KadivCommission

FromWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

KadiandAlBarakaatInternationalFoundationvCouncil
andCommission(2008)C402/05isanEUlawcase,
concerningthehierarchybetweeninternationallawand
generalprinciplesofEUlaw.

KadivCommission

Contents
1 Facts
2 Judgment
2.1 AdvocateGeneralOpinion
2.2 GeneralCourt
2.3 CourtofJustice
3 Seealso
4 Notes
5 References
6 Externallinks

Facts

MrYassinAbdullahKadi
Court

CourtofJustice

MrKadi,aSaudiresidentwithassetsinSweden,andAl
Citation(s) (2008)C402and415/05,[2008]ECR
Barakaat,acharityforSomalirefugees,claimedthathis
I6351
assetsbeingfrozenwasunlawful.Theirpropertywasseized
withoutanycourthearingorrightofredressorallegationof
Keywords
wrongdoing.TheUNSecurityCounciladoptedresolutions
Conflictoflaws
underChapterVIItofreezeassetsofpeopleandgroups
associatedwiththeTalibanandOsamaBinLaden.TheEU
adoptedRegulationstogiveeffect.SwedenhadgiveneffecttotheRegulation.Theclaimantswerenamedin
theResolutionandRegulation.TheyclaimedtheRegulationshouldbeannulledunderTFEUarticle263andit
wasabreachofhumanrights.

Judgment
AdvocateGeneralOpinion
IntheOpinionofAdvocateGeneralMaduro,EUlawdidnotneedtounconditionallybowtointernationallaw,
iftheconsequencecouldbeaviolationofbasicconstitutionalprinciples.

21.ThisbringsustothequestionofhowtherelationshipbetweentheInternationallegalorder
andtheCommunitylegalordermustbedescribed.Thelogicalstartingpointofourdiscussion
should,ofcourse,bethelandmarkrulinginVanGendenLoos,inwhichtheCourtaffirmedthe
autonomyoftheCommunitylegalorder.TheCourtheldthattheTreatyisnotmerelyan
agreementbetweenStates,butanagreementbetweenthepeoplesofEurope.Itconsideredthat
theTreatyhadestablisheda'newlegalorder',beholdento,butdistinctfromtheexistinglegal
orderofpublicinternationallaw.Inotherwords,theTreatyhascreatedamunicipallegalorder
oftransnationaldimensions,ofwhichitformsthe'basicconstitutionalcharter'.
[...]

