After decades of human suffering resulting from Israel's occupation and illegal colonisation of Palestinian territory; fruitless and stalled negotiations; moribund policies; and legal options being overlooked in favour of diplomacy, it is time to look at a new strategy using political action and negotiations based on international law.
Observers of the Palestine question note that some Western countries are openly pro-Israel, "right or wrong", and the so-called diplomacy of most does nothing for the Palestinian cause. Western diplomats, for example, almost always avoid declaring that Israeli settlements are illegal, breach international law and are an obstacle to peace. Sadly, the Palestinian Authority usually displays the same reluctance.
The European judiciary, represented by the European Court of Justice, however, appear to have more courage than the diplomats; they are clear that the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem are not part of the territory of the State of Israel. As such, goods and companies therein do not have the right to any preferential customs treatment from the European Union. This is based on a decision issued by European Court of Justice on 25 February 2010 in the case of Brita Gmbh v Hauptzollant Hamburghafen.
Issued by the highest European judicial body, this ruling is as important as that issued by the International Court of Justice on the Separation Wall in the West Bank.1
The existence and continued expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories is a breach of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and signed agreements based on the principle of land for peace.2
The occupying authority has to fulfil its legal responsibilities towards the Geneva Conventions of 1949, as whatever an "occupying authority" does regarding the confiscation of Palestinian land is a clear violation of all common humanitarian law. The occupying authority in this case (Israel) violates article 233 of the Convention of The Hague for example, and article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949 which considers seizure and confiscation of land through armed conflict to be illegal and to constitute seriously grave breaches.4
The International Court of Justice stressed clearly in its advisory decision that legal consequences arising from the construction of the separation wall in the occupied Palestinian territories are considered violations by the occupying state and stated:
"Regarding the issue of settlements, the Court notes that the article (49), paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention stipulated that ‘The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies'. The Court also notes that this article does not only deny deportation or transfer of the population as what had happened during World War II, but also denies any measures taken by the occupying state to regulate and promote the transfer of part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. In this regard, the information available to the court shows that the occupying authority, and since 1977, exercises a programmed policy and has sophisticated practices in establishing settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory which violates article (49), paragraph (6)."
The UN Security Council has adopted the view that this policy and these practices (ie Israeli settlements) have no legal basis and are regarded as illegal; the Security Council has also called on "the occupying authority" to apply and comply with the Fourth Geneva Convention.
It must be emphasised that the practice of population transfer into the occupied territory violate the right of the Palestinian people in self-determination in two distinct ways: First, the removal of people from their land strikes at the very heart of the right, impairing the ability of the people to determine the destiny of their territory. It follows that mass expulsions or deportations from the occupied land and the transfer of settlers therein violate not only the individual rights of self-determination but also the collective right of self-determination.
Second, even in the absence of mass expulsion or population transfer, policies may serve to defeat core elements of the right of self-determination. The transfer of settlers into the occupied territory may be used as a means of depriving the indigenous people of their land or other natural resources essential to their traditional life style.5
Article 8/2/b/viii of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court states that "war crimes" includes, "Other serious violations of the laws and norms applicable in international armed conflicts within the established outline of international law, namely, any of the following acts... (viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory".
According to the elements of crimes that have been adopted by the Assembly of States Parties on 09/09/2002, which are explanations of the articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Rome Statutes,6 this offence7 needs to be accompanied by the following elements:
1. The perpetrator, directly or indirectly, transfers part of its population into the territory it occupies, or deports or transfers of all the population of the occupied territory or some of them inside or outside it.
2. The conduct took place in the context of international armed conflict and was associated with it.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that proved the existence of an armed conflict8.
