More on Kadi,

international law, and the emergence of Europe as a state (or not), here.

martinned (mail) (www):

A more interesting question came up (again) in last week's PMOI ruling in the Court of First Instance: Should the Council not have to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt? After all, what is really the difference between freezing someone's funds and a criminal punishment for being a terrorist? (par. 116-149) As far as I can see, the CFI never really answers that one.
10.28.2008 1:00pm
martinned (mail) (www):
P.S. Essentially, a black list like this one is a bill of attainder.
10.28.2008 1:02pm
Norman Bates (mail):
martinedd: Are you suggesting that any time a list is drawn up of suspected violators of some piece of legislation then said list is a bill of attainder?
10.28.2008 2:06pm
N.B. -- If the Legislature does it, then, yes. If the executive does it, then it's just investigative.
10.28.2008 5:20pm
martinned (mail) (www):
Here there is a general framework, adopted by the Council in 2001 in the form of a Regulation, in its capacity as Community legislator. This regulation was adopted under the consultation procedure, meaning that the other legislator, the Parliament, gave its opinion but was not allowed to amend the law or vote on it at all. Under article 2(3) of that Reg, the Council, acting by unanimity, establishes the list, in the form of a decision, like this one from December 2007.

So since the separation of powers at the Community level isn't necessarily very clear, the concept of a bill of attainder doesn't fit. But the reason why it is problematic, i.e. because it takes away the "defendant's" right to a fair trial, remains. In the procedure here, the defendant's assets stay frozen unless they go to the Community Courts in Luxemburg to challenge the Council's decision. Once there, the party that would normally be the defendant in a criminal trial becomes the plaintiff before the court, and accordingly carries at least some of the burden of proof.

From the aforementioned PMOI ruling:

134 It follows from the foregoing that, although it is indeed for the Council to prove that freezing of the funds of a person, group or entity is or remains legally justified, in the light of the relevant legislation, as the applicant rightly maintains, that burden of proof has a relatively limited scope in respect of the Community procedure for freezing funds (see, by analogy, OMPI, paragraph 1 above, paragraph 126, concerning the purpose of the rights of the defence in the same procedure). In the case of an initial decision to freeze funds, the burden of proof essentially relates to the existence of precise information or material in the relevant file which indicates that a decision by a national authority meeting the definition laid down in Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931 has been taken with regard to the person concerned. Furthermore, in the case of a subsequent decision to freeze funds, after review, the burden of proof essentially relates to whether the freezing of funds is still justified, having regard to all the relevant circumstances of the case and, most particularly, to the action taken upon that decision of the competent national authority.
10.28.2008 6:05pm
martinned (mail) (www):
O, and as far as prof. Posner's original question goes: The reason why I think Kadi was wrongly decided was exactly that the EC is not a state, but rather an "international agreement", albeit a very advanced one. If the EC had been a state, this ruling would have been quite correct, under a Solange argument. (Which is pretty much the argument the ECJ in fact used.)
10.28.2008 6:13pm
Norman Bates (mail):
martinned: Thanks for the clarification.
10.28.2008 6:43pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.