The Kadi Case and the Court’s Decisions

Table of Content

“The Kadi Cases shed of import visible radiation on the importance and standing that the Court of Justice of the European Union is ready to confabulate to human rights protection in the EU legal order.” Discuss this statement

Name:Martina Vella 75694 ( M)

This essay could be plagiarized. Get your custom essay
“Dirty Pretty Things” Acts of Desperation: The State of Being Desperate
128 writers

ready to help you now

Get original paper

Without paying upfront

The Kadi Case and the Court’s Decisions

“The ECJ’s Kadi opinion is of constitutional significance sing the relationship between the UN and the EU legal order, and the issue of the protection within the EC legal order of the human rights of the persons targeted by steps taken in the ongoing “war against terror.”[ 1 ]

In a nutshell this instance is about an person called Yassin Kadi who, without being given any ground or right of defense mechanism, was added to the UN Security Council’s 1267 Committee terrorist plus stop deading countenances list which followed the Twin Towers Tragedy on 11ThursdaySeptember 2001. The UN Security Council created this “Sanctions Committee” which was in charge of labelling the financess, histories or any other fiscal resources that all member provinces had to stop dead so to guarantee such fiscal resources are non used for the benefit of any terrorist act groups. The Security Council was to update the list often with those individuals that are in some manner associated with Osama Bin Laden. The Council of the EU inter alia adopted the contested council ordinance 881/2002 [ … ] provided that all financess and economic resources shall be frozen.

Yassin Andullah Kadi and the Al Barakaat International Foundation in Sweden are the chief appliers for this instance. These Swedish appliers were labelled by the Sanctions Committee as associates of Usama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda or the Taliban and therefore had their histories and fiscal resources frozen due to the new ordinance by the UN Security Council which was adopted by the EU. Since Yasin Al Kadi was non given any specific grounds as to why they were added to such a list. The plaintiff in errors had realised that they can convey action for revocation treated in Article 230 ( 4 ) 17 before the Court of First Instance. They stated that the adopted ordinance went against one of their cardinal rights including the right to esteem of belongings, a just hearing and effectual judicial reappraisal.

Early September in 2008 the ECJ had eventually handed down its determination sing this instance where it fundamentally held that there must be certainty and full rating on the legality of all Community Acts of the Apostless which include those coming from the United Nations’ Security Resolutions. Such Community Acts of the Apostless should be analysed to look into their legality particularly that including cardinal rights as safeguarded by the Community jurisprudence.

Many of the court’s opinions have resulted in fruitful determinations that will so be used to specify certain clean infinites of the EU jurisprudence or clear up certain definitions of the Articles in the Treaties. The Kadi opinion is besides of constitutional importance particularly in relation to the connexion amongst the UN and the EU legal order together with the point in inquiry ; which is the safeguarding of human rights within the EC legal order. [ 2 ] As a affair of fact Craig and DeBurca ( 2011 ) states that of all time since signing the Lisbon Treaty, Article 3 provinces that the EU is to see that it is following and bit by bit developing international jurisprudence which includes the rules of the United Nations Charter. However there were merely few instances in which the Court had applied regulations from international understandings and in fact in Kadi the ECJ ruled that:

“The EU’s duty to esteem international jurisprudence in the exercising of its powers and the particular importance attached to declarations of the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter would non forestall the Court from invalidating EU steps implementing a Security Council declaration where those steps violated cardinal rights protected within EU law.”[ 3 ]

The Court of First Instance had discharged the actions merely because it had no authorization to look into the legality of the EU’s determination in inquiry. This is because if the CFI had decided to look into such ordinance, it meant that the CFI would be reexamining straight the lawfulness in the UN Security Council Resolutions. However, finally the CFI had discovered it had the authorization to indirectly reexamine the legality of these declaration with jus cogens. Jus cogens is when there are certain paramount rules of international jurisprudence merely like in this instance. When the Court of First Instance started to analyze “the relevancy of the lawfulness, it had commenced its reappraisal by asseverating that Articles 60 and 301EC did non represent in themselves a sufficient legal basis.” [ 4 ] Furthermore, it besides stated that Article 308EC could non function as the right legal footing on its ain, nevertheless when in concurrence with the once mentioned articles, it gave the EU establishments power to follow a ordinance in relation with the battle against the funding of international terrorist act.

