Palestinians Lag et al. v. Prime Minister (France)
On July 22, 2026, five human rights organizations filed proceedings before the Conseil d’État, France’s highest administrative court, seeking an order requiring the French government to adopt measures to prevent French corporate actors from trading or investing with the Israeli occupation in Palestine. The applicants—the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Jurists for the Respect of International Law (JURDI), the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP), La Ligue des Droits Humains (LDH), and Law for Palestine, with technical assistance from the Open Society Justice Initiative—argue that France has failed to adopt effective measures to prevent companies and financial institutions under its jurisdiction from contributing to the unlawful situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT).
The case is based on the July 2024 International Court of Justice (ICJ)’s advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in the OPT including East Jerusalem. The opinion followed a request by the United Nations General Assembly, which asked the court to address the consequences of Israel’s prolonged occupation, settlement, annexation, and related measures, as well as the obligations of other states and the United Nations.
The ICJ concluded that Israel’s continued presence in the OPT is unlawful and held that all states are under obligations not to recognize as lawful the resulting situation, not to render aid or assistance in maintaining it, including in economic and trade matters, and to act consistently with their obligations under international law.
The applicants in the Conseil d’État’s case contend that existing French measures, including guidance concerning economic activities linked to Israeli settlements, are insufficient to meet France’s international obligations. They ask the Conseil d’État to annul the government’s refusal to act and order the adoption of measures necessary to prevent trade with the Israeli occupation as far as the OPT is concerned.
France and the Occupied Palestinian Territory
The legal status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been addressed in numerous United Nations resolutions and international proceedings. In September 2024, following the ICJ advisory opinion, the United Nations’ General Assembly adopted a resolution endorsing the opinion and calling on states to distinguish between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory in their dealings, and to ensure that persons and entities under their jurisdiction do not contribute to maintaining the unlawful occupation.
France has expressed support for the ICJ advisory opinion and related UN resolutions. It has recognized the State of Palestine, supported European Union statements to distinguish between goods originating in Israel and those from Israeli settlements, issued guidance concerning business activities in settlements, and supported sanctions against certain individuals involved in settlement-related activities. The applicants, however, argue that these measures remain insufficient and do not oblige French corporate and financial actors to change their behavior in contributing to the maintenance of the unlawful occupation.
Facts
At the end of March 2025, the plaintiffs sent a formal notice to the French government requesting the adoption of measures necessary to comply with France’s obligations under international law following the ICJ’s 2024 advisory opinion.
The government did not respond within the applicable two-month period. Plaintiffs argue that this silence constitutes an implicit administrative decision. It is this decision that is being challenged before the Conseil d’État through an action for abuse of power (recours pour excès de pouvoir) accompanied by a request for injunctive relief (REP-injonction).
On June 30, 2026, the French government issued new recommendations to businesses operating in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, warning of potential legal risks. The applicants contend that these recommendations remain insufficient because they do not impose binding measures capable of preventing corporate activities that contribute to maintaining the unlawful situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
The applicants argue that French companies and financial institutions continue to engage in activities connected to sectors including transportation, construction, finance, and commercial services in the OPT. They contend that economic activity contributes to sustaining the occupation since France has failed to adopt effective measures to prevent such involvement.
Through these proceedings, the applicants seek to clarify the scope of France’s obligations following the ICJ’s 2024 advisory opinion and to obtain an order requiring the French government to adopt measures ensuring that entities under its jurisdiction do not contribute to maintaining the unlawful situation created by Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Arguments
France Has Failed to Comply with Its Obligations Under International Law
The plaintiffs argue that France has failed to comply with its obligations under international law by not adopting effective measures to prevent trade and investment relations that assist in maintaining Israel’s unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
They contend that the ICJ’s 2024 advisory opinion established clear obligations for third states, including the obligation not to recognize as lawful the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the OPT; the obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation, and the obligation to take steps to prevent trade and investment relations that assist in maintaining the unlawful occupation.
