Categories
Foreign Affairs

Full Text Of The Selection: LTTE Partially Wins EU Battle Over Proscription

The LTTE achieved a partial victory yesterday when the General Court of the European Union (CVRIA) annulled the proscription on the organisation based on procedural grounds.

prabhakaranThough the LTTE was placed on the EU list relating to frozen funds of terrorist organizations in 2006 based on references to decisions made by Indian authorities, the LTTE contested their upkeep on the list. They stated prior to the CVRIA that their confrontation with the Government of Sri Lanka was an ‘armed conflict’ that falls inside the which means of the International Law, subject only to International Humanitarian Law and not to Anti-Terrorist legislation. They had gone on to state that getting included in the list relating to frozen funds is primarily based on ‘unreliable grounds’ that do not derive from decisions of competent authorities.

In consideration of the submissions made by the LTTE, the CVRIA noted that the Court finds that an authority of a state outdoors the EU maybe a ‘competent authority’ provided that the Council verifies at the outset that the legislation of the third state ensures protection of the rights of defense and of the correct of powerful judicial protection equivalent to that assured at the EU level. The Court noted that since such an examination was not carried out by the Council with reference to the stance it took in such as the LTTE in the list, but had been based on ‘factual imputations derived from the press and the internet’.

As such the CVRIA annulled the Council measures preserving the LTTE on EU list of terrorist organizations.

It nevertheless declared that the EU law on the prevention of terrorism also applies in armed conflict, inside the meaning of international law and as a result the LTTW can not claim the existence of an armed conflict precludes a feasible application of the EU law with regard to them.

Basic Court of the European Union

PRESS RELEASE No 138/14

Luxembourg, 16 October 2014

Judgment in Joined Circumstances T-208/11 and T-508/11 Press and Info Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) v Council

The Court annuls, on procedural grounds, the Council measures keeping the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam on the European list of terrorist organisations

However, the effects of the annulled measures are maintained temporarily in order to ensure the effectiveness of any attainable future freezing of funds.

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) are a movement which opposed the Government of Sri-Lanka in a violent confrontation which resulted in the LTTE’s defeat in 2009.

In 2006, the Council placed the LTTE on the EU list relating to frozen funds of terrorist organisations and has maintained them on that list ever since, referring to, inter alia, decisions of Indian authorities.

The LTTE contest their upkeep on the list. They submit that their confrontation with the Government of Sri-Lanka was an ‘armed conflict’ inside the meaning of international law, subject only to international humanitarian law and not to anti-terrorist legislation. In addition, the maintenance on the list relating to frozen funds is based on unreliable grounds which do not derive from decisions of ‘competent authorities’ within the which means of Typical Position 2001/931/CFSP.(1)

In today’s judgment, the Court finds that EU law on the prevention of terrorism also applies in ‘armed conflicts’ within the which means of international law. Therefore, the LTTE cannot claim that the existence of an armed conflict precludes a feasible application of EU law with regard to them.

As regards the choices of Indian authorities relied upon by the Council, the Court finds that an authority of a State outdoors the EU may possibly be a ‘competent authority’ within the which means of Frequent Position 2001/931. Even so, the Council must very carefully confirm at the outset that the legislation of the third State guarantees protection of the rights of defence and of the proper to powerful judicial protection equivalent to that assured at EU level. The Court finds that the Council did not carry out such a thorough examination in the present case.

The Court finds that the contested measures are primarily based not on acts examined and confirmed in decisions of competent authorities, as needed by Common Position 2001/931 and case-law,(2) but on factual imputations derived from the press and the internet.

Therefore the Court annuls the contested measures whilst temporarily sustaining the effects of the final of those measures in order to make certain the effectiveness of any possible future freezing of funds.

The Court stresses that these annulments, on fundamental procedural grounds, do not imply any substantive assessment of the question of the classification of the LTTE as a terrorist group inside the meaning of Common Position 2001/931.

1 Council Typical Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of certain measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 93)
2 See Article 1(4) of the Frequent Position and Case:C-539/ten P and C‐550/ten P Al-Aqsa v Council and Netherlands v Al-Aqsa

NOTE: An appeal, limited to points of law only, may possibly be brought before the Court of Justice against the decision of the Basic Court within two months of notification of the selection.

NOTE: An action for annulment seeks the annulment of acts of the institutions of the European Union that are contrary to European Union law. The Member States, the European institutions and men and women might, beneath specific conditions, bring an action for annulment just before the Court of Justice or the General Court. If the action is well founded, the act is annulled. The institution concerned need to fill any legal vacuum developed by the annulment of the act.

Study the verdict here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.