International Sanctions of the European Union in Search of Effectiveness and Accountability

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.