Two CJEU members (one current, one former) weigh into the debate on the possibilities.
EU restrictive measures (sanctions) are supposedly temporary. But the temporary nature of sanctions, if listing/relisting persists, may no longer be considered as merely temporary. Rather, they could amount to becoming permanently imposed. What then, can be said about deprivation of property, and seizure/confiscation of assets, in an EU predicated on the rule of law?
Numerous questions are worth considering. Can property be confiscated because it is frozen? What if EU are circumvented/violated: could this result in property be considered proceeds of crime, and thus confiscated? What about the monetisation of confiscated property/assets being used to reconstruct a third state? How would this tie in with war reparations?
These matters, inter alia, have to be considered in light of both EU law and international law.
Two jurists have recently their say: one current member of the CJEU, Advocate General Juliane Kokott, and one former member of the CJEU, Judge allan rosas, in two recently published articles.
Their contributions are available at the following links:
Juliane Kokott, ‘EU Sanctions against Russia and the Rule of Law’, Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien, 2023, 26(1) 3-12. Link: https://lnkd.in/ee9Qn9nc (ed: Europa-Institut, Saarland University)
Allan Rosas, ‘From freezing to confiscating Russian assets?’, Eureopean Law Review, 2023, 48(3), 337-347. Link: https://lnkd.in/e6ScjTCa (ed: Panos Koutrakos, Alicia Hinarejos)
Graham Butler