El control jurisdiccional del TJUE en materia de medidas restrictivas adoptadas en el ámbito de la PESCel equilibrio entre "efectividad" y "legalidad"

  1. José Martín y Pérez de Nanclares
Journal:
Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo

ISSN: 1138-4026

Year of publication: 2023

Issue Title: III Seminario Gil Carlos Rodríguez Iglesias «La Unión Europea ante la guerra de Ucrania»

Year: 27

Issue: 75

Pages: 91-129

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo

Abstract

This contribution analyses various issues arising from the judicial review exercised by the Court of Justice of the European Union, in particular the General Court, in relation to restrictive measures adopted by the European Union in the framework of its Common Foreign and Security Policy. As a consequence of the requirements stemming from the principle of the rule of law (Article 2 TEU) and the right to effective judicial protection (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU), the Court’s case law has accepted, firstly, that preliminary rulings and actions for damages are also available in this field, in addition to the main procedural instruments provided for by the founding treaties (actions for annulment and objections of illegality). Secondly, case law has required that the basic procedural guarantees be respected, in particular the requirement of sufficient evidence. However, given the peculiarities of the subject matter and the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the Council, the case law has also recognised the existence of material and procedural particularities in the review of legality exercised by the Court. In any event, the rights of the defence (entitlement to disclosure of evidence, access to the file, the right to be heard and the right to periodic review) play a key role in the review of the legality of restrictive measures. In short, this is a complex matter in which case law seeks to strike a balance between the effectiveness of the Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy, as provided for in the founding treaties, and the requirement for legality of the measures.