The prohibition of deportation or transfer of the population outside or inside the occupied territory by the occupying power is considered a firm and common principle and does not allow for any exceptions, except for that stated in the second paragraph of article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention; these exceptions are the security of the people themselves and for imperative military reasons. This principle is stated in article 49, paragraph 1and 2,9 and has been confirmed in article 51, paragraph 310 and article 76, paragraph 111 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.12 Besides this, article 85, paragraph 4 of the Additional (Protocol I) prohibits transfer or deportation of the population outside or inside the occupied territory by the Occupying Power. This article stipulated: "In addition to the grave breaches defined in the preceding paragraphs and in the Conventions, the following shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol, when committed wilfully and in violation of the Conventions or the Protocol:
(a) the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory, in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Convention...
The prohibition bans the occupying state from transferring its own civilian population into the occupied territory as this will lead to a change in the geographical structure of the occupied territory and will restrict the rights of the population of the occupied territory in their rights of ownership of the land (the right of refugees to return to their homes, for example), and create physical changes on the ground.
The transfer, directly or indirectly of the people of an occupying state into the occupied territory, through the establishment of settlements, violates in turn international humanitarian law, because the occupying state is acting as an administrative and military power in the territory which it occupies, and this is forbidden, regardless of its objectives.13
The transfer process must be carried out by the occupying state, and requires clear governmental involvement. Illegal acts by individuals acting on their own in relocating Jewish settlers in occupied Palestinian territory without the approval or support of the occupying state, or its knowledge, cannot be pinned on the state.
Population transfer into and out of occupied territory can be done directly or indirectly according to the text of article 8/(2)/(b)/(viii) of the Rome statute. This phrase, which was in neither the Fourth Geneva Conventions nor in Protocol I, was added at the request of the Arab states and was approved by a majority vote.
Indirect transfer includes the land confiscation, government settlement-plans, and providing protection for settlers and the settlements. "Transfer" includes economic incentives provided by the occupying state to encourage the settlers to build in the occupied territory; these could include granting loans to settlers and offering tax exemptions to settlers and foreign investors.
All of this has been confirmed by the decision of the European Court of Justice in the case of Brita.
The European Court of Justice, now called "The Court of Justice", is the highest court in the European Union on matters of European law. The court's main function is to interpret European law and implement it uniformly across the European Union. It has 27 judges representing 27 states, was established in 1952 and is based in Luxemburg, playing a role in the arbitration of conflicts and disputes among the European Union's institutions. National judicial decisions cannot be taken to the Court of Justice for appeal, but national courts may ask it to decide on issues related to European Law.14
There are 8 general judges helping the main judges in the Court of the Justice. The Advocate General is responsible for providing legal opinions in cases submitted to the court; he or she can ask questions of parties to disputes before providing an opinion for the judges prior to them issuing their final judgement. Although the Advocate General's opinion serves only as an advisory view for the judges to consider, in practice, the judges generally take the same view.15
The decision issued by the Court of Justice in the case of Brita Gmbh v Hauptzollant Hamburghafen, included the court's view on the subject of Jewish settlements through its interpretation of the provisions of the EU Israel Association Agreement. This was based not on European economic law, but public international law with which the Court confirmed the borders of 1967 with the Palestinian territories under Israeli administration and Jewish settlements not constituting part of the occupying state.
Regrettably, this judgement has not been addressed by Arabic jurisprudence nor by researchers despite its legal importance.16
I will shed some light on the main points mentioned in the Advocate General's opinion and give a brief explanation of what was mentioned in the Court's decision.
Brita and the European Court of Justice
1. The nature of the dispute
Brita is a German company which imports drink-makers for sparkling water, as well as accessories and syrups, all of which are produced by an Israeli supplier, Soda Club Ltd., at a factory in Mishor Adumin in the occupied West Bank to the East of Jerusalem.17 Mishor Adumin is considered to be one of the most important economic hubs in the occupied territory.18
During the first six months of 2002, Brita submitted requests for free passage of imported goods and more than 60 requests to the German Customs Authorities to make use of the preferential tariff on imported goods from Soda Club according to the partnership agreement signed between Israel and the European Union. The source of the goods was listed as "Israel".19
German Customs Authorities decided to grant a temporary preferential customs tariff for Soda Club products imported by Brita, but they asked for verification of the place of origin of the items.