Advocate General Maduro stated that the rejection of the Resolution wouldn’t mean that “the Community’s municipal legal order and the international legal order base on balls by each other like ships in the night” nevertheless he besides stated that the connexion between international legal order and EU legal order is overseen by the EU’s statute law itself therefore it can easy be controlled nevertheless he besides stated that international legal order can easy distribute throughout the legal order that is portion of the Community itself. [ 5 ] After listening to the Advocate General’s Opinion in this instance, the ECJ had set aside the opinions of the Court of First Instance and voided the Council Regulation 881/2002. In contrary to what the Court of First Instance stated, the European Court of Justice stated that ;

The Community court must [ … ] guarantee the reappraisal, in rule the full reappraisal, of the lawfulness of all Community Acts of the Apostless in the visible radiation of the cardinal rights organizing an built-in portion of the general rules of Community jurisprudence, including reappraisal of Community steps which, like the contested ordinance, are designed to give consequence to the declarations adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.”[ 6 ]

In fact in the first Kadi Judgement it is stated that whenever they’re reexamining the cogency of any Community ordinance and act and paying particular attending to the cardinal rights in the Acts of the Apostless, it must be considered as an look where in a Community based on the regulation of jurisprudence and coming out of the EC Treaty ; it must non be biased by any other international understanding. The reappraisal carried out in this instance applied merely to the Community’s act which was to ensue in implementing the international understanding being discussed. [ 7 ] As a affair of fact, the ECJ clarified that Community tribunals ne’er have any power to look into and reexamine the legality of declarations adopted by the UN Security Council under the 5th chapter of the UN Charter even if done with jus cogens as the CFI had stated. In fact the tribunal in the Kadi Judgement had stated that ;

“Even if any judgement given by the Community tribunals holds that a Community step intended to give consequence to [ a UN Security Council ] declaration is contrary to a higher regulation of jurisprudence in the Community legal order [ this ] would non imply any challenge to the primacy of that declaration in international law”[ 8 ]

In fact, the ECJ had stated that the CFI had made a error in jurisprudence when saying that the contested ordinance could be immune from legal power merely because it was created to keep a declaration approved by the UNSC.

Mentioning back to the accusals made by Kadi, the ECJ held that the right to be heard and the right to effectual judicial hearing clearly were non upheld. [ 9 ] In fact the EU Council ne’er informed the plaintiff in errors about the grounds which was traveling to be used against them and ne’er informed them about the grounds in an equal period clip following the passage of those steps. Furthermore, the Court continued by saying that “the infliction of the restrictive steps laid down by the contested ordinance [ … ] constituted an undue limitation of his right to property.” [ 10 ] Furthermore, Posch states that as a consequence the disputed ordinance was void by the ECJ. [ 11 ]

Human Rights in the Kadi Case

As once explained the ECJ had considered whether the ordinance follows the fundament human rights or non, nevertheless it held that because there was no process provided to pass on the grounds that gave a ground why the appliers were included in this list the right to be heard and the right to an effectual redress had been violated. [ 12 ] Both of those rights are portion of the international jurisprudence that even the UN Security Council can non disregard. To add abuse to injury, Mr.Kadi had non been given the chance to talk to the Council about this listing and the ground why he was on such a list, which meant that his right to private belongings had been violated every bit good.