According to the plaintiffs, these obligations require states to take concrete measures concerning companies, investors, and financial institutions under their jurisdiction. They argue that France has not fulfilled this obligation because existing measures do not prevent French corporate and financial actors from maintaining economic relationships connected to the occupation.
Plaintiffs argue that recommendations warning companies of possible legal or reputational risks are insufficient because they do not impose binding requirements or establish mechanisms to monitor and prevent activities that contribute to maintaining the unlawful situation.
The French Government’s Inaction Is Unlawful
The plaintiffs argue that the French government’s failure to act following their formal request constitutes an unlawful administrative decision.
They contend that France has acknowledged the existence of its obligations under international law through its public support for the ICJ advisory opinion and the United Nations General Assembly resolution. However, they argue that France has not taken the steps necessary to give effect to those obligations.
The applicants ask the Conseil d’État to order the government to adopt measures necessary to comply with the obligations identified by the ICJ advisory opinion and the General Assembly resolution. They further request that the court find that France has failed to fulfill this obligation and issue an injunction requiring the state to adopt appropriate measures.
The Conseil d’État Should Require Effective Measures to Prevent Corporate Support for the Unlawful Situation
The applicants argue that judicial intervention is necessary to ensure that France’s international legal obligations are effective in practice. They contend that, without concrete measures regulating corporate and financial activities, the obligations identified by the ICJ have no teeth.
The applicants request that the French government adopt measures including:
- Publishing a notice warning French individuals and legal entities of the financial, legal, and reputational risks associated with economic and commercial activities in settlements or other parts of the OPT that contribute to maintaining the unlawful situation
- Publishing a regularly updated database identifying companies registered in France engaged in economic or commercial activities in settlements or other parts of the OPT that contribute to maintaining or developing the settlement enterprise
- Prohibiting French individuals, companies, and financial institutions from holding or acquiring interests in companies engaged in economic activities connected to settlements or projects linked to the occupation;
- Prohibiting French individuals, companies, and financial institutions from maintaining economic or commercial activities that contribute to the continuation, perpetuation, or expansion of settlements
- Requiring French financial institutions and investors to cease financing, investment, or banking services where there are reasonable grounds to suspect involvement in activities connected to maintaining or developing settlements
- Freezing assets of persons or entities whose activities contribute to maintaining or developing settlements in the OPT
- Excluding from public procurement persons or entities whose economic relationships contribute to maintaining the unlawful situation created by Israel’s presence in the OPT
The REP-injunction Procedure
Under French administrative law, administrative decisions may be challenged before administrative courts. Where an administration fails to respond to a formal request to adopt an administrative act, that silence may constitute an administrative decision subject to judicial review through an action for abuse of power (recours pour excès de pouvoir).
Through this procedure, an administrative court may review whether an administrative decision is lawful and, where appropriate, annul it. When accompanied by a request for injunctive relief, the procedure also allows the administrative judge to require the administration to take measures necessary to comply with its legal obligations.
The applicants argue that this procedure is appropriate because the issue before the Conseil d’État is not only whether the government’s inaction is lawful, but whether France has taken sufficient measures to fulfil its international obligations.
Open Society Justice Initiative Involvement
The applicants are represented by Henri Thulliez, Yacine Baita, and Frédéric Thiriez, and are advised by the Open Society Justice Initiative.
Related Work
Rights Groups Sue France Over Failure to Prevent Corporate Support for Israel’s Occupation in Palestine
Human rights organizations file a legal challenge before France’s highest administrative court, seeking for the government to adopt measures to prevent French corporate and financial actors from contributing to Israel’s unlawful occupation of Palestine.
ICC Judges Sue Trump Administration Over ICC Sanctions
Three ICC judges have filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of an Executive Order issued by President Trump, and are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against sanctions by the U.S. government.
U.S. Court Bars Enforcement of Sanctions that Undermine the Rule of Law and Betray American Values
A U.S. federal court issued a permanent injunction to protect the First Amendment rights of two plaintiffs who are law professors and could have been targeted by the Trump Administration’s sanctions for their work with the International Criminal Court (ICC).