CJEU sets itself against secret “nod and a wink” justice

2 December 2013 by

Fulmen & Mahmoudian v. Council of the European Union,28 November 2013,  read judgment

I posted last year on a decision by the General Court in Luxembourg, in which Fulmen successfully challenged sanctions taken against it as part of EU policy to apply pressure on Iran to end nuclear proliferation.

 Fulmen was said to have supplied electrical equipment on the Qom/Fordoo nuclear site and Mr Mahmoudian was said to be a director of Fulmen. Hence all of their assets were frozen by the EU.

The CJEU has now roundly dismissed the appeal by the EU Council from the ruling of the General Court. The sanctions order has been annulled – over 3 years after it was made. The Council has been told that if it wants to uphold such orders, it must adduce evidence to the Court, however sensitive the subject matter, and even if not all of that evidence is passed on to those affected.

The Council’s position was that all it had to tell Fulmen and the Court was that

Fulmen was involved in the installation of electrical equipment on the Qom/Fordoo site before its existence was revealed.

..er, that’s it.

All it had to show (it said) was that this claim was “probable”, and it sought to show that by proving that

Fulmen is a company which has long been active in the Iranian electrical equipment market and has a substantial workforce

Hmm. By that logic every long-active electrical equipment company with a substantial workforce in Iran could be sanctioned, even if in all truth only one of them was in fact involved.

The Council’s attempt to uphold this was based on the fact that it said it had secret information upon which it had formed its view. But it was not willing to share this with either the Court or the company. Nor did it even volunteer the gist of the allegations.

On this ground alone, the Council’s appeal failed.

The Council (supported by the UK and France – surprise, surprise) sought to say that because the rules of procedure of the General Court do not currently provide for the communication of confidential information to the Court, without passing it on to the opposing litigants, it could do no more than it did. Fulmen objected that this argument had only surfaced at a very late stage, and earlier the Council had never mentioned that it had confidential information which it was withholding. Fulmen and Mr Mahmoudian also pointed out that the Council had made basic errors about Mr Mahmoudian’s status as director in what they had produced. In any event, one has to be sceptical about this line of argument, given that the Council did not even try to get the Court’s agreement to such a procedure, which, as is apparent from the judgment of both General Court and CJEU, would have been open to it.

Paragraphs [58]-[74] confirm a recent re-statement of the law applicable to these sanctions challenges, and derived principally from the Kadi II decision this July, covering the right to be heard, the right to the file, the provision of proper reasons, and effectiveness of judicial review of the decision. The Council must produce what it wants to rely on. The Court must strike a balance between the right to effective judicial protection and security interests [74]. It may consider ordering the disclosure of a summary of the information or of the evidence which the Council relies on. The Court must also consider whether the failure to disclose information or evidence to the person concerned and his consequential inability to respond is such as to effect the probative value of the evidence.

Turning to the present case, the Court concluded that the limited material produced meant that Fulmen and Mr Mahmoudian

were not in a position to defend themselves against the allegations and that the Courts of the European Union are not in a position to determine whether the acts at issue were well founded.


It is a fairly extraordinary position for the Council and its informant member states (given the interveners, I just wonder who they were?) to take. We, the Council, are going to make a measure with severe implications for those affected; we know that those affected can challenge it in the Courts (that is what Article 275 TFEU says), but we are not going to share anything with anybody as to why we say what we say. It is the ultimate case of – trust us, we know best.

The problem is that it is utterly inconsistent with effective judicial review – indeed it does not recognise the rule of law other than in form. And it also means that those affected have sanctions in place whilst the appeals rumble through the system.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: