On 30 July 2026, European Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič, in a written answer to a parliamentary question, cautioned that unilateral trade measures by Member States targeting Israel or goods from Judea and Samaria must comply with the EU's exclusive competence in common commercial policy. He stressed that any such measures must be notified to the Commission, be proportionate, and not more trade restrictive than necessary, while also respecting the EU's international commitments. The answer, which responds to a question from MEPs Sebastian Kruis and Ton Diepeveen (both PfE), signals the Commission's intent to police the boundaries of national trade actions within the single market.
The Commission's response reiterates the legal framework established under Articles 3(1)(e) and 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which grant the EU exclusive competence for common commercial policy. Šefčovič pointed to Article 24 of Regulation (EU) 2015/478, which allows Member States to adopt certain import measures only under narrowly defined circumstances, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union. He emphasised that Member States must substantiate that the conditions for invoking this exception are met, and that they are obliged to notify the Commission of any intended measures affecting imports covered by the common commercial policy. This follows the Commission's earlier response to written question E-002393/2025, which set out the same legal position.
The answer does not announce any new legal assessments or infringement procedures against Spain, Ireland, or Slovenia, which have recently announced or considered such measures. Instead, it reaffirms existing obligations and warns that divergent national measures risk undermining the uniformity of EU external trade policy and the integrity of the internal market. The Commission's tone is cautious, avoiding direct confrontation with the Member States concerned, but it clearly signals that any measures must pass strict legal scrutiny.
The policy orientation is one of centralisation and legal discipline: the Commission is asserting its role as the gatekeeper of EU trade policy, pushing back against national initiatives that could fragment the single market. For EU producers and exporters, this provides legal certainty that trade relations with Israel remain governed by EU-level rules, preventing a patchwork of national restrictions. For national authorities in Spain, Ireland, and Slovenia, the answer imposes a procedural burden: they must notify and justify any measures, and risk legal challenge if they overstep. For the European Parliament, the answer offers a clear legal baseline for future debates on the EU's stance towards Israel and the occupied territories. The Commission's approach balances the political desire of some Member States to act on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the legal imperative of preserving EU trade competence, though it does not resolve the underlying political tensions.