Hubbry Logo
Kadi v Council and CommissionKadi v Council and CommissionMain
Open search
Kadi v Council and Commission
Community hub
Kadi v Council and Commission
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Kadi v Council and Commission
Kadi v Council and Commission
Kadi v Council and Commission
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission
European Court of Justice
Decided 3 September 2008
Full case nameYassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.
CaseC-402/05
ECLIEU:C:2008:461
Language of proceedingsEnglish and Swedish
Court composition
Judge-Rapporteur
C.W.A. Timmermans
President
V. Skouris
Judges
Advocate General
M. Poiares Maduro
Keywords
Conflict of laws

Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission (2008) C-402/05 is a case concerning the hierarchy between international law and the general principles of EU law. It is also known as Kadi I to distinguish from a later related case, Kadi II (2013).

Facts

[edit]

UN Security Council Resolution 1267 (1999) froze the funds of those suspected of associating with Osama bin Laden. In keeping with the Common Foreign and Security Policy and upholding the member-states individual commitments to follow UNSC resolutions, the European Union gave effect to this resolution through multiple regulations.[1]

Mr Kadi, a Saudi resident with assets in Sweden, and Al Barakaat, a charity for Somali refugees, claimed that the freezing of their assets was unlawful. The seizures occurred without any court hearing, right of redress or allegation of wrongdoing. Kadi argued within the Court of First Instance that the EC lacked competence to sanction individuals and had breached his fundamental rights to a fair hearing, respect for property, and effective judicial review.[1]

The claimants were named in the resolution and the regulation. They claimed that the regulation should be annulled under TFEU Article 263 and was a breach of human rights.

Judgment

[edit]

Court of First Instance

[edit]

The Court of First Instance held that the Regulation was valid. The court found that the power to sanction individuals was supplied by article 308 EC (352 TFEU) which allows the Council, "acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission," to grant the Community the powers "necessary to attain... one of the objectives of the community".[2][3] As far as fundamental rights were concerned, the Court found that a state, and also the EC, could not review a UNSC resolution within its own legal order.[2][3]

The court determined that a Security Council resolution was binding on all UN members (UN Charter Article 25) and prevailed over all treaties (Article 103).[2] Therefore, they must be carried out even if in conflict with EU treaties. Member states were parties to the UN Charter before the EU treaties and so TFEU Article 351(1) required fulfilment of the Charter obligations.[2] That meant the resolution prevailed over EU law. The EU was not bound under international law, but it was bound in EU law, following from International Fruit Company (1972) Case 21-4/72, [1972] ECHR 1219. There was also no infringement of a jus cogens norm by the resolution.[2]

The case was appealed to the ECJ. In his appeal, Kadi cited the ECtHR case Bosphorus Airlines v Ireland as a case where a Community regulation, adopted to give effect to a UNSC resolution, was reviewed in light of fundamental rights.[4][5]

Advocate General Opinion

[edit]

The relationship between international law and the Community legal order is governed by the Community legal order itself, and international law can permeate that legal order only under the conditions set by the constitutional principles of the Community.

Before the ECJ issued its judgment, Advocate General Maduro issued an opinion on the case. He argued that the use of article 308 EC (352 TFEU) was unnecessary, as article 310 EC (217 TFEU) (allowing sanctions on third countries) also allowed sanctions on individuals from third countries, insofar as those sanctions affect the economic relationship between the EC and the third country.[6] Maduro also argued that the EC should, in granting effect to the UNSC regulation, ensure that fundamental rights are followed within the EC legal order.[6]

[T]he Court cannot, in deference to the views of those institutions, turn its back on the fundamental values that lie at the basis of the Community legal order and which it has the duty to protect.

In the Opinion of Advocate General Maduro, EU law did not need to "unconditionally bow" to international law if a possible consequence was a violation of basic constitutional principles. In arguing this, he cited Van Gend en Loos, "in which the Court affirmed the autonomy of the Community legal order".[7] He also stated that the top priority of the Court was "to preserve the constitutional framework created by the treaty," even when implementing binding international agreements.[7]

Court of Justice

[edit]

[T]he obligations imposed by an international agreement cannot have the effect of prejudicing the constitutional principles of the EC Treaty, which include the principle that all Community acts must respect fundamental rights, that respect constituting a condition of their lawfulness which it is for the Court to review in the framework of the complete system of legal remedies established by the Treaty.

The ECJ's judgment held the original judgment of the Court of First Instance, that article 308 EC (352 TFEU) was necessary to grant competence to sanction individuals.[8] Nonetheless, the Court of Justice determined that the regulation was invalid in EU law with regard to fundamental rights. The ECJ confirmed that its power to review the lawfulness of a regulation with regard to fundamental rights, whether or not that regulation was adopted to give effect to international law.[5] The Court judged that both Kadi's rights to a fair hearing and respect for property had, in fact, been infringed.[9] In order to follow the UN to the best of their ability, the Court gave the Commission a three month time frame to correct the infringements before the regulation would be annulled.[10]

Significance

[edit]

In this case, the ECJ affirmed its right to review all Community acts with regard to fundamental rights, even if those acts are passed in conformity with an internationally-binding resolution. In this way, the ECJ gave itself the ability to "de facto review" the resolution itself. Additionally, by comparing the UN Charter to agreements under article 300(7) EC (218 TFEU), the court declined to place the UN Charter hierarchically above EC law.[10][11]

These developments follow the court's jurisprudence of the autonomy of European law from national law, and by extension from intergovernmental agreements such as the UN.[12]

A treaty can never enjoy primacy over provisions (including protection of fundamental human rights) that form part of the constitutional foundations of the union... Even if the UN Charter were binding on the EU, it would not take primacy over the constitutive treaties, or the constitutional foundations of the EU system.

