The EU has implemented a UN amendment to the identifying information given for Rustam Magomedovich, listed on UN sanctions against ISIL & Al-Qaida. The amendment states that he was killed on 3 December 2016, and does not say why he continues to be UN designated.
The US State Department has designated 2 leaders of ISIL, Ahmad Alkhald and Abu Yahya al-Iraqi, as Specially Designated Global Terrorists. Mr Alkhald is said to be an ISIL bomb-maker who served as explosives chief of the terrorist cell that carried out the November 2015 attacks in Paris and the March 2016 attack in Brussels. Mr al-Iraqi is a senior ISIL figure who is responsible for ISIL security in Iraq and Syria, including that of ISIL’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The details of the listings are here.
The US Department of State has designated the Pakistani militant group Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation and Specially Designated Global Terrorist. Formed in 1989, HM is said to be one of the largest and oldest militant groups operating in the region and has claimed responsibility for several attacks, including the April 2014 explosive attack in Jammu and Kashmir which injured 17 people.
The details of the listing are here.
In June, the UN Security Council expanded its sanctions on illegal oil exports from Libya to cover vessels loading, transporting, or discharging petroleum, including crude oil and refined petroleum products, for export from Libya. The EU has now implemented those new measures, along with the UN’s listing of the vessel Capricorn pursuant to the sanctions. See Regulation 2017/1419 amending Regulation (EU) 2016/44 and Decision 2017/1427 amending Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333, and Implementing Regulation 2017/1423 amending Regulation 2016/44 and Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/1429 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333.
The EU has undertaken its mandatory review of its non-ISIL & Al-Qaida terrorism sanctions listings, and determined that all listed people and entities should continue to be subject to the sanctions. See Implementing Regulation 2017/1420 implementing Regulation 2580/2001 and Council Decision 2017/1426 updating Common Position 2001/931/CFSP and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2017/154.
The Government has published its response to the final annual report on the operation of the Terrorism Acts by David Anderson QC (see previous blog) when he was independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.
David Anderson had repeated his criticisms of the deproscription process for proscribed organisations, in particular that the continued proscription of groups that do not or no longer satisfy the statutory test that they are currently concerned in terrorism is contrary to the rule of law (see previous blog). He again proposed that proscription orders should automatically lapse after a period of time and only be renewed if there is sufficient evidence (as with terrorist asset-freezing) or that the statutory test should be amended.
The Government’s response says it is not prepared to make these changes, that it is not convinced that regular reviews of proscription decisions would prevent injustice and would have practical and financial disadvantages. It will respect the statutory time limit for deproscription applications, not met in the case of the ISYF (see previous blog).
The Grand Chamber of the ECJ has upheld an application brought by the EU Council to set aside a decision of the General Court to annul the designation of Hamas (see previous blog), and has dismissed the application to set aside the judgment annulling the re-listing of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (see previous blog). Case C-79/15 P Council v Hamas and Case C-599/14 P Council v LTTE.
The ECJ said the General Court was wrong to have held that in considering whether a re-listing remained justified on the basis of ongoing terrorist risk, the EU had to decide only on the basis of material that had been assessed by the national authorities.
Because the General Court’s decision to annul Hamas’ listing was solely based on that ground, ECJ referred the case back to the General Court. However, in LTTE’s case the ECJ found that the General Court’s decision to annul was correct on other grounds despite that error; the Council had not included in its reasons an assessment of whether the Indian competent authority protected rights of defence and effective judicial review in a manner equivalent to protection at EU level.
The EU has added Fared Saal to its sanctions on ISIL & Al-Qaida, implementing a UN listing from earlier this month. Fared Saal is said to be a member of ISIL, who has taken part in attacks that led to the deaths of large numbers of civilians. See Commission Implementing Regulation 2017/1094 amending Council Regulation 881/2002.
It has also implemented the UN’s listing of Hissene Abdoulaye on its sanctions against the Central African Republic (see previous blog). He is said to have become one of the main leaders of armed militias in the country’s capital Bangui. See Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1090 implementing Council Regulation 224/2014 and Council Implementing Decision 2017/1103 implementing Council Decision 2013/798/CFSP.
We previously reported on the General Court’s Kadi(2) type judgment (link here) rejecting the application for annulment brought by the Sanabel Relief Agency Ltd and 3 people connected with it (Al-Faqih, Abdrabbah, & Nasuf) on the grounds that the Commission had complied with its Kadi (2) duties of independently assessing the evidence for EU implementations of UN terrorist sanctions listings, the applicants had been sent narrative summaries, the EU had assessed their responses and the UN’s reasons, and the applicants had eventually been de-listed. The Sanabel Relief Agency had ceased to exist so the Court also held that it had no continuing interest in the proceedings. The Court of Justice has just affirmed that judgment on appeal in Case C-19/16 P Faqih & Ors v Commission (Council intervening) – link to the appeal judgment here. The ECJ has held that the Court below was entitled to have held that:
- Sanabel Relief agency no longer existed in law and therefore did not have capacity to bring legal proceedings before the EU court;
- the applicants’ proportionality plea was insufficiently particularised; and
- the Commission had properly discharged its Kadi (2) duties.