Initial Imposition of EU Sanctions & Subsequent Amendments
The EU initially imposed sanctions against Burma/Myanmar in 1990.
There are no UN sanctions against Burma
Form of the Sanctions
Criteria for Inclusion in Targeted Measures
It shall be prohibited:
To provide technical assistance related to military activities and to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, directly or indirectly to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in Myanmar/Burma.
To provide financing or financial assistance related to military activities, including, in particular, grants, loans and export credit insurance for any sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related materiel, directly or indirectly to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in Myanmar/Burma.
Provisions in Force
Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP (23 April 2013) Prohibition on sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related material which might be used for internal repression; prohibition on the provision of technical assistance and financial assistance
Amended by Council Decision 2014/214/CFSP (14 April 2014) to renew restrictive measures against Burma until 30th April 2015
Amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/666 to extend the sanctions regime until 30 April 2016
Council Regulation (EU) No 401/2013 (3 May 2013) Annex I sets out the list of banned materials
Soexmiex SAS v Agrocorp International Pte Ltd  EWHC 2743 (Comm);  1 Lloyd’s Rep 52;  Arb LR 46 concerned an appeal to the High Court of an arbitral award. The GAFTA Board of Appeal had found inter alia that the Buyers in this case had failed to prove that the Suppliers were “listed Burmese persons”. However, whilst the Buyers did appeal the award, they also accepted that the Suppliers were not listed persons.
In Tay Za, the applicant had been listed in the annex to Regulation 194/2008 (now repealed) on the grounds that his father was a Burmese businessman who enjoyed advantages granted to him by the military junta. The General Court had rejected the applicant’s case and held that there was a presumption that family relatives would benefit from the economic advantages conferred upon their listed relative by the junta (based on Articles 60 and 301 of the Treaty of Nice). In Tay Za v Council of the European Union (C-376/10 P)  Lloyd’s Rep FC 305, Advocate General Mengozzi found that the General Court had given too wide an interpretation to these articles. AG Mengozzi also found that the General Court had failed to apply the appropriate level of judicial review when analysing the lawfulness of the sanctions against Burma. In Tay Za v Council of the European Union (C-376/10 P)  2 CMLR 27, the CJEU agreed with AG Mengozzi’s opinion and allowed the appeal against the decision of the General Court.