24.Allthesecaseshaveincommonthat,althoughtheCourttakesgreatcaretorespectthe
obligationsthatareincumbentontheCommunitybyvirtueofinternationallaw,itseeks,first
andforemost,topreservetheconstitutionalframeworkcreatedbytheTreaty.Thus,itwouldbe
wrongtoconcludethat,oncetheCommunityisboundbyaruleofinternationallaw,the
CommunityCourtsmustbowtothatrulewithcompleteacquiescenceandapplyit
unconditionallyintheCommunitylegalorder.Therelationshipbetweeninternationallawand
theCommunitylegalorderisgovernedbytheCommunitylegalorderitself,andinternational
lawcanpermeatethatlegalorderonlyundertheconditionssetbytheconstitutionalprinciples
oftheCommunity.
[...]
43.Idisagreewiththerespondents.Theyadvocateatypeofjudicialreviewthatatheartisvery
similartotheapproachtakenbytheCourtofFirstInstanceundertheheadingofjuscogens.Ina
sense,theirargumentisyetanotherexpressionofthebeliefthatthepresentcaseconcernsa
'politicalquestion'andthattheCourt,unlikethepoliticalinstitutions,isnotinapositiontodeal
adequatelywithsuchquestions.Thereasonwouldbethatthemattersatissueareof
internationalsignificanceandanyinterventionoftheCourtmightupsetgloballycoordinated
effortstocombatterrorism.Theargumentisalsocloselyconnectedwiththeviewthatcourtsare
illequippedtodeterminewhichmeasuresareappropriatetopreventinternationalterrorism.The
SecurityCouncil,incontrast,presumablyhastheexpertisetomakethatdetermination.For
thesereasons,therespondentsconcludethattheCourtshouldtreatassessmentsmadebythe
SecurityCouncilwiththeutmostdeferenceand,ifitdoesanythingatall,shouldexercisea
minimalreviewinrespectofCommunityactsbasedonthoseassessments.
44.Itistruethatcourtsoughtnottobeinstitutionallyblind.Thus,theCourtshouldbemindful
oftheinternationalcontextinwhichitoperatesandconsciousofitslimitations.Itshouldbe
awareoftheimpactitsrulingsmayhaveoutsidetheconfinesoftheCommunity.Inan
increasinglyinterdependentworld,differentlegalorderswillhavetoendeavourto
accommodateeachother'sjurisdictionalclaims.Asaresult,theCourtcannotalwaysasserta
monopolyondetermininghowcertainfundamentalinterestsoughttobereconciled.Itmust,
wherepossible,recognisetheauthorityofinstitutions,suchastheSecurityCouncil,thatare
establishedunderadifferentlegalorderthanitsownandthataresometimesbetterplacedto
weighthosefundamentalinterests.However,theCourtcannot,indeferencetotheviewsof
thoseinstitutions,turnitsbackonthefundamentalvaluesthatlieatthebasisoftheCommunity
legalorderandwhichithasthedutytoprotect.Respectforotherinstitutionsismeaningfulonly
ifitcanbebuiltonasharedunderstandingofthesevaluesandonamutualcommitmentto
protectthem.Consequently,insituationswheretheCommunity'sfundamentalvaluesareinthe
balance,theCourtmayberequiredtoreassess,andpossiblyannul,measuresadoptedbythe
Communityinstitutions,evenwhenthosemeasuresreflectthewishesoftheSecurityCouncil.
45.Thefactthatthemeasuresatissueareintendedtosuppressinternationalterrorismshould
notinhibittheCourtfromfulfillingitsdutytopreservetheruleoflaw.Indoingso,ratherthan
trespassingintothedomainofpolitics,theCourtisreaffirmingthelimitsthatthelawimposes
oncertainpoliticaldecisions.Thisisneveraneasytask,and,indeed,itisagreatchallengefora
courttoapplywisdominmattersrelatingtothethreatofterrorism.Yet,thesameholdstruefor
thepoliticalinstitutions.Especiallyinmattersofpublicsecurity,thepoliticalprocessisliableto
becomeoverlyresponsivetoimmediatepopularconcerns,leadingtheauthoritiestoallaythe
anxietiesofthemanyattheexpenseoftherightsofafew.Thisispreciselywhencourtsought
togetinvolved,inordertoensurethatthepoliticalnecessitiesoftodaydonotbecomethelegal
realitiesoftomorrow.Theirresponsibilityistoguaranteethatwhatmaybepoliticallyexpedient
ataparticularmomentalsocomplieswiththeruleoflawwithoutwhich,inthelongrun,no
democraticsocietycantrulyprosper.InthewordsofAharonBarak,theformerPresidentonthe
SupremeCourtofIsrael:

ItiswhenthecannonsroarthatweespeciallyneedthelawsEverystruggleofthestate
againstterrorismoranyotherenemyisconductedaccordingtorulesandlaw.Thereisalways
lawwhichthestatemustcomplywith.Thereareno"blackholes".Thereasonatthe
foundationofthisapproachisnotonlythepragmaticconsequenceofthepoliticaland
normativereality.Itsrootsliemuchdeeper.Itisanexpressionofthedifferencebetweena
democraticstatefightingforitslifeandthefightingofterroristsrisingupagainstit.Thestate
fightsinthenameofthelawandinthenameofupholdingthelaw.Theterroristsfightagainst
thelaw,whileviolatingit.Thewaragainstterrorismisalsolaw'swaragainstthosewhoriseup
againstit.'[1]
46.Thereisnoreason,therefore,fortheCourttodepart,inthepresentcase,fromitsusual
interpretationofthefundamentalrightsthathavebeeninvokedbytheappellant.Theonlynovel
questioniswhethertheconcreteneedsraisedbythepreventionofinternationalterrorismjustify
restrictionsonthefundamentalrightsoftheappellantthatwouldotherwisenotbeacceptable.
Thisdoesnotentailadifferentconceptionofthosefundamentalrightsandtheapplicable
standardofreview.Itsimplymeansthattheweighttobegiventothedifferentinterestswhich
arealwaystobebalancedintheapplicationofthefundamentalrightsatissuemaybedifferent
asaconsequenceofthespecificneedsarisingfromthepreventionofinternationalterrorism.
ButthisistobeassessedinanormalexerciseofjudicialreviewbythisCourt.Thepresent
circumstancesmayresultinadifferentbalancebeingstruckamongthevaluesinvolvedinthe
protectionoffundamentalrightsbutthestandardofprotectionaffordedbythemoughtnotto
change.

