Revisiting the Role of the EU Judiciary as the Stronghold for the Protection of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism
-
Alice Riccardi
Abstract
This article revisits the response of the European Union (EU) to the challenges posed by anti-terrorist smart sanctions regimes to fundamental rights, vis-à-vis recent legal developments. Following the Kadi saga, many authors defined the EU judicature as the bastion of the rule of law against executive powers. From the perspective of the Council of the EU, instead, Kadi caused a tremor. The EU courts did not only declare that anti-terrorist sanctions could be reviewed: they also affirmed that such review is in principle full, thus extended to all information substantiating sanctions, irrespective of whether covered by secrecy. In this respect, the European Court of Justice established that it is a task of the judiciary to accommodate security considerations militating against the disclosure of intelligence in court and the right to a fair trial. However, through legal instruments adopted in late 2016, the EU seems to be backing off from these settled principles. To test such assumption, the article proceeds in three steps. Firstly, it outlines the contours of the UN Security Council anti-terrorist sanctions regime, pinpointing the characteristics that make such regime problematic with respect to fair trial rights. Secondly, it surveys the development of EU courts’ case-law on secret evidence. Thirdly, it investigates whether the new legal instruments adopted by EU institutions adhere to the principles enshrined in said EU courts’ decisions, or rather represent a departure from consolidated due process rights.
Funding statement: This work was supported by Università degli Studi Roma Tre, Funder Id: 10.13039/100008991, Research Project “Sanzioni del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni unite e Corte penale internazionale.
References
Abazi, V., and D. Curtin. 2017. The European Union Security Exception: Beyond Control?. In Research Handbook on EU Administrative Law, edited by C. Harlow, P. Leino, C. Della, and E. Giacinto. Cheltenham: Elgar: 188 ff.10.4337/9781784710682.00019Suche in Google Scholar
Barnes, R. 2016. United States Sanctions: Delisting Applications, Judicial Review and Secret Evidence. In Economic Sanctions and International Law, edited by M. Happold and P. Eden. Oxford: Hart:197 ff.Suche in Google Scholar
Cameron, I. 2003. UN Targeted Sanctions, Legal Safeguards and the European Convention on Human Rights. Nordic Journal of International Law 72:159.10.1163/157181003322560556Suche in Google Scholar
Cannizzaro, E. 2017. Denialism as the Supreme Expression of Realism. A Quick Comment on NF V European Council. European Papers 2 (1):251 ff.Suche in Google Scholar
Capone, F. 2016. Nous Sommes Charlie: Discussing the EU Reaction to the Growing Risk of Terrorist Attacks. Global Jurist 16 (3):1 ff.10.1515/gj-2015-0012Suche in Google Scholar
Casolari, F. 2008. L’incorporazione del diritto internazionale nell’ordinamento dell’Unione Europea. Milano: Giuffré.Suche in Google Scholar
Ciampi, A. 2007. Sanzioni Del Consiglio Di Sicurezza E Diritti Umani. Milano: Giuffré.Suche in Google Scholar
Cirlig, C.-C. 2016. “Counter-Terrorist Sanctions Regimes. Legal Framework and Challenges at the UN and EU Levels.” European Parliamentary Research Service Briefing. www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/589864/EPRS_BRI(2016)589864_EN.pdfSuche in Google Scholar
Curtin, D. 2009. Executive Power of the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199264087.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Curtin, D. 2014. Overseeing Secrets in the EU: A Democratic Perspective. Journal of Common Market Studies 52 (3):695 ff.10.1111/jcms.12123Suche in Google Scholar
Curtin, D., and C. Eckes. 2016. Secrecy inside and Outside. EU External Relations in Focus. Swedish Institute of European Policy Studies (13):28 ff. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3086145.Suche in Google Scholar
