Terrorist men på vilka grunder? – En granskning av EU:s sanktioner mot terrorisms förhållande till rättssäkerhet

Sammanfattning: This thesis addresses the question of whether EU sanctions against certain persons and entities to combat terrorism are compatible with fundamental principles of legal certainty, concentrating on predictability and procedural rights. International sanctions are coercive political and legal measures imposed to ensure peace and stability and promote democracy and human rights. The use of sanctions has rapidly increased over the last few years and is now one of the most frequently used foreign policy tools of both the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN). The extensive use of sanctions has received significant criticism from a human rights perspective because of its invasive nature, especially sanctions against terrorism. However, it is mainly the sanctions against terrorism imposed by the UN that have been criticized. On the contrary, EU sanctions have not been questioned to the same extent. This thesis will therefore study EU sanctions against certain persons and entities to combat terrorism in relation to the fundamental principles of legal certainty in the EU. A legal dogmatic approach (Sw. rättsdogmatisk metod) is used to examine the relationship between EU sanctions against terrorism and fundamental principles of legal certainty. The legal dogmatic method is used to evaluate and criticize EU sanctions against terrorism from the perspective of legal certainty. Legal certainty is the standard used to examine EU sanctions against terrorism. The aspects of the concept of legal certainty which form the basis of the review are clear and universal legal rules, the stability and transparency of the legal rules, and the independence of the Court. Certain procedural rights that constitute procedural safeguards are also taken into account, such as the right to a fair trial, the right to an effective remedy, the right to effective judicial protection, the right to good administration, and the right to defense. The conclusion that can be drawn is that EU sanctions against certain persons and entities to combat terrorism are compatible with fundamental principles of legal certainty regarding the aspect of clear and universal legal rules but not concerning the aspects of stability, transparency and independence of the Court. EU sanctions against terrorism meet the requirement of clear and universal legal rules due to the addition of significant case law that has developed and clarified the requirements of the procedure. However, this has resulted in a high rate of change in how the legal rules are to be interpreted, which means that the EU sanctions against terrorism do not meet the stability requirement. The reason why EU sanctions against terrorism do not meet the transparency requirement is mainly because the Council of the European Union (Council) does not work openly. There is no public access to the statements of reasons for the listing decisions and not all relevant grounds for the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) decisions are public. Furthermore, the listing decisions are often based on confidential information, which means that those concerned do not get access to the information which the listing decisions are based on. Moreover, the EU sanctions against terrorism do not meet the requirement of independence of the Court. The listing decision is a composite of EU and national decision-making, which means that the CJEU’s scope of review is limited to the Council decision. Unless national administrative law provides a full legality check of the national decision, there is an infringement of the right to effective judicial protection. In addition, it can be questioned whether EU sanctions against terrorism constitutes an acceptable exception to the presumption of innocence since they cannot be considered temporary measures that are limited in time.