The CJEU judgment reflected a choice between absolute acceptance of international law and the preference for its own constitutional requirements on the assumption that international law may still be in a state of development: a view widely held in the aftermath of the War on Terror and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This contrasted to the US Supreme Court rule from Murray v The Schooner Charming Betsy,[13] that an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if other possible constructions are available or it was "fairly possible" to avoid conflicts.[14]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Kadi v Council and Commission

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Kadi v Council and Commission refers to a series of judgments by the (ECJ), with the principal ruling delivered by the Grand Chamber on 3 September 2008, annulling European Community regulations that implemented asset-freezing sanctions against Yassin Abdullah Kadi, a Saudi businessman, and the Al Barakaat International Foundation, a Swedish-based charity, on grounds of violations of under the European Community legal order. The case arose following the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, when the UN Security Council, through Resolutions 1267 (1999), 1333 (2000), 1390 (2002), and 1373 (2001), established a regime targeting individuals and entities associated with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden, and the , including asset freezes without initial individualized evidence or hearing rights. The adopted (EC) No 881/2002 to give effect to these measures within the Community, listing Kadi and Al Barakaat based on UN designations, which froze their assets and imposed travel bans without providing specific reasons or access to evidence. Kadi challenged this under Articles 230 and 241 EC (now Articles 263 and 277 TFEU), arguing infringements of rights to a fair hearing, respect for property, and effective judicial protection, as protected by the and general principles of Community law. In its 2008 judgment, the ECJ rejected arguments that UN resolutions enjoyed immunity from review, affirming full jurisdiction to examine the lawfulness of Community measures implementing them against standards, while clarifying it would not directly scrutinize Security Council acts. The found the regulations invalid as applied to the applicants due to insufficient statement of reasons, lack of opportunity to rebut allegations, and disproportionate interference with property rights, ordering after a reasonable period to allow remedial action. This overruled the 2005 Court of First Instance decision, which had deferred more extensively to international obligations. The ruling underscored the and constitutional primacy of the EU legal order, prioritizing internal protections over automatic to in sanctions implementation, and prompted procedural reforms in UN and EU listing processes to enhance . Subsequent litigation, including Kadi II in 2013, reinforced these principles by again annulling relistings for procedural deficiencies, leading to Kadi's eventual delisting from EU sanctions in 2012 after UN removal. The case remains a cornerstone in debates over of counter-terrorism measures, balancing security imperatives with rule-of-law safeguards, though critiqued for potentially complicating multilateral sanctions efficacy.

Background

UN Sanctions Regime Post-9/11

In the aftermath of the , 2001, terrorist attacks, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1373 on September 28, 2001, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, imposing binding obligations on all member states to suppress the financing of terrorism. This included requirements to freeze without delay the funds, financial assets, and economic resources of individuals or entities who commit, attempt to commit, participate in, or facilitate terrorist acts, as well as those acting on their behalf. The resolution established the Counter-Terrorism Committee to monitor compliance but did not create a centralized list of designees, leaving states to implement measures based on national determinations of terrorist involvement. These obligations were enforceable under Article 25 of the UN Charter, which mandates members to accept and carry out Security Council decisions.) Resolution 1390, adopted unanimously on January 16, 2002, built on prior measures against the (Resolution 1267 of 1999) by extending targeted sanctions specifically to Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden, and associated persons and entities. It required states to freeze assets, impose travel bans, and enforce arms embargoes on those listed by the 1267/1390 Sanctions Committee, which maintained an evolving consolidated list based on proposals from member states, primarily supported by classified reports. Designations proceeded without prior notification or opportunity for the affected individual to contest evidence, with only non-confidential summaries of listing rationales provided publicly to facilitate implementation. The committee's process emphasized speed and secrecy to prevent asset dissipation, reflecting a causal priority on disrupting immediate threats over procedural safeguards. The Al-Qaida sanctions list expanded significantly from an initial core of and Al-Qaida leaders in the early to hundreds of individuals, groups, and entities by , as intelligence from multiple states identified broader networks involved in and operations. Delisting remained challenging, with no dedicated review mechanism until Resolution 1730 established the Focal Point for De-listing on December 19, 2006; this Secretariat-based procedure enabled designees to submit written requests and supporting evidence, which the Focal Point forwarded to the committee without independent fact-finding or hearings. Outcomes depended heavily on the designating state's willingness to reconsider, resulting in limited delistings and persistent critiques of the regime's minimal , which prioritized under Chapter VII over individual rights adjudication.

EU Implementation Mechanisms

The European Union transposed United Nations Security Council Resolution 1390 (2002), which imposed asset freezes, travel bans, and an arms embargo on individuals and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, Al-Qaida, and the Taliban, into domestic law via Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002.) This regulation established binding restrictive measures applicable throughout the EU, including the freezing of funds and economic resources belonging to listed persons and entities specified in an annex, as well as prohibitions on making funds or resources available to them. Updates to the UN sanctions list, maintained by the UN's Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee, were automatically incorporated into EU law through amendments to the regulation's annex by decisions or Commission implementing acts, ensuring real-time alignment without requiring substantive prior review by EU institutions for compatibility with EU or principles. This direct transposition mechanism derived from the EU's treaty obligation under Article 103 of the UN Charter to prioritize Security resolutions over other international agreements, while rendering the measures fully effective as EU law with direct applicability in member states. As EU regulations, these implementing measures were justiciable before the Court of Justice of the (CJEU) and subject to review for compliance with the EU legal order, including protections under the EU Treaty framework, notwithstanding their international origins. Prior to the Kadi rulings, EU courts generally deferred to the UN's factual and evidential assessments in sanctions challenges, confining scrutiny to procedural flaws or evident errors rather than conducting de novo substantive examination of the underlying international decisions. This approach reflected an initial accommodation of international obligations but positioned the mechanisms for later assertion of EU legal autonomy in .

