F eedom, Secu i y & Jus ice:
Eu opean Legal S udies
Ri is a giu idica di classe A
2022, n. 3
DIRETTORE
Angela Di S asi
O dina io di Di i o In e nazionale e di Di i o dell’Unione eu opea, Uni e si à di Sale no
Ti ola e della Ca ed a Jean Monne 2017-2020 (Commissione eu opea)
"Judicial P o ec ion o Fundamen al Righ s in he Eu opean A ea o F eedom, Secu i y and Jus ice"
COMITATO SCIENTIFICO
Se gio Ma ia Ca bone, P o esso e Eme i o, Uni e si à di Geno a
Robe a Cle ici, O dina io . . di Di i o In e nazionale p i a o, Uni e si à di Milano
Nigel Lowe, P o esso Eme i us, Uni e si y o Ca di
Paolo Mengozzi, P o esso e Eme i o, Uni e si à "Alma Ma e S udio um" di Bologna - già A oca o gene ale p esso la Co e di gius izia dell’UE
Massimo Panebianco, P o esso e Eme i o, Uni e si à di Sale no
Guido Raimondi, già P esiden e della Co e EDU - P esiden e di Sezione della Co e di Cassazione
Sil ana Scia a, P o esso e Eme i o, Uni e si à di Fi enze - P esiden e della Co e Cos i uzionale
Giuseppe Tesau o, P o esso e . . di Di i o dell'UE, Uni e si à di Napoli "Fede ico II" - P esiden e Eme i o della Co e Cos i uzionale
An onio Tizzano, P o esso e Eme i o, Uni e si à di Roma “La Sapienza” - Vice P esiden e Eme i o della Co e di gius izia dell’UE
Ennio T iggiani, P o esso e Eme i o, Uni e si à di Ba i
Ugo Villani, P o esso e Eme i o, Uni e si à di Ba i
COMITATO EDITORIALE
Ma ia Ca e ina Ba u i, O dina io di Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à di Ve ona
Giandona o Caggiano, O dina io . . di Di i o dell’Unione eu opea, Uni e si à Roma T e
Al onso-Luis Cal o Ca a aca, Ca ed á ico de De echo In e nacional P i ado, Uni e sidad Ca los III de Mad id
Pablo An onio Fe nández-Sánchez, Ca ed á ico de De echo In e nacional, Uni e sidad de Se illa
Inge Go ae e, Di ec o o he Eu opean Legal S udies Depa men , College o Eu ope, B uges
Paola Mo i, O dina io di Di i o dell'Unione eu opea, Uni e si à "Magna G aecia" di Ca anza o
Lina Panella, O dina io di Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à di Messina
Nicole a Pa isi, O dina io . . di Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à di Ca ania - già Componen e ANAC
Lucia Se ena Rossi, O dina io di Di i o dell'UE, Uni e si à "Alma Ma e S udio um" di Bologna - Giudice della Co e di gius izia dell’UE
COMITATO DEI REFEREES
B uno Ba el, Associa o . . di Di i o dell’Unione eu opea, Uni e si à di Pado a
Ma co Ben enu i, O dina io di Is i uzioni di Di i o pubblico, Uni e si à di Roma "La Sapienza"
Ra aele Cadin, Associa o di Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à di Roma “La Sapienza”
Ruggie o Ca a i Panico, O dina io . . di Di i o dell’Unione eu opea, Uni e si à di Milano
Ida Ca acciolo, O dina io di Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à della Campania - Giudice dell’ITLOS
Fede ico Casola i, Associa o di Di i o dell’Unione eu opea, Uni e si à “Alma Ma e S udio um” di Bologna
Luisa Casse i, O dina io di Is i uzioni di Di i o Pubblico, Uni e si à di Pe ugia
Gio anni Cellama e, O dina io di Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à di Ba i
Giuseppe D’Angelo, O dina io di Di i o ecclesias ico e canonico, Uni e si à di Sale no
Ma cello Di Filippo, O dina io di Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à di Pisa
Rosa io Espinosa Calabuig, Ca ed á ica de De echo In e nacional P i ado, Uni e si a de València
Ana C. Gallego He nández, P o eso a Ayudan e de De echo In e nacional Público y Relaciones In e nacionales, Uni e sidad de Se illa
Pie o Ga giulo, O dina io di Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à di Te amo
Gianca lo Gua ino, O dina io . . di Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à di Napoli “Fede ico II”
Elspe h Guild, Associa e Senio Resea ch Fellow, CEPS
Vic o Luis Gu ié ez Cas illo, P o eso de De echo In e nacional Público, Uni e sidad de Jaén
I an Ing a allo, Associa o di Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à di Ba i
Paola I aldi, O dina io di Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à di Geno a
Luigi Kalb, O dina io di P ocedu a Penale, Uni e si à di Sale no
Luisa Ma in, Ma ie Cu ie Fellow, EUI e Rice ca o e di Di i o dell’UE, Uni e si à dell’Insub ia
Simone Ma inai, Associa o di Di i o dell’Unione eu opea, Uni e si à di Pisa
Fab izio Ma ongiu Buonaiu i, O dina io di Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à di Mace a a
Daniela Ma ani, Rice ca o e di Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à di Sale no
Ros ane Medhi, P o esseu de D oi Public, Uni e si é d’Aix-Ma seille
S e ano Mon aldo, Associa o di Di i o dell’Unione eu opea, Uni e si à di To ino
Viole a Mo eno-Lax, Senio Lec u e in Law, Queen Ma y Uni e si y o London
Claudia Mo iducci, P o esso e Senio di Di i o dell’Unione eu opea, Uni e si à Roma T e
Michele Nino, Associa o di Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à di Sale no
C iseide No i, Associa o di Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à di Foggia
Anna O iolo, Associa o di Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à di Sale no
Leona do Pasquali, Associa o di Di i o dell'Unione eu opea, Uni e si à di Pisa
Pie o Penne a, O dina io . . di Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à di Sale no
Emanuela Pis oia, O dina io di Di i o dell’Unione eu opea, Uni e si à di Te amo
Conce a Ma ia Pon eco o, O dina io di Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à di Napoli “Fede ico II”
Pie o Pus o ino, O dina io di Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à LUISS di Roma
San iago Ripol Ca ulla, Ca ed á ico de De echo in e nacional público, Uni e si a Pompeu Fab a Ba celona
Gianpaolo Ma ia Ruo olo, O dina io di Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à di Foggia