Israeli Customs Authorities confirmed to their German counterparts that the goods originated with a company in an area that is under the control of the Israel Customs Authorities and, as such, they comply with the EU-Israel Association Agreement. According to the agreement's terms, therefore, these goods were entitled to preferential treatment.20
On 6 February 2003, the German Customs Authorities asked the Israelis by way of supplementary information if the goods exported to Brita by Soda Club had been manufactured in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip or Golan Heights; the question was not answered.21
In September 2003, the German Customs Authorities withdrew the preferential treatment that had been granted previously to Brita and its goods imported from Soda Club on the grounds that it could not be established conclusively that the imported goods are entitled to benefit under the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Consequently, the Customs Authorities in Germany sought post-clearance recovery of customs duties amounting to a total of €19,155.46 from the German company.22
Brita then brought an action before the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Finance Court) and asked for the annulment of the decision taken by the German Customs authorities with regards of recovery of customs duties.23 The Finance Court took the view that the dispute depended on the interpretation of the EU-Israel Association Agreement on the one hand, and the EU-PLO Interim Association Agreement on the other. As a result, the Finance Court referred the dispute to the European Court of Justice.
2. The legal opinion of the Advocate General put before the judges
The Advocate General presented his legal opinion on 29 October 2009. He pointed out during his presentation that the application of the EU-Israel Association Agreement faced obstacles, especially with regards to issuing the required "Certificate of origin of products". He confirmed that the European Commission has alerted importers to doubts about the validity of such certificates issued by Israeli Customs Authorities.24
Referring to a communication between the EC, the Council and the European Parliament dated 12 May 1998, the Advocate General said that that there is an obstacle in implementing the EU-Israel Association Agreement, especially Protocol 4, which was applicable even before the implementation of the agreement in 2000, that most of the products certified as originating in "Israel" were actually produced in the occupied Palestinian territories.25
He added that on 23 November 2001, the European Commission issued an official opinion declaring "the results of the verification procedures carried out by the Commission confirming that Israel issued many ‘Certificates of origin' [confirming] that products which come from places under its administration since 1967 are from Israel." Therefore, these products are not entitled to benefit from preferential treatment under the EC-Israel Association Agreement.26
The Commission confirmed that all European importers who present documentary evidence of certificates of origin of products with a view to securing preferential treatment for products originating from Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are informed that they must take all the necessary precautions as the goods coming from these territories may give rise to a customs tariff.27
The Advocate General explained before the Court of Justice that the EU-Israel Association Agreement applies to Israeli territories according to Article 83 of that agreement. He added that the boundaries of the Israeli state were defined in the Partition Plan of the UN General Assembly in 1947 as per Resolution 181. Later on, the Israeli state was declared based on the boundaries defined by the partition plan.28
He added further that UN Security Council Resolution 242 dated 22 November 1967 referred to in the EU-PLO Interim Association Agreement stipulated that Israeli forces were asked to withdraw from the occupied territories and respect the sovereignty of all states in the area.29
The Advocate General confirmed to the judges that according to the aforementioned circumstances of the case, the Court cannot but conclude that the West Bank territory, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip are not part of the territory of the State of Israel.30
As a result, the Advocate General stressed that it was difficult to say that products coming from the West Bank and the occupied territories generally, should enjoy preferential treatment according to the EU-Israel Association Agreement.31 Hence, granting such preferential treatment to products originating in the West Bank is not acceptable according to the EU-Israel Association Agreement.32
The Advocate General added that during the meeting about the EU-Israel Association Agreement held on 3 December 2004, the European Commission asked Israeli Customs authorities to define the origin of manufacturing the products on the certificate of origin of products coming from Israel. The aim of this request, as asserted by the Advocate General, was to differentiate between the products manufactured in Israel which are entitled to the preferential treatment according to the Agreement, and those manufactured in Israeli settlements which are not entitled to preferential treatment according to the same agreement.33
The Jewish settlements are illegal according to the judgement of the European Court of Justice
The European Court of Justice referred in its preliminary ruling to several legal provisions regarding the case before it and which are applicable, before explaining its legal logic in the final decision.
