sou · GUB341 · 2007-01-01 00:00:00 — These targeted sanctions include asset freezes and restrictions. Because these sanctions hit the people who bear responsibility for a particular policy directly and spare the civilian population, targeted sanctions are held to be ef- fective and humane. In the late 1990s a series of terrorist acts was started that have been described as manifestations of a new type of terrorism. terrorism is not linked to the situation in a particular country or to a particular centre of conflict but is more about opposing western or American influence, mainly in the Middle East. The attacks have been linked to the exile Saudi and the Islamic al- Qaida terrorist network, which also claimed responsibility in seve- ral cases. , which viewed the terrorist acts as a threat to international peace and security, decided in Resolu- tion 1267 (1999) and the following resolution (2000) on targeted sanctions against the then-Taliban regime in and against and , which had their base in and were supported by the Taliban regime. The sanctions also covered persons, groups and entities associated with above-mentioned parties. The terror attacks culminated in the attacks in the on , when around 3 000 people were killed. On 7 October 2001 the and its started an invasion of . A couple of months later the Taliban regime had fal- len and lost control of the territory of . However, the sanctions introduced in the 1267 sanctions regime remained in place and were deepened, but they no longer had any link to a cer- tain state, regime or area. The task of the Inquiry has been to review the Act (1996:95) on Sanctions – the Sanctions Act – mainly in order to adapt it to the new international regulatory framework in the area (Terms of reference: ToR 2005:34, see annex 1). The Sanctions Act has two main functions. First, it contains an authorisation that enables the Government to implement UN and EU decisions on international sanctions against a state under blockade quickly and without the customary legislative procedure. Second, the Act also contains a provision that imposes criminal sanctions on breaches of a prohibition issued by under the Act or of a prohibition in EC Regulations on economic sanctions. Since entered the EU the Government has never used the delegated powers provisions of the Sanctions Act to implement sanctions. The sanctions that have been adopted by the and the EU have been implemented in by the EC or it has been possible to implement them under existing Swedish The delegated powers provisions of the Sanctions Act should, however, remain in place in the event that the EC is unable in a particular instance to implement a sanctions decision of the or the EU. Under the Sanctions Act sanctions can thus be implemented against a state under blockade, which is defined in the Act as a state, an area or something else, such as an organisation or regime, that is subject to sanctions. In view of the developments in the area described here, there is no longer any justification for on the concept state under blockade. That concept should therefore be removed from the Act. The Inquiry proposes instead that the Governments delegated powers under the Sanctions Act should be formulated so that the Government is empowered to issue regulations on a prohibition in relation to a state, an area, a natural or legal person, a group or an entity concerning the subjects that are already specified in Section 4 of the Act. Certain obligations under international law The Inquiry also has to analyse how fulfils its obligations under international law in the area of sanctions and to present pro- posals for the necessary legislation either as amendments to the Sanctions Act or, if this is deemed more appropriate, in a separate statute. Both the 1267 sanctions regime and most other sanctions regi- mes contain sanctions committees that have the task of and continuously updating lists of the individuals, groups, etc. who will be subject to the sanctions. The decision to put someone on such a list is binding on member states under international law. It the case of EU Member States it is the EC that has to implement the decisions. However, when a sanctions committee has issued such a decision, a number of days elapse from when the sanctions committee lists a person, group or entity until the EC acts. In part this is because the texts of resolutions and decisions must be translated into the official EU languages. When the sanctions refer to the freezing of assets, such a delay is an obvious problem. During the time that elapses from the publication of the new sanctions list in until there is an EC decision in the designated person is free to withdraw his funds from banks and financial institutions in the EU area. One consequence of obligations under international law must be deemed to be that it must be possible to implement a freeze order without delay. In view of this, there is a need for Swe- dish legislation that allows assets in to be frozen provisio- nally in accordance with a decision by the or a sanctions committee under the Council to freeze assets. The In- quiry therefore proposes a new provision in the Sanctions Act un- der which (the Financial Supervisory Autho- rity) shall implement without delay UN decisions concerning the freezing of economic assets or prohibitions on the provision of economic assets or financial services. The remit of Finansinspek- tionen will only relate to sanctions whose implementation can be expected within the framework of a pre-existing EC regulation on economic sanctions, i.e. in the event that the EC has already adop- ted rules on the implementation of sanctions