Te esa Russo, Associa o di Di i o dell'Unione eu opea, Uni e si à di Sale no
Alessand a A. Souza Sil ei a, Di e o a do Cen o de Es udos em Di ei o da UE, Uni e sidad do Minho
Ángel Tinoco Pas ana, P o eso de De echo P ocesal, Uni e sidad de Se illa
Chia a En ica Tuo, O dina io di Di i o dell’Unione eu opea, Uni e si à di Geno a
Tali ha Vassalli di Dachenhausen, O dina io . . di Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à di Napoli “Fede ico II”
Alessand a Zanobe i, O dina io di Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à “Alma Ma e S udio um” di Bologna
COMITATO DI REDAZIONE
F ancesco Buonomenna, Associa o di Di i o dell’Unione eu opea, Uni e si à di Sale no
Angela Fes a, Rice ca o e di Di i o dell’Unione eu opea, Uni e si à della Campania “Luigi Van i elli”
Ca e ina F a ea, Associa o di Di i o dell’Unione eu opea, Uni e si à di Ve ona
Anna Ie mano, Rice ca o e di Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à di Sale no
Angela Ma one, Do o e di ice ca in Di i o dell’Unione eu opea, Uni e si à di Sale no
Michele Messina, Associa o di Di i o dell’Unione eu opea, Uni e si à di Messina
Rossana Palladino (Coo dina o e), Rice ca o e di Di i o dell’Unione eu opea, Uni e si à di Sale no
Re isione linguis ica degli abs ac s a cu a di
F ancesco Campo eda, Do o e di ice ca in Di i o In e nazionale, Uni e si à di Sale no
Ri is a quad imes ale on line “F eedom, Secu i y & Jus ice: Eu opean Legal S udies”
www. sjeu os udies.eu
Edi o iale Scien i ica, Via San Biagio dei Lib ai, 39 - Napoli
CODICE ISSN 2532-2079 - Regis azione p esso il T ibunale di Noce a In e io e n° 3 del 3 ma zo 2017
Indice-Somma io
2022, n. 3
Edi o iale
No ae e e e es “ on ie e” della ci adinanza eu opea
Angela Di S asi
p. 1
Saggi e A icoli
In ema di immuni à dello S a o dalla giu isdizione: il complesso bilanciamen o a u ela dei
di i i della pe sona e p e oga i e della San a Sede
Sil ia Can oni
The Eu opean Union Ex e nal Ac ion, Adminis a i e Func ion and Human Righ s P o ec ion
unde he Lens o he EU Ombudsman and a Recen S a egic Ini ia i e
F ancesca Ma ines
Libe à di esp essione e u ela della digni à delle gio nalis e: il con as o all’online sexis ha e
speech nello spazio digi ale eu opeo
Claudia Mo ini
La no malizzazione della so eglianza di massa nella p assi giu isp udenziale delle Co i di
S asbu go e Lussembu go: e so il cambio di pa adigma del appo o p i acy . secu i y
Michele Nino
Il di i o del mino e alla libe à di eligione: la ecen e
giu isp udenza della Co e eu opea dei di i i dell’uomo e il ilie o della Con enzione sui di i i
dal anciullo
Giuseppina Pizzolan e
In e na ional Sanc ions o he Eu opean Union in Sea ch o E ec i eness and Accoun abili y
Al edo Rizzo
Commen i e No e
La ispos a della Commissione eu opea al “de e io amen o” del di i o di asilo in G ecia:
i lessioni sull’a enua o a i ismo dell’Is i uzione “gua diana dei T a a i”
Ma cella Come i
La mig azione legale pe mo i i di la o o a due anni dalla p esen azione del “Nuo o Pa o sulla
mig azione e l’asilo”: una i o ma (in)compiu a?
F ancesca Di Gianni
p. 16
p. 39
p. 67
p. 105
p. 134
p. 158
p. 175
p. 211
Ques ioni giu idiche e p oblemi di u ela dei di i i ondamen ali nella ispos a dell’Unione
eu opea alle p a iche di s umen alizzazione dei lussi mig a o i
Mi ko Fo i
En i onmen al Solida i y in he A ea o F eedom, Secu i y and Jus ice. Towa ds he Judicial
P o ec ion o (In e gene a ional) En i onmen al Righ s in he EU
Emanuele Vanna a
p. 245
p. 266
F eedom, Secu i y & Jus ice: Eu opean Legal S udies ISSN 2532-2079
2022, n. 3, pp. 158-174 DOI:10.26321/A.RIZZO.03.2022.07
www. sjeu os udies.eu
INTERNATIONAL SANCTIONS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
IN SEARCH OF EFFECTIVENESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Al edo Rizzo
SUMMARY: 1. In oduc ion. – 2. Expanding C iminal p ocedu al Law o In e na ional
sanc ions. – 2.1. Se ing he scene. – 2.2. E e U ile as a basic s anda d o Union’s
compe ences and policies – 3. F om Kadi o Rosne and beyond. – 3.1. The igh o
indi iduals o Challenge Union sanc ions. – 3.2. Recen de elopmen s on Ac ion o
Damages agains Union Res ic i e measu es. – 4. The end: he Union Global
Human Righ s Sanc ions Regime. – 5. B ie conclusions.
1. In oduc ion
The issue o in e na ional sanc ions adop ed by he Union, wi h speci ic e e ence o
hose add essed on indi iduals and p i a e unde akings (a . 215 pa a. 2 T ea y on he
Func ioning o he Eu opean Union, TFEU), is inc easingly ele an and expanding on
se e al a eas o law. In o de o p o e how Union law is e ol ing in his ield, he pape
sugges s ackling h ee main opics.
The i s one deals wi h a ecen p oposal om he Commission o adop c iminal
p ocedu al law ools aimed a g an ing e ec i e and uni o m implemen a ion o sanc ions
egimes inside each Union’s membe S a e.
The second one add esses on he de elopmen s o ele an case-law expanding and
s eng hening indi iduals’ capaci y o challenge Union’s es ic i e measu es, p o iding
wi h a as o e iew o ecen case-law a he Union’s le el on indi iduals’ igh o ask
o damages agains same Union’s sanc ions.
Finally, he end owa ds a ein o cemen o indi iduals’ p e oga i es in his a ea o
law, will be examined in he las ield o analysis, by compa ison wi h he Human Righ s
Sanc ions Regime (HRSR) adop ed by he Union wo yea s ago. The wideness o same
egime’s scope migh enc oach wi h some p ocedu al indi idual igh s, as bo h ele an
T ea y’s p o isions (A . 263, pa a. 4 and a . 275, pa a. 2 TFEU) and ela ed case-law
amply p o e.
Double blind pee e iewed a icle.
 Rome Ba Associa ion, Eu opean Union Law expe (Uni e si y o Rome “La Sapienza”; Uni e si y o
Pe ugia). E-mail: a. [email protected] g; izzo_al [email protected].

