RESTRICTIVE MEASURES AGAINST IRAN
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Geoff
Hoon MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Sub-Committee C considered the above docUment
at its meeting on 1st March 2007 and decided to hold it under
scrutiny.
The Sub-Committee strongly supports this Council
Regulation providing for sanctions against Iran, and welcomes
the stance taken by the UK Government. We would also support any
further strengthening of sanctions.
We would be grateful for clarification on three
substantive points.
The first concerns the issue of the sharing
of information about court judgements, as provided for in article
14 of the draft Regulation. There are currently two projects underway
under the Third Pillar which aim to build on the current EU system
for storing and exchanging criminal record information among Member
States (proposed Framework Decision on the organisation and content
of the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record,
Council doc. 5463/06; and Commission Working Document on the feasibility
of an Index of third country nationals convicted in the EU, Council
doc. 11453/06). Does the Government consider the scope of article
14 to cover the sharing of information on criminal convictions?
How does the obligation in article 14 fit into the general scheme
being developed under the Third Pillar? Do you have any concerns
regarding the use of articles 60 and 301 to make provisions of
this nature?
The second point relates to article 9(a)(iii).
By way of derogation from article 7, article 9 provides for cases
in which the competent authorities of the Member States may authorise
the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, provided
certain conditions are met. However, it is difficult to see how
the condition stated in article 9(a)(iii) can be met, given that
the requirement is for any payment not to be in breach of article
7(3). What is the precise objective of article 9(a)(iii)? Does
the Government consider that this article is worded in accordance
with this objective?
A further point concerns article 9(a)(i). Does
the Government consider that this article reads correctly? Or
should it read "The funds or economic resources shall not
be used for a payment by a person, entity or body listed in Annex
IV or V"? This latter wording would appear to be consistent
with Article 8(c). The Sub-Committee would be grateful for the
assurances of the Government that this article reads as intended.
5 March 2007
Letter from Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP to the
Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 5 March about your
Committee's scrutiny of the Council Regulation concerning restrictive
measures against Iran.
My officials have looked carefully at the points
raised in your letter. On article 14 it is reasonable to conclude
that the requirement to share relevant information, including
judgements handed down by national courts, would include rulings
in criminal proceedings brought in respect of sanctions violations.
The purpose of article 14 is to improve the assessment and effectiveness
of restricted measures, rather than for criminal justice purposes
as envisaged in the Third Pillar projects you highlight. Provided
the restrictive measures have been taken competently under articles
60 and 301, it would appear there is no obstacle to Member States
using these articles as the basis for sharing relevant information
to improve collective implementation of the sanctions in the EU.
On your second point, the objective of article
9 is to allow persons to honour liabilities which existed prior
to their designation, so that funds are released under licence
to the listed person or entity for payment to the party to whom
the prior obligation was owed. The reference to article 7(3) in
article 9 (a) (iii) ensures that funds cannot be released under
licence for a pre-existing liability owed to, or receivable by,
a designated person or entity. This reflects a provision in paragraph
15 of UN Security Council Resolution 1737 (2006) and FCO legal
advisers are satisfied that the article is worded in accordance
with this objective.
Related to this is your third point about the
consistency of article 9(a)(i). In this case it is clear that
the funds are to be released under licence to enable a listed
person or entity to make payment of a pre-existing liability to
a non-listed third party. This is not inconsistent with article
8 (c) where the aim is to prohibit the release of funds under
a lien or judgement in favour of a listed person or entity. I
am satisfied, therefore, that this article reads as intended.
20 March 2007
| 