1. The legal scope
The Court referred to Article (31) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which asserted that any treaty must be interpreted in good faith and in accordance with ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. The Court asserted that article 31/3 stipulated that in the interpretation of any treaty, there shall be taken into account any relevant rules of International Law applicable in relations between the states. As for Article (34) of the Vienna Convention, it provided that a treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third state without its consent.34
The Court confirmed that the EU-Israel Association Agreement came into force on 1 June 2000 and article (6) of this agreement provided that "the free trade of area between Israel and the European Community shall be reinforced according to the modalities set out in the agreement and pursuant to the articles of the agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994 and of other multilateral agreements on trade in goods annexed to the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation".35
Referring to Article (8) of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, the Court said it provided that customs duties are prohibited on industrial products as defined in that agreement between the two parties when importing or exporting.36
It also referred to the territorial scope of the EU-Israel Association Agreement which is defined in Article (83) as follows: The Agreement shall apply on the land to the territories establishing the European Community and, on the other hand, to the territory of the state of Israel.37
The Court mentioned that Protocol (4) to the EU-Israel Association Agreement laid down the rules relating to the definition of "originating products" as well as the methods of administrative cooperation.38 It asserted that article (2) of Protocol (4) laid down that products wholly manufactured in Israel, within the meaning of article (4) of Protocol (4), are to be treated as originating in Israel.39 The Court also referred to article (32) of Protocol (4) which stated the procedure for verifying "proof of origin of the products" where the customs authorities requesting the verification for the proof of origin of these products shall be informed by the exporting state of the result of this verification within 10 months at most.40
Then the Court referred to the EU-PLO Interim Association Agreement (which was for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority later) which came into force on 1 July 1997. Article (3) stipulated that the PLO and the European Community must establish progressively a free trade area according to the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994 and of the other multilateral agreements on trade in goods annexed to the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation.41 Article (5) and (6) of the EU-PLO Interim Association Agreement provided that the products imported from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip shall not be subject to any customs duties.42 The Court indicated that the territorial scope of the Agreement is defined for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Every treaty has its own territorial scope to be applied; the first is to be applied on the territories of the state of Israel and the second on the territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.43
2. The legal logic adopted by the Court in its judgement
The Court stated that the EU-Israel Association Agreement stipulated that Israeli customs authorities are the competent authority to issue proof-of-origin certificates for products produced in the state of Israel. The EU-PLO Interim Association Agreement gave the Customs department there the competent authority to issue proof-of-origin certificates for products produced in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.44
Hence, to interpret article (83) of the EU-Israel Association Agreement as meaning the Israeli Customs Authorities are competent to issue certificates in respect of products originating in the West Bank will deprive Palestinian customs authorities of exercising the competence conferred upon them by the agreement with the European Community. Therefore, the Court considered that for the Israeli Customs Authorities to issue certificates that the origin of products is the West Bank would thus be contrary to article (34) of the Geneva Convention.45
The Court added that article (83) should be interpreted as meaning that the products originating in the West Bank do not fall within the territorial scope of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and do not therefore qualify for preferential treatment under that agreement.46
Hence, the Court confirmed that the German Customs Authorities have the right to refuse to grant Brita and its products preferential treatment under the EU-Israel Association Agreement as the origin of these products is the West Bank and not Israel.47
Regarding the certificate of the proof-of-origin of the products, Article (32)/6 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement provided that the exporting state is the one which issues such certificates while the importing states can, through the Customs Authorities, verify the original source of the products. The Court added that the German Customs Authorities' request for additional information from the Israeli Customs Authorities regarding the origin of the products did not concern the question of whether the manufacture of the products had been undertaken sufficiently in a certain area, but to verify the precise place in which the exported products to Brita via Soda Club were manufactured, for the purpose of determining if this place fell within the jurisdiction and territorial scope of the EU-Israel Association Agreement.48
The Court made it clear that the European Union, undoubtedly, took the view that the products manufactured in the locations under Israeli administration/occupation since 1967 do not qualify for the preferential treatment provided for under the EU-Israel Association Agreement.49 It supported its view in paragraph 66 when it stated that the Israeli Customs Authorities did not reply to the letter sent by the German Customs Authorities asking whether the exported products had been manufactured in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights.