Al edo Rizzo
159
The in e ac ion be ween men ioned opics migh show he end in his a ea o Union
law, in sea ch o inc easing e ec i eness beside he s ill deba ed ques ion o a ue and
plain Union’s accoun abili y o he sa egua d o hi d pa ies’ igh s.
2. Expanding C iminal p ocedu al Law o In e na ional sanc ions
2.1. Se ing he scene
Following he Lisbon e o ms on coope a ion in he c iminal law a ea, he Union has
adop ed some ac s add essing indi iduals’ misconduc s, ackling also and mo e deeply
han he pas some p ocedu al issues a ising om he need ha ele an Union’s ac s
dealing wi h he de ini ion o ue “sup ana ional” c imes be adequa ely implemen ed a
he na ional le el. On his, one should no o ge he ele an legisla ion o he Union on
eezing (in I alian, seques o) and con isca ion o asse s
1
as p ocedu al means applicable
in cases o c imes lis ed unde a . 83 TFEU
2
. The p esen legisla i e end on es ic i e
measu es in he Union should be pu in his amewo k as well. In ac , he Commission
has ecen ly submi ed a P oposal o a Council Decision on adding he b each o Union
es ic i e measu es o he a eas o c imes laid down in A icle 83(1) TFEU
3
. On he
subs ance, he same Commission s esses he need o a common ac ion a Union le el,
pa icula ly when i comes conside ing he many dispa i ies a he na ional le els on
p ocedu al means o he igh o ele an c imes.
In addi ion, he Commission has also p esen ed a P oposal o a Di ec i e on he
es ablishmen o minimum s anda ds on aceabili y and iden i ica ion, eezing,
con isca ion and managemen o asse s in he con ex o c iminal p oceedings
4
. The
p oposal o a di ec i e (based on a icle 87 TFEU, on police coope a ion, in addi ion o
a icles 82 pa . 2 and 83 same ea y) is aimed a s eng hening he links o in a-Eu opean
coo dina ion in in es iga i e and judicial ac i i ies conce ning all p ocedu al ools
conce ning he agg ession, in ins umen al o de ini i e o m (e.g., by i ue o an
1
Di ec i e 2014/42/EU o 3 Ap il 2014 on he eezing and con isca ion o ins umen ali ies and p oceeds
o c ime in he Eu opean Union based on bo h A . 82(2) and A . 83(1) TFEU), OJ L 127, 29.4.2014, p.
39, Regula ion (EU) 2018/1805 o he Eu opean Pa liamen and o he Council o 14 No embe 2018 on
he mu ual ecogni ion o eezing o de s and con isca ion o de s OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 1. On his, see
No ice o he Minis y o Jus ice o I aly, Dep . o Jus ice a ai s, 18 Feb ua y 2021 - Implemen a ion o
Regula ion (EU) 2018/1805 on he mu ual ecogni ion o eezing and con isca ion o de s Feb ua y 18,
2021, p o . m_dg_DAG.18 / 02 / 2021.0035566.U accessible he e
h ps://www.gius izia.i /gius izia/i /mg_1_8_1.page? ace Node_1=0_10_35& ace Node_2=1_1%282021
%29&con en Id=SDC322010&p e isiousPage=mg_1_8
2
Te o ism, a icking in human beings and sexual exploi a ion o women and child en, illici d ug
a icking, illici a ms a icking, money launde ing, co up ion, coun e ei ing o means o paymen ,
compu e c ime and o ganised c ime.
3
Eu opean Commission, P oposal o a Council Decision on adding he iola ion o Union es ic i e
measu es o he a eas o c ime laid down in A icle 83(1) o he T ea y on he Func ioning o he Eu opean
Union, COM (2022) 247 o 25 May 2022.
4
P oposal o 25 May 2022, COM 2022 in. 245.
In e na ional Sanc ions o he Eu opean Union
160
www. sjeu os udies.eu
es ablished c ime, see a icle 240 o he I alian C iminal Code), o asse s de i ing di ec ly
o no om c iminal ac i i ies such as lis ed in a . 2 o he same p oposal. In he second
pa ag aph o a . 1 o he p oposal, i is clea ly es ablished ha he di ec i e aims o pu
in place ules ha acili a e he e ec i e implemen a ion o he es ic i e measu es o he
Union and he subsequen eco e y o he ela ed asse s o p e en , asce ain o in es iga e
beha io s cons i u ing he iola ion o es ic i e measu es o he Union and, in pa icula ,
he iola ion o es ic i e measu es add essed on na u al o legal pe sons pu suan o a .
215 pa . 2 TFEU. In he explana o y sec ion o he p oposal, i is clea ly ecalled ha he
Union had al eady adop ed es ic i e measu es agains Russia and Bela us in Ma ch
2014, expanding hem in esponse o he illegal annexa ion o C imea and Se as opol by
Russia i sel . These measu es, adop ed on he basis o A icle 29 o he T ea y on
Eu opean Union (TEU, ule conce ning pa icula Council decisions o a “geog aphical”
o “ hema ic” na u e) and A icle 215 TFEU, ollow a “comp ehensi e” app oach , using
bo h sec o al measu es, e e ing o ce ain a eas o ac i i y, and indi idual measu es,
aimed a limi ing he ac i i ies o indi iduals, legal o na u al pe sons, also in he o m o
eezing o con isca ion o asse s.