Yassin Abdullah Kadi's Circumstances

Yassin Abdullah Kadi, born on 23 February 1955 in , , is a businessman who built substantial wealth through investments in , , and , including founding the Saudi European Bank in the 1990s. At the time of his designation, Kadi resided in the , primarily in suburbs, with notable assets held in . Following the 11 September 2001 attacks, Kadi was designated on 12 October 2001 by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's as a supporter of al-Qaida, accused of channeling funds to via entities such as the Muwafaq (Blessed Relief) Foundation, a Saudi-based charity alleged to have served as a financial conduit for the group. These claims stemmed from U.S. intelligence assessments shared internationally, prompting the Security Council's Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee—under resolution 1267 (1999)—to add Kadi to its list on 19 July 2002, citing his purported close ties to bin Laden dating back to the . The incorporated this UN listing into its autonomous sanctions regime via Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 shortly after. No criminal charges or judicial trials for terrorism-related offenses were ever brought against Kadi in any , with the designations hinging on non-public intelligence summaries rather than adjudicated . Kadi rejected the allegations, maintaining that his contributions to charities like Muwafaq were intended for in conflict zones such as Bosnia and , and attributing the sanctions to geopolitical pressures rather than substantiated links to militancy. Before pursuing remedies in European courts, Kadi engaged the UN's delisting procedures, submitting a request in 2007 to the Focal Point mechanism created by Security Council resolution 1730 (2006), which allowed limited written submissions but offered no adversarial hearing or access to underlying evidence, rendering early reviews ineffective. This opacity persisted until procedural enhancements via resolutions 1904 (2009) and 1989 (2011), introducing an Ombudsperson for more robust monitoring; Kadi's case saw no initial success, highlighting reliance on state-submitted confidential , but culminated in his full delisting from the UN Al-Qaida list on 5 October 2012.

Case Facts

Initiation of Asset Freezes

On October 19, 2001, the Security Council's Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee added Yassin Abdullah Kadi to its consolidated list of individuals and entities subject to targeted financial sanctions under the 1267 regime, requiring member states to freeze his assets, funds, and economic resources without delay. This action followed Security Council Resolution 1390 (2002), which expanded post-9/11 measures against Al-Qaida-associated persons by mandating immediate implementation upon listing. The mirrored the UN listing without delay by incorporating Kadi into the annex of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of May 27, 2002, which imposed restrictive measures including asset freezes on designated persons linked to Usama bin Laden, Al-Qaida, and the . The freeze applied to all Kadi's funds and economic resources within EU territory—such as bank accounts and investments—prohibiting any use, alteration, transfer, or dealing except with prior Council authorization, and extended to preventing transfers to or from Kadi. These measures were enacted , without prior notice to Kadi or an opportunity for him to be heard, as stipulated by the regulation's procedural framework for urgent security threats. In response, Kadi petitioned the in October 2001 for delisting, providing explanations contesting the grounds for his inclusion. The Council reviewed the request but denied removal in 2005, reaffirming the sanctions based on persistent threat assessments derived from UN and intelligence sources indicating Kadi's alleged ties to terrorist financing networks.

Procedural Steps in EU Courts

Yassin Abdullah Kadi filed an action on 18 October 2001 before the Court of First Instance (CFI, now the General Court) of the European Communities, seeking annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001, which implemented United Nations Security Council Resolution 1390 (2002) by freezing his assets, on grounds of violations of fundamental rights protected under the European Community legal order, pursuant to Article 230 of the EC Treaty. Similarly, Al Barakaat International Foundation v Sweden filed a parallel action (Case T-306/01) challenging the same regulation's effects on its assets. The CFI upheld the admissibility of both applications, rejecting arguments that the regulations fell outside its jurisdiction as measures implementing UN obligations, and consolidated the cases for joint consideration to ensure consistent application of procedural norms. Proceedings at the CFI adhered to norms under the EC of the of Justice, including to submit written observations, request oral hearings, and present , contrasting with the UN sanctions regime's absence of direct individual access to . Hearings were conducted following the exchange of pleadings, with the CFI delivering its judgment on 21 September 2005, dismissing the actions while upholding the applicants' standing as non-privileged addressees affected by regulatory acts. Kadi and Al Barakaat appealed the CFI's rulings to the (ECJ) on 21 November 2005 and 17 November 2005, respectively, under Article 56 of the EC , registering as Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P. The appeals invoked errors in law regarding the scope of and protection, with the ECJ Grand Chamber proceeding after Poiares Maduro's opinion on 16 October 2007, culminating in judgment on 3 September 2008. This appellate structure under EU law enabled full re-examination of legal questions, diverging from the UN's committee-based delisting procedures that offered no equivalent hierarchical judicial oversight.

Judicial Proceedings

Court of First Instance Judgment

The Court of First Instance delivered its judgment on 21 September 2005 in Case T-315/01 Yassin Abdullah Kadi v and Commission of the , dismissing the action and upholding Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, which froze Kadi's assets to implement Resolutions 1267 (1999), 1333 (2000), and 1390 (2002) targeting and the . The CFI affirmed that EU measures giving effect to such resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter are lawful provided they do not manifestly exceed the Security Council's competence or violate jus cogens. It found no evidence that the resolutions were adopted or breached peremptory norms of , such as prohibitions on arbitrary deprivation of property or denial of effective judicial remedies. The CFI ruled that the scope of by Community courts over these implementing acts is strictly limited, confined to verifying the existence of a manifest error of assessment, misuse of powers, or infringement of jus cogens, rather than extending to a general examination of compliance with under EU or standards. This deference stemmed from Articles 25 and 103 of the UN Charter, which impose binding obligations on member states, including the EU, to implement Security Council decisions without substituting their own assessment of threats to international peace and security. The court rejected claims of disproportionality or lack of fair hearing rights, holding that the asset freeze was a temporary, non-punitive measure justified by the need to prevent , with the UN Sanctions Committee's procedures providing sufficient basis for the EU's actions. This stance prioritized the presumptive validity of Security Council resolutions in upholding over expansive individual rights scrutiny, acknowledging that broader review could undermine the UN's primary responsibility for peace maintenance. The CFI noted the absence of concrete evidence linking Kadi to terrorist activities that would indicate , thus sustaining the measures as proportionate and non-arbitrary under the constrained review framework.