De Burca, G. 2010. The European Court of Justice and the International Legal Order after Kadi. Harvard International Law Journal 51 (1):1 ff.Suche in Google Scholar
De Goede, M. 2011. Blacklisting and the Ban: Contesting Targeted Sanctions in Europe. Security Dialogue 42 (6):499 ff.10.1177/0967010611425368Suche in Google Scholar
De Sena, P., and M. C. Vitucci. 2009. The European Courts and the Security Council: Between Dédoublement Fonctionnel and Balancing of Values. European Journal of International Law 20 (1):193 ff.10.1093/ejil/chn077Suche in Google Scholar
De Wet, E. 2013. From Kadi to Nada: Judicial Techniques Favouring Human Rights over United Nations Security Council Sanctions. Chinese Journal of International Law 12 (4):787 ff.10.1093/chinesejil/jmt034Suche in Google Scholar
Fassbender, B. 2006. Targeted Sanctions Imposed by the UN Security Council and Due Process Rights. International Organisations Law Review 3 (1):437 ff.10.1163/157237406780331698Suche in Google Scholar
Fontanelli, F. 2014. Kadieu: Connecting the Dots – From Resolution 1267 to Judgment C-584/10 P. In Kadi on Trial. A Multifaceted Analysis of the Kadi Trial, edited by M. Avbeli, F. Fontanelli, and G. Martinico. London, New York: Routledge:7 ff.10.4324/9780203796191-3Suche in Google Scholar
Garvey, J. I. 2016. Targeted Sanctions: Resolving the International Due Process Dilemma. Texas International Law Journal 50:551 ff.Suche in Google Scholar
Gatti, M. 2016. Normative or Hypocritical? Contradictions between the EU’s External Promotion of Human Rights and Member States’ Policies. In Global Perspectives on Europe. Critical Spotlights from Five Continents, edited by B. Lundt and S. Wulk. Berlin, Munster, Wien, Zurich, London: LIT Verlag.Suche in Google Scholar
Ginsborg, L., and M. Scheinin. 2011. You Can’t Always Get What You Want. The Kadi II Conundrum and the Security Council 1267 Terrorist Sanctions Regime. Essex Human Rights Review 8 (1):7 ff.Suche in Google Scholar
Hilpold, P. 2010. UN Sanctions before the ECJ: The Kadi Case. In Challenging Acts of International Organizations before National Courts, edited by A. Reinisch. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 18 ff.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199595297.003.0002Suche in Google Scholar
Keller, H., and A. Fischer. 2009. The UN Anti-Terror Sanctions Regime under Pressure. Human Rights Law Review 9 (2):257 ff.10.1093/hrlr/ngp009Suche in Google Scholar
Kokott, J., and C. Sobotta. 2012. The Kadi Case – Constitutional Core Values and International Law – Finding the Balance?. European Journal of International Law 23 (4):1015.10.1093/ejil/chs063Suche in Google Scholar
Koutrakos, P. 2017. Judicial Review in the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 67 (1):1 ff.10.1017/S0020589317000380Suche in Google Scholar
Lagrange, Evelyne, and Pierre Michel Eisemann. 2005. Article 41. In La Charte des Nations Unies. Commentaire article par article, edited by Jean-Pierre Cot, Mathias Forteau, and Alain Pellet. Paris: Economica:1216 ff.Suche in Google Scholar
Lester, M. 2013a. “Organizations Call on European Court to Consult on Classified Evidence Rule Change.” European Sanctions Blog. https://europeansanctions.com/2013/07/27/organisations-call-on-european-court-to-consult-on-classified-evidence-rule-change/Suche in Google Scholar
Lester, M. 2013b. “Proposals for Rule Changes in the European Court to Permit Use of Classified Evidence.” European Sanctions Blog. https://europeansanctions.com/2013/05/10/proposals-for-rule-changes-in-the-european-court-to-permit-use-of-classified-evidence/Suche in Google Scholar
Marchi-Uhel, C. 2016. “Delisting Procedure Involving the Ombudsperson before the 1267 Sanctions Committee: Confidentiality Issues in the Context of the Ombudsperson’s Process.” Presentation at the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law. www.un.org/sc/suborg/en/ombudsperson/selected-presentationsSuche in Google Scholar
Mole, N. 2012. Restricted Immigration Procedures in National Security Cases and the Rule of Law: An Uncomfortable Relationship. In Counter-Terrorism: International Law and Practice, edited by S. De Frias, A. Maria, K. Samuel, and N. White. Oxford: Oxford University Press:759 ff.Suche in Google Scholar