In b oad e ms, he end owa ds a widening o Union’s compe ences in he a ea o
eedom secu i y and jus ice (AFSJ) was signi ican in he ield o e.g., coope a ion on
ci il law ma e s, e en be o e Lisbon ea y amendmen s
5
. Wi h speci ic e e ence o
judicial coope a ion on c iminal law, in he pos -9/11 scena io, he o e lap be ween aims
unde he Common o eign and secu i y policy (CFSP) and hose unde men ioned AFSJ
inc eased in he ame o an i- e o ism aims o he “second wa e” o Union’s legisla i e
ac s ha sanc ioned indi iduals (see a . 215 pa a. 2 TFEU) held o be esponsible o he
pe o mance o – o he suppo o – g a e e o is ac s wi h an in e na ional ele ance,
also unde he e ms o ela ed UN Secu i y Council esolu ions. In ha con ex , he Cou
o Jus ice o he Eu opean Union (CJEU) no o iously p oclaimed he Union’s legal
sys em “au onomy” hanks o he possibili y o sanc ions’ add essees o p o ec hei
basic p ocedu al (and, as he case may be, subs an i e) igh s p esumably b eached by
ele an Union’s ac s enac ing es ic i e measu es unde ele an ea ies’ p o isions
5
In he Cou o Jus ice o he Union’s (CJEU) iew, same Union’s compe ence has p og essed so as o
allow he same o ganiza ion o pe o m an ex e nal exclusi e compe ence e en beyond he c i e ia no mally
equi ed o such a compe ence o a ise, see CJEU Opinion 1/03 o 7 Feb ua y 2006, Compe ence o he
Communi y o conclude he new Lugano Con en ion on Ju isdic ion and he Recogni ion and En o cemen
o Judgmen s in Ci il and Comme cial Ma e s ECLI:EU:C:2006:81 (E. CANNIZZARO, Le elazioni es e ne
dell’Unione eu opea: e so un pa adigma uni a io?, in il Di i o dell’Unione eu opea, 2007, p. 223). The
16 Sep embe 1988 Lugano Con en ion OJ L 339, 21.12.2007, p. 3, which is he subjec o opinion 1/03,
ex ended o he coun ies membe s o he Eu opean F ee T ade Ag eemen (EFTA), he 1968 B ussels
Con en ion on ju isdic ion and he en o cemen o judgmen s in ci il and comme cial ma e s, OJ L 299,
31.12.1972, p. 32, ex mul is, F. POCAR (ed.), La Con enzione di B uxelles sulla giu isdizione e l’esecuzione
delle sen enze, Milan, 1995; S. M. CARBONE, C. TUO, Il nuo o spazio giu idico eu opeo in ma e ia ci ile
e comme ciale. Il Regolamen o 1215/2012, Tu in, 2016; A. RIZZO, La dimensione es e na dello Spazio di
libe à sicu ezza e gius izia. S iluppi ecen i e s ide ape e, in Ri is a 2017, p. 147. On he “la ge ex en ”
c i e ion, CJEU Opinion 2/91 o 19 Ma ch 1993, ILO Con en ion n. 170, EU:C:1993:106 (p. 25) and CJEU
o 4 Sep . 2014, C-114/12, Eu opean Commission . Council o he Eu opean
Union, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2151; ex mul is, A. ROSAS, EU Ex e nal Rela ions: Exclusi e Compe ence
Re isi ed in Fo dham In e na ional Law Jou nal, 2015, p. 1073 (pa . p. 1085).
Al edo Rizzo
161
(a . 263 pa a. 4 and a . 275 pa a. 2 TFEU)
6
. The nexus was pa icula ly s essed by he
CJEU in some cases conce ning he igh o e o ism in a pos -Kadi scena io
7
.
The in e ac ion be ween he Union’s sanc ions policy (unde bo h CFSP and a . 215
TFEU), on he one hand, and objec i es pu sued in he AFSJ, on he o he , is made e en
clea e by he abo e-men ioned p oposal unde discussion. On he o he hand, ques ions
o de ini ion o men ioned opics a ises.
Fi s o all, i should be kep in mind ha , in he p e-Lisbon amewo k, he app oach
o he Union o es ic i e measu es agains non-EU na ionals o companies was in mos
cases based on ee mo emen o capi als objec i es, as o iginally es ablished unde a .
60 o he T ea y o he Eu opean Communi y (TEC). In he same ein, o he es ic i e
measu es ha e been based on comme cial policy objec i es. One known example o his
is o e ed by he Cen o-Com decision
8
, when he CJEU had o assess he annulmen o a
egula ion ha laid down ade emba goes agains he o me Fede al Republic o
Yugosla ia
9
, adop ed by he Communi y o con ibu e o he achie emen o pu poses
unde ela ed Uni ed Na ions Secu i y Council esolu ions
10
.
6
Fo sanc ions agains indi iduals, see, in he p e-Lisbon con ex , CJEU 3 Sep embe 2008, C-402/05 P &
C-415/05 P, Kadi, EU:C:2008:461, pa a 326 and he oo abundan li e a u e on his seminal case; see, ex
mul is, M. GATTI, Con lic o Legal Bases and he In e nal-Ex e nal Secu i y Nexus: AFSJ e sus CFSP,
S. POLI, E ec i e Judicial P o ec ion and I s Limi s in he Case Law Conce ning Indi idual Res ic i e
Measu es in he Eu opean Union and A. ROSAS, EU Sanc ions, Secu i y conce ns and Judicial
con ol, in E. NEFRAMI, M. GATTI (eds.) Cons i u ional issues in EU Ex e nal Rela ions
Law, Luxembu g, 2018, espec i ely, p. 89, p. 287 and p. 307. See also A. ROSAS, Te o is
lis ing and he Rule o Law. The Role o he EU Cou s, in Eu opean Uni e si y Ins i u e Wo king pape s,
Robe Schuman Cen e o Ad anced S udies, Flo ence, 2011, n. 11.
7
See CJEU 19 July 2012 C-130/10, Eu opean Pa liamen . Council, ECLI:EU:C:2012:472, pa as. 61 and
63; “ (…) while admi edly he comba ing o e o ism and i s inancing may well be among he objec i es
o he a ea o eedom, secu i y and jus ice, as hey appea in A icle 3(2) TEU, he objec i e o comba ing
in e na ional e o ism and i s inancing in o de o p ese e in e na ional peace and secu i y co esponds,
ne e heless, o he objec i es o he T ea y p o isions on ex e nal ac ion by he Union”; on hose
objec i es, he Cou cla i ied wha ollows: “Gi en ha e o ism cons i u es a h ea o peace and
in e na ional secu i y, he objec o ac ions unde aken by he Union in he sphe e o he CFSP, and he
measu es aken in o de o gi e e ec o ha policy in he Union’s ex e nal ac ions, in pa icula , es ic i e
measu es o he pu pose o A icle 215(2) TFEU, can be o comba e o ism”. Fo some c i ical ema ks
on he Cou ’s assessmen s, M.E. BARTOLONI, Tu ela dei di i i ondamen ali e basi giu idiche di sanzioni
UE nei con on i di pe sone, o en i non s a ali, collega i con a i i à e o is iche, in Di i i umani e di i o
in e nazionale, 2013, ol. 7, p. 222.
8
CJEU o 14 Janua y 1997, C-124/95, R. . H.M. T easu y and Bank o England ex pa e Cen o-Com
ECLI:EU:C:1997:8. In his ega d, see also he Cou decisions, 30 July 1996, case C-84/95, Bospho us
Ha a Yolla i Tu izm, ECLI:EU:C:1996:312 , and CJEU 27 Feb ua y 1997, case C-177/95, Ebony Ma i ime
and Lo en Na iga ion , ECLI:EU:C:1997:89. This ju isp udence has con i med a p ac ice based on a . 113
EEC T ea y (la e 133, now 207, o he TEC) es ablishing a ious ade measu es wi h es ic i e cha ac e
and add essed o, in e alia, he o me Republics o he o me So ie Union, some ex-socialis coun ies
o Cen al Eas e n Eu ope and some membe s o he o me Fede al Republic o Yugosla ia.