Advocate General's Opinion

Advocate General Miguel Poiares Maduro delivered his opinion on 16 January 2008, recommending that the set aside the Court of First Instance's judgment and annul the contested EU regulation implementing the UN asset freeze against Yassin Abdullah Kadi. Maduro rejected the Court of First Instance's restriction of review to jus cogens norms alone, arguing instead that EU courts must examine the compatibility of implementing measures with the EU's constitutional framework, including unwritten general principles of akin to those in the . He emphasized the autonomy of the EU legal order, denying any automatic primacy or immunity to UN Security Council resolutions within it, as such deference would undermine the EU's duty to uphold its own higher-ranking rules. Maduro advocated a balanced approach to preserve international comity, proposing that EU courts presume the validity of UN measures unless the international regime manifestly fails to provide protection equivalent to EU fundamental rights standards—a "Solange" style presumption of equivalence inspired by prior EU jurisprudence on deference to national constitutional protections. In Kadi's case, however, he found the UN's 1267 sanctions regime deficient, lacking essential procedural safeguards such as the right to be heard before listing, access to a summary of incriminating evidence, or an effective mechanism for challenging delisting decisions. This inadequacy, Maduro reasoned, justified scrutiny of the evidential basis and reliability of the allegations against Kadi, revealing violations of his rights to property, a fair hearing, effective judicial protection, and respect for defence rights. While endorsing annulment due to these breaches, Maduro's framework diverged from broader full-scale review by prioritizing equivalence assessment over automatic application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights to UN-derived measures, thereby highlighting tensions within the Court regarding the intensity of scrutiny needed to reconcile security imperatives with individual rights.

European Court of Justice Decision

In its judgment of 3 September 2008 in Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, the (ECJ) annulled the contested EU regulations implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) insofar as they applied to Yassin Abdullah Kadi, holding that they violated his fundamental rights under EU law. The Court found specific breaches of Kadi's rights of defence, including the right to be heard prior to the adoption of restrictive measures; his right to respect for property under Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the (ECHR), incorporated into EU law as a general principle; and his right to effective judicial protection, corresponding to Article 6 ECHR (fair hearing) and Article 13 ECHR (effective remedy). These violations stemmed from the failure to provide Kadi with a statement of the reasons for listing him, access to the underlying , or any meaningful opportunity to rebut the allegations, rendering the asset-freezing measures arbitrary and disproportionate in the absence of procedural safeguards. The ECJ asserted its full jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of EU acts implementing UN resolutions against the yardstick of EU , rejecting arguments that such review should be confined to manifest errors or limited to jus cogens norms under . It emphasized that UN Security Council resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter do not enjoy direct applicability within the EU legal order and cannot override the EU's constitutional framework of protection. This stance underscored the primacy of the EU's autonomous legal system, requiring EU institutions to ensure compliance with internal standards when transposing international obligations. To maintain continuity in the application of sanctions pending , the ECJ suspended the operative effects of the for a period not exceeding three months from the date of delivery of the judgment, allowing the and Commission time to correct the identified infringements through revised measures or delisting. This provisional arrangement balanced judicial enforcement of rights with the EU's imperatives, while affirming that non-compliance with standards necessitates invalidation of implementing acts. In the Kadi judgment of 3 September 2008, the (ECJ) asserted the autonomy of the EC legal order as a distinct and self-contained system of norms established by the , which operates independently of unless the latter is explicitly incorporated through secondary Community legislation. This doctrinal foundation, articulated in 285, ensures that the EC judicature's review of internal measures implementing external obligations remains confined to the EC's constitutional parameters, without deference to the originating international sources. The principle underscores the EC's constitutional identity, treating its treaties not merely as interstate agreements but as the bedrock of a supranational order with inherent primacy. Building on historical precedents like Internationale Handelsgesellschaft (Case 11/70, 17 December 1970), where the ECJ established the unconditional primacy of EC law over conflicting national constitutional provisions, the Kadi ruling extended this autonomy to the external sphere. In paragraph 282, the Court invoked such case law to affirm the independence of the EC legal order from any external normative hierarchy, prioritizing the general principles of EC law—including derived from constitutional traditions common to Member States and international human rights instruments like the —over UN-derived measures. This extension mirrors the internal logic of EU , as seen in the Solange jurisprudence, where equivalence in rights protection conditionally justified non-interference, but in Kadi, the absence of comparable UN safeguards precluded any analogous deference. The ECJ explicitly rejected the direct effect or primacy of UN Charter Articles 25 and 103 within the EC order, holding in paragraph 288 that such provisions cannot override the EC's higher-law protections, as this would compromise the autonomy essential to the system's integrity. By viewing EC fundamental rights as possessing a status akin to jus cogens within the Union—immune to external derogation—the distinguished constitutionalism from monistic approaches that automatically integrate international norms, instead enforcing a dualist boundary that mandates full judicial of acts against internal standards alone. This non-deferential stance ensures that the Charter of Fundamental Rights and general principles serve as the inviolable core, even when measures transpose UN Security Council resolutions.