Murphy, C. C. 2014. Counter-Terrorism Law and Judicial Review: The Challenge for the Court of Justice of the European Union. In Critical Debates on Counter-Terrorism Judicial Review, edited by F. F. Davis and F. De Londras. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 283 ff.10.1017/CBO9781107282124.017Suche in Google Scholar
Pantaleo, L. 2016. Sanctions Cases in European Courts. In Economic Sanctions and International Law, edited by M. Happold and P. Ede. Oxford, Portland:Hart:171 ff.Suche in Google Scholar
Rosas, A., and L. Armati. 2012. EU Constitutional Law: An Introduction. Hart:54 ff.Suche in Google Scholar
Sari, A., and R. A. Wessel. 2012. International Responsibility for EU Military Operations: Finding the EU’s Place in the Global Accountability Regime. In The Legal Dimension of Global Governance: What Role for the EU?, edited by B. Van Vooren et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press:126 ff.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199659654.003.0009Suche in Google Scholar
Scheinin, M. 2008. Is the ECJ Ruling in Kadi Incompatible with International Law?. Yearbook of European Law 28 (1):637 ff.10.1093/yel/28.1.637Suche in Google Scholar
Shirlow, E. 2014. Taking Stock: Assessing the Implications of the Kadi Saga for International Law and the Law of the European Union. Melbourne Journal of International Law 15:534 ff.Suche in Google Scholar
Sullivan, G., and B. Hayes. 2010. Blacklisted: Targeted Sanctions, Preemptive Security and Fundamental Rights. 10 years after 9/11 Publication Series. Berlin: European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights:1 ff.Suche in Google Scholar
Vogiatzis, Nikos. 2014. The Right to Extra-Judicial Redress in EU Law after EU's Accession to the ECHRs: Legal Framework, Challenges and the Question of the Prior Involvement of the CJEU. In The EU Accession to the ECHR, edited by Vasiliki Kosta, Nikos Skoutaris, and Vassilis Tzevelekos. Oxford: Hart Publishing:73 ff.Suche in Google Scholar
Von Bogdandy, A. et al. 2012. Reverse Solange. Protecting the Essence of Fundamental Rights against EU Member States. Common Market Law Review 49:489 ff.10.54648/COLA2012018Suche in Google Scholar
Ziegler, K. 2009. Strengthening the Rule of Law, but Fragmenting International Law: The Kadi Decision of the ECJ from the Perspective of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review 9 (2):288 ff.10.1093/hrlr/ngp010Suche in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Who Fears the Big Government? A Coordinated Attemp to Downsize Federal Agencies’ Power in the United States
- Construing Contemporary Cosmopolitan Constitution-Making: A Comparative View
- Agrofuels Controversy in the Midst of the International Crisis
- Revisiting the Role of the EU Judiciary as the Stronghold for the Protection of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism
- The Use of Economic Analysis of Law in the Context of Environmental Regulations
- On Arbitral Jurisdiction. How to Deal with the Complementarity between Arbitral Tribunals and the Courts?
- Is the GDPR and Its Right to Data Portability a Major Enabler of Citizen Science?
- The jurisprudential basis to the common law notion of Indigenous title: Some comparisons
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Who Fears the Big Government? A Coordinated Attemp to Downsize Federal Agencies’ Power in the United States
- Construing Contemporary Cosmopolitan Constitution-Making: A Comparative View
- Agrofuels Controversy in the Midst of the International Crisis
- Revisiting the Role of the EU Judiciary as the Stronghold for the Protection of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism
- The Use of Economic Analysis of Law in the Context of Environmental Regulations
- On Arbitral Jurisdiction. How to Deal with the Complementarity between Arbitral Tribunals and the Courts?
- Is the GDPR and Its Right to Data Portability a Major Enabler of Citizen Science?
- The jurisprudential basis to the common law notion of Indigenous title: Some comparisons