in a certain sanctions regime and it is therefore clear that the EC is going to implement the sanctions decision. In addition, the orders made by Finansin- spektionen will only apply to the financial institutions under its supervision and will not be directed at the general public. An order will only remain in force until the sanctions have been implemen- ted by the EC and it must be combined with a penalty. Resolution (2001) requires UN Member States to freeze all assets of persons who commit, participate in or facilitate the commission of terrorist acts. The same applies to as- sets held by a person who acts on behalf of or under the leadership of such persons or entities. The states shall also prohibit capital, economic assets or resources or financial services being made avai- lable to such persons or entities. Resolution targets terrorism and terrorists in general, irrespective of geographical origin. This means that no sanctions lists are drawn up under the 1373 sanc- tions regime. One measure taken by the EU in response to this Re- solution has been to adopt a common position that contains provi- sions on the freezing of assets. A list of the names of individuals, groups and entities whose economic assets have to be frozen has been attached to the common position. This is the EUs own sanc- tions list based on Resolution . The common position also formed the basis for an EC Regulation in the matter. However, the implementation of sanctions by the EC only covers persons, groups and entities suspected of terrorist activities that have their roots, main activities and objectives in one or more third countries, i.e. As regards persons, groups and entities suspected of terrorist activities that have a correspon- ding link to an area inside the EU, i.e. EU-internal terrorists, Member States are therefore responsible for implementing sanc- tions under Resolution . The initial question is to what extent measures to freeze assets can be taken under existing Swedish legislation. It is possible, un- der the criminal procedure rules on seizure and attachment to se- cure assets under certain conditions when there is suspicion of an offence, including terrorist offences and their financing. However, obligations in the area under international law require more than can be achieved using these rules of criminal procedure. Seizure can only refer to particular property that is available for such a measure. Attachment only targets the property of the sus- pect and must normally refer to property of a specific value. Sei- zure and attachment do not prevent assets not covered by the sei- zure or attachment order from being placed at the disposal of the suspect. However, the freeze orders referred to in Resolution are intended to be comprehensive and to apply to all of the sus- pects property. It addition, others shall be prohibited from provi- ding funds, financial assets, economic resources or financial servi- ces to the benefit of anyone who is suspected of a terrorist offence. As further Swedish legislation is therefore required for the full implementation of Resolution , the Inquiry proposes a sepa- rate act on the freezing of assets of suspected terrorists, etc. Under the proposal economic assets belonging to natural or legal persons, groups or entities shall be frozen if there are reasonable grounds to suspect them of having committed, planning to commit, attemp- ting to commit, assisting in or promoting a terrorist offence. This means that the assets must not be paid out or disposed of in any other way. Such a decision shall also contain an order prohibiting the provision of economic assets and financial services, directly or indirectly, to any such natural or legal person, group or entity. The order on the freezing of assets, etc. must be issued by a pro- secutor. Penalties must be attached to the prosecutors order. The Act will be applicable to EU-internal and EU-external terrorists. However, in the case of the latter category, which falls under community competence, the prosecutor only has competence to order measures when an exemption in the is applicable. The Act will, of course, not apply to persons, groups and entities already covered by freezing measures under an EC Re- gulation on economic sanctions. It will be possible to issue a freezing order under the proposed Act alongside a seizure or attachment order. In such a case a seizure or attachment order will have priority over a freezing order so that it can be implemented. The prosecutors order must be cancelled if there is no longer any reason for it, and it will also be appealable to the Court. Certain issues concerning legal security Under its terms of reference the Inquiry has also to consider what avenues, in addition to or instead of national measures, are available to achieve a comprehensive regulatory framework with clear gua- rantees of legal security in the UN and EU and to make the propo- sals deemed appropriate. One clear and much discussed problem of the 1267 sanctions re- gime has been the lack of legal security in the proceedings. Serious and warranted criticism has been directed against the procedures in the sanctions committee that result in individuals being exposed to freezes and other far-reaching sanctions. The criticism has mainly been that the information in support of decisions is inadequate, that the procedure makes well-founded decisions impossible, that the person hit by the sanctions is refused all insight and does not have a right to take legal action against the decision and that there are no rules and no organisation for an effective review of the deci- sions. Even though certain changes