Hence, the Court finally ruled that the customs authorities of any European State importing products may refuse to grant the preferential treatment provided for under the EU-Israel Association Agreement, where the products concerned originated in the West Bank.50 The Court also ruled that the customs authorities of any European State importing products are not bound by the proof of origin certificate or the reply given by the exporting state to questions submitted by the importing states where that reply does not contain sufficient information for the purpose of implementing article 32/6 of the Protocol of the EU-Israel Association Agreement to determine the real origin of the products.51
Through looking at this case, which was considered by the highest judicial body in the European Union, we can assert that an insistence on the language of International Law being applied to the Palestinian issue can give results. The European Court of Justice ruled that Israeli settlements in the occupied territories in the West Bank and the East Jerusalem are illegal and violate international law. The Court affirmed in its decision on the Brita case that the European States must not recognise the status quo created by Israeli settlements, and every European State must prohibit preferential tariff treatment for all products coming from Jewish settlements.
On the other hand, European civil society supporting the Palestinian issue, such as the campaign for BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) must.52 In the Arab World everyone should alert the local authorities to all the products which originate on illegal Israeli settlements. Reference to the European Court of Justice's resolution on this matter should be made in order to ensure that such goods do not benefit from any preferential treatment. A copy of the Court's resolution should, perhaps, be sent to Trades Unions and Employers associations, and to national Ministries of Trade and Foreign Affairs in each European state to encourage them to apply the judgement to goods classed by Israel as "Israeli" but which, in fact, originate on an illegal Jewish settlement.
Civil society campaigners must expose the fraud committed by Israel when it claims that products manufactured in the settlements originate in the state of Israel and not from occupied territory.
The author holds a Phd in International Law/ France and a Certificate from the Research Center of The Hague Academy of International Law
1For more information regarding this topic, read the book "Israel and the international law" issued by al Zaytuna centre for studies 2011.
2Interim Agreement signed in Washington on 28 September 1995, article XXX1.7
3Art.23 (g) from Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907 "To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
4Article (147) Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: …taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
5Catriona J. Catriona J. Drew, "Self-determination and population transfert", In, Human Rights, self-determination and political change in the occupied Palestinian territory, edited by Stephen Bowen, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997, pp. 141-142
7COTTIER (M.), FENRICK (W.), SELLERS (P.), Andreas ZIMMERMANN (A.), "War Crimes", PP. 173-288, In THRIFTERER (O.) (ed.) Commentary on the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court, Observers, Notes, Article by Article. Baden-Baden, 1999. Simpson, Gerry (ed.), War crimes law / Gerry Simpson. Ashgate/Dartmouth, 2004, pp. XXXIII, 484 p. CHUTER (D.), War crimes : confronting atrocity in the modern world. Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003. MAC GOLDRICK (D.), War crimes trials before international tribunals : legality and legitimacy. Domestic and international trials, 1700-2000 / ed. by R.A. Melikan, 2003. NIEMANN (G.), War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and Genocide in International Criminal Law. Handbook of Transnational Crime & Justice / ed. Philip Reichel. Thousand Oaks, CA [etc.]: Sage, 2005, pp. 204-229.
9Article (49) Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
10Article 51/paragraph 3 "The work shall be carried out only in the occupied territory where the persons whose services have been requisitioned are. Every such person shall, so far as possible, be kept in his usual place of employment.
11"Protected persons accused of offences shall be detained in the occupied country, and if convicted they shall serve their sentences therein."
12See International Committee of the Red Cross, Commentary on the fourth Geneva Convention, ICRC,
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5 ; See ROUCOUNAS (E.J) , Les infractions grave au droit humanitaire (article 85 du Protocole Additionnel I aux Conventions de Genève, 31 Revue Hellénique de droit international 116 (1978).
