Hearings in three different European Parliament committees over the course of the autumn indicate that the EU Commission struggles to relate to the latest round of EU Court rulings on trade with Western Sahara, that came in October 2024.

These new rulings came on the back of seven previous rulings that have, since 2015, all concluded that EU agreements with Morocco cannot be applied to Western Sahara without the consent of the people of the territory. The 2024 rulings came to the exact same conclusion.

During the autumn of 2024, the European Parliament's committees for International Trade (INTA), Fisheries (PECH) and Agriculture (AGRI), have each had a first hearing with EU Commission representatives to find out how the EU Commission will respond to the rulings. The decision to have such debates in the specialised committees, rather than in the plenary, was made in early October 2024. 

In all three hearings, different departments of the EU Commission expressed to still be analysing how to deal with the rulings, and that they looked forward to return to the committees once they have more concrete ideas. The Parliamentarians, from all political groups, expressed dissatisfaction about the Commission's lack of progress on rulings that, according to the MEPs, were to be expected.

The Commission is not slated to present anything during the first meetings of the three committees in the new year, suggesting little progress has been made since the last of the three hearings - the one in the INTA Committee - in early December 2024. What is on INTA's agenda, however, is a behind-closed doors exchange of views between the Committee's Monitoring Group on the Maghreb and the Polisario Front on 28 January 2025.

What was evident in the Commission’s presentations to the European Parliament's committees, was that they are in particular studying the options offered through the possibility of presumed consent. In the 2024 rulings that, yet again, cancelled the EU-Morocco trade and the fisheries agreement in Western Sahara, the Court argued that it is crucial that the people of the territory consent to the application of an agreement to their land, and that consent may also be presumed under very strict conditions. The two conditions for presumed consent are laid out by the Court in art. 153 of the trade ruling and in art. 181 of the fisheries ruling:

• The agreement must not create obligations for the people of Western Sahara;
• The people must receive “a specific, tangible, substantial and verifiable benefit from the exploitation of that territory’s natural resources” which is “proportional to the degree of that exploitation.”

Remarkably absent in all of the EU Commission’s presentations, in all three committees, is that the EU Court has stressed that consent, including presumed consent, is to stem from the people of Western Sahara, not from the population in Western Sahara. This argument is made throughout the rulings, including in the articles that spell out the conditions for presumed consent. The Court explains unequivocally that a majority of the population of Western Sahara is not part of the people that hold the right to self-determination, and that the majority of the people has been displaced. It is the people who hold the right to self-determination, that ought to give consent.

The key-findings of the recent Court rulings can be found here.

It is of concern that the EU Commission obfuscates this particular, crucial element of the rulings. In the aftermath of the Court rulings in 2016 and 2018 – already then annulling the EU-Morocco trade and fisheries Agreements in Western Sahara over lack of Saharawi consent - the EU Commission chose to consult Moroccan businesses, elected officials and organisations, rather than seek the consent of the Saharawi people. The Court has strongly rejected that approach. 

“Past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour, and we are therefore concerned that the Commission might explore what options are available to create the impression of a presumed consent on the basis of Moroccan, not Saharawi, actors”, says Sara Eyckmans, coordinator of Western Sahara Resource Watch (WSRW). “The EU’s relations with Morocco are of great importance, and efforts should be made to maintain them. But we encourage the institutions to align such efforts with the rulings of its highest Court, and as such, engage with the people - which is not the population - of Western Sahara, for all matters relating to the territory. They hold the right to self-determination, which means they hold the sovereign right to the resources of the territory. Respecting that is the only way for the EU to adhere to international and EU law.”

What exactly was said in the EU Parliament’s committees for International Trade, Agriculture and Fisheries? We broke it down for you, below.

PECH hearing – 17 October 2024

In October, Luis Molledo, Acting Head of Trade Negotiations and Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements in the EU Commissions Fisheries Department (DG MARE) told the EU Parliament’s Fisheries Committee that time was needed to assess the rulings, and stressed the EU’s intention to “preserve and continue strengthening our close relationship with Morocco”. 

Members of PECH, representing the entire political spectrum, were unison in expressing their disappointment with the Commission. While the EU Court of Justice ruled the EU-Morocco Fisheries Agreement to be illegal in Western Sahara in October 2024, the Agreement itself had already expired in July 2023. Moreover, the Agreement had been annulled in Western Sahara before, in 2018, and the EU Commission then chose to proceed with an amended agreement with Morocco that did not adhere to the 2018 ruling. 

At the same time, Members of PECH are divided on how to move forward. Carmen Crespo (S&D, Spain) and Francisco José Millán Mon (EPP, Spain) stressed the importance of the agreement for the Spanish fishermen, as did Nicolás González Casares (S&D, Spain), who stated that “the Court of Justice has been undermining” the chance of having an agreement, adding – without any consideration about the occupation of Western Sahara – that “Morocco and Russia have extended their fishing agreement, so the area that should be ours is being occupied by others that are not using as sustainable techniques as we are.” 

