IJ №2 (22) 2017
The European law of restrictive measures after first Russian cases before the European Court of Justice

Abstract 
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has so far handed down four judgments at the suit of the Russian persons designated under EU sanction program: Messrs Rotenberg and Kiselev, as well as Almaz-Antey and Rosneft. Based on the ECJ findings it is possible to make forecasts for other Russian applicants whose lawsuits are pending, and to opine on the international responsibility of the Russian Federation for the annexation of Crimea; attributing responsibility of a State to its residents for destabilisation in a neighboring country and on the goals that the EU wants to achieve by restricting Russian residents. The ECJ has recognised restrictive measures against Russian residents as valid because the restrictions imposed by the EU meet the goals pursued. As soon as Russia’s alleged destabilisation actions against Ukraine would be stopped, restrictive measures on Russian residents should be lifted. Using examples of the case-law of ECJ as of 2016 and based on the interpretation of statute instruments in the case of Rosneft (C-72/15), the author concludes the other Russian persons have no prospect to succeed in their delisting cases. In all above cases, the applicants submitted pleas in law, most of which have been dismissed as unfounded. The ECJ cannot substitute the Council in assessment of the evidence, facts and circumstances. Therefore, ECJ review must be limited to checking the rules governing procedure to comply with the statement of reasons; the facts are materially are accurate and that there has been no manifest error of assessment of the facts or misuse of power.

About the author
Sergey Glandin – Ph.D. in Law, Legal counsel, Moscow, Russia.

Citation
Glandin S. (2017) Evropeyskoe pravo ogranichitel’nykh mer posle pervykh rossiyskikh del v Sude Evropeyskogo Soyuza [The European law of restrictive measures after first Russian cases before the European Court of Justice]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no. 2, pp. 80–93. (In Russian).

References:

Doraev M. G. (2016) Ekonomicheskie sanktsii v prave SShA, Evropeyskogo Soyuza i Rossii [Economic sanctions in the law of the USA, EU and Russia], Moscow: Infotropik Media. (In Russian).

Glandin S. (2017) Mozhno li isklyuchit’sya iz sanktsionnykh spiskov SShA [Is it possible to be delisted out of American sanctions lists]. Legal Insight, no. 2, pp. 22–27. (In Russian).

Glandin S. V. (2016) Vozmozhno li dobit’sya isklyucheniya iz sanktsionnogo spiska ES? [Is it possible to make exceptions to the EU sanctions list?]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no. 2, pp. 46–60. (In Russian).

GlandinS. V. (2016) Yuridicheskie sposoby isklyucheniya iz amerikanskikh sanktsionnykh spiskov [Legal remedies for delisting from American sanctions lists]. Zakonodatel’stvo, no. 10, pp. 70–78. (In Russian).

Happold M., Eden P. (2016) Economic Sanctions and International Law, London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Wimmer M. (2014) Inward- and outward-looking rationales behind Kadi II. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 676–703.

Issue articles