GeneralCourt
TheGeneralCourtheldthattheRegulationwasvalid.Althoughagreementswithanonmemberstateordinarily
prevails,itcannotprevailoverprovisionsformingacorepartoftheconstitutionalfoundationsoftheEU
system.233259,SecurityCouncilresolutionwasbindingonallUNmembers(UNCharterart25)and
prevailedoveralltreaties(art103).IthadtobecarriedoutevenifitconflictedwiththeEUTreaties.EUMSs
werepartiestotheUNCharterbeforetheEUTreaties,soTFEUart351(1)requiredfulfilmentofthose
obligations.ThismeanttheResolutionprevailedoverEUlaw.TheEUwasnotboundunderinternationallaw,
butitwasboundinEUlaw,followingfromInternationalFruitCompany(1972)Case214/72,[1972]ECHR
1219.Therewas,also,noinfringementofajuscogensnormbytheResolution.

CourtofJustice
TheCourtofJusticeheldtheresolutionwasinvalidinEUlaw.Thecourthadnojurisdictiontoreviewthe
legalityofSecurityCouncilResolutions,butitcouldreviewEUregulations.Theregulationwasadoptedto
giveeffecttoMemberStateobligations.AlthoughunderinternationallawSecurityCouncilResolutions
prevail,underEUlawthehierarchyofnormsdiffers.ItrejectedthatTFEUart351protectedtheRegulation
fromchallenge.TheRegulationwasannulledinrelationtoKadi,buteffectmaintainedforalimitedperiod.

281.InthisconnectionitistobeborneinmindthattheCommunityisbasedontheruleoflaw,
inasmuchasneitheritsMemberStatesnoritsinstitutionscanavoidreviewoftheconformityof
theiractswiththebasicconstitutionalcharter,theECTreaty,whichestablishedacomplete
systemoflegalremediesandproceduresdesignedtoenabletheCourtofJusticetoreviewthe
legalityofactsoftheinstitutions(Case294/83LesVertsvParliament[1986]ECR1339,
paragraph23).
282.At'theveryfoundationsoftheCommunity'arecertainnorms.
285.Itfollowsfromallthoseconsiderationsthattheobligationsimposedbyaninternational
agreementcannothavetheeffectofprejudicingtheconstitutionalprinciplesoftheECTreaty,
whichincludetheprinciplethatallCommunityactsmustrespectfundamentalrights,that

respectconstitutingaconditionoftheirlawfulnesswhichitisfortheCourttoreviewinthe
frameworkofthecompletesystemoflegalremediesestablishedbytheTreaty.
300.Atreatycanneverenjoyprimacyoverprovisions(includingprotectionoffundamental
humanrights)thatformpartoftheconstitutionalfoundationsoftheunion.
303.'theprinciplesenshrined...asafoundationoftheUnion
304.'theprinciplesthatformpartoftheverycommunitylegalorder
3059.EveniftheUNCharterwerebindingontheEU,itwouldnottakeprimacyoverthe
constitutivetreaties,ortheconstitutionalfoundationsoftheEUsystem.

Seealso
EUlaw

Notes
1.SupremeCourtofIsrael,HCJ769/02[2006]The
PublicCommitteeAgainstTortureinIsraelet.al.v.
TheGovernmentofIsraelet.al.,paragraphs61and
62(internalquotationmarksomitted).

References
Externallinks

Retrievedfrom"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kadi_v_Commission&oldid=733118383"
Categories: EuropeanUnionlaw
Thispagewaslastmodifiedon5August2016,at14:08.
TextisavailableundertheCreativeCommonsAttributionShareAlikeLicenseadditionaltermsmay
apply.Byusingthissite,youagreetotheTermsofUseandPrivacyPolicy.Wikipediaisaregistered
trademarkoftheWikimediaFoundation,Inc.,anonprofitorganization.