Fundamental Rights Review Standards

The (ECJ) in Kadi v Council and Commission established that EU judicial bodies must conduct a full review of the lawfulness of Union acts implementing resolutions, assessing compliance with as enshrined in the EU constitutional framework, irrespective of the international origin of the measures. This review applies equivalent standards to those governing purely internal EU acts, encompassing scrutiny of legality, proportionality, and necessity, without deference to procedural limitations imposed by UN mechanisms. The Court rejected any presumption of validity derived from UN adoption, emphasizing that EU courts are competent to verify whether restrictions on individual —such as asset freezes—align with principles like the right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In the Kadi ruling, the ECJ identified specific breaches stemming from inadequate procedural safeguards. The contested regulation failed to provide effective judicial protection, as Yassin Abdullah Kadi was denied access to the evidential basis for his listing—much of which consisted of undisclosed —and was not afforded a meaningful opportunity to rebut allegations before or after the freeze took effect on 15 October 2001. This reliance on secret evidence, without disclosure or balancing against security imperatives, violated the rights of defence and fair hearing. Furthermore, the indefinite nature of the asset freeze disproportionately interfered with Kadi's , as protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the and Article 17 of the Charter, lacking a calibrated assessment of necessity relative to counter-terrorism objectives. The judgment set a precedent requiring EU institutions, in future sanctions regimes, to incorporate mechanisms ensuring hearings, reasoned statements beyond mere summaries, and partial evidence disclosure where national security permits, thereby upholding the essence of fundamental rights even in implementation of binding UN measures. This standard mandates that any limitation on rights must be strictly necessary, proportionate, and subject to independent verification, establishing a benchmark for equivalence between EU-derived and internationally sourced restrictions.

Limits on Deference to UN Resolutions

In the Kadi judgment of 3 September 2008, the (ECJ) established that (UNSC) resolutions implementing restrictive measures carry no presumption of validity within the legal order if they result in breaches of as protected under law. The emphasized that while international obligations under the must be respected, such deference cannot prejudice the constitutional principles of the EC Treaty, including the requirement that all acts respect . Thus, the ECJ rejected any automatic implementation of UNSC acts that conflict with these principles, asserting that the judicature is competent to conduct a full review of the internal lawfulness of implementing regulations, undiminished by the origin of the measures in UN resolutions. The ECJ further clarified that it is not bound by the UNSC's own interpretations or assessments of the fulness of its resolutions, as the Community's focuses solely on the compatibility of secondary Community legislation with higher Community , rather than directly challenging UN acts. This approach underscores the of the EU legal order, where transposition of UNSC resolutions into domestic allows for to ensure alignment with , without implying subordination to the UNSC's political determinations. In instances of incompatibility, the Court indicated that non-implementation or annulment of EU measures could be warranted, though it suspended the annulment's effects for to permit by the , thereby encouraging constructive engagement with UN mechanisms rather than outright confrontation. The judgment implicitly critiqued procedural deficiencies in the UN sanctions regime under Resolution 1267 (1999), particularly the diplomatic and intergovernmental nature of the Sanctions Committee's decision-making process, where listings rely on state proposals without mandatory disclosure of reasons or evidence to affected individuals, and where veto rights of permanent members shield decisions from effective scrutiny. These flaws—evident in the absence of adversarial hearings, reliance on confidential intelligence, and lack of independent judicial oversight—were identified as contributing to conflicts with EU standards of effective judicial protection, prompting the ECJ to prioritize Community-level safeguards over uncritical deference. The Court advocated for enhanced UN procedures, such as communication of evidence and opportunities for rebuttal, to mitigate such tensions while upholding the primacy of fundamental rights review.

Aftermath and Developments

Immediate Re-listing and Compliance Efforts

Following the European Court of Justice's annulment of the contested measures on 3 September 2008, the promptly reimposed restrictive measures against Kadi on 27 November 2008 through an updated common position, incorporating a summary of and a statement of reasons intended to address the ECJ's concerns regarding insufficient justification and procedural rights. This re-adoption maintained the asset freeze and travel ban under the framework of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, aligning with UN Security Council Resolution 1267 (1999) while aiming to rectify the identified deficiencies in transparency and effective judicial protection. To enhance compliance with fundamental rights standards post-Kadi, the introduced EU-level procedural safeguards via Regulation (EU) No 1286/2009 of 22 December 2009, which amended Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 to establish a delisting mechanism. Under this regulation, listed individuals could submit requests for removal from Annex I directly to the Commission, which was required to review petitions based on the provided statement of reasons from the UN Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee and transmit substantial new evidence if warranted, thereby creating an internal EU review process independent of UN procedures. This mechanism sought to balance implementation of UN sanctions with EU obligations under Articles 6 and 7 of the , emphasizing disclosure of listing grounds to affected parties where security constraints permitted. In response to the reimposed measures, Kadi initiated a fresh challenge before the General Court in (Case T-85/09), contesting the adequacy of the new statement of reasons and alleging continued violations of rights to defense and property. This action prompted intensified scrutiny of the evidentiary basis for the listing, including demands for access to classified intelligence summaries, and highlighted ongoing tensions in reconciling UN-derived sanctions with EU requirements.

Kadi II Judgment (2013)

In Commission and Others v Kadi (C-584/10 P and joined cases), delivered on 18 July 2013, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) dismissed appeals brought by the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, and the United Kingdom against the General Court's annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1190/2008, which had maintained restrictive measures against Yassin Abdullah Kadi under Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1390 (2002). The CJEU upheld the General Court's findings that the Commission had failed to remedy procedural shortcomings from prior listings, including inadequate disclosure of the evidentiary basis for Kadi's inclusion and insufficient statement of reasons, thereby breaching his rights of defense and the right to effective judicial protection under Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Specifically, the summary of reasons provided by the UN Sanctions Committee lacked precision, relying on unsubstantiated allegations tied to events from 1992 without linking them to ongoing threats justifying the 2008 measures. The judgment reinforced the standards established in the 2008 Kadi I ruling by affirming the EU's obligation to conduct a "full review" of the internal lawfulness of sanctions measures, encompassing both procedural and substantive elements, irrespective of their foundation in UN resolutions. The CJEU rejected arguments for deference to UN assessments or limitations on review due to concerns, holding that even classified evidence must be summarized sufficiently to enable meaningful , or else the measures risk for disproportionality and lack of factual substantiation. Where disclosure is withheld for security reasons, EU institutions bear the burden of demonstrating that the decision is well-founded through alternative means, ensuring compliance with without undermining the EU's constitutional framework. The CJEU declined to vary the operative part of the General Court's judgment, refusing to suspend the effects of the annulment and thereby maintaining the immediate invalidity of the measures against Kadi. This outcome underscored the non-negotiable primacy of fundamental rights protections over international obligations, compelling EU institutions to either delist individuals promptly or provide robust, reviewable justifications for re-imposition, while highlighting ongoing tensions in balancing counter-terrorism imperatives with judicial oversight.

