1. What is the purpose of the procedure?
Five organizations are suing the French government before the Council of State, the highest court in matters of administrative law, for its failure to take effective measures to comply with its obligations under international law concerning the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The action is brought by the International Center for Justice for Palestinians (ICJP), Law for Palestine (Palestinas LAG), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), the Association of Jurists for Respect for International Law (JURDI) and the LDH (Human Rights League).
The inaction of the French government regarding the activities of French companies and investors in the Occupied Palestinian Territory constitutes a serious breach of international law. The 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Israel's continued presence in the OPT was illegal and affirmed that states have an obligation not to recognize, aid, or assist the situation resulting from this occupation.
At the end of March 2025, the organizations sent a formal notice to the French Prime Minister, the Minister of the Economy, Finance and Industrial, Energy and Digital Sovereignty, the Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, and the Minister for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Trade and Crafts, Tourism and Purchasing Power, demanding that they comply with France's international obligations arising from the landmark advisory opinion "Legal Consequences of Israel's Policies and Practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem" (ICJ, General Roll No. 186), adopted on July 19, 2024, by the "World Court," the International Court of Justice. Having received no response within the two-month deadline, the organizations filed, on July 22, 2026, an application for judicial review and an injunction against the French government, also requesting interim measures.
The objective of this legal action is to ensure that the French government complies with its international legal obligations by adopting domestic measures aimed at« effectively prevent commercial or investment relationships that contribute to maintaining the illegal situation created by Israel in the TPO ».
2. What type of legal action is an application for judicial review (REP-)? injunction)?
In French administrative law, an administrative act can be challenged before an administrative judge. When the administration fails to respond to a formal request to adopt an act, its silence is considered an administrative decision that can be challenged before the judge for abuse of power (appeal for abuse of power). Through this appeal, the administrative judge assesses the legality of an administrative act adopted by the administration and producing legal effects. If the judge deems the decision illegal, they can annul it. The contested act is then retroactively removed from the legal order and considered never to have existed.
When filing an appeal for abuse of power, applicants may request injunctive relief. Within this procedure, the administrative judge can, in addition to annulling an act, exercise direct coercive power over the administration to require it to take more effective measures (appeal for abuse of power – injunction, or REP – injunction). The main objective of the procedure then no longer rests solely on the legality of an act, but also involves assessing whether the administration's action was sufficient.
In recent years, this procedure has been widely used in climate litigation, particularly to challenge the systematic inaction of the French Administration in the fight against climate change.
3. What are the facts that gave rise to this case?
France is subject to several obligations under international law regarding Israel's illegal occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory.
Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. A fundamental corollary of this principle is that the acquisition of territory through the use of force cannot be recognized as lawful. In Resolution 242 (1967) concerning the territories occupied by Israel, the UN Security Council reaffirmed this principle, emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. More recently, in Resolution 2334 (2016), the Security Council reaffirmed that Israel's settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of international law.
Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. A fundamental corollary of this principle is that the acquisition of territory by force cannot be recognized as legal. In its resolution 242 (1967) concerning the territories occupied by Israel, the United Nations Security Council reaffirmed this principle, emphasizing the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war. More recently, in its resolution 2334 (2016), the Security Council reaffirmed that Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of international law.
In December 2022, the United Nations General Assembly requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the highest court in the United Nations system, to determine the legal consequences for Israel, the UN and all States arising from Israel's violation of the occupation of Palestinian territory occupied since 1967.
In July 2024, the ICJ issued its advisory opinion, concluding that Israel's continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful and that Israel has an obligation to end it as soon as possible, cease all new settlement activity, evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and make reparations for the damage caused to all affected natural and legal persons. Crucially, the Court established the legal consequences for other States, ruling that all States have an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation resulting from Israel's unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and not to provide aid or assistance in maintaining this situation.
Regarding the economic obligations incumbent upon all States, the Court ruled that they are required to« not to maintain, with regard to the Occupied Palestinian Territory or parts thereof of this, of economic or commercial relations with Israel which would be likely to strengthen the unlawful presence of the latter in this territory »and of« take measures to prevent trade or investments that help maintain the illicit situation created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian Territory » (advisory opinion, para. 278).
Subsequently, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution in September 2024, which imposes several binding obligations on all States, including:
- « Do not recognize any changes in physical characteristics or composition demographics, institutional structure, or the status of the territory occupied by Israel June 5, 1967, including East Jerusalem, other than those agreed upon by the parties through negotiations »;
- to establish, in their relations with Israel, a distinction between the territory of the State of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory, which implies the obligation to take "« measures for prevent trade or investment that helps maintain the illicit situation created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory »;
- « Take measures to ensure that their nationals and companies and entities under their jurisdiction jurisdiction, as well as their authorities, refrain from any act that would imply the recognition of the situation created by Israel's illegal presence in the Territory occupied Palestinian or which would constitute aid or assistance to the maintenance of this situation ».
France has publicly committed to respecting and implementing both the ICJ advisory opinion and the UN General Assembly resolution. However, to date, the French administration has not adopted sufficient measures.
4. What is the objective of the REP-injunction?
By filing an application for judicial review with the Council of State, the applicants are asking the Administration to adopt measures enabling France to comply with its international obligations.
