Yves here. A new ruling by the European Union Court of Justice is tantamount to shutting the gate door after the horses are in the next county. Nevertheless, it’s a striking if not well publicized indictment of US casualness about lobbing charges against countries on its enemies list.
By John Helmer, the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears
Anders Fogh Rasmussen departs in two weeks from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), where he has been secretary-general since 2009, with a present from the General Court of the European Union Court of Justice. It’s a golden tongue depressor.
In a judgement issued in Luxembourg on Thursday, September 18, the court ruled that the European Union (EU) cannot lawfully introduce sanctions against states, corporations, state organizations, or individuals without stating reasons which can be substantiated in evidence to a standard of proof tested in court.
Rasmussen, a former Danish politician, has been the most active European advocate of sanctions against Russia on claims that Russian forces have mounted an invasion of eastern Ukraine. The evidence Rasmussen has offered has included hearsay intelligence reports and a display of satellite photographs, which NATO published on August 28.
Source: http://www.aco.nato.int/
In accompanying text, the photographs were interpreted to “show a significant escalation in both the level and sophistication of Russia’s military interference in Ukraine… These latest images provide concrete examples of Russian activity inside Ukraine, but are only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the overall scope of Russian troop and weapons movements… Also released were images showing substantial activity inside Russia in areas adjacent to the border with Ukraine. NATO believes this activity is being conducted in direct support to forces operating inside Ukraine, and is part of a highly coordinated and destabilising strategy.”
Source: http://www.aco.nato.int/
Rasmussen followed with interpretations by tweet: “Russia’s aggression against #Ukraine is a wake-up call. It reminds us that our freedom, security & prosperity can’t be taken for granted… We welcome all genuine efforts to find peaceful solution to Crisis In #Ukraine. But what counts is what is happening on the ground… Russia is now fighting against #Ukraine, IN Ukraine. Russian troops & tanks are attacking Ukrainian forces… While talking about peace, #Russia hasn’t made 1 single step to make peace possible. Instead of de-escalating, #Russia only deepened crisis… 1st time since end #WW2 that 1 European country tried to grab another’s territory by force.”
The evidential value of the NATO evidence and Rasmussen’s interpretations has been challenged by a group of former CIA analysts. “Accusations of a major Russian ‘invasion’ of Ukraine, “they claim, “appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the ‘intelligence’ seems to be of the same dubious, politically ‘fixed’ kind used 12 years ago to ‘justify’ the U.S.-led attack on Iraq. We saw no credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq then; we see no credible evidence of a Russian invasion now.”
Argumentation like this over justification for the campaign of US and EU sanctions against Russia has so far not been challenged by the Russians in international court. Iran has been less reticent.
Since 2010 Iran has been the target of sanctions starting with the trade in equipment and technology for uranium enrichment and nuclear weaponry. In January 2012, the EU froze assets belonging to the Central Bank of Iran, and banned all trade in gold and other precious metals with the bank and other public bodies. Six months later, an EU ban on the import, purchase and transport of Iranian crude oil came into force. European companies were also stopped from insuring Iranian oil shipments. In March 2012, SWIFT, the Brussels-based agency which processes global banking transactions, cut the Iranian banks from its system, making it almost impossible for money to flow in and out of Iran through the regular channels. In October 2012, the EU banned transactions with Iranian banks and financial institutions, as well as the import, purchase and transportation of natural gas from Iran, the construction of oil tankers for Iran, and the flagging and classification of Iranian tankers and cargo vessels.
After the sanctions campaign commenced, Bank Mellat went to court in the UK and the EU Court of Justice, challenging the allegation that it was connected to Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programmes. The bank commenced litigating in London in November 2009. Almost five years later, in June of this year, Bank Mellat won a ruling from the UK Supreme Court, the final court of appeal, rejecting the basis in evidence for the sanctions imposed on the bank. This followed a similar condemnation by the European Court, issued in January 2013. That story, and the two court judgements, can be read here.
“Mere allegations” were inadmissible to support sanctions, the two courts have ruled. The EU sanctions action against the bank had been illegal, the Luxembourg panel ruled, because “the [EU] Council did not… comply with the obligation to assess the relevance and the validity of the information and evidence against the applicant submitted to it, with the consequence that those measures are tainted by illegality. Lastly, the Council infringed the obligation to state reasons as regards the second, third, sixth and seventh reasons relied on against the applicant.”