Delisting and Long-Term Resolution

On 5 2012, the UN Council's Al-Qaida Sanctions delisted Yassin Abdullah Kadi following a review process under the regime's delisting mechanism, which at the time involved assessment by the Office of the Ombudsperson (formerly the Focal Point for delistings) evaluating the sufficiency of evidence supporting the original listing. The committee's decision reflected that the designating states and monitoring team could not substantiate ongoing grounds for maintaining the asset freeze and travel ban, leading to Kadi's removal from the consolidated sanctions list established by UN Security Council Resolution 1267 (1999) and subsequent resolutions. The , implementing the UN sanctions through Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, promptly followed suit by updating its restrictive measures list to exclude Kadi, ensuring compliance with the UN delisting while aligning with prior EU court annulments of related implementing acts. This resolution closed the immediate sanctions phase of the case, with Kadi's legal team hailing it as full vindication of his claims that the listing lacked evidentiary basis and violated . In the parallel EU judicial proceedings, the General Court in its 30 September 2010 judgment (Case T-85/09) ordered the to bear Kadi's legal costs, recognizing the partial success of his challenge to the reimposition of sanctions after the 2008 annulment. Kadi did not pursue non-contractual damages claims directly before EU institutions, as such remedies were limited under the framework, but the delistings effectively lifted all associated EU asset freezes and prohibitions by late 2012. Long-term closure materialized as Kadi shifted focus to national jurisdictions for compensation related to years of frozen assets and reputational , including actions in courts where EU measures had been enforced, though specific awards remained pending or unresolved in public records as of 2014. The case's outcome spurred procedural enhancements in UN sanctions reviews, such as strengthened evidentiary disclosure requirements, indirectly validating Kadi's advocacy for greater transparency without altering the core delisting facts.

Broader Impact

Transformations in EU Sanctions Law

The Kadi judgment of 3 September 2008 compelled the EU to embed fundamental rights protections into its sanctions implementation, shifting from deference to UN measures toward rigorous internal review for compliance with EU law standards, including effective judicial protection and rights of defense. This doctrinal evolution required EU institutions to furnish listed individuals with statements of reasons detailing the evidence basis for designations, while affording opportunities for rebuttal prior to renewals, thereby elevating procedural fairness over unchecked executive discretion. Subsequent General Court rulings reinforced these standards, mandating that sanctions withstand scrutiny for manifest errors of assessment or insufficient supporting facts, with non-disclosure of sensitive evidence permissible only if strictly necessary for security and balanced against the right to a fair hearing. In parallel, administrative mechanisms expanded, including the European Ombudsman's scrutiny of potential in listing processes, such as inadequate access to case files or failure to adequately consider delisting requests, prompting greater transparency in deliberations. Reforms in the mid-2010s, amid ongoing litigation, formalized evidence disclosure protocols and pre-renewal consultations, as seen in updated restrictive measures regulations that integrated judicial feedback to mitigate risks. These changes raised the evidentiary threshold for asset freezes, exemplified by the 2009 in Othman v (Case T-318/01), where the General invalidated measures for lacking concrete evidence linking the applicant to , signaling a broader trend of heightened scrutiny. The cumulative effect empowered EU courts to counter executive overreach, with annulment rates climbing in analogous cases—over a dozen designations overturned between 2009 and 2013 alone due to procedural deficits or evidential shortcomings—instilling a presumption of reviewable justification that curbed arbitrary impositions. This judicial assertiveness transformed sanctions law into a domain of constitutional accountability, prioritizing causal evidentiary links to alleged misconduct over generalized suspicions.

Tensions with International Obligations

The Kadi judgment of 3 September 2008 by the (CJEU) asserted the autonomy of the EU legal order by requiring full of EU measures implementing UN Security resolutions, thereby challenging the 's presumed monopoly on sanctions validity without independent verification for compliance. This approach directly frictioned with Article 103 of the UN Charter, which mandates that Security resolutions prevail over other treaty obligations of UN member states, including EU member states bound to implement such resolutions under Chapter VII. The CJEU rejected deference, holding that UN acts enjoy no immunity from EU scrutiny if they infringe jus cogens norms or EU general principles of law, prioritizing the EU's constitutional framework over international deference. In reaction, the UN Security Council adapted its 1267 sanctions regime by establishing the Office of the Ombudsperson via Resolution 1904 on 17 December 2009, introducing an independent review mechanism to assess delisting petitions and recommend fair process improvements, explicitly addressing deficits highlighted in Kadi and parallel European challenges. This reform, operational from 2010 and strengthened in Resolution 1989 (2011), represented a concession to regional courts' demands for transparency and , diluting the Council's unilateral while preserving formal primacy. EU member states encountered an acute compliance bind: adherence to UN resolutions risked breaching EU law's primacy and standards post-Kadi, whereas of EU implementing acts could imply non-compliance with the UN , potentially exposing states to international responsibility. The CJEU maintained no inherent conflict exists, as review targets only intra-EU validity without impugning UN resolutions internationally, yet practical enforcement strained relations until resolved through bilateral EU-UN dialogues, including consultations between EU institutions and UN sanctions committees to align procedures and evidence-sharing. Scholars have characterized the ruling as the EU projecting state-like onto the international plane, insulating its legal order from supranational encroachments and elevating regional over collective security deference, thereby inverting traditional hierarchies in favor of autonomous rights protection. This positioning underscored the EU's self-conception as a constitutional entity capable of conditioning compliance with global mandates on internal normative thresholds.

