In response to the increasing rise of terrorist activities throughout the European Union (“EU”) and the attacks of September 11, the Council of the European Union (“Council”) acted through its powers under the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In addition to other measures, the Council enacted regulations that froze the assets of alleged terrorist individuals and entities. In some cases, the regulations froze assets of alleged terrorists that had been placed on a list published by the U.N. Sanctions Committee, while in another, the assets of individuals were frozen after the European Council itself placed individuals on a list that it had published. Faced with challenges to these regulations, the Court of First Instance (“CFI”) has decided a series of cases that address their legality. These decisions are far-reaching, and in some respects provocative and novel. Central to the debate on targeted sanctions and human rights is the right to an effective remedy. In addition to the cases filed with the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”), cases have also been filed in national courts in Europe, North America, Turkey, and Pakistan challenging the legality of targeted sanctions. This Article discusses the human rights aspects of the cases decided by the CFI and critiques the divergent results reached. It should be noted that appeals have been taken to the ECJ.
Elizabeth F. Defeis,
Targeted Sanctions, Human Rights, and the Court of First Instance of the European Community,
30 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1449
Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol30/iss5/5