9
Regula ion 1432/92 o 1 June 1992 p ohibi ing ade be ween he Eu opean Economic Communi y and
he Republics o Se bia and Mon eneg o, in OJ L 158, 11.6.1992, p. 1.
10
Acco ding o he Cou , he pu poses o common comme cial policy we e ap o jus i y Communi y
in e en ions a ec ing o he policies, including hose ela ing o he “second pilla ” o he ea ies
(Common Fo eign and Secu i y Policy). In ha case, a di ec compa ison – ha is, wi hou he il e o he
“second pilla ” (CFSP) measu es – was made be ween UN esolu ions and EU egula ions. Mo eo e , on
ques ions dealing wi h he links be ween he na ional es ic i e measu es and hose unde ele an EU
egula ion, he Cou uled ha he second ones should p e ail each ime such es ic ions pu sue same aims
In e na ional Sanc ions o he Eu opean Union
162
www. sjeu os udies.eu
I migh hen be conside ed, also unde ema ks abo e, o wha ex en he cu en
p oposal om he Commission, aimed, as we ha e seen, a implemen ing es ic i e
measu es by means o c iminal p ocedu al law ools (a leas when such measu es a e no
espec ed in he Membe S a es) applies also whe e same es ic i e measu es ha e a
mos ly economic cha ac e
11
. A i s “empi ical” answe o his ques ion migh be ha
he Commission is commi ed in “cen alizing” he implemen a ion o such measu es, in
he ligh o he isk ha he a ie y o app oaches a he na ional le els migh impai he
same es ic i e measu es’ e ec i eness. This leads us back o a long-las ing deba e
dealing wi h he e e u ile c i e ion applicable o he Union’s legisla i e ac s o p o isions
i o es ic indi iduals’ eedoms.
2.2. E e u ile as a basic s anda ds o Union’s compe ences and policies
Indeed, p o isions add essing indi iduals’ beha io s o he sake o p o ec ing
speci ic in e es s and objec i es we e es ablished in he T ea ies. In he mid-eigh ies o
he las cen u y, he e was a deba e conce ning how compe i ion ules as ensh ined in he
EC T ea y migh ha e been ansposed in o he I alian legal sys em, i by means o
adminis a i e law o , al e na i ely, by means o c iminal law ins umen s. In he end, he
ailu e o p o ide o c iminal sanc ions in he 1990 I alian an i us law was due o
a ious easons. The desc ip ion o a case ela ed o an in ingemen o compe i ion law,
in ac , p esen s ma gins o ambigui y ha a e incompa ible wi h he need o ully comply
wi h he de e mina ion o he c ime and he need ha he c ime’s consequences mus be
assessed as much p ecisely as possible in legal e ms. I is known, howe e , ha he
Eu opean Cou o Human Righ s (EC HR) has applied he igh o de ense and he igh
o an e ec i e emedy o he ac s o he Eu opean Commission aimed a sanc ioning
iola ions o compe i ion ules unde ele an EU law: his ac exempli ies how he
adminis a i e measu es aimed a implemen ing compe i ion ules ollow an app oach
ha is compa able o ha ollowed unde c iminal law, al hough wi h di e en e ec s
(e.g., no p ocedu al c iminal law measu es a e applicable)
12
. We will no dwell on his,
(in e na ional secu i y, see a . 11 o Regula ion 1432/96) as ha pu sued unde na ional legisla ion. See ex
mul is B. CORTESE, In e na ional Economic Sanc ions as a Componen o Public Policy o Con lic -o -
Laws Pu poses, in L. PICCHIO FORLATI , L.-A. SICILIANOS (eds.), Economic Sanc ions in In e na ional Law
/ Les sanc ions économiques en d oi in e na ional - Hague Academy o In e na ional Law, The Law Books
o he Academy, 2004, ol. 23, The Hague, p. 717, in pa . p. 725.
11
Fo a i s c i ical commen on his, see M. GESTRI, Sanc ions Imposed by he Eu opean Union: Legal
and Ins i u ional Aspec s, in N. RONZITTI (ed.), Coe ci e diplomacy, Sanc ions and In e na ional Law,
Leiden, 2016, p. 71, in pa . p. 90 .
12
See in poin Eu opean Cou o Human Righ s (EC HR), 27 Sep embe 2011 Mena ini Diagnos ics S.R.L.
I aly, Appl. N. 43509/08, pa as. 40-45 : “l’AGCM a p ononcé en l’espèce une sanc ion pécuniai e de six
millions d’eu os, sanc ion qui p ésen ai un ca ac è e ép essi puisqu’elle isai à sanc ionne une
i égula i é, e p é en i , le bu pou sui i é an de dissuade la socié é in é essée de ecommence . En
ou e, la Cou no e que la equé an e souligne que le ca ac è e puni i de ce ype d’in ac ion esso aussi
de la ju isp udence du Conseil d’E a … A la lumiè e de ce qui p écède e comp e enu du mon an éle é
de l’amende in ligée, la Cou es ime que la sanc ion elè e, pa sa sé é i é, de la ma iè e pénale”. Wi h
Al edo Rizzo
169
legisla i e ac wi h immedia e e ec migh ha e caused se ious and i epa able ha m o
he e ec i eness o he es ic i e measu es imposed by he egula ion agains I an, since
“i canno be excluded ha , as ega ds he subs ance, he imposi ion o es ic i e
measu es on [HTTS] could none heless be jus i ied”
32
.
The s o y ollowed wi h a se ies o ac ions by same HTTS and he main add essees
o he es ic i e measu es. Mos , i no all, o ele an Gene al Cou decisions epealed
he Union es ic i e measu es. On his backg ound, HTTS aised an ac ion o damages
be o e he GC agains he Union. The GC, howe e , quashed such eques
33
. Among he
many easons, i migh be in e es ing o men ion he e ha he GC based i s decision, on
he one hand, on he need ha he claiman p o es ha he de endan ins i u ions
commi ed a pa icula ly lag an and inexcusable ailu e o comply wi h he law
34
, and,
on he o he hand, on he ac ha he p e ious annulmen o Union ac s (as con i med by
all he p e ious abo emen ioned case-law) was as such no ap a gi ing ise o a non-
con ac ual liabili y o same Union ins i u ions: his is on he basis o a well-known
unde s anding o he wo kind o ac ions as mu ually sepa a ed due o a ue au onomy
o he same ac ion in damages as aimed a allowing indi iduals o challenge any Union
ac s speci ically on such ac s’ p esump i e ha m ul e ec s, in con o mi y wi h gene al
p inciples common o he Membe S a es legal sys ems
35
. Among he easons o ejec ion
o he ac ion on damages, he GC men ioned he need o p o e he e ec i e owne ship
and con ol pe o med on he complainan by he main company (IRISL Gmbh) o which
he sanc ions egime was add essed as a whole. In ac , in GC’s opinion, he Council, as
a de endan , e idenced qui e sa is ac o ily ha , in e alia, he di ec o o HTTS p e iously
ca ied ou he unc ions o legal di ec o o IRISL and ha HTTS had he same add ess
as IRISL Eu ope GmbH. Fo GC, his amoun ed o a se o indicia ha we e su icien ly
p ecise and consis en o i o conclude ha i was a leas plausible ha HTTS was
con olled by and/o was ac ing on behal o IRISL
36
.
