MEP Marc Botenga (The Left) has asked the European Commission to explain why it has not terminated or suspended Israel's participation in Horizon Europe, citing a 2025 review that found indications Israel breached the human rights clause of its association agreement. The question, filed on 26 June 2026, targets the Commission's legal reasoning for treating Israel differently from Russia, whose entities were cut off from Horizon Europe in March 2022.
Botenga's written question points to several legal instruments he argues give the Commission the power to act. He notes that the 2022 agreement on Israel's Horizon Europe participation contains a termination clause (Article 9.4) allowing either party to withdraw by written notification. He also references a 2017 legal opinion by the Commission's Legal Service that concluded the EU was legally entitled to suspend research cooperation with Israel. The MEP asks what prevents the Commission from invoking the termination clause, whether it has the competence to adopt interim measures such as suspending new grant agreements and payment flows (as it did for Russian entities in March 2022), and if not, which legal provision explains the differential treatment.
The question contains concrete legal references but no numerical targets or deadlines. It reflects a policy orientation toward stricter enforcement of conditionality in EU research funding, particularly regarding compliance with human rights clauses in association agreements. The Commission is expected to reply within approximately six weeks; its answer will signal whether it considers the legal basis sufficient for suspension or termination, and whether it views the Israeli case as legally distinct from the Russian one.
Israeli research institutions and companies could lose access to Horizon Europe funding and partnerships, affecting their competitiveness. EU researchers collaborating with Israeli counterparts would face disruption. The European Commission would face legal and diplomatic pressure from member states divided on the issue. EU taxpayers might see redirected funds, while the EU's credibility in enforcing its own agreements is at stake.