More specifically, the applicants are asking the administrative judge to:
- Confirm the existence of a positive legal obligation incumbent upon the French State to take the necessary and appropriate measures to execute the obligations recalled by the advisory opinion of 19 July 2024 and UNGA resolution ES-10/24 (2024); ;
- To note France's failure to meet this obligation, as evidenced by the absence of concrete measures taken to ensure compliance with the obligations identified in the advisory opinion of July 19, 2024; ;
- To issue an injunction against the French State so that it adopts measures enabling it to comply with its international obligations.
5. Why does the appeal focus on the obligation to take measures to prevent trade or investment relationships that contribute to France is maintaining the illegal situation created by Israel in the OPT. Haven't you done enough already?
Over the years, France has implemented several measures to challenge the illegal situation created by the Israeli occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.
For example, France has supported several UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions condemning the occupation as illegal and the violation of fundamental Palestinian rights, including the right to self-determination. France has taken several concrete steps demonstrating that it does not recognize the Israeli occupation as legal. In particular, on September 22, 2025, France officially recognized the State of Palestine before the UN General Assembly. France has also supported the European policy of distinguishing between products made in Israel and those made in settlements located in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and has issued recommendations to French companies regarding their involvement in operations conducted in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Finally, alongside other EU member states, France has imposed sanctions on several individuals actively involved in Israel's occupation strategy.
These measures, however, remain insufficient to guarantee full compliance by France of its obligations under international law, as set out in the advisory opinion of 2024, which notably require France to take measures to prevent trade or investment relationships that contribute to maintaining the situation illegality created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory. This is evidenced by the fact that Some French companies continue to maintain economic ties with the colonies.
This obligation to conduct itself is an integral part of the obligations not to recognize the illegal occupation of the Palestinian Territory and not to provide aid or assistance to Israel in maintaining and expanding its occupation. Indeed, as former Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Michael Lynk, emphasized in his 2020 report, the activities of businesses and the private sector contribute significantly to the economic viability of the Israeli settlement enterprise. Mr. Lynk argued that without this massive corporate involvement, the settlements—the driving force behind the occupation—would constitute an unsustainable economic burden for the Israeli government. However, none of the measures implemented by France truly address the involvement of French companies in economic activities conducted in the Occupied Territory. Given the crucial role of economic activities in supporting the Israeli occupation, the sporadic publication of recommendations mentioning mere potential legal and reputational risks for companies cannot be considered a diligent exercise of this obligation by France. France must assume its responsibilities, and it must do so now.
Time is running out. As the French government itself acknowledges, the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory has rapidly deteriorated in recent months, with Israel strengthening and expanding its occupation of the Palestinian territory.
6. What measures should the French administration adopt?
The administrative judge can only note the Administration's failure to fulfill an obligation and order it to comply with it.
However, for the applicants, it is essential that the measures adopted be binding on French nationals, companies and entities under French jurisdiction.
Suggestions include:
1) The publication of a new notice intended to alert French individuals and legal entities to the financial, legal and reputational risks linked to the continuation of economic and commercial activities in the settlements or in other parts of the occupied Palestinian Territory contributing to perpetuating the illegal situation resulting from the Israeli occupation; ;
2) The publication of a comprehensive and regularly updated database listing all companies with their registered office in France that are currently engaged, or have been engaged in the last five years, in economic or commercial activities in the settlements or in other parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that contribute, in any way whatsoever, to the maintenance, perpetuation or development of the colonization of the Occupied Territory; ;
3) The prohibition, for French natural and legal persons, including financial institutions, from holding or acquiring interests in companies carrying out economic activities in the settlements and other parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory or in projects related to the occupation; ;
4) The prohibition, for French natural and legal persons, including financial institutions, from developing or maintaining economic or commercial activities in Israeli settlements or in any other part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory which would contribute, in any way whatsoever, to the continuation, perpetuation or expansion of the colonization of the Occupied Territory; continuation, perpetuation or expansion of the settlement of the Occupied Territory;
5) The obligation for French financial institutions and investors to cease all financing, investment or banking services provided to Israeli legal entities when there are reasonable grounds to suspect their involvement in maintaining, perpetuating or developing the colonization of the Occupied Territory; ;
6) The freezing of the assets of any natural or legal person whose activities contribute to the maintenance, perpetuation or development of the colonization of the Occupied Territory, pursuant to Article L. 562-3 of the Monetary and Financial Code; ;
7) The exclusion from public procurement of any natural or legal person likely, by maintaining economic or commercial relations, to provide aid or assistance to the maintenance of the unlawful situation created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian Territory.
7. What are the next steps in the procedure?
Today, July 22, 2026, the REP-injunction was filed with the Council of State.
The case will now enter the written procedure phase, during which the French ministers and the applicants will exchange written submissions. The ministers will initially respond to the arguments raised by the organizations. The applicants will then file a reply brief, generally within one month of receiving the ministerial brief. Further written exchanges may take place.
Following this written phase, a hearing will be scheduled before the Council of State. Although there are no fixed deadlines for this procedure, the hearing generally takes place a little over a year after the application for interim relief is filed. The decision is usually issued a few days after the hearing (20 to 30 days).
In the absence of binding deadlines, this timetable is subject to change, particularly if the parties request extensions or postponements. 1 Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Report A/75/532, 22 October 2020.
2 Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Report A/75/532, 22 October 2020, para 58.
View the full document