Misinterpreting Mislabelling: The Psagot Ruling

Abstract

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2019 4(3), 763-777 | Insight | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. The CJEU recourse to international law in decisions on disputed territories. - III. Court's analysis in Psagot: mandatory indication of the country of origin or the place of provenance of foodstuffs. - III.1. "Country of origin" v. "place of provenance". - III.2. Misleading consumers regarding the products' territory of origin and place of provenance. - III.3. Consumer protection and mandatory nature of origin marks. - IV. Observance of international law as a ground for mandatory origin marking. - V. Conclusion. | (Abstract) Mandatory origin labelling of products from occupied territories has been a delicate matter in the EU external trade policy. In the recent judgement Psagot (judgment of 12 November 2019, case C-363/18, Organisation juive européenne and Vignoble Psagot [GC]), the Court of Justice considered consumers' ethical considerations related to violations of international law as a reason for mandatory origin labelling of products originating in the Israeli settlements. This Insight argues that, in its decision, the Court missed a number of opportunities to clarify some essential concepts of EU food law, consumer protection and customs law and, as such, provided a ruling that is based on flawed and unconvincing argumentation. The Court's broad interpretation of the notion "ethical considerations" under Regulation 1169/2011 opens a Pandora's box of trade-restrictive practices while at the same time, continues the EU inconsistent policy towards trade with occupied territories.

Keywords

• eu external relations
• origin marking
• consumer protection
• food information
• average consumer
• ethics in eu law