To date, the UK Treasury has not paid the billion-pound compensation sought by Bank Mellat. Nor have the Iranians sued in the US courts.
This week, the Central Bank of Iran won a separate lawsuit against the EU. The new ruling can be read here. The judgement was issued by three judges — Heikki Kanninen of Finland (below left), Eugene Buttigieg of Malta (centre), and Czech Judge Irena Pelikánová (right). Pelikánová also ruled in the Bank Mellat case last year.
For the second time, the EU court has ruled that sanctions are illegal if they are based on allegations which cannot stand up in court. With an irony yet to be tested in the US, the EU court has also ruled that state organizations and companies targeted by sanctions have the same human right to due process, as human beings, Russian dissidents, and Americans.
The ruling ends two years of proceedings in Luxembourg. The Iranian central bank’s case was that EU sanctions were unlawful because they were based on evidence which was in error; because they violated the EU’s obligation to give defensible reasons for its action; because the EU had violated fundamental human rights, including the protection of property, the right of defence, the right to effective judicial protection, and the right to proportionality between act and penalty.
The EU argued that state bodies or corporations like the Central Bank can’t claim human rights. The court dismissed the contention. “EU law contains no rule preventing legal persons which are governmental organisations or State bodies from taking advantage of fundamental rights protection and guarantees. Those rights may therefore be relied on by those persons before the Courts of the European Union in so far as those rights are compatible with their status as legal persons… It follows that the applicant may rely on the protection and guarantees linked to fundamental rights which it invokes.”
The court went on to apply these rights to the reasons and evidence required to uphold sanctions. “The statement of reasons required by Article 296 TFEU must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in such a way as to enable the person concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measures and to enable the court having jurisdiction to exercise its power of review.”
The court also dismissed the EU argument that its sanctions decision was defensible for the reasons which had been published. “It is necessary to examine whether the statement of reasons in the contested act contains explicit references to the first and second criteria or, at least, to one or other of the two and whether, if that is the case, the statement of reasons may be regarded as sufficient to enable the applicant to determine whether the contested act is well founded and to state a defence before the Court, and to enable the Court to exercise its power of review.”
Reasons without specificity are inadmissible because their veracity cannot be tested, or proved in court. “To the extent that the statement of reasons in the contested act is based on the second criterion mentioned in paragraph 85 above, it is however insufficient, in the sense that it does not enable either the applicant or the Court to understand the circumstances which led the Council to consider that the second criterion was satisfied in the case of the applicant and, accordingly, to adopt the contested act. That statement of reasons appears to be no more than a reproduction of the second criterion itself. It contains nothing in the form of specific reasons why that criterion is applicable to the applicant. That statement of reasons gives no details of the names of persons, entities or bodies, listed on a list imposing restrictive measures, whom the applicant assisted in circumventing sanctions or of when, where and how that assistance took place. The Council does not refer to any identifiable transaction, or to any particular assistance. In the absence of any other details, that statement of reasons is clearly insufficient to enable the applicant to determine, having regard to the second criterion, whether the contested act is well founded and to state a defence before the Court, and to enable the Court to exercise its power of review.”
Rasmussen is to be replaced at NATO headquarters on November 1 by Norway’s former prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg. After he left NATO, Rasmussen’s predecessor, Dutchman Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, took a part-time job as a university lecturer in Leiden. He is also on the payroll of Air France-KLM as a board director; he’s receiving €25,000 in annual stipend.
Rasmussen reportedly wants more. He has yet to announce fresh job plans.
35 comments
Comments are closed.
Living in Russia must be a way to get the straight scoop on what is happening outside of Russia, especially a country that is waging an annexing war with its neighbors. Nothing to worry about when RT information is all fair and balanced. The West should rest assured Mr Putin is telling the truth when he tells us he is not fighting a proxy war — sending in troops, but are not his troops — in a neighboring country. From his perspective, he is being bloody honest since seasoned CIA analysts are in his camp. You can always deny, deny, deny.
Embargo wars has been a practice for millennia. They are implemented to persuade opposing countries to change behavior. We should not expect this tool in a countries arsenal to change. Sure, they are not always effective but the message is clear.
Also, the NATO released pictures are as clear as mud. The juicier photos are generally for intelligence sharing, the ones we don’t see. NATO must have known the grainy photos they released would bring in skeptics.
