We use cookies on this site to provide you with an informative and engaging experience and also to help us to continually improve our site for you. Without allowing cookies certain features of the site will not be available. To learn more about how we use cookies, please view our cookie policy. By clicking on ‘I AGREE’, you consent to our use of cookies on this device in accordance with our policy.

Logo of Wolters Kluwer, Kluwer Law Online
European Foreign Affairs Review
Search content button

Home > All journals > European Foreign Affairs Review > 29(1) >

Who is really affected by European Union terrorist sanctions? A Critical Study on ‘Proximity’ in EU Case Law

Cover image ofEuropean Foreign Affairs Review

$15.00 - Rental (PDF) *

$29.00 - Article (PDF) *

*service fee may apply
Download the PDF icon

Who is really affected by European Union terrorist sanctions? A Critical Study on ‘Proximity’ in EU Case Law


European Foreign Affairs Review
Volume 29, Issue 1 (2024) pp. 115 – 132

https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2024005



Abstract

The European Union (EU) adopts restrictive measures or sanctions as part of its counterterrorism strategy. These measures restrict the fundamental rights of the natural or legal persons they target and can be challenged in front of the General Court or the European Court of Justice (the CJEU).

Drawing from both legal scholarship and security studies, this article refines an analytical framework that enables an original analysis of the case law of the CJEU: we focus on proximity, an element so far neglected in the analysis of counter-terrorism sanctions. Proximity is the variable measuring the distance between the addressee of a measure from the actual commission of a terrorist act. Such a variable provides the analytical framework through which to test the hypotheses and findings proposed in the last decade by previous studies.

Such findings are mostly confirmed by our interdisciplinary analysis, but nuanced. While it is true that sanctions lead to a process of othering and stigmatization, the Court has introduced some meaningful procedural safeguards that contribute to protecting the fundamental rights of individuals, especially in the case of family members of suspected terrorists. Not dissimilarly from what was noted about judicial protection in other sanctions regimes, however, tensions remain in how to ensure effective substantive, as opposed to merely procedural, protection to sanctions addressees.


Keywords

Terrorism, EU restrictive measures, Court of Justice of the European Union, fundamental rights, judicial protection


Extract




Subscribe to this journal

Interested in a subscription? Contact our sales team

Contribute to this journal

Go Directly to PeerEase! Submit Article

Browse by practice area
Share
Stay up to date


RSSETOC