Advanced

En sanktionerad utveckling? – Om rättighetsbaserad domstolsprövning av EU:s och FN:s riktade sanktioner

Schierwagen, Johan LU (2016) JURM02 20162
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Användningen av riktade sanktioner mot fysiska och juridiska personer har ökat dramatiskt under de senaste årtiondena. Åtgärder som frysning av tillgångar och reseförbud har ersatt traditionella handelsembargon och blivit bland de vanligaste utrikes- och säkerhetspolitiska verktygen i internationella organisationer som EU och FN.

Riktade sanktioner har dock fått utstå betydande kritik från ett människorättsperspektiv. I de uppmärksammade Kadi-målen ansåg EU-domstolen att EU:s implementering av FN:s sanktioner mot terrorism var oförenlig med EU-rättens skydd för grundläggande rättigheter. Även Europadomstolen har utvecklat en liknande inställning, i synnerhet genom avgörandena i Nada och Al-Dulimi. Det står alltså numera klart att... (More)
Användningen av riktade sanktioner mot fysiska och juridiska personer har ökat dramatiskt under de senaste årtiondena. Åtgärder som frysning av tillgångar och reseförbud har ersatt traditionella handelsembargon och blivit bland de vanligaste utrikes- och säkerhetspolitiska verktygen i internationella organisationer som EU och FN.

Riktade sanktioner har dock fått utstå betydande kritik från ett människorättsperspektiv. I de uppmärksammade Kadi-målen ansåg EU-domstolen att EU:s implementering av FN:s sanktioner mot terrorism var oförenlig med EU-rättens skydd för grundläggande rättigheter. Även Europadomstolen har utvecklat en liknande inställning, i synnerhet genom avgörandena i Nada och Al-Dulimi. Det står alltså numera klart att riktade sanktioners förenlighet med grundläggande rättigheter kan prövas av europeiska domstolar.

Efter de inledande målen har ett stort antal processer mot riktade sanktioner förts inför europeiska domstolar. Denna processföring har i regel byggt på argumentation som rör påstådda kränkningar av grundläggande rättigheter. Målen har inte enbart rört sanktioner mot terrorism som drabbar individer utan även sanktioner mot regimer i tredje länder som drabbar statligt ägda företag.

Den här uppsatsen analyserar och systematiserar EU-domstolens och Europadomstolens praxis rörande riktade sanktioners förenlighet med grundläggande rättigheter. Den utreder också i vilken utsträckning bedömningen av riktade sanktioners förenlighet med grundläggande rättigheter varierar beroende på vilken typ av mottagare sanktionerna riktas mot. Slutligen diskuteras det om det finns anledning att begränsa tillämpningen av rättighetsskyddet avseende vissa typer av mottagare.

Genom att använda en teoretisk ansats som inspireras av Joseph Raz, betraktar den här uppsatsen grundläggande rättigheter som rättigheter, vilka begränsar staters suveränitet. I ljuset av detta perspektiv argumenteras det för att delar av EU-domstolens praxis är problematisk. Även om riktade sanktioner i hög utsträckning har kommit att riktas mot icke-statliga aktörer har den mellanstatliga karaktären av sanktionsinstrumentet inte helt och hållet försvunnit. I flera mål har statligt ägda företag i tredje länder åberopat skyddet för grundläggande rättigheter i talan om ogiltigförklaring mot sanktioner. EU-domstolen har också varit beredd att tillämpa skyddet för grundläggande rättigheter på dessa mottagare och har i flera fall ogiltigförklarat sanktionerna. Det fastslås i uppsatsen att den rättsliga prövningen av sanktioner innebär en avvägning mellan mottagarens grundläggande rättigheter och sanktionsregimens syfte. Resultatet av denna avvägning bör kunna variera beroende på vilken typ av mottagare som sanktionerna riktas mot. (Less)
Abstract
The use of targeted sanctions against individuals and legal entities has rapidly increased during the last decades. Measures, such as freezing of assets and travel bans, have replaced comprehensive trade embargos and are now among the most frequently used foreign policy tools of international organisations like the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN).

However, the use of targeted sanctions has received significant criticism from a human rights perspective. In the well-known Kadi-cases, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) found the EU’s implementation of the UN’s counter-terrorist sanctions to be incompatible with the protection of fundamental rights in EU law. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has adopted a similar... (More)
The use of targeted sanctions against individuals and legal entities has rapidly increased during the last decades. Measures, such as freezing of assets and travel bans, have replaced comprehensive trade embargos and are now among the most frequently used foreign policy tools of international organisations like the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN).

However, the use of targeted sanctions has received significant criticism from a human rights perspective. In the well-known Kadi-cases, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) found the EU’s implementation of the UN’s counter-terrorist sanctions to be incompatible with the protection of fundamental rights in EU law. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has adopted a similar approach, in particular through its judgements in Nada and Al-Dulimi. Hence, it is now clear that targeted sanctions’ compatibility with fundamental rights can be subjected to judicial review in Europe.