Abo e all hese issues, he CJEU in he subsequen 2019 decision
37
examined in
pa icula i a su icien ly se ious b each o a ule o law in ended o con e igh s on
32
See judgmen on no e 32 abo e, pa as. 41-42.
33
Gene al cou o 13 Decembe 2017, T-692/15, HTTS . Council, ECLI:EU:T:2017:890.
34
See in pa . pa a. 46 o his judgmen : “(…) in assessing he conduc o he ins i u ion conce ned, he
Cou , hea ing an ac ion o damages b ough by an economic ope a o , is also equi ed, ha ing ega d in
pa icula o A icle 215(2) TFEU, o ake accoun o ha undamen al objec i e o Union o eign policy,
excep whe e he ope a o is able o es ablish ha he Council ailed o comply wi h i s manda o y
obliga ions in a lag an o inexcusable manne , o ha i in inged, again in a lag an o inexcusable
manne , a undamen al igh ecognised by he Union”.
35
Fo an o e iew, ex mul is, judgmen s CJEU 2 Decembe 1971, 5/71, Zucke ab ik Schöppens ed
Council, ECLI:EU:C:1971:116, pa a. 3; 23 Ma ch 2004, C-234/02 P, Ombudsman . Lambe s
ECLI:EU:C:2004:174, in pa . pa a. 49 .; Gene al Cou o 18 Sep embe 2014, T-168/12, Geo gias and
O he s Council and Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2014:781, pa a. 32.
36
A pa a. 57 he GC in i s judgmen o 2017, eminds ha “ he Council mus assess whe he an en i y is
‘owned o con olled’ on a case-by-case basis, by e e ence, in e alia, o he deg ee o which he en i y
conce ned is owned o con olled, and ha he Council has a ce ain ma gin o app ecia ion in his ega d”
(CJEU o 13 Ma ch 2012, C-380/09, P, Melli Bank Council ECLI:EU:C:2012:137, a pa as. 40 o 42).
37
See case CJEU o 10 Sep embe 2019, C-123/18 P, ECLI:EU:C:2019:694, in he poin whe e same Cou
ecalls ha “ he equi emen ha he e be a su icien ly se ious b each o a ule o EU law, in o de o gi e

In e na ional Sanc ions o he Eu opean Union
170
www. sjeu os udies.eu
indi iduals occu ed in he case a hand, conside ing ha such b each implies ha he
ins i u ion conce ned mani es ly and g a ely dis ega ded he limi s se on i s disc e ion
38
.
In gene al, o he Cou one o he p oblems me in he HTTS saga deal wi h he ac
ha he “damage” claimed by he complainan agains Union’s ins i u ions has, in gene al,
a luid meaning ha may e ol e in ime. So, o he CJEU, he Gene al Cou didn’ assess
in a su icien ly ca e ul way i he claiman su e ed such a kind o damage as om he
i s ac s adop ed by he Council and du ing he whole o he de elopmen s a ound he
posi ion o IRISL as he main add essee o he sanc ions’ egime. This e alua ion, in ac ,
should be assessed sepa a ely om he annulmen o ele an ac s o he Union dealing
wi h he sanc ion egime in ques ion.
In he mo e ecen decision adop ed on July 7 h 2021
39
ollowing he decision o he
CJEU o e e back he case, he same GC s a ed ha , hough an ac ion o damages should
be conside ed as one o he mo e basic and gene al means o de ense o indi iduals’ igh s
agains public au ho i ies (a leas in a de eloped legal sys em), he kind o in ingemen
o eseen a a . 340 TFEU is no en i ely compa able o wha is “usually” accep ed a he
na ional le el in his a ea o law (non-con ac ual liabili y). In ac , such in ingemen , in
o de o i o come unde same a . 340 TFEU ambi , should be pa icula ly lag an and
inexcusable. And his, in he same GC’s iew because he aims o Union’s ex e nal ac ion
unde a . 21 TEU can be achie ed, in e alia, by means o es ic i e measu es, also a
he cos , whene e equi ed, o indi iduals’ igh s o economic in e es s, i such
indi iduals in inged, e en unde a jus su icien e idence, obliga ions o which same
Union is bound unde same a . 21 TEU and s emming om ele an Union’s sanc ions
egime.
The conclusion abo e is based in e alia on he p emise ha es ic i e measu es
unde cu en a . 215 TFEU do no sha e same cha ac e s o o he means add essing
indi iduals’ beha io s con a y o basic Union’s aims and obliga ions. In ac , in he
Lisbon T ea y amewo k, he pu sui o wide poli ical objec i es (e.g., he p o ec ion o
he in e na ional secu i y and peace) as well as he in e play be ween CSFP and o he
Union’s objec i es, no wi hs anding a . 40 TEU, is mo e clea ly es ablished; besides,
such in e ac ions a e clea ly s a ed also by he same Gene al Cou in he men ioned
HTTP decision.
The damage possibly and o en su e ed by an indi idual unde a sanc ions egime
based on a . 215 TFEU has a peculia cha ac e in he con ex o he ac ion o non-
con ac ual liabili y o he Union, conside ing how such sanc ions a e mos ly e e ed o
majo objec i es pu sued by he same o ganiza ion. This migh explain some hing on he
ise o a non-con ac ual liabili y o he Union, s ems om he need o s ike a balance be ween, on he one
hand, he p o ec ion o indi iduals agains unlaw ul conduc o he ins i u ions and, on he o he , he leeway
ha mus be acco ded o he ins i u ions in o de no o pa alyze ac ion by hem. Tha balancing exe cise
p o es all he mo e impo an in he ield o es ic i e measu es, in which he obs acles encoun e ed by
he Council in e ms o a ailabili y o in o ma ion o en make he assessmen ha i mus ca y ou
pa icula ly di icul ”.
