EU TERRORISM LISTS
COURT OF JUSTICE ANNULS EU DECISION TO MAINTAIN JOSE MARIA SISON IN THE "EU TERRORISM LIST"
In a judgment with
far-reaching implications, the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (CFI) has annulled the Council acts freezing
Jose Maria Sison's funds and including him in the EU "terrorist list". The European Council decided not to appeal against this decision and Mr. Sison was delisted.
Mr. Sison, represented among others by ECCHR's general secretary Wolfgang Kaleck, was first included in the list in October 2002. In 2007 the CFI ruled that the inclusion of Sison in the list contravened his right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights because the Council had failed to provide him with any reasons for the sanctions and denied him an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
In response to the ruling the EU issued Mr. Sison with a "statement of reasons" explaining its decisions and maintaining him in the list. His lawyers then issued a new application refuting all of the allegations in the statement and arguing that the EU had in effect relied on executive decisions by the Dutch government.
EU law requires any Council decision to include a group or individual on the EU terrorist list to be based on a 'decision taken by a competent authority' concerning the investigation, attempt to commit or commission of terrorist acts. This decision must in turn be based on 'credible evidence'.
On 30 September 2009, the Court ruled that the national decisions relied upon by the Council in order to freeze the applicant's funds did not relate either to the instigation of investigations or prosecution or to a conviction for terrorist activity, contrary to the requirements of Community law.
The Court was unequivocal in its ruling that the Dutch government's decisions clearly do not involve any 'conviction' of Mr Sison, nor do they amount to decisions to instigate investigations or prosecute for a terrorist act.
The judgment has far-reaching implications insofar as it sets a precedent for the EU Courts to examine the substance of the allegations against groups and individuals on the "terrorism list".
Ben Hayes, program manager to ECCHR´s Counterterrorism and Human Rights programme, comments:
"This is a welcome ruling that dispels the notion that people can be designated as "terrorists" by the EU on the mere say so of a member state government. The Court has effectively ruled that executive decisions of this nature have no place in a Europe committed to fundamental rights".
Mr. Sison, however, has not received any compensation so far. Moreover, he remains listed in the US.
Mr. Sison, represented among others by ECCHR's general secretary Wolfgang Kaleck, was first included in the list in October 2002. In 2007 the CFI ruled that the inclusion of Sison in the list contravened his right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights because the Council had failed to provide him with any reasons for the sanctions and denied him an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
In response to the ruling the EU issued Mr. Sison with a "statement of reasons" explaining its decisions and maintaining him in the list. His lawyers then issued a new application refuting all of the allegations in the statement and arguing that the EU had in effect relied on executive decisions by the Dutch government.
EU law requires any Council decision to include a group or individual on the EU terrorist list to be based on a 'decision taken by a competent authority' concerning the investigation, attempt to commit or commission of terrorist acts. This decision must in turn be based on 'credible evidence'.
On 30 September 2009, the Court ruled that the national decisions relied upon by the Council in order to freeze the applicant's funds did not relate either to the instigation of investigations or prosecution or to a conviction for terrorist activity, contrary to the requirements of Community law.
The Court was unequivocal in its ruling that the Dutch government's decisions clearly do not involve any 'conviction' of Mr Sison, nor do they amount to decisions to instigate investigations or prosecute for a terrorist act.
The judgment has far-reaching implications insofar as it sets a precedent for the EU Courts to examine the substance of the allegations against groups and individuals on the "terrorism list".
Ben Hayes, program manager to ECCHR´s Counterterrorism and Human Rights programme, comments:
"This is a welcome ruling that dispels the notion that people can be designated as "terrorists" by the EU on the mere say so of a member state government. The Court has effectively ruled that executive decisions of this nature have no place in a Europe committed to fundamental rights".
Mr. Sison, however, has not received any compensation so far. Moreover, he remains listed in the US.