Bibliographic References

  • Andrés Sáenz de Santa María, P. (2017). Mejorando la lex imperfecta: tutela judicial efectiva y cuestión prejudicial en la política exterior y de seguridad común (a propósito del asunto Rosneft). Revista de derecho Comunitario Europeo, 21 (58), 871-903. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.18042/cepc/rdce.58.02.
  • Beaucillon, Ch. (2014). Les mesures restrictives de l’Union européenne. Bruxelles: Bruylant, 2014.
  • Bosse-Platière, I. (2017). Le juge de l’Union, artisan de la cohérence du système de contrôle juridictionnel au sein de l’Union européenne, y compris en matière de Politique Étrangère et de Sécurité Commune. Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Européen, 3, 555-563.
  • Butler, G. (2020). Non contractual liability and actions for damages regarding restrictive measures through Common Foreign and Security Policy decisions: jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union confirmed. European Union Law Live, 7.
  • Cardwell, P. J. (2015). The legalization of the European Union foreign policy and the use of sanctions. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 17, 289-310. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1017/cel.2015.11.
  • Castillo de la Torre, F. y Gippini Fournier, E. (2017). Evidence, proof and judicial review in European Union Competition Law. Cheltenham: Elgar. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782548904.
  • Chachko, E. (2019). Foreign Affairs in Court: lessons from Court of Justice of the European Union targeted sanctions jurisprudence. Yale Journal of International Law, 44, 1-52.
  • Clausen, F. (2015). Présomptions et contrôle des motifs dans le contentieux des mesures restrictives: développement et (in)certitudes jurisprudentiels. Revue des Affaires Européennes, 2, 409-417.
  • Coutron, L. (2021). La consécration de la possibilité de demander réparation du préjudice causé par des MR prévues par des décisions Politique Étrangère et de Sécurité Commune: un gain de protection juridictionnelle en trompe l’oeil? Revue trimestrielle de Droit Européen, 57 (3), 627-636.
  • Cremona, M. (2017). The effective judicial review is of the essence of the rule of law: Challenging Common Foreign and Security Policy measures before the Court of Justice. European Papers. A Journal on Law and Integration, 2, 671-697.
  • Duez, P. (1935). Les actes de gouvernement. Paris: Sirey.
  • Filpo, F. (2020). Evidence standards in the judicial review of restrictive measures. ERA Forum, 20 (4), 615-635. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00583-9.
  • Gundel, J. (2021). Die Anerkennung der Klageberechtigung von Drittstaaten gegen Rechtsakte der Union gemäß art. 263 abs. 4 Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union-Anmerkung zum Urteil des EuGHs (GK) v. 22.6.2021, Rs. C-872/19P. Europarecht, 56 (6), 720-732. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.5771/0531-2485-2021-6-720.
  • Gundel, J. (2023). Europäischer Grundrechtsschutz für dritt-staatliche propagandasender?: anmerkung zum Urteil des EuG v. 27.7.2022, Rs T-125/22 /RT France/Rat. Europarecht, 58 (1), 110-119. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.5771/0531-2485-2023-1-110.
  • Jacqué, J. P. (2021). La réouverture des négociations sur l’adhésion de l’Union à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme: clap final ou tapisserie de Pénélope? Revue Trimestrielle des Droits Humains, 3, 525-549. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.3917/rtdh.127.0525.
  • Jiménez García, F. (2008). El control de legalidad en la ejecución de las sanciones internacionales antiterroristas por parte de la Unión Europea. ¿Tutela judicial efectiva o vuelta a la doctrina de los actos políticos? Revista de Derecho de la Unión Europea, 15, 81-126.
  • Julié, W., Beauchemin, A. y Gosson, C. (2023). Are we seeing the limits of the Council’s discretionary power in the field of sanctions law: The case of Mazepin v. Council. European Union Law Live, 143, 1-10.
  • Liñán Nogueras, D. J. (2003). Jurisdicción y política exterior y de seguridad común. En AAVV. Une Communauté de droit Festschrift für Gil Carlos Rodríguez Iglesias, (pp. 591-600). Madrid: Civitas.
  • Lonardo, L. y Ruiz Cairó, E. (2022). The European Court of Justice allows third countries to challenge European Union restrictive measures. Case C-872/19 P, Venezuela v Council. European Constitutional Law Review, 18 (1), 114-131. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019622000025.
  • Martínez Capdevilla, C. (2021). El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea proclama su competencia para conocer de los recursos de indemnización vinculados con medidas restrictivas política exterior y de seguridad común. Sentencia de 6.10.2020, as. Bank Refak Kargaran, C-134/19 P. ¿Maximización o extralimitación de su jurisdicción? Revista General de Derecho Europeo, 53, 109-226.
  • Martínez Capdevilla, C. (2018). La sentencia en el asunto Rosneft: análisis crítico de un pronunciamiento que maximiza la jurisdicción del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea en la política exterior y de seguridad común, a costa de la coherencia con su propia jurisprudencia. Revista Española de Derecho Europeo, 67, 95-110. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.22201/fder.24488933e.2017.269.62457.
  • Nettesheim, M. (2007). United Nations sanctions against individuals: A challenge to the architecture of European Union governance. Common Market Law Review, 44 (3), 567-600. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2007063.
  • Poli, S. (2017). The Common Foreign Security Policy after Rosneft: still imperfect but gradually subject to the rule of law. Common Market Law Review, 54, 1799- 1834. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2017150.
  • Santos Vara, J. (2021). El control judicial de la política exterior: hacia la normalización de la política exterior y de seguridad común en el ordenamiento jurídico de la Unión Europea, a propósito del asunto Bank Refah Kargaran. Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo, 68, 159-184. Disponible en: https://doi. org/10.18042/cepc/rdce.68.05.
  • Thanou, S. (2019). Individual restrictive measures and actions for damages before the General Court of the European Union. ERA-Forum, 20 (4), 599-614. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00592-8.
  • Triart, N. (2020). Portée et intensité du contrôle de légalité des mesures restrictives de l’Union européenne par le juge de l’Union. ERA Forum, 20 (04), 637-658. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00594-6.
  • Vázquez Rodríguez, B. (2021). El locus standi de terceros Estados para interponer recurso de anulación contra medidas restrictivas de la Unión Europea: el asunto C-872/19 P, «Venezuela/Consejo». Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo, 25 (70), 1037-1060. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.18042/cepc/rdce.70.07.
Data source: Dialnet