EC Regulations: ‘Targeted Sanctions’
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2007.71.1.25 |
| Published date | 01 February 2007 |
| Date | 01 February 2007 |
| Subject Matter | Court of First Instance |
Court of First Instance
EC Regulations: ‘Targeted Sanctions’
Judgments of 21 September 2005, Cases T–306/01 and T–315/01
Judgments of 12 July 2006, Cases T–253/02 and T–49/04
The plaintiffs’ funds had been frozen on the basis of ‘targeted sanctions’,
based on Council Regulation (EC) 881/2002 dated 27 May 2002 (OJ No.
L139, 29 May 2002, p. 10). Regulation (EC) 881/2002 was amended 68
times by 10 August 2006, the version in effect is 1217/2006, OJ No.
L220, 11 August 2006, p. 9). They claimed that this regulation was null
and void. Regulation (EC) 881/2002 rests upon Security Council
Resolutions 1267 and 1333 (available at www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/
1267/1267ResEng.htm, accessed 8 November 2006) the guidelines from
which were implemented by Council Common Decision
2002/402/CFSP dated 27 May 2002 (OJ No. L139, 29 May 2002, p. 4)
and the relevant Regulation.
H
ELD
,
DISMISSING THE PLAINTIFFS
’
ACTION
,
THE
EC
IS
,
IN THE SAME
WAYASITS
M
EMBER
S
TATES
,
UNDER A DUTY TO IMPLEMENT
S
ECURITY
C
OUNCIL RESOLUTIONS CONCERNING ECONOMIC SANCTIONS
. This obliga-
tion derives from the EC Treaty itself. Furthermore, the combined effect
of Articles 60, 301, 308 EC is to provide a basis for targeted sanctions
within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 EC, which means that the EC can
fulfil its duty by enacting binding EC Regulations. The court is empow-
ered to check the lawfulness of implemented Security Council resolu-
tions only with regard to ius cogens, and to ensure that applicants have
not arbitrarily been deprived of their right to make use of their property,
to the extent that such a right is protected under ius cogens.
C
OMMENTARY
The Court of First Instance deals among others with actions for annul-
ment (Article 230 EC). In the cases in question the court had to decide
on an EC Regulation that implements targeted sanctions. Evaluating the
decisions of the court, one has to keep the nature of those sanctions in
mind: one of the main aims of the United Nations is to combat the
financial basis of terrorism. Since the 1990s there has been a general
tendency towards so-called ‘smart sanctions’ or ‘targeted sanctions’
which are directed against a narrow group of addressees—sometimes
even individuals—as opposed to the traditional UN sanctions which
address states. Such a framework for sanctions brings about complex
questions regarding international and European criminal law. The Court
of First Instance had to deal mainly with two issues regarding: the
question of a duty of the EC to implement UN requirements and its
capability regarding this issue as well as the possibility of indirect judicial
control of a Security Council resolution. The findings of the court with
regard to the second question are not convincing; with regard to the
25
To continue reading
Request your trial