Initial Imposition of EU Sanctions
Sanctions were initially imposed by the EU on Zimbabwe in February 2002
There are UN sanctions against Zimbabwe on assumed and proven involvement in the illicit trade of high value commodities including diamonds
Form of the Sanctions
Prohibition on the provision of technical assistance, financing and financial assistance related to military activities
Prohibition on the exporting of equipment which might be used for internal repression
Criteria for Inclusion in Targeted Measures
Targeted measures are imposed upon “individual members of the Government of Zimbabwe and to any natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them”
Provisions in Force
- Prohibition on the sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related military material which might be used for internal repression. This applies to nationals of Member States, territories of Member States and the use of flag vessels or aircraft of Member States.
- Travel bans against those individuals whose activities seriously undermine democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law.
- These individuals are listed in the Annex (163 individuals including Robert Mugabe and John Bredenkamp; 31 entities)
Amended by Council Decision 2012/97/CFSP (18 February 2012) to reduce the numbers in the Annex to 112 individuals and 11 entities. 2 individuals in the Annex have restrictive measures against them suspended for 1 year
Amended by Council Implementing Decision 2012/124/CFSP (28 February 2012) to make minor amendments to the Annex
Amended by Council Decision 2013/89/CFSP (19 February 2013) to delete 21 individuals and 1 entity from the Annex. 6 individuals in the Annex have restrictive measures against them suspended
Amended by Council Decision 2013/160/CFSP (28 March 2013) to suspend the travel ban and asset freeze applying to the majority of the individuals and entities set out in the Annex. This suspension is subject to a review by the Council every 3 months
Amended by Council Decision 2015/277/CFSP to extend sanctions until 20 February 2016 and delete the listings of 5 deceased people
Amended by Council Decision 2015/277/CFSP to delete the listings of 5 deceased people.
- Prohibition on provision of technical assistance, financing or financial assistance related to military activities
- Exemptions for non-lethal military equipment intended for humanitarian/protective use and for material intended for crisis-management operations of the EU and UN
- Annex I provides a list of equipment that “might be used for internal repression”
- Annex II provides list of competent authorities that can authorise derogation from the asset freezes
- Annex III provides a list of those individuals subject to the asset freeze (originally 95 names including Robert and Grace Mugabe)
Amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/2004 (21 August 2004) to enlarge the list of competent authorities in Annex II
Amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1367/2005 (20 August 2005) to provide more information regarding those individuals listed in Annex III
Amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 (20 November 2006) to amend information of competent authorities in Annex II
Amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 77/2009 (27 January 2009) to amend and supplement information regarding those individuals listed in Annex III, including John Bredenkamp
Amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 173/2010 (25 February 2010) to remove 5 individuals and 9 entities from Annex III
Amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 174/2011 (24 February 2011) to remove 35 individuals from Annex III and to amend information relating to those individuals that remain on the list
Amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 151/2012 (22 February 2012) to replace Annex III with a new annex containing updated material on the individuals and entities that remained on the list
Amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 145/2013 (20 February 2013) to remove 21 individuals and 1 entity from the list
Amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 298/2013 (28 March 2013) to provide that the asset freezes would be suspended until 20th February 2014. The suspension was reviewable every three months
Amended by Commission Implementing Regulation 2015/275 to extend sanctions until 20 February 2016 and delete the listings of 5 deceased people
Amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2015/612 to delete the listings of 5 deceased people.
One of the earliest examples of sanctions case law in relation to Zimbabwe can be found in Customs and Excise Commissioners v Gallaher  AC 43. Following the declaration of independence from Ian Smith’s government, Parliament enacted the Southern Rhodesia (Withdrawal of Commonwealth Preference) Order 1965 that excluded Southern Rhodesia from the Commonwealth preference area and from the resulting tax advantages.
In Rautenbach v Council of the European Union (T-222/11), the applicant challenged restrictive measures contending that the EU institutions had acted ultra vires, that his listing was based on a manifest error of assessment, that his rights of defence and of effective judicial review had been violated, that the duty to give reasons had not been complied with by the EU institutions, and that the restrictive measures were an unjustified and disproportionate interference with property rights and personal liberties. The applicant was removed from the sanctions list in 2012.
In R (Bredenkamp) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs  EWHC 2480 (Admin), John Bredenkamp made applications for disclosure and requests for further information pertaining to his judicial review application against the Secretary of State for listing him in the Annex to Regulation 314/2004. The Secretary of State was ordered to provide relevant descriptions of the contacts who had provided evidence of Bredenkamp’s alleged relationship with the Mugabe regime and was ordered either to disclose documentation of official discussions regarding the listing of Bredenkamp or to provide a witness statement detailing why such documents should not be disclosed.
Bredenkamp was given permission to apply for judicial review in respect of his original listing. The Secretary of State defended this application on the grounds that in essence Bredenkamp was asking the national court to declare EU Regulations invalid (contrary to the principle in Firma Frost). This was rejected on the grounds that Bredenkamp was challenging a decision by the Secretary of State, and not challenging the validity of the Regulations.