The EZZ Case: Some Critical Observations
| Published date | 01 September 2015 |
| Date | 01 September 2015 |
| DOI | 10.1177/203228441500600304 |
| Subject Matter | Opinion |
316 Intersentia
THE EZZ CASE: SOME CRITICAL
OBSERVATIONS
Case T-256/11 and on Appeal Case C-220/14 P
S C*10
1. INTRODUCTION
Mr Ezz is an Egyptian businessman. His assets in the EU were frozen on 21March
2011 by the Council of the European Union followi ng a request for judicial assistance
from Egypt. e freezing measure was contested. e General C ourt of the EU
con rmed the validity of the contested act. e appeal to t he CJEU against the
judgment of the General Court w as lodged on 5May 2014. e Appeal judg ment was
handed down on 5March 2015. e CJEU decided the ca se without the bene t of an
Opinion from the Advocate Genera l and without hearing ora l argument from the
parties. e case was treated summarily by t he courts and does not seem to have
attracted much attention. Yet since the Counci l took the request for judicial assistanc e
as justi cation for a Council imposed EU wide asset f reeze, some comment is
warranted, t he Council not being a judicial authority.
In the freezing mea sure Mr Ezz was and is designated by the Council a s a person
“subject to judicial proceedings by the Egyptian author ities in respect of the
misappropriation of State Funds on the ba sis of the United Nations Convention against
Corruption”, this designation being taken from the Egyptia n request for judicial
assistance.
Under Article 46(17) of the UNCAC, which is addressed to State par ties, the
domestic courts of the EU are, in accordance with and to the extent permitted by
domestic law, obliged to provide mutual judicial assistance to the courts of third
countries which have rati ed the UNCAC. Eg ypt rati ed the UNCAC on 25February
200 5, a ll EU Memb er St ates have a lso rati ed it, as has the EU itself. Judicia l assistance
includes, under Article4 6(4) UNCAC, asset freezing.
Had the Council passed the Egyptia n request for judicial assista nce onto the
competent authorities of the Member States for them to place before their domestic
courts, it would have complied with the Egyptia n request. e Council did not do
* Lawyer, Brussels . e author deals w ith the issues rais ed in the course of his pr actice.
To continue reading
Request your trial