France Jamet (Patriots for Europe, France) stated that “democracy is being undermined by a bunch of judges” and that “the Court just decided on a whim”. 

Emma Wiesner (Renew, Sweden) considered the Court ruling clear on the need to secure consent from the people of Western Sahara, and advocated for a thorough debate on how to “address trade relations with countries involved in territorial disputes while still standing up for international law and EU's commitment to human rights.” Isabella Lövin (Greens, Sweden) referred to the EU Court’s press release that any future agreement would need the consent of the Saharawi people, “not of the local people in Western Sahara, which are presently people moved there from Morocco and not Saharawi regionals.” Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL, Ireland) told that the EU should use its trading power to make sure people aren’t repressed. 

A full transcript, made by WSRW, of the exchange of views with the EU Commission on the CJEU rulings cancelling EU-Morocco Fisheries Agreement in Western Sahara, in the PECH committee of 17 October 2024, is available here.

AGRI hearing – 18 November 2024

Mauro Pionelli, Head of Unit for Wine, Spirits and Horticultural products at the EU Commission’s Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development, told the Members of Agriculture Committee that it was still to premature to announce further steps, and that the Commission needed more time to asses. He did, however state that “it is important to highlight that the Court considers that the expression of the consent of the people of Western Sahara to the agreement at issue does not necessarily have to be explicit. Indeed, what the Court says is that international law does not exclude the possibility that the consent may be granted implicitly, provided the certain conditions are satisfied.” 

Pionelli listed the two conditions that the Court has put forward for establishing a presumed consent: first, that the agreement does not give rise to obligations for the people, and second, that it provides that that people receive a specific, tangible, substantial and verifiable benefit from the exploitation of the territory - a benefit which must also be proportional to the degree of that exploitation.

Pionelli did not explain that the conditions for presumed consent relate to the people, not the population of Western Sahara.

Many MEPs highlighted that there were already problems with the agricultural agreement with Morocco, in particular in relation to tomatoes where Moroccan producers are considered to have unfair advantages over their EU-based counterparts. Different political groups raised the need to have better controls and traceability in place, and to prioritise the interests of EU farmers over other trade considerations.

A full transcript, made by WSRW, of the exchange of views with the EU Commission on the CJEU rulings cancelling EU-Morocco Trade Agreement in Western Sahara, in the AGRI committee of 18 November 2024, is available here.

INTA hearing - 2 December 2024

Mercedes Bonet Gonzales, a director of the EU Commission's Directorate General for Trade (DG Trade), focussed on the Court rulings on the preferential trade deal and the ruling on the identification and labelling of products from Western Sahara. She focussed on the conditions for presuming consent, leaving out that the conditions apply to the people of Western Sahara, and not to the current population of the territory. She stressed that the Commission services were still studying the rulings.

In relation to the ruling on labelling, she said that the Commission has already drawn the attention of EU Member States in Council Groups about their responsibility to enforce and implement the ruling.

Maria Isabel Garcia Catalan, Head of Unit of Rules of Origin and Customs Valuation at the EU Commissions Directorate General for Taxation and Customs Union (DG TAXUD) stated that “the Court of Justice has given a little more guidance about how this consent – presumed consent – can be obtained. It is under this optic that the Commission is working.” At no point did she explain the Court's differentiation between the people and the population of the territory.

Members of INTA, from all political groups, expressed disappointment with the lack of progress by the Commission, two months after the most recent rulings. Many also expressed the need to strengthen and maintain the relationship with Morocco.

Standing rapporteur for trade with the Maghreb, Lynn Boylan (GUE/NGL, Ireland) stated that in her view, “there are three consequences of this. First for the EU, the need to comply with international law and judicial decisions, for Morocco, the loss of tariff preferences on products from Western Sahara affecting agriculture and fisheries exports, and then for Western Sahara itself, the recognition of the necessity to obtain the consent of the Saharawi people for the exploitation of their natural resources.”

A full transcript, made by WSRW, of the exchange of views with the EU Commission on the CJEU rulings cancelling EU-Morocco Trade Agreement in Western Sahara, in the INTA committee of 2 December 2024, is available here.

Since you're here....
WSRW’s work is being read and used more than ever. We work totally independently and to a large extent voluntarily. Our work takes time, dedication and diligence. But we do it because we believe it matters – and we hope you do too. We look for more monthly donors to support our work. If you'd like to contribute to our work – 3€, 5€, 8€ monthly… what you can spare – the future of WSRW would be much more secure. You can set up a monthly donation to WSRW quickly here.