13Progress Report of the Special Rapporteur Awn Shawkat AL- KHASAWANEH on the Human Rights dimensions of population transfer, including the implantation of settlers, U.N.doc. E/CN.4/sub.2/1994/18 (30 June 1994) par. 73, Preliminary Report of the Special Rapporteurs Awn Shawkat AL-KHASAWNEH and Ribot HATANO on Human Rights dimensions of population transfer, including the implantation of setters U.N.doc E/CN.4/sub.2/1993/17 (6 July 1993).
14Refer to the following articles to learn more about the Court of Justice and its jurisdiction:
Official website of the court: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_7024/
Some general information on the court:
Site last visited on 19 March 2011.
15Refer to the following articles to learn more about the functions of the advocate general visit: Advocate General http://www.ena.lu/ Laure CLEMENT-WILZ, " The function of the advocate general at the european court of justice", http://www.u-paris2.fr/1268901575081/1/fiche___article/&RH=RECHERCHE_EN Site last visited on 19 March 2011
16This issue was considered in brief studies:
http://www.alhaq.org/etemplate.php?id=508 European Court of Justice: Israeli Settlement Goods do not Fall into Israeli Customs Authority 2 March 2010
http://www.mondialisation.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17830 , La Cour européenne de Justice dessine les frontières d'Israël, par Gilles Devers, 27 février 2010
http://www.ism-france.org/news/article.php?id=13481&type=communique , Décision Brita de la Cour de Justice Européenne sur l'importation dans l'UE de produits de territoires occupés (Jérusalem Est), Par Gilles Devers, 25-02-201
17See clause 30 of the court's judgement:
18Mishor adumim is one of the several settlement sited on what is called Ma'ale Adumim. Its population exceeded 35,000 and it situated on the highway no. 1 which joined it with East Jerusalem. These settlements surrounded East Jerusalem within a great settlement plan, planned more than 10 years ago.
Soda Club company is one of the most famous companies in the Mishor Adumim settlement and it was criticised highly by the Sweden commissions after Israeli organisation for the right to work published a report showing discrimination and exploitation of the Palestinian workers in Soda Club company.
After a big campaign in Swede against Soda Company by Empire Company which distributes products of the Soda Club to manufacture the products coming to the Sweden market outside Mishor Adumim as this area considered illegal settlement by the International law and the company agreed hesitatively.
19See clause 31 of the court's judgement:
20See clause 30-32 of the court's judgement
21See clause 33 of the court's judgement
22See clause 34 of the court's judgement
23See clause 35 of the court's judgement
24See clause 27 of the Advocate General's opinion
25See clause 29 of the Advocate General's opinion
26See clause 31 of the Advocate General's opinion
27See clause 31 of the Advocate General's opinion
28See clause 109 of the Advocate General's opinion
29See clause 111 of the Advocate General's opinion
30See clause 112 of the Advocate General's opinion
31See clause 115 of the Advocate General's opinion
32See clause 120 of the Advocate General's opinion
33See clause 122 of the Advocate General's opinion
34See clause 3-6 of the court's judgement
35See clause 8 of the court's judgement
36See clause 9 of the court's judgement
37See clause 11 of the court's judgement
38See clause 12 of the court's judgement
39See clause 13 of the court's judgement
40See clause 17 of the court's judgement
41See clause 21 of the court's judgement
42See clause 22 of the court's judgement
43See clause 46 and 47 of the court's judgement
44See clause 49-51 of the court's judgement
45See clause 52 of the court's judgement
46See clause 53 of the court's judgement
47See clause 54 of the court's judgement
48See clause 64 of the court's judgement
49See clause 64 of the court's judgement
50See clause 74/1 if the courts judgement
51See clause 74/2 if the courts judgement
52Boycott, Désinvestissement, Sanctions :Le cadre juridique de l'action des militants
Last visited the site on 20 March 2011