38
See p. 20 o Ad oca e Gene al Pi uzzella opinion o 5 Ma ch 2019, ECLI:EU:C:2019:173.
39
Gene al Cou o 7 July 2021, T-692/15 RENV, ECLI:EU:T:2021:410, in pa . pa as. 42-66.
Al edo Rizzo
171
subs ance o Union sys em o de ense o indi idual igh s, hough conside ing he
signi ican e o in assessing ha an ac ion o damage is as such applicable o his a ea
o Union law, ega dless o he lack o any clea e e ence o such kind o ac ion in he
ea ies.
4. The T end: he Union Global Human Righ s Sanc ions Regime
In his con ex , a Union’s le el, he Global Human Righ s Sanc ions Regime (EU
HRSR) unde Council Regula ion (EU) 2020/1998 conce ning es ic i e measu es
agains se ious human igh s iola ions and abuses is cu en ly in o ce
40
.
I is i s o all wise o no ice ha abo e ac s a e based on he one hand, on a . 29
TEU (CFSP) and, on he o he , on a icle 215 TFEU.
This new legisla i e amewo k ollows a “ hema ic” app oach o g a e in e na ional
law and human igh s iola ions. Such “new” app oach o Union’s sanc ions ends he
“coun y” o “indi idual” logic (a . 215 pa as. 1 and 2 TFEU, gi ing ele ance o
sanc ions’ add essees) and applies in ull an “subs an i e” logic. The HRSR is inspi ed
on S a u e o Rome app oach (and also on a p e en i e app oach) o c imes conside ed
as ele an unde in e na ional law due o hei accep ed cha ac e and g a i y. Howe e ,
i should be eminded ha e ec i eness in in e na ionally p osecu ing such c imes has
been p o ed di icul in conside a ion o he many condi ions unde same Rome S a u e,
including he subsidia y cha ac e o he In e na ional C iminal Cou ju isdic ion
41
. Mo e
angible p og ess on he p osecu ion o pa icula ly se ious b eaches o in e na ional
du ies has been achie ed unde he Con en ion agains o u e: in ac , he Con en ion
allows, wi hou o cing, S a e pa ies o assume c iminal ju isdic ion o e cases o o u e
on he basis o he na ionali y o he ic im (“passi e pe sonali y p inciple”)
42
.
40
Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999 o 7 Decembe 2020 conce ning es ic i e measu es agains se ious
human igh s iola ions and abuses, in OJ L 41/0I , 7.12.2020, p. 13; Council Regula ion (EU) 2020/1998
o 7 Decembe 2020 conce ning es ic i e measu es agains se ious human igh s iola ions and abuses,
OJ L 41/I , 7.12.2020, p. 1. See ex mul is C. ECKES, EU global human igh s sanc ions egime: is he genie
ou o he bo le?, in Jou nal o Con empo a y Eu opean S udies, DOI: 10.1080/14782804.2021.1965556;
H. AL-NASSAR, E. NEELE, S. NISHIOKA, V. LUTHRA, Guil y Un il P o en Innocen ? The EU Global Human
Righ s Sanc ions Regime’s Po en ial Re e sal o he Bu den o P oo , in Secu i y and Human Righ s, 2021,
p. 1.
41
Unde such “subsidia y” cha ac e o he ICC compe ence, same ICC canno p ecede na ional au ho i ies’
in es iga i e and judicia y ac i i ies, unless such au ho i ies ha e ailed o ini ia e any o such ac i i ies
no wi hs anding ele an in o ma ion om ICC P osecu o o ice on he in ingemen o any o he S a u e
o Rome’s obliga ions commi ed by na ional o icials, M.M. EL-ZEIDY, Admissibili y in In e na ional
C iminal Cou , in W.A. SCHABAS, N. BERNAZ (eds.), Rou ledge Handbook o In e na ional C iminal Law,
UK, USA, Canada, 2011, p. 211.
42
D. M. AMANN (ed.), Benchbook on In e na ional Law, in pa . Ju isdic ional, P elimina y, and
P ocedu al Conce ns, Ame ican Socie y o In e na ional Law, 2014, p. II-A 1, accessible
h ps://www.asil.o g/benchbook. Indeed, unde a . 5(1)(c) o he UN Con en ion Agains To u e and
O he C uel, Inhuman o Deg ading T ea men o Punishmen (10 Decembe 1984, Uni ed Na ions, T ea y
Se ies, ol. 1465, p. 85, a ailable a : h ps://www. e wo ld.o g/docid/3ae6b3a94.h ml [accessed 6 Oc obe
2022]), S a es a e au ho ized bu no obliged o es ablish c iminal ju isdic ion on he basis o he passi e
pe sonali y p inciple. Conside ing ha , in he case o o u e, we a e dealing wi h in e na ional ius cogens
In e na ional Sanc ions o he Eu opean Union
172
www. sjeu os udies.eu
Abo e di icul ies do no a ise in he Union’s amewo k acco ding o, on he one
hand, he se ious obliga ions membe s a es o he Union mus comply wi h unde Union
legisla i e ac s and, on he o he , he ac ha any in ingemen o such obliga ions should
be di ec ly sanc ioned by na ional au ho i ies, be hem adminis a i e o judicia y,
excep ion made o o he kind o EU obliga ions s emming om Union ac s such as
di ec i es, whose ull implemen a ion by he Membe S a es is moni o ed by Union
ins i u ions unde , e.g., in ingemen p oceedings
43
. Anyhow, such p oblema ic issues
become mo e e iden exac ly unde a b oade app oach o sanc ions. On he one hand,
wide sanc ions egimes allow ins i u ions o au onomously assess whe he o sanc ion
(o no ) one o mo e speci ic in ingemen s occu ed “ho izon ally” in di e en
geog aphical a eas and agains a no always de ini e lis o indi iduals. On he o he side,
such app oach may p o e being inaccu a e in he ligh o he ele an means o p ocedu al
law applicable in such cases, e en conside ing he possibili y ha “ho izon al” sanc ions
hi hi d pa ies no di ec ly in ol ed in o such egimes. I should hen be add essed he
ques ion o o wha ex en such b oade egimes a e consis en wi h o he ele an Union
ea ies objec i es, including p ocedu al s anda ds dealing wi h indi iduals’ igh o
access o bo h adminis a i e and judicial means o ed ess. On he o he hand, HRSR is
clea ly inspi ed on a p e en i e (and p esump i e) app oach, as such po en ially ha m ul
also o indi iduals no di ec ly o no ins an ly in ol ed by he egime. This migh be
challenging in ei he di ec ions.