Since the initial cases, a large number of legal challenges against targeted sanctions have been brought to the European courts. This litigation has generally been based on arguments concerning alleged human rights violations. Recent cases have not only concerned counter-terrorist sanctions against designated individuals but also, to an increasing extent, regime sanctions against legal entities such as state-owned companies.

This thesis analyses and systemises the case law of the ECJ and the ECtHR concerning targeted sanctions’ compatibility with fundamental rights. Moreover, it examines to what extent the assessment of compatibility varies, depending on the kind of target against which the sanctions are imposed. Lastly, this thesis discusses if there is reason to limit the application of the fundamental rights protection concerning certain types of targets.

In using a theoretical approach inspired by Joseph Raz, the thesis views human rights as rights which set limits to the sovereignty of states. In light of this perspective, it is argued that recent case law from the ECJ is problematic. Although sanctions are, to a large extent, imposed against non-state actors, the interstate character of sanctions has not completely disappeared. In several recent cases, state-owned entities of third countries have invoked fundamental rights protection in actions for annulment of targeted sanctions. The ECJ has been willing to apply fundamental rights standards to such entities and has, in several cases, annulled the sanctions due to incompatibility with fundamental rights. It is concluded that the judicial review of targeted sanctions requires the courts to strike a balance between the fundamental rights of the target in question and the effectiveness in achieving the objectives of the sanctions. Furthermore, it is argued that this balance should vary depending on the kind of target against which the sanctions are imposed. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Schierwagen, Johan LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
A Sanctioned Development? – On Human Rights-Based Judicial Review of EU and UN Targeted Sanctions
course
JURM02 20162
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
folkrätt, public international law, EU-rätt, EU law, riktade sanktioner, targeted sanctions, grundläggande rättigheter, fundamental rights, mänskliga rättigheter, human rights, Kadi, Nada, Al-Dulimi
language
Swedish
id
8897541
date added to LUP
2017-01-18 12:30:38
date last changed
2017-01-18 12:30:38
@misc{8897541,
  abstract     = {The use of targeted sanctions against individuals and legal entities has rapidly increased during the last decades. Measures, such as freezing of assets and travel bans, have replaced comprehensive trade embargos and are now among the most frequently used foreign policy tools of international organisations like the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN).

However, the use of targeted sanctions has received significant criticism from a human rights perspective. In the well-known Kadi-cases, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) found the EU’s implementation of the UN’s counter-terrorist sanctions to be incompatible with the protection of fundamental rights in EU law. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has adopted a similar approach, in particular through its judgements in Nada and Al-Dulimi. Hence, it is now clear that targeted sanctions’ compatibility with fundamental rights can be subjected to judicial review in Europe.

Since the initial cases, a large number of legal challenges against targeted sanctions have been brought to the European courts. This litigation has generally been based on arguments concerning alleged human rights violations. Recent cases have not only concerned counter-terrorist sanctions against designated individuals but also, to an increasing extent, regime sanctions against legal entities such as state-owned companies. 

This thesis analyses and systemises the case law of the ECJ and the ECtHR concerning targeted sanctions’ compatibility with fundamental rights. Moreover, it examines to what extent the assessment of compatibility varies, depending on the kind of target against which the sanctions are imposed. Lastly, this thesis discusses if there is reason to limit the application of the fundamental rights protection concerning certain types of targets. 

In using a theoretical approach inspired by Joseph Raz, the thesis views human rights as rights which set limits to the sovereignty of states. In light of this perspective, it is argued that recent case law from the ECJ is problematic. Although sanctions are, to a large extent, imposed against non-state actors, the interstate character of sanctions has not completely disappeared. In several recent cases, state-owned entities of third countries have invoked fundamental rights protection in actions for annulment of targeted sanctions. The ECJ has been willing to apply fundamental rights standards to such entities and has, in several cases, annulled the sanctions due to incompatibility with fundamental rights. It is concluded that the judicial review of targeted sanctions requires the courts to strike a balance between the fundamental rights of the target in question and the effectiveness in achieving the objectives of the sanctions. Furthermore, it is argued that this balance should vary depending on the kind of target against which the sanctions are imposed.},
  author       = {Schierwagen, Johan},
  keyword      = {folkrätt,public international law,EU-rätt,EU law,riktade sanktioner,targeted sanctions,grundläggande rättigheter,fundamental rights,mänskliga rättigheter,human rights,Kadi,Nada,Al-Dulimi},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {En sanktionerad utveckling? – Om rättighetsbaserad domstolsprövning av EU:s och FN:s riktade sanktioner},
  year         = {2016},
}