58 No. 73 JUSTICE request of the French authorities – to be insufficient. These measures consisted of a prohibition on Israeli companies and their subsidiaries to have their own stand or being hosted at the stand of a non-Israeli company, as well as the removal of the entire Israeli pavilion from the premises. This tactic of using judicial processes to exercise overt discrimination is called “lawfare.” The judge further prohibited Israeli arms manufacturers, their employees or representatives, as well as any individual or legal persona who might act as their broker or intermediary from entering the EUROSATORY exhibition. The judge also prohibited other exhibitors from hosting representatives of the banned Israeli companies at their stands, and selling or promoting Israeli weapons, or facilitating mediation between these companies in any way. The organizing company of the exhibition filed a partial appeal, limited to challenging the extension of the prohibition measures made by the first judge. The Court of Appeal altered the lower court’s decision on the grounds that “the role of the judge in summary proceedings is to determine whether there is a violation of a legal rule that is manifestly unlawful, and not to interpret it, or, if necessary, to extend its scope, to justify the imposition of conservatory measures or restoration orders.”7 Inasmuch as this was only a partial appeal, the other provisions of the order were upheld, meaning that the government’s prohibitions were validated, justifying judicial intervention based on the extension of the obligation to prevent the risk of genocide as defined by the International Court of Justice on January 26, 2024. Above all, this case law transformed an obligation placed on the French State as a subject of public international law, into a subjective right that could be enforced by any private entity, which in this case was the France Palestine Solidarité association. It is regrettable that the judge did not address such an important issue as the ban by COGES, which is a subsidiary of GICAT8 and largely dependent on France’s Ministry of Armed Forces, and opportunistically accepted the admissibility of claims based on France’s obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The France-Israel Chamber of Commerce belatedly adopted a proactive strategy based on the discrimination faced by Israeli companies. Both French and European law view discrimination unfavorably. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union prohibits …any discrimination based on any grounds such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age, or sexual orientation. Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.9 French legislation defines discrimination more broadly and, in particular, considers discrimination involving the denial of goods or services a criminal offense.10 Penalties are increased when the discriminatory refusal involves a public venue,11 as is the case with the EUROSATORY exhibition. On these grounds, the France-Israel Chamber of Commerce filed a summary procedure (référé) against COGES, the organizer of the event, before the Paris Commercial Court. The Court (whose judges are merchants elected by their peers) argued that COGES’s decision to ban “any stand of the Israeli defense industry at the EUROSATORY 2024 exhibition” constituted an unlawful act. 6. Tribunal Judiciaire [TGI] [Judicial Court] Bobigny, June 14, 2024, Minute No. 24/01765, 8 (Fr.) available at https://www.france-palestine.org/IMG/pdf/jugement_ bobigny_14juin2024.pdf 7. Paris Court of Appeal, June 18, 2024 8. “Who Are We?” COGES EVENTS, available at https:// www.cogesevents.com/about-us/who-arewe/?lang=en#:~:text=COGES%20(Commissariat%20G% C3%A9n%C3%A9ral%20des%20Expositions,land%20 and%20airland%20Defence%20and 9. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union art. 21, 2012 O.J. (C 326) 391, available at https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3A OJ.C_.2012.326.01.0391.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AC%3A 2012%3A326%3ATOC 10. French Penal Code, Art. 225-2 (“Discrimination as defined in Article 225-1, committed against a natural or legal person, shall be punishable by three years of imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 Euros when it consists of... refusing to provide a good or service or obstructing the normal exercise of any economic activity”). 11. Ibid. last paragraph: (When the discriminatory refusal specified in paragraph 1 is committed in a public venue or with the intent to prohibit access to such a venue, the penalties shall be increased to five years of imprisonment and a fine of 75,000 Euros).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=