Community terrorism listings fundamental rights, and UN security council resolutions

European Constitutional Law Review

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 183-206

  Eeckhout, Piet ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Ayadi; Bosphorus; Community Law; Court of First Instance; Effective Judicial Remedy; Fundamental Rights; Hassan; International Law in Community Legal Order; Judicial Review; Kadi; Organisation des Modjahedines du Peuple d'Iran; Primacy; Terrorism; UN Resolutions; Yusuf

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548164152     PISSN: 15740196     EISSN: 17445515     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1574019607001836     Document Type: Review

References (95)

1. Case T-306/01, Yusuf v. Council and Commission [2005] ECR II-3353
2. and Case T-315/01, Kadi v. Council and Commission [2005] ECR II-3649;
3. Case T-253/02, Ayadi v. Council [2006] ECR II-2139;
4. Case T-49/04, Hassan v. Council and Commission [2006] ECR II-52;
5. Case T-228/02, Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran v. Council, judgment of 12 Dec. 2006. In Kadi an appeal before the Court of Justice is pending at the time of writing (Case C-402/05 P). I should disclose that I have been consulted by the appellant, Mr Kadi.
6. R. Dworkin, Law's Empire (Oxford, Hart Publishing 1998) passim The reference to Dworkin seems appropriate as we are dealing with hard cases, in which there is a lot of debate on the grounds of law. I acknowledge that my approach is no more than some kind of Dworkin-lite.
7. It builds on Piet Eeckhout, Does Europe's Constitution Stop at the Water's Edge?, 5th Walter van Gerven Lecture, Leuven 2005 (Groningen, Europa Law Publishing 2005) p. 22-27 and on
8. 'EC Law and UN Security Council Resolutions', submitted for publication in a volume edited by A. Dashwood and M. Maresceau.
9. Council Regulation 881/2002, OJ [2002] L 139/9.
10. References here and below are to Yusuf, supra n. 1, here para. 276.
11. See OMPI, supra n. 1, para. 45 as regards the inadmissibility of actions brought against a Common Position.
12. Yusuf, supra n. 1, para. 231.
13. Art. 103 UN Charter reads: 'In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.'
14. Yusuf, supra n. 1, paras. 234-240, emphasis added.
15. Joined Cases 21-24/72 International Fruit Company [1972] ECR 1219.
16. Yusuf, supra n. 1, paras. 266-7.
17. Ibid., para. 277.
18. See, e.g., the discussion on the right to a fair hearing in Yusuf, supra n. 1, paras. 304-331, in particular para. 328.
19. Ayadi v. Council, supra n. 1, paras. 115-117;
20. Hassan v. Council and Commission, supra n. 1, paras. 91-93.
21. Ayadi, paras. 118-132.
22. Ayadi, paras. 144-150;
23. Hassan, paras. 114-120.
24. See by way of analogy Case C-50/00 P Unión de Pequenos Agricultores v. Council [2002] ECR I-6677.
25. Supra n. 1.
26. OMPI, paras. 91-93.
27. Ibid., paras. 127-131.
28. Ibid., para. 133.
29. Ibid., para. 140.
30. Ibid., para. 143.
31. Ibid., para. 148.
32. Ibid., paras. 154-158.
33. J. Pauwelyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to Other Rules of International Law (New York, Cambridge University Press 2003) p. 99.
34. C. Tomuschat, case-note, 43 CMLRev (2006) p. 545;
35. R.H. van Ooik and R.A. Wessel, 'De Yusuf en Kadi-uitspraken in perspectief. Nieuwe verhoudingen in de interne en externe bevoegdheden van de Europese Unie', 54 SEW [Journal for European and economic law] (2006) p. 236;
36. P. Stangos and G. Gryllos, 'Le droit communautaire à l'épreuve des réalités du droit international: Leçons tirées de la jurisprudence communautaire récente relevant de la lutte contre le terrorisme international', Cahiers de Droit Europeen (2006) p. 466-469.
37. Cf. P. Eeckhout, External Relations of the European Union - Legal and Constitutional Foundations (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2004) p. 436-439.
38. In particular Arts. 6(2) and 46 EU; see also the next section.
39. Case C-124/95 The Queen ex parte Centro-Com v. HM Treasury [1997] ECR I-81, para. 61.
40. Yusuf, supra n. 1, para. 254.
41. Case 294/83 Les Verts v. Parliament [1986] ECR 1339, para. 23.
42. Cf. E. Cannizzaro, 'Machiavelli, the UN Security Council and the Rule of Law', Global Law Working Paper 11/05, Hauser Global Law School program (2005) p. 20-21.