Influence on Global Counter-Terrorism Practices

The Kadi judgment catalyzed judicial scrutiny of UN sanctions regimes in non-EU jurisdictions, prompting courts to prioritize protections over unqualified deference to international resolutions. In the , post-2008 challenges invoked Kadi to contest asset freezes under domestic implementation of UN Resolution 1373, contrasting earlier rulings that afforded greater leeway to executive determinations on national security threats. These cases highlighted tensions between counter-terrorism imperatives and procedural fairness, influencing UK policy toward incorporating limited review mechanisms for listed individuals. Similarly, Swiss courts referenced Kadi's emphasis on effective remedies in reviewing sanctions compliance, as seen in challenges to the enforcement of UN blacklists that required evidence-based justifications to avoid arbitrary deprivations of and . This approach pressured multilateral bodies, contributing to UN Security Council adjustments, including the 2010 creation of the Office of the Ombudsperson for the 1267/1989 Al-Qaida sanctions to facilitate delisting petitions with independent assessments. Delistings from UN terrorist sanctions lists accelerated following these reforms; between 2010 and 2020, the Ombudsperson process resulted in over 50 successful removals across ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida-related designations, rising to 70 individuals and entities by November 2024. Such outcomes underscored practical limits of indefinite blanket sanctions, as delisted parties—often after years-long reviews—demonstrated insufficient links to , prompting reevaluations of listing criteria in global counter-terrorism frameworks to mitigate overreach while sustaining targeted financial restrictions.

Debates and Critiques

Defenses of Enhanced Judicial Oversight

The European Court of Justice's assertion of enhanced judicial oversight in implementing UN sanctions safeguards by subjecting EU measures to full review for compliance with the EU legal order's constitutional protections, rather than granting presumptive validity to Security Council resolutions. In the 2008 Kadi I judgment, the ECJ ruled that such measures must be examined for violations of rights to , defense, and effective judicial remedy, as deference to UN acts without equivalent guarantees would undermine the EU's autonomy and . This stance prioritizes individual over international obligations, ensuring that asset freezes and travel bans—imposed indefinitely without trial—cannot evade scrutiny simply because they transpose UN designations. Defenders of this approach contend that it prevents the unchecked exercise of executive power through opaque listing mechanisms, where designations often rely on classified prone to errors or political influence. The Kadi saga exemplifies this risk: Yassin Abdullah Kadi was designated in 2001 under UN Security Council Resolution 1267 for alleged ties, yet after EU judicial challenges exposed insufficient disclosure of evidence and inadequate rebuttal opportunities, he was delisted by the UN Al-Qaida Sanctions on 5 October 2012 upon review finding no basis for the claims. Such outcomes underscore how enhanced oversight compels evidence-based justification, averting prolonged miscarriages that erode trust in sanctions regimes lacking adversarial testing. This judicial rigor aligns with first-principles demands of the , debunking deference as an evasion of responsibility to a politicized UN Security Council forum where permanent members' vetoes can prioritize geopolitical aims over individual accountability. By mandating individualized assessments, it counters presumptive sanctions that treat listings as quasi-convictions despite their administrative nature and frequent reliance on unproven suspicions, as evidenced by delistings in cases like Kadi's where post-designation scrutiny revealed evidentiary shortfalls. Empirical patterns in terrorism sanctions, including multiple UN delistings without corresponding criminal proceedings, further support favoring targeted judicial evidence over blanket international presumptions to minimize arbitrary harm.

Objections on Security and Sovereignty Grounds

Critics of the Kadi judgment have contended that its imposition of substantive on UN sanctions undermines the framework established under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, particularly by enabling targeted individuals to challenge asset freezes that are essential for disrupting al-Qaeda's financial networks in the wake of the , 2001 attacks. Such review risks fragmenting the UN's 1267 sanctions regime, as divergent national or regional standards could create safe harbors for designated entities, thereby eroding the uniformity required for effective international cooperation against transnational threats. This approach, according to scholars like Christian Tomuschat, prioritizes domestic legal autonomy over the UN Security Council's binding resolutions, potentially weakening global counter-terrorism efforts where rapid, intelligence-based measures are paramount. On sovereignty grounds, opponents argue that the ruling empowers unelected EU courts to override decisions made by executives and the UN Security Council, which draw on classified to implement sanctions without disclosing sensitive sources that could ongoing operations. Bot, in his 2013 opinion, highlighted that the intensity of such review is mismatched to the imperatives of controls, where limited scrutiny for manifest errors would better respect the political branches' expertise in balancing security against procedural demands. This judicial intervention, critics maintain, substitutes abstract rights assessments for the sovereign prerogative of states to enforce international obligations, potentially politicizing by subjecting it to adversarial litigation rather than executive discretion. Further objections posit that the judgment embodies an absolutist stance on that disregards the empirically demonstrated causal role of financial flows in enabling terrorist attacks, as evidenced by the UN's post-9/11 targeting of affiliates whose asset disruptions have constrained operational capabilities. By demanding individualized disclosure, the ruling overlooks the practical realities of counter-terrorism , where is vital to prevent evasion tactics, thus tilting the balance unduly toward delisting over sustained threat mitigation. Scholars such as Bardo Fassbender have critiqued this as embedding a nationalist that challenges the UN's supranational in security matters, fostering a fragmented response ill-suited to non-state actors' asymmetric threats.

