Countering circumvention of restrictive measures: The EU response

in Common Market Law Review (2023), 60(1), 733762

Restrictive measures are always complemented by an “anti-circumvention clause” which prohibits participation in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent EU provisions. This clause plays a ... [more ▼]

Restrictive measures are always complemented by an “anti-circumvention clause” which prohibits participation in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent EU provisions. This clause plays a key role in ensuring the effectiveness of sanctions and, ultimately, the objectives of EU external action. This article intends to shed light on the obligations arising from the anti-circumvention clause, with a specific focus on financial restrictive measures against designated individuals (which essentially entail asset freeze measures against them). First, the scope of the anti-circumvention clause under EU law is defined. Second, the actors involved in uncovering and countering circumvention practices within the territory of the Union are presented, illustrating the central role of the Member States in coordinating national and supranational efforts to ensure compliance with EU restrictive measures, through constant dialogue and cooperation with financial operators and the European Commission. Third, one specific circumvention strategy is explored, namely circumvention through family members. More precisely, the article investigates whether there is a presumption of circumvention when family members are involved. To this end, it considers the case law of the ECJ on the legality of family members’ designations under EU sanctions. Throughout the analysis, the article emphasizes how the exceptional circumstances in relation to the war in Ukraine have progressively changed the design of EU restrictive measures as well as the commitment of the Union to tackle circumvention. In this context, the unprecedented emphasis on circumvention is complemented by the Union’s unprecedented desire to resort to criminal enforcement. Accordingly, the effectiveness of EU restrictive measures has become a call for effective criminal enforcement. The article, however, argues that this may not be the most appropriate choice. [less ▲]

The EU’s Future of Data-Driven Finance

in Common Market Law Review (2021)

Activism on and off the bench: Pierre Pescatore and the law of integration

in Common Market Law Review (2020), 57(02), 475-502

This article examines the life and career of Pierre Pescatore, one of the most prominent, but also controversial, promoters of European Community law. Drawing on extensive archive material, as well as ... [more ▼]

This article examines the life and career of Pierre Pescatore, one of the most prominent, but also controversial, promoters of European Community law. Drawing on extensive archive material, as well as interviews with relatives, it aims at understanding how and why he left such a strong footprint on the development of Community, later EU, law, both as a judge at the European Court of Justice and as a law scholar. Going beyond a one-man story, the article situates him in the broader context of the 1970s bench of judges in order to understand the so-called “activism” which the ECJ revealed during this decade. Thus, looking through the lens of one of the leading figures of the Court, it provides new explanations as to why the ECJ’s case law was so provocatively pro-integrationist during the 1970s. [less ▲]

The EU’s Future of Data-driven Finance

in Common Market Law Review (2020), 57(2), 331-360

Book review Research Handbook on the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy

in Common Market Law Review (2020)

Article 216(1) TFEU and the Union’s shared external competence in the light of mixity

in Common Market Law Review (2019), 56(2), 489-520

Case C-600/14, Germany v Council, (Amendment of the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail –COTIF), Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), of 5 December 2017, EU:C:2017:935. The COTIF case ... [more ▼]

Case C-600/14, Germany v Council, (Amendment of the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail –COTIF), Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), of 5 December 2017, EU:C:2017:935. The COTIF case gave the Court of Justice the opportunity to clarify the distinction between Article 3(2) TFEU and Article 216(1) TFEU and, thus, to address the question of facultative mixity. [less ▲]

Discretion, Care and Public Interests in the EU Administration: Probing the Limits of Law

in Common Market Law Review (2016), 53(2), 419-452

Recent high profile judgments of the European Court of Justice (ESMA and Gauweiler) have endorsed the expansion of the EU’s executive powers, including those of its administration. Once such powers are ... [more ▼]

Recent high profile judgments of the European Court of Justice (ESMA and Gauweiler) have endorsed the expansion of the EU’s executive powers, including those of its administration. Once such powers are attributed or judicially endorsed, how far may law reach in structuring the exercise of discretion by EU administrative actors? The article analyses the way the EU courts have reviewed administrative discretion in instances where they have performed a close scrutiny thereof. It argues that the EU courts downplayed the role law ought to have in structuring the exercise of administrative discretion, by overlooking the public interests that ought to be pursued by force of legal norms. By contrast, the control of discretion by the European Ombudsman illustrates a different and normatively more demanding understanding of how law may operate in relation to discretion. [less ▲]

Book review of the book Abdelkhaleq Berramdane and Isabelle Hannequart (Eds), Union européenne-Mercosul. Deux intégrations régionales dans l’espace mondia

in Common Market Law Review (2015), 52(3), 872-874

Consumers' Access to EU Competition Procedures: Outer and Inner Limits

in Common Market Law Review (2014), 51(2), 483-521

Enforcement of competition law affects consumers' economic interests, as part of the public interests EU competition law protects. Therefore, consumers ought to be involved in the respective enforcement ... [more ▼]

Enforcement of competition law affects consumers' economic interests, as part of the public interests EU competition law protects. Therefore, consumers ought to be involved in the respective enforcement procedures. Against this normative background, we analyse consumers' access to the public enforcement by the Commission; we assess whether and how the formal role they are assigned during this procedure and the way access is defined enable consumers to protect their economic interests. We identify outer and inner limits to consumers' access to competition enforcement procedures, arising from the Commission's discretion in handling complaints and in defining access to information. We critically evaluate those limits against the contention that the enforcement of competition law rules, and the way it is pursued by administrative actors, ought to be guided by the public interests inherent in EU competition law. [less ▲]

Review: Remiche, Bernard, Ruiz-Fabri, Helène (eds.), Le commerce international entre le bi et multilatéralisme, éditions Larsier, Bruxelles, 2010, 395 p.

in Common Market Law Review (2013), 50(2), 669-772