“The ECJ asserted in a clear and concise mode that the EU legal order is different and hence separate from the international legal order on horizontal instead than perpendicular hierarchal manner.” [ 13 ] In the ECJ’s determination it had been stated that any determination which was to be contrasting with any portion of the EU’s regulation of jurisprudence it would non be portion of any alteration in the primacy of such a declaration in international jurisprudence. [ 14 ] This is where the right of reappraisal enters the instance as the right to reexamine a ordinance within the EU’s statute law is an indispensable portion of the foundations of the EU legal order. Since there is non an arbitrary theoretical account for the EU when following UN declarations and their transmittal into the UN Member States’ statute law, they are non to be done harmonizing to the legal order of each member province.

As expected, this instance had been the ground behind a big figure of assorted of reactions towards the EU legal order and its law. There were both negative and positive deductions and DeBurca in her analysis points out that “the robustly pluralist attack of the ECJ to the relationship between EU jurisprudence and International jurisprudence in Kadi represents a crisp going from the traditional embracing of international jurisprudence by the European Union.” [ 15 ] She continues by stating that as a consequence of the attack used in this instance, there will be certain costs both for the EU and the International Legal Order, particularly when viewed by other Member States’ tribunals and organisations sing the authorization of the Security Council Resolutions. In fact, as DeBurca provinces, by this governing the ECJ was put on the lining to weaken the EU’s image when viewed as a worthy international histrion which upholds a separating connexion between the international jurisprudence and its establishments. [ 16 ] Furthermore, DeBurca had based her analysis on the footing of an evergrowing literature on the EU legal order. This is shown when she describes the Court as choosing ;

“a strong pluralist attack which presented the European Community as a separate self-contained system which determines its relationship to the international order in conformity with its ain internal values and precedences instead than in conformity with any common rules or norms of international law’[ 17 ]

This is proof that for DeBurca that other administrations had looked down on the EU as the 1 that is non used to staying with international and besides for the chance of making new world-wide constitutionalism filled with common values and rules earned with inter-institutional treatments.

Apart from differing between the EU legal Order and international legal order the Kadi Case besides helped specify the place of the domination of cardinal rights in position of all international administrations which include the United Nations. In fact, as stated before, the Court had retained the power to look into and reexamine the lawfulness in other international organisations’ Acts of the Apostless particularly to corroborate that they agree with the EU’s degree of human rights protection.


Due to its complexness, this instance leaves a figure of unclarified inquiries particularly in relation to the effects on the construction of the international legal order. As a affair of fact, during its opinion the Court in this instance did non supply a new hierarchy on which one would cognize the importance of European jurisprudence and International jurisprudence. During its judgement, the Court largely gave importance to the fact that the “review of lawfulness applies merely to Community Acts and ne’er to Acts of the Apostless of the UN Security Council” . [ 18 ] The ECJ had non challenged the hierarchy of norms when it comes to non-EU legal order while it held that judicial reappraisal protects all Community Acts of the Apostless. One of the few solutions that seemed possible was that of a mutual grant which could merely work if the UN Security Council applied its declarations and conformed to the EU cardinal rights. If there was merely one possibility to hold a declaration implemented and at the same clip breach cardinal rights, cardinal rights would rule. That is why this instance had shed of import visible radiation on the manner the European Court of Justice looked at and reacted in favor of cardinal human rights.

“Thus, the ECJ’s committedness to accept the primacy of UN Charter duties and the unity of UN Security Council declarations ends in the absence of discretionary power to implement such declarations in a cardinal rights-friendly way.”[ 19 ]

In fact, as stated in the Columbia Law Journal, the Kadi Case had represented a steadfast committedness to cardinal rights and the EU regulation of jurisprudence. In fact in the Advocate General Maduro’s sentiment it is said that, “Meausres which are incompatible with the observation of human rights [ … ] are non acceptable in the Community.” [ 20 ] Furthermore, the German Law Journal says that the chief facet of the Court’s analysis is the difference between the UN Security Council Resolutions and the UNSC’s implemented steps at EU degree. “This demonstrates precisely that the ECJ will non oppugn the former, but it surely has legal power to analyze the latter.” [ 21 ]