As for the ECJ, just like the rest of the EU project, is a joke. When millions of its citizens have been in a deep depression for years, their credibility is severely handicapped.
The west is coming to the realization Mr Putin rejects western values.
Living in the U.S. must be a way to get the straight scoop on what is happening outside of the U.S., especially a country that is waging a war against the rest of the world. Nothing to worry about when Fox, CNN or WaPo information is all fair and balanced. The world should rest assured Mr Obama is telling the truth when he tells us he is not fighting a proxy war when sending in troops for a humanitarian intervention. From his perspective, he is being bloody honest since seasoned CIA analysts and the mainstream media are in his camp. You can always deny, deny, deny.
Embargo wars has been a practice for millennia. They are implemented to persuade all countries opposing you global rule to change behavior, like accepting the United Fruit Company, Goldman Sachs or McKinsey to ruin your country. We should not expect this tool in a countries arsenal to change. Sure, they are not always effective but the message is clear: obey or be crushed.
Also, the NATO released pictures are as clear as mud, like in the past for the Gulf War or the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. The juicier photos are generally for intelligence sharing, the ones we don’t see. How could NATO have known that the grainy photos they released would bring in skeptics?
As for the SCOTUS, just like the rest of the U.S. project, is a joke. When millions of its citizens have been in a deep depression for years and more than 46 million have to live on food stamps, their credibility is severely handicapped.
The world is coming to the realization Mr Obama rejects humanitarian values.
+100
Where is naked capitalism published? In US?
Yes.
Have you considered that speech is only free because it has no value and no power?
We do it, they do it. Except that we do it bigger. We do corruption in trillions of dollars and they do corruption in tens of billions.
+100
Nice.
And why, pray, should so-called “Western values” rule all over the world? To be convinced that our values are the truth and nothing but, is tantamount to religion. Your are entiteld to yours and I am entitled to mine. They may be different.
Cultural hegemony makes me want to join the next black bloc, even though the tactic is useless at anything but providing propaganda for the hegemonic MSM. Don’t these people understand that mimesis is dead?
Any sane human being would reject “Western Values(tm)” as described by the warmongers and incompetent moron in Washington.
And just to be clear, you should check out a map of how “isolated” all these embargoes and sanctions are making Russia. By all appearance the only ones being isolated by all this is the US.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-01/everyone-saying-russia-isolated-heres-map
Oh snap! Look at that. Everyone who has abundant exploitable resources still available are just coincidentally “isolated” nations allied with Russia. Which is apparently almost the entire map of the world. Damn it sure is going to suck to be those small guys in blue when the black/green guys stop gifting real resources and goods in exchange for the blue’s worthless IOU paper. Bummer to be them..
Each country and grouping, of course, have their own POV and justifications and using “Western values” to judge them is what some of us are trying to establish. So we can agree on that, I assume.
Ok, then what are Western values? Can you define them as something that Putin is “violating” and show me how the USG, say, is applying them? As someone who lives in the USA I can assure you that the regime of rule-of-law is fading here and, certainly, the Constitution has been effectively suspended (along with habeas corpus); certainly the government and the mainstream media make unsubstantiated accusations against a whole host of “enemies” that contain little or no evidence–most obvious were the accusations against Russia and MH-17 (no evidence).
The U.S. media offers a completely one-sided view of events in any area whether it be the ME or Central Europe without ever presenting the other side of the story–particularly vis a visRussia. RT, for example offers a stunningly wider range of opinions than, CNN, MSNBC, Fox and other cable channels who everyday grind out government propaganda much like the old Soviet press did (which I monitored back in the day).
That is not to say the the Putin regime is some model of Jeffersonian democracy–it certainly is not but it is acting as you might predict any state to act faced with aggressive inroads into its sphere of infulence and clear violations of agreements by the USG and its client states in Europe.
So maybe I’m wrong but lets just agree that we ought to use laws of evidence to examine controversial events and move from that position–we totally disagree here so the way to agree is to establish an international commission free from influence of NATO and the Russian Federation that both sides could agree on. I suspect you would oppose that since I doubt your sincerity–but I could be wrong.
“Russia….is waging an annexing war with its neighbors.”
Russian’s referendums are aggression. America’s Nobel bombs are peace.
Curious you seem anti Russian and ignore the many posts here at NC that seem to make it clear America and Obama are the aggressors towards Russia, not the other way around.
