They\u00a0are represented by\u00a0Henri Thulliez,\u00a0Yacine Baita,\u00a0and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Thiriez,\u00a0and advised by Open Society Justice\u00a0Initiative.\u00a0The defendants include the\u00a0French\u00a0Prime Minister and several ministers responsible for the economy, foreign affairs, and commerce.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The case\u00a0builds\u00a0on the July 2024 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ),\u00a0in\u00a0which\u00a0the Court\u00a0said it is of the opinion\u00a0that Israel\u2019s continued presence in the OPT is unlawful and clarified that all states\u00a0are obligated\u00a0not to recognise as legal the situation arising from\u00a0Israel\u2019s\u00a0unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,\u00a0and\u00a0to neither\u00a0render aid\u00a0nor assistance in maintaining the situation created by\u00a0Israel\u2019s\u00a0continued presence in the\u00a0OPT.\u00a0The\u00a0World Court\u00a0further\u00a0clarified\u00a0that states must take steps to prevent trade and investment relations that contribute to the\u00a0illegal occupation. The applicants contend that France has not translated these obligations into concrete regulatory or enforcement measures.\u00a0<\/p>\n
James Goldston, Executive Director of\u00a0the\u00a0Open Society Justice\u00a0Initiative,\u00a0said,\u00a0\u201cThe International Court of Justice left no doubt that states cannot stand on the sidelines when faced with\u00a0legal obligations. This case is about ensuring that\u00a0France halts\u00a0any\u00a0aid or\u00a0assistance\u00a0for\u00a0the unlawful occupation of Palestine.\u00a0International law only has force if states are prepared to implement it in practice.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ihsan Adel, Founder and Chair of Law\u00a0for\u00a0Palestine, stressed that \u201cstates cannot comply with their obligations while settlement goods remain on their markets and corporations continue settlement-related business activities.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
The ICJ\u2019s\u00a0position\u00a0on third-state obligations\u00a0towards the situation in\u00a0the OPT\u00a0underscores\u00a0that the occupation has been sustained not only by military force but also by the\u00a0economic\u00a0support of\u00a0third states and private actors\u00a0to the detriment of the Palestinian people\u2019s right to self-determination and sovereignty over their land and resources.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Alexis Deswaef, President of FIDH, described the case \u201cas an opportunity for the Conseil\u00a0d\u2019\u00c9tat\u00a0to take a strong stance and reaffirm the\u00a0State\u2019s responsibilities with respect to corporate activities in occupied Palestine.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ghislain Poissonnier, Vice President for JURDI, said,\u00a0\u201cJURDI\u00a0notes\u00a0that despite the ICJ\u2019s 2024 Advisory Opinion, deeming the occupation illegal, France has not acted, making legal action necessary to end its\u00a0corporate\u00a0support to the illegal situation in occupied Palestine.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
Although France recognised the State of Palestine in September 2025,\u00a0it has not implemented\u00a0effective measures\u00a0that address any\u00a0economic and commercial relations linked to the\u00a0illegal\u00a0occupation.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Before filing the case, the plaintiffs formally requested that the French\u00a0Government adopt measures to comply with the binding legal obligations set out in the ICJ\u2019s Advisory Opinion, including preventing trade and investment that sustain the unlawful situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and ensuring French companies do not contribute to it.\u00a0The government did not respond\u00a0but issued new recommendations to French\u00a0businesses\u00a0operating\u00a0in the\u00a0illegal\u00a0settlements\u00a0in the West Bank\u00a0on June 30,\u00a02026,\u00a0warning\u00a0that\u00a0they may\u00a0expose\u00a0\u201cthemselves to the risk of being found guilty of violating international law\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
For the claimants,\u00a0the government\u00a0failed\u00a0to\u00a0respond\u00a0to their request, which\u00a0amounts\u00a0to an implicit administrative decision allowing the plaintiffs to\u00a0bring a\u00a0challenge before the Conseil\u00a0d\u2019\u00c9tat. They argue that this inaction contradicts France\u2019s own public support for the Advisory Opinion and its acknowledgment of the duty to distinguish between Israel and the OPT in economic dealings. Citing evidence that French companies continue\u00a0operating\u00a0in sectors such as transportation, construction, finance, and commercial services in the OPT, the plaintiffs contend that France has failed to regulate corporate conduct and prevent businesses from contributing to violations of Palestinians\u2019 rights. They are asking the Conseil\u00a0d\u2019\u00c9tat\u00a0to declare the\u00a0state\u2019s inaction unlawful and order measures to ensure compliance with international law, including restrictions on occupation-linked trade and investment, corporate safeguards, and monitoring mechanisms.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Additionally, these proceedings have been brought forward as the Palestinians in Gaza continue to be forcibly displaced, starved, maimed, and killed in violation of the three preliminary\u00a0orders issued by the ICJ in the South Africa v Israel case under the Genocide Convention.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Nathalie Tehio, President of LDH, warned that \u201cgrowing corporate involvement risks facilitating annexation of the West Bank\u201d\u00a0and argued that\u00a0\u201cFrance must adopt binding measures to ensure compliance with international law, including the ICJ\u2019s Advisory Opinion.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
For decades, the plaintiffs argue, Israel has exercised unlawful control over Palestinian territory and resources, supported by third states and private actors that benefit economically from the occupation, while not taking effective measures against the occupation\u2019s crimes in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Tayab Ali, Director\u00a0of ICJP,\u00a0emphasised that \u201cthis case seeks to move beyond expressions of concern towards\u00a0accountability, asserting that international legal obligations must be enforceable before independent courts.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
The applicants contend that the proceedings offer an important opportunity to clarify the scope of state obligations following the ICJ\u2019s 2024 Advisory Opinion and to\u00a0establish\u00a0guidance on how governments must regulate corporate conduct linked to serious violations of international law.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
They argue that without such action, legal obligations risk\u00a0remaining\u00a0theoretical rather than effective, and that judicial intervention is necessary to ensure that France fulfils its duties under international law.\u00a0<\/p>\n
ENDS<\/strong><\/p>\n Notes for Editors:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n