On the other manus, the German Law Journal raises the inquiry of what should hold been done to conform with Kadi’s Judgement. In fact, harmonizing to Tzanou this is a affair that merely the UN Security Council has to cover with and non a inquiry for the EU establishments any longer. The UN Security Council has to make up one’s mind whether to supply a guaranatee of independent judicial reappraisal that will reexamine all listings. However, if the former is impossible so harmonizing to Tzanou the lone solution left is that of taking the Sanctions Committee together with its terrorist listing and leave the protection against the funding of terrorist act up to single member provinces.

When talking approximately concerns on cardinal rights particularly in the country in relation to war on terrorist act, the Kadi Case opinion provides a alleviation. This is chiefly due to followup of the Advocate General’s sentiment by the tribunal where it established a merely balance between the involvement in security of member provinces against terrorist act and the safeguarding of human rights. In fact, one could easy observe that the tribunal was non concerned about how the appliers were added to the list and if they were included right but more about the applicant’s procedure rights. In fact Advocate General Maduro states that, “this is exactly where tribunals ought to acquire involved, in order to guarantee that the political necessities of today do non go the legal worlds of tomorrow.” [ 22 ]


2008.Opinion of the Court ( Grand Chamber ) 3 September 2008.[ Online ] Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: // text= & A ; docid=67611 & A ; pageIndex=0 & A ; doclang=EN & A ; mode=lst & A ; dir= & A ; occ=first & A ; part=1 & A ; cid=86458 [ Accessed 4 January 2015 ] .

2008.Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro.[ Online ] Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: // ? uri=CELEX:62005CC0402 [ Accessed 4 January 2015 ] .

Anon. , 2009. Kadi and Al Barakaat v Council of the European brotherhood and Commission of the European Communities ; The Incompatibility of the United Nations Security Council ‘s 1267 Sanctions Regime with European due procedure warrants.Melbourne Journal of International Law,Volume 10.

Azarov, V. , 2008.The ECJ ‘s Kadi opinion facilitates the reappraisal of international jurisprudence for conformity with cardinal rights.[ Online ] Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: // [ Accessed 4 January 2015 ] .

Burca, G. D. , 2009. The EU, the European Court of Justice and the International Legal Order after Kadi.Harvard Interantional Law Journal,1 ( 51 ) .

Craig, P. & A ; DeBurca, G. , 2011.EU Law Text, Cases and Materials.Fifth Edition erectile dysfunction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Danosh, S. , 2009.The Kadi Case: The International Position of the European Union after the Ruling.[ Online ] Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: // [ Accessed 4 January 2015 ] .

Isiksel, N. T. , 2009.Interrupting the jurisprudence to repair it: Human Rights in the EU after Kadi and Al Barakaat.Los Angeles, s.n.

Kokott, J. & A ; Sobotta, C. , 2012. The Kadi Case – Constitutional Core Values and International jurisprudence – Finding the Balance? .The European Journal of International Law,23 ( 4 ) , pp. 1015-1024.

Posch, A. , 2009. The Kadi Case: Rethinking the relationship between EU jurisprudence and International Law.The Columbia Journal of European Law Online,Volume 15.

Siskova, N. , 2009.The Judicial Doctrine of Fundamental Rights in the visible radiation of the Kadi Case.Brno, Masaryk University.

Tzanou, M. , 2009. Case-note on Joined Cases C-402/05 P & A ; C-415/05 P Yassin Abdullah Kadi & A ; Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union & A ; Commission of the European Communities.German Law Journal,10 ( 2 ) , pp. 123-154.

Forests, L. & A ; Watson, P. , 2012.Steiner & A ; Woods EU Law.11th erectile dysfunction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cite this page

The Kadi Case and the Court’s Decisions. (2017, Jul 08). Retrieved from

Remember! This essay was written by a student

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

Order custom paper Without paying upfront