As o an ac ion in annulmen , in many cases he e idence o being indi idually hi
by he es ic i e measu es unde an HRSR migh be impossible o p o e o anyone who
admi edly su e ed indi ec o only subsequen e ec s (as such implici ly a ising om
any b oad sanc ion egimes) om implemen a ion o same HRSR. This alls in he logic
o legisla i e ac s o he Union and ac ion o ed ess agains such ac s
44
.
As o a eimbu semen ac ion, in gene al, as we ha e men ioned, he plain i mus
ul il a pa icula ly igo ous bu den o p oo , including, beside he p oo o he Union
ins i u ions’ liabili y and o he causal link be ween he Union legisla i e sou ce and he
damage, ha such damage be pa icula ly meaning ul, beyond wha is no mally accep ed
a na ional le el in simila cases. Indeed, as he same HTTS case p o ed, a claiman who
p esumably su e ed damages om he sanc ions’ egime, should demons a e ha he
Council commi ed a pa icula ly g a e iola ion o a ule aimed a con e ing igh s on
indi iduals. In such cases, he GC epea ed ha he e o in law o he ins i u ions should
be, as men ioned, bla an and lag an . On he opposi e, he Council o he Union, in o de
o eac o same ac ion o damages, mus p o ide indica ions o an only su icien link
obliga ions unde he meaning o a . 53 o he Vienna Con en ion on he Law o he T ea ies, his should
enligh en enough on he di icul ies o acknowledge in e na ional ju isdic ion on he o he c imes wi h
in e na ional law ele ance bu s ill no clea ly placed (a leas in b oad e ms) amongs ius cogens
obliga ions.
43
On his, see also wha has been desc ibed abo e, on he Union’s compe ence in he ield o judicial
coope a ion on c iminal law and on he e e u ile c i e ion.
44
See CJEU o 1 Ap il 2004, Jego Que é and P.K. LENAERTS, The Rule o Law and he Cohe ence o he
Judicial Sys em o he Eu opean Union, see sup a n. 19.
Al edo Rizzo
173
be ween he claiman ( hough i he ele an measu es we e p incipally add essed o
ano he company), his/i s unds and he egime o be ough
45
.
Also, and once mo e, in bo h cases – ac ion o annulmen and ac ion o damages –
he Union ins i u ions and he CJEU migh e e o a . 21 T ea y o he Eu opean Union
(TEU) wi h he iew o jus i ying nega i e consequences, e en signi ican ones, de i ing,
o some ope a o s, om decisions implemen ing ac s adop ed by he Union o he
pu pose o achie ing EU gene al goals such as hose unde men ioned a . 21 TEU.
So, unde p ocedu al law meaning, he abo e amewo k coming om he HRSR,
looks a he (maybe oo much) in a o o he ins i u ions o he Union.
5. B ie conclusions
Though he Eu opean Union ac s can as such pu sue gene al aims ha , in some cases,
migh go beyond he bounda ies no mally su ounding a legisla i e ac a he na ional
le el, i emains unclea o wha ex en his migh be s e ched unde same Union law and
in pa icula o wha ex en ele an (mos ly p ocedu al, and some imes subs an i e)
igh s o indi iduals could su e om such a b oad unde s anding o he Eu opean Union
p e oga i es in his ield. The HRSR aises doub s exac ly in such di ec ion and
conside ing he many limi a ions o ac ion o indi iduals agains legisla i e ac s o he
Union, bo h as an ac ion o annulmen and as an ac ion o damages ( hough conside ing
he di e ences be ween he wo kinds o ac ion). In his con ex , ac ion in damages seems
easonably ex endable o CFSP decisions, i connec ions be ween such decisions and he
subsequen ac s unde a . 215 TFEU esul di ec as a as he claimed damages a e
conce ned, and exac ly in o de ha same ac ion in eimbu semen be ully legi imized.
I is wise o emind ha la e obse a ion, in s ic legal e ms, applies i espec i e o
whe he such an ac ion o damages may succeed (o no ) on he subs ance.
Acco ding o a ecen Commission’s p oposal, sanc ions adop ed a Eu opean Union
le el migh be en o ced in he same Union (i.e., in he Membe s a es) by means o
p ocedu al law ools es ablished unde men ioned a . 83 TFEU. Such a possibili y, i i
would pass he subsequen ins i u ional p oceedings, will u he s eng hen he
in e ac ion be ween he di e en a eas o law (sanc ions egimes and c iminal p ocedu al
law) ce ainly p o iding o a mo e consis en and e ec i e legal amewo k. Howe e ,
i seems ques ionable i such a p oposal migh as such be e e ed also o es ic i e
measu es wi h “pu ely” comme cial/economic policy aims. On he o he hand, same
p oposal aises issues ela ed o he p o ec ion o co esponding p ocedu al igh s o
indi iduals in ol ed by he e ec s o he measu es (con isca ion, eezing o asse s, o he
in es iga i e ools, e c.) “ins umen al” o he en o cemen o ele an sanc ions unde
a . 215 pa a. 2 TFEU. Again, he ele an decisions adop ed by na ional au ho i ies in
acco dance wi h ele an EU ac s will emain subjec ed o judicial e iew, wi h a g ea e
45
See Chap e II.2, abo e.
In e na ional Sanc ions o he Eu opean Union
174
www. sjeu os udies.eu
possibili y ha he CJEU be in ol ed e.g., unde he e e ence o a p elimina y uling as
a ool o “genuine” eading o he ele an EU legisla ion (a . 267 TFEU), whene e
in e p e a i e doub s a ound such ins umen al measu es migh a ise be o e same na ional
judicia ies.
ABSTRACT: The pape in es iga es how he e ec i eness o he Eu opean Union’s
ac ion and i s accoun abili y a e ackled in he ield o in e na ional sanc ions egimes.
This is pa icula ly meaning ul o sanc ions a ge ing indi iduals and p i a e
companies, conside ing he nega i e ou comes ha in e na ional sanc ions ha e,
some imes e en jus indi ec ly, on bo h. While, on he one hand, he Cou o Jus ice
o he EU has expanded he igh o claim damages ha indi iduals migh su e om
sanc ions, he enac men o mo e gene al egimes (such as he Global human igh s
sanc ions egime) migh ha e ad e se e ec s on hose indi iduals’ de ense igh s. In
his con ex , he Commission is in sea ch o solu ions o p o ide he Union’s
sanc ions wi h ull e ec i eness also by means o c iminal p ocedu al law ools.
KEYWORDS: In e na ional sanc ions – Judicial Coope a ion on c iminal law – non-
con ac ual liabili y – Global Human Righ s Sanc ions Regime.