The Red Queen would have been lucky to get a job as a line manager in corporate America. Six impossible things before breakfast isn’t even trying.
Thanks for the laugh. Satire often cuts through to the truth of things as loco’s immeiate response so deftly demonstrates.
This is all new to me. Is this serious–can the court actually enforce it’s findings? Or is this just some abstract entity that has no enforcement power?
Why do you think that there are talks with Iran dealing with the whole nuclear program thingy. The ECJ and also the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled that the sanctions against one the biggest banks in Iran, Bank Mellat, was illegal. I am sure Russia is planning to appeal all these crazy sanctions. Its biding its time…..
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/30/iran-bankmellat-eu-idUSL5N0AZEOB20130130
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10249759/Iranian-bank-sues-over-sanctions.html
The decisions are binding, but there is no enforcement mechanism. IOW, it is a typical EU nonsense, most effective at punishing weaker member states and pretty much impotent against larger members and other EU institutions.
Like Congress and Congressional investigations.
Which, more or less, means Germany gets their natgas and the rest get apples?
One observes that the great news in this ruling for some is that corporations have the same “human rights” as real people. One wonders whether establishing that legal conclusion is the real purpose of the Court here.
That is always a thought, but for the time being it’s uniquely a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
To my mind the interesting part of that legal premise will be when we discover that all corporations have the same equal rights as individuals, but some corporations are more equal than others. : )
It occurred to me that the wording protecting both government and corporate rights creates a modern privilege above the rights of various organized renegades, aka terrorists, aka criminals who do have the right to defend themselves. Especially terrorists with such a confused status as a stateless state. ISIS. Will ISIS partisans be hauled off to Guantanamo for safe keeping until they can be hauled into court in the US? I certainly doubt it.
I think the “self-propelled artillery” battery in the satellite photo has been identified elsewhere as harvesters. You can see that they’re neatly lined up with the furrows in the field.
All 4 or 9 of them?
Only 4 or 9 harvesters? Amateurs. Real farmers use 31 combine harvesters. Yee hah!
“The EU argued that state bodies or corporations like the Central Bank can’t claim human rights. The court dismissed the contention. ‘EU law contains no rule preventing legal persons which are governmental organisations or State bodies from taking advantage of fundamental rights protection and guarantees. Those rights may therefore be relied on by those persons before the Courts of the European Union in so far as those rights are compatible with their status as legal persons… It follows that the applicant may rely on the protection and guarantees linked to fundamental rights which it invokes.’ ”
Wow, countries are people too? Who’da thunk it?
Giving corporations human rights is the road to hell.
The decision is addressing the fundamental power of all courts. If a court is prevented from receiving accurate evidence it is usually considered to be fraud on the court. Maybe the EJC doesn’t use that language, but clearly here their decision is stating that if they get garbage for evidence they cannot do their job and will become as laughable as the majority of the American judicial system has become. We have only a few brave judges left at this point.
165 O-bomb-er bombs = 6,000 new ISIS recruits according to this article:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.616730
Nobody with some sort of working brain should credibly reject the conclussion of EJC, and the claim that it has no credibility er… has no credibility.
John wrote:
As for the ECJ, just like the rest of the EU project, is a joke. When millions of its citizens have been in a deep depression for years, their credibility is severely handicapped. It is “the rest of the EU project” what is imposing sanctions to Russia, thus, where do you place this lack of credibility?
You have to step back slowly to avoid the bite of the snake. Such is the predicament of the world today as the USA bares its fangs. Though I’m sensing the world is retreating on a light foot and Americans are quite unaware. Being a citizen of this country, I just hope they don’t come back to remove the head.
It would be great if we could have a similar ruling for people getting stuck on no-fly lists for no apparent reason and no way of challngeng it. Now that would be human rights for humans.
Too late, Irrational. Human rights for humans passed their expiry date without being renewed, and under the Sonny Bono Act the copyright was re-registered with some creative additions by a limited-liability consortium of corporations in a stealth coup codenamed “I Got You Babe” to take advantage of the “corporate copyright lasts forever” clause.
Now it may be a crime even to advocate human rights for humans, as it is tantamount to conspiracy and incitement to commit copyright violation. Expect a military-style SWAT raid at any time, similar to what Kim Dotcom, the accused copyright violator, experienced.