Empirical Questions on Sanctions Efficacy

Empirical assessments of targeted financial sanctions, such as those under the UN Security Council Resolution 1267 regime implemented in the , reveal mixed outcomes in disrupting . A cross-national analysis of UN sanctions found they impose economic pressures but often fail to achieve policy goals like curbing proliferation or due to evasion tactics and limited asset seizures, with effectiveness rates below 30% for comprehensive behavioral change in targeted entities. Similarly, studies on asset freezes indicate they capture modest funds—UN reports from 2002 to 2022 document approximately $250 million frozen globally under Al-Qaida-related lists—yet show no clear causal reduction in terrorist incidents, as groups adapt via informal networks like systems. Delisting rates under the 1267 regime remain low, with fewer than 20% of the roughly 600 total listings since 1999 resulting in removals as of 2023, suggesting a low rate of confirmed errors but highlighting persistent challenges in evidentiary standards. The Kadi litigation exposed shortcomings in initial designations, prompting procedural reforms like the UN Ombudsperson mechanism in , which has facilitated delistings in outlier cases but at the cost of extended review timelines averaging 6-9 months per petition. Compliance burdens are substantial, with financial institutions incurring annual screening costs estimated at €1-2 billion sector-wide due to mandatory checks against evolving lists, diverting resources from proactive efforts. Rigorous judicial oversight, intensified post-Kadi, introduces trade-offs: it deters hasty listings by requiring substantiated evidence, potentially enhancing accuracy and regime legitimacy, as evidenced by increased national court challenges leading to refined UN criteria. However, procedural hurdles correlate with delayed implementations, with some analyses arguing they hamper rapid response to emerging threats without verifiable gains in outcomes. Critics call for robust metrics, such as longitudinal comparisons of frozen assets against terror attack frequencies (e.g., data showing no significant decline post-2001 sanctions expansions), to test deterrence claims empirically rather than relying on anecdotal disruptions. Unproven assumptions of efficacy persist, as causal links between sanctions and reduced violence lack rigorous controls for confounding factors like military interventions.

References

  1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62005CJ0402
  2. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-402/05
  3. https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/12/issue/22/kadi-al-barakaat-v-council-eu-ec-commission-european-court-justice
  4. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e2080
  5. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=T-315/01
  6. https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/23/4/1015/546143
  7. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=139745&doclang=en
  8. https://www.brickcourt.co.uk/news/detail/kadi-wins-his-second-ecj-case-removing-him-from-the-un-and-eu-counter-terrorist-sanctions-lists
  9. https://ask.un.org/faq/15010
  10. https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/s/res/1390-%25282002%2529
  11. https://unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2002/sc7274.html
  12. https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/sanctions/1267/aq_sanctions_list
  13. https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/sanctions/delisting
  14. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32002R0881
  15. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/european-union-sanctions_en
  16. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=77142&doclang=EN
  17. https://www.carter-ruck.com/news/sheikh-yassin-abdullah-kadi-is-de-listed-by-the-un-al-qaeda-sanctions-committee/
  18. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/world/middleeast/13kadi.html
  19. https://financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/031103me.pdf
  20. https://www.congress.gov/108/chrg/CHRG-108shrg20396/CHRG-108shrg20396.pdf
  21. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02002R0881-20111028
  22. https://www.carter-ruck.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Kadi-Press_Release-180713.pdf
  23. https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/journals/cceia/v24i2/02.html
  24. https://press.un.org/en/2012/sc10785.doc.htm
  25. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=national_security_law
  26. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62005CJ0402
  27. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=67611&doclang=en
  28. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN
  29. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62001TJ0315
  30. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=50428&doclang=EN
  31. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=50428&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=123456
  32. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62001TJ0315
  33. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=67611&doclang=EN
  34. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62005CC0402
  35. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-11/70
  36. https://www.coleurope.eu/sites/default/files/research-paper/research_paper_1_2009_govaere_0.pdf
  37. https://www.ejil.org/pdfs/23/4/2343.pdf
  38. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=69710&doclang=EN
  39. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62005CJ0402
  40. https://icct.nl/publication/kadi-judgement-revisited-shaken-not-stirred
  41. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:346:0042:0046:EN:PDF
  42. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2009/1286
  43. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=83733&doclang=EN
  44. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62010CJ0584
  45. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02002R0881-20231020
  46. https://www.carter-ruck.com/blog/sheikh-yassin-abdullah-kadi-de-listed-by-un-sanctions-committee/
  47. https://charityandsecurity.org/litigation/kadi_timeline/
  48. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=83733&doclang=EN
  49. https://www.europeanpapers.eu/en/system/files/pdf_version/EP_eJ_2017_2_10_Article_Liisa_Leppavirta_00172.pdf
  50. http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=113280
  51. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/ilj/wp-content/uploads/sites/84/Bank-Mellat.pdf
  52. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=75450&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1436698
  53. https://www.ejiltalk.org/a-house-of-kadis-recent-challenges-to-the-un-sanctions-regime-and-the-continuing-response-to-the-ecj-decision-in-kadi/
  54. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstreams/f9531135-376b-4d75-8118-295d120b5048/download
  55. https://www.ejiltalk.org/fifteen-years-of-the-un-ombudsperson-due-process-as-competitive-advantage/
  56. https://www.ejiltalk.org/kadi-showdown/
  57. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/un-the-eu-and-the-kadi-case-a-new-appeal-for-genuine-institutional-cooperation/ED91735C70E8A96D1E88A62B8111DD95
  58. https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf2/mpunyb_04_hilpold.pdf
  59. https://academic.oup.com/book/5057/chapter/147588628
  60. https://globalsanctions.com/2024/11/un-has-de-listed-70-de-listing-requests-on-aq-sanctions-list-through-ombudsperson-process/
  61. https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/sc/ombudsperson/status-of-cases
  62. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context=urceu
  63. https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/13/issue/20/european-court-justice-kadi-decision-and-future-un-counterterrorism
  64. https://www.ejil.org/article.php?article=2343&issue=113
  65. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/11/5/136
  66. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326347375_The_effectiveness_of_United_Nations_targeted_sanctions
  67. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/alternatives-to-adjudication-in-international-law-a-case-study-of-the-ombudsperson-to-the-isil-and-alqaida-sanctions-regime-of-the-un-security-council/8F4181ACACB2E0F98BCD11F4C8A432AE
  68. https://sanctionsandsecurity.nd.edu/assets/110262/falling_short.pdf
  69. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2024/future-of-sanctions-compliance-in-european-banking
  70. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03050629.2013.768478
  71. https://rujec.org/article/145396/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.