+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

EU throws out NGO Monitor case, tells Gerald Steinberg to pick up the tab

NGO Monitor and its director went all the way to Luxembourg to sue the EU for lack of transparency concerning the funds its gives NGOs in Israel and Palestine. Last month, the EU Court of Justice threw the case out saying the action was “manifestly lacking any foundation in law”

About three years ago, those lovely people over at NGO Monitor filed a suit in Luxembourg against the European Union to force the EU to release details of its funding of NGOs. NGO Monitor pulled out all the stops – hiring a top law firm, calling a press conference to announce the move, accusing the EU of a lack of transparency, with director Gerald Steinberg saying that the EU has funneled about $46 million to about 90 NGOs in Israel and the Palestinian territories over three years. This past January, NGO Monitor attacked the German Heinrich Böll Foundation for a grant of 6,000 euros it gave +972 Magazine in 2011.

Well, I’m happy to inform you that the court has thrown out the case, and Steinberg has been left with the bill. According to a ruling dated November 27, 2012 on the official website of the EU Court of Justice, Steinberg’s case against the EU has been thrown out, with Steinberg ordered to foot all legal costs. The judges ruled, “The action is dismissed as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly lacking any foundation in law and that “Mr. Gerald Steinberg shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.”

At the January 2010 press conference, NGO Monitor said it filed the lawsuit at the European Court of Justice because the European Commission had failed to fulfill European Union transparency obligations after Steinberg & co tried for 13 months to secure documents on NGO funding decisions by the EC, the executive branch of the European Union. The Europeans had passed on documents, but not enough to satisfy Steinberg and with some parts redacted. Spokesman for the EU Delegation in Israel, David Kriss, said that “In line with the EU regulations on transparency, the European Commission has provided Prof. Steinberg with comprehensive information on the funding of projects in Israel and in the region. The extensive information at Prof. Steinberg’s disposal is proof of this.” But it wasn’t enough, so he took the Commission to court.

A year later, in an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post, Steinberg charged that Europe needs a parliamentary inquiry on NGO funding. He boasted that NGO Monitor had exposed “the massive and often secret funding for highly political NGOs from European governments, and the European Union in particular.” He talked of the ” impenetrable shroud of secrecy” around the processes by which the EU funds groups in Israel and Palestine and accused the EU “blatantly violating the basic rules of funding transparency.”

Understandably, the European Ambassador to Israel, Andrew Standley was angry. In response, he wrote to the editor that “funding of projects by the European Union worldwide is carried out by open and public calls for proposals published on EU websites,” providing the links for where to find the call for proposals as well as the full list of projects funded by the EU in Israel. His letter also states that Steinberg is “fully aware” of the processes undertaken by the EU from the numerous conversations the delegation has had with him on this issues. Far from there being an “impenetrable shroud of secrecy,” organizations that receive funding from the EU are “contractually obligated to make publicly known the source of this funding,” Standley noted.

Well, last month the Luxembourg court ruled in favor of the Commission. The lengthy ruling goes through each and every one of Steinberg’s claims, and repeatedly rejects them for being “manifestly unfounded” or “manifestly lacking any foundation in law.” The Commission claimed that it had to redact certain parts of the document to protect staff identities, or due to the sensitivity of some projects “which may go against the specific interests of or be in conflict with the convictions of certain groups of persons or bodies, situated both in Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” In the OPT in particular, there was a risk that if they were identified, they “may be perceived by some radical groups as collaboration with Israel.” The Court ruled that Steinberg did not dispute such facts “nor does he put forward the slightest argument to show that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in finding that there was a high risk that the activities of the NGOs in question would attract hostile attention which could result in threats to the moral and/or physical integrity of the various persons concerned and thus disturb public security, with the result that it was necessary to blank out certain detailed information on the projects in question in the requested documents. Essentially, he merely make general assertions.”

I wonder if NGO Monitor (who have their own transparency issues) will tell us how they manage to fund the payment of the legal fees…

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. Danya Cohen

      Actually, the EU is very transparent about their process. They have extremely detailed guidelines, and provide applicants with very detailed scaled feedback about their applications and reasons for rejection. NGO monitor is full of shit.

      Reply to Comment
      • Some Body

        Yep, and they keep rejecting everybody, so he’s doubly full of shit.

        Reply to Comment
    2. Danni

      Nice pic of Gerald Steinberg !

      Reply to Comment
      • Philos

        Not by the way it has been reported by Chemi Levinson of Ha’aaretz. Totally devoid of content on the ruling with a long tirade from Steinberg at the end leaving one with the impression that the ruling was a stitch up

        Reply to Comment
    3. The extra good news is that independent European foundations will now be disinclined to listen to NGO Monitor at all.

      Reply to Comment
    4. directrob

      NGO monitor is a bit tonedeaf as far as human rights are concerned. They did however create a nice alert service for NGO reports and sites with “the other” news about Israel.

      Reply to Comment
    5. yuri

      Secret funds ?
      Is it EU or KGB ?

      Reply to Comment
    6. Jan

      I love it! I am on the email list for these slimy apologists for whatever bad thing Israel might be doing. I hope that they get their clocks cleaned and the sooner the better.

      It is past time that NGO Monitor gets monitored by those who believe in human rights for all and not just for some.

      Reply to Comment
    7. klang

      what happens if they dont pay the legal fees?

      Reply to Comment