judicial control of restrictive measures in the eu
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Judicial control of restrictive measures in the EU](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042907/5889cfaa1a28ab83478b4605/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Judicial control of restrictive measures in the EU
ERAERA25 September 201525 September 2015
Marc van der WoudeMarc van der Woude
![Page 2: Judicial control of restrictive measures in the EU](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042907/5889cfaa1a28ab83478b4605/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
IntroductionIntroduction
I.General observations II.The scope of the reviewIII.Practical observations
NB: all comments are purely personal focus on last two years
![Page 3: Judicial control of restrictive measures in the EU](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042907/5889cfaa1a28ab83478b4605/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
I. General observations: the legal basis for the review
As a rule no judicial control by ECJ on CFSP issues, except where restrictive measures against legal and natural persons (275 TFEU)
CFSP decision Member States implement decision TFEU part , Regulation ex 215 TFEU
Follow on UN sanctions and autonomous sanctions UN implementation, no reason not to control (Kadi I, C-
402&415/05 P)
![Page 4: Judicial control of restrictive measures in the EU](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042907/5889cfaa1a28ab83478b4605/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
I. General observations: categories and interactions
Multi layered sanctions (typically terrorists, such as Al Qaida, Hamas, Tamil Tigers)
Interactions with UN, national systems and/or third country decisions (reasons for listing in decision of competent authority with subsequent EU control: see Hamas, T-400/10)
EU level sanctions (e.g. country sanctions (Iran, Syria, Byelorussia):
System of its own, with listing criteria and decisions applying them
General decisions and implementing decisions (who does what ? NIOC T-578/82))
Initiative with Member States
![Page 5: Judicial control of restrictive measures in the EU](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042907/5889cfaa1a28ab83478b4605/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
I. General observations: the activity of the General Court
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 (Q2)
Incoming 21 93 59 41 68 35
% 3.3 12.8 9.5 5.1 7.4 9.3
outgoing 10 32 42 40 68 32
![Page 6: Judicial control of restrictive measures in the EU](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042907/5889cfaa1a28ab83478b4605/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
I. General observations: the activity of the Court of Justice
In period 22 judgments rendered on appeal of which 7 leading to annulment of GC ruling
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
incoming 7 17 6 7 7 10
appeals 3 6 5 6 6 8
![Page 7: Judicial control of restrictive measures in the EU](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042907/5889cfaa1a28ab83478b4605/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
I. General observations:formal and substantive issues
A blurred distinction : Kadi II (C-584, 593 and 595/10 P)•Formal rights : legal basis, procedural safeguards and reasoning (grounds 117 and 118)•Control of veracity : access to underlying information (Kadi II, ground 119)
Formal issues becoming less relevant: •Context may help to explain : Bamba C-417/11•Outcome oriented approach: Persia International Bank T-439/10,
![Page 8: Judicial control of restrictive measures in the EU](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042907/5889cfaa1a28ab83478b4605/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
II. The scope of review : the intensity of review
Kadi II: full review is the rule
However, Distinction general listing criteria and individual
decision (NIOC T-578/12) One reason is enough (Kadi II and Kala Naft,
C-348/12 P) Balancing act on the basis of available
information (Kadi II, ground 125, see below)
![Page 9: Judicial control of restrictive measures in the EU](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042907/5889cfaa1a28ab83478b4605/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
II. The scope of review : the issue of secret documents
Kadi II, grounds 125-129, balancing act: legitimate security reasons procedural safeguards
if authority refuses, on the basis of available infoif secret, alternatives
New rules of procedure : Article 105 unlike Article 103, right to refuse and right to withdraw possibility to take confidential elements into consideration
Link with legality review (ground 111 Kadi II)
![Page 10: Judicial control of restrictive measures in the EU](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042907/5889cfaa1a28ab83478b4605/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
II.The scope of review : the evidence required
Kala Naft : need to take account of regulatory framework (link oil industry
and proliferation relying on non-contested elements in the file
Anbouba, C-630/13 P : no presumptions; but bundle of converging indicia to be interpreted in light of context (war, urgency, difficulties to collect evidence)
Bouchra Al Assad, T-202/12 : family links if manifest and foreseen by criteria
Bateni, T-42/12: freshness of the evidence
![Page 11: Judicial control of restrictive measures in the EU](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042907/5889cfaa1a28ab83478b4605/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
III.Practical observations: what do applicants want ?
IOEC, T-110/12 : reasoning and substance
Ayadi, T-527/09 RENV, but it must sufficiently be clear that applicant contests substance
![Page 12: Judicial control of restrictive measures in the EU](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042907/5889cfaa1a28ab83478b4605/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
III. Practical observations: are the sanctions targeted?
No possibility for individuals to challenge general measures, only if 263 TFEU with possibility of 277 TFEU (see Hemmati, T68/12)
Distinction between general and targeted is blurred when using very wide criteria : support to regime, control by entities already listed
Paradoxical results: burden of proof seems lower for indirect support than for direct support
![Page 13: Judicial control of restrictive measures in the EU](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042907/5889cfaa1a28ab83478b4605/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
III.Practical observations: is judicial control relevant?
High annulment rates, but many subsequent re-inscriptions and/or new criteria, leading to an ongoing stream of litigation
ne bis in idem for preventive measures limited in time ?
The effects of the annulment ruling in time, diverging practices application of Article 60 Statute to Regulation and by analogy to
Decision Article 264 TFEU with various periods, National Tanker T-
565/12, Hamas and Sharif University T-181/13
Actions for damages, Sepahan, T-384/11