43. In the field of terrorism sanctions the UN itself recognizes that the current listing and de-listing procedures raise issues, see, e.g., Fifth report of the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team appointed pursuant to Resolutions 1526 (2004) and 1617 (2005) concerning Al-Quaida and the Taliban and associated individuals and entities, S/ 2006/750, 20 Sept. 2006, paras. 37-43.
44. See in particular para. 41 which refers to the Secretary-General's position regarding four minimum standards: Right to be informed; right to be heard; right to effective review; periodic review by the Security Council.
45. See also Watson Institute for International Studies, Strengthening Targeted Sanctions Through Fair and Clear Procedures (March 2006). UNSC Resolution 1730 (2006) introduces some improvements, such as the establishment of a focal point to receive de-listing requests and the possibility for such requests to be made by individual or group petitioners. It does not however establish an independent review procedure.
46. See, e.g., E. de Wet, The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2004), passim and chapter 5 in particular;
47. J. Pauwelyn, supra n. 26, p. 99-100;
48. M. Shaw, International Law (5th edn., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2003) p. 1148-1151;
49. D. Akande, 'International Organizations', in M. Evans (ed.), International Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2003) p. 285;
50. Bowett's Law ofInternational Institutions, P. Sands and P. Klein (eds.), (London, Sweet & Maxwell 2001) p. 42-43.
51. Yusuf, supra n. 1, para. 277.
52. Ibid., para. 278.
53. Ibid., paras. 279-280.
54. Ibid., para. 282.
55. D. Shelton, 'International Law and 'Relative Normativity", in M. Evans, supra n. 34, p. 153-154.
56. See, e.g., Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the US, American Law Institute (1987), Vol. 2, 161.
57. For further discussion see H. Steiner and P. Alston, International Human Rights in Context (2nd edn., Oxford, Oxford University Press 2000) p. 224-236;
58. Shelton, ibid., p. 150-159;
59. Shaw, supra n. 34, p. 117.
60. Yusuf, supra n. 1, paras. 292 and 342.
61. Cf. van Ooik and Wessel, supra n. 27, p. 237.
62. De Wet, supra n. 34, p. 191-204;
63. Cannizzaro, supra n. 33, at n. 26;
64. Watson Institute, supra n. 33, p. 22.
65. For a discussion of the long-standing debate on the powers of the ICJ in relation to UN resolutions see Cannizzaro, supra n. 33, Section 3;
66. De Wet, supra n. 34, Part I.
67. Yusuf, supra n. 1, para. 277.
68. Cf. Cannizzaro, supra n. 33, p. 18-19;
69. Van Ooik and Wessel, supra n. 27, p. 237.
70. Supra n. 1.
71. See Art. 46 (d) EU.
72. Les Verts v. Parliament, supra n. 32, para. 23.
73. Opinion 2/94 re Accession to the ECHR [1996] ECR I-1759, para. 34.
74. It is hardly necessary to point out that the restrictions on standing (Art. 230, 4th para. EC) are a mere procedural limit which does not undermine the principle as such.
75. Case C-327/91 France v. Commission [1994] ECR I-3641.
76. Case C-122/95 Germany v. Council [1998] ECR I-973.
77. Case C-84/95 Bosphorus v. Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Ireland and the Attorney General [1996] ECR I-3953.
78. Ibid., paras. 31-47 of the Opinion; paras. 8-18 of the judgment.
79. Opinion, paras. 49-53.
80. Opinion, para. 67.
81. W. van Gerven, The European Union - A Polity of States and People (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2005) p. 63.
82. The concept was coined by J.H.H. Weiler, 'In defence of the status quo: Europe's constitutional Sonderweg', in J.H.H. Weiler and M. Wind, European Constitutionalism Beyond the State (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2003) p. 15-23.
83. Case 314/85 Foto-Frost v. Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost [1987] ECR 4199.
84. Cf. A. Garde, 'Is it really for the European Community to implement anti-terrorism UN Security Council Resolutions?', 65(2) Cambridge Law Journal (2006) p. 284.
85. ECtHR, Bosphorus v. Ireland, Application No. 45036/98, judgment of 30 June 2005.
86. See S. Peers, 'European Court of Human Rights. Limited Responsibility of European Union Member States for Actions within the Scope of Community Law', 2 EuConst (2006) p. 443-456.
87. Ibid., para. 155.
88. Ibid.
89. Ibid., para. 166.
90. See also Watson Institute, supra n. 33, p. 22-23.
91. Ibid., paras. 112-113.
92. Cf. Cannizzaro, supra n. 33, p. 8.
93. See the analysis in Watson Institute, supra n. 33, p. 10-16.
94. Cannizzaro, supra n. 33, p. 28.
95. Foto-Frost, supra n. 60.