have been made to the better, the Inquiry concludes that the 1267 sanctions regime does not cur- rently meet minimum requirements of the rule of law. The Swedish Government has criticised the present order but has assisted in the implementation of the sanctions, as the deci- sions of the , based on the provisions of the UN Charter, have precedence over other obligations of international law. The Inquiry presents a general description of the work that the Swedish Government has done up to now to improve the legal se- curity of individuals in the event of targeted sanctions. This work should continue and be intensified. It goes without saying that day- to-day work must focus on the step-by-step improvement of the present system. Certain proposals concerning limited improve- ments of this kind are discussed in this report. However, if such an approach making successive small impro- vements is to be sustainable and successful, it must be guided by an idea about the design of a system that does provide legal security. Such an idea does not have to be developed from scratch, but can instead be derived clearly and distinctly from the conventions on human rights that has ratified, in common with many other countries, including all the permanent members of the Secu- rity Council. The Government is responsible for ensuring that the work of the Government Offices is guided by these principles and that they are maintained by those who represent our country in . The most serious failing of the current system of targeted sanc- tions is that there is no right of review. This means that the UN is setting aside the minimum standard for the rule of law that is laid down in the United Nations , the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. If the present arrangement with the listing of individuals remains in place, a system of court review of the listing decisions of the sanctions committees must be set up in accordance with the norms that the UN has established for its member states. Otherwise, the work of the United Nations to promote human rights and freedoms will lose credibility and be weakened. A proposal to set up such a court can be expected to meet significant resistance, not least from leading members of the . Even if this resistance could eventually be overcome, which appears extremely uncertain, an operational court administration is probably a distant on account of the legal and administrative problems and for reasons of cost. An alternative approach, which can be pursed in parallel with both the court line and reform work, is to encourage the to refrain from listing individuals who are not linked to regimes and to instead require states to develop their cooperation and judicial cooperation under Resolution . is not contravening the UN Charter by taking far-reaching decisions about individuals through a sanctions committee, but this action is difficult to reconcile with the Councils responsibility and enforcement powers under the Charter, with its organisation and with the fact that its decisions cannot be appealed. The final part of the remit of the Inquiry Chair has been to present proposals for legislation on the assumption that the Treaty establi- shing a Constitution for Europe (the ) will enter into force on . was signed by the heads of government of all Member States, and also by the heads of government of , and , in on 29 October 2004. Then a ratification process was begun, in which all Member States would approve the Treaty in accordance with their constitutional provisions. It was decided that the cons- titution could enter into force no earlier than , or at a later time, if all Member States had not completed their ratifi- cation by that time. In a referendum on 29 2005 the people of voted no to the . The citizens of the also voted no in a referendum on 1 of the same year. After the re- ferendums in and the the ratification process came to a halt. The future of the is therefore uncertain. In light of the prevailing uncertainty concerning whether the will enter into force in its present form the Inquiry refrains from presenting proposals for legislation based on the assumption that it will enter into force on . However, the relevant provisions of the Treaty are described and analysed in the pertinent contexts in the body of the Inquirys report. lag om ändring av lagen (1996:95) om vissa internationella sanktioner Härigenom föreskrivs i fråga om lagen (1996:95) om vissa interna- sanktioner dels att rubriken till 2 § skall ändras enligt vad som framgår nedan, dels att 2, 4, 8, 10, 13 och 15 §§ skall ha följande lydelse. I denna lag avses medblocke- rad stat: en stat, ett område eller något annat, exempelvis en orga- nisation eller en regim, som är föremål för sanktioner enligt 1 § första stycket, tredje land: en stat som inte in- går i Europeiska unionen, eller ett område eller något annat, exem- pelvis en organisation eller en regim, i en sådan stat. Om sä- kerhetsråd eller någon sanktions- kommitté under säkerhetsrådet beslutar om frysning av ekono- miska tillgångar för eller förbud mot att tillhandahålla ekono- miska tillgångar eller finansiella tjänster åt en fysisk eller juridisk person, grupp eller enhet, och detta beslut skall genomföras av Europeiska gemenskapen genom ändring i en redan antagen förord- ning om ekonomiska sanktioner, skall utan dröjsmål besluta om motsvarande åtgärder. skall gälla för de finansiella in- stitut som står under dess tillsyn. Beslutet skall gälla till dess att sanktionerna genomförs av Euro- peiska gemenskapen. beslut kan överklagas hos allmän förvalt- ningsdomstol. För att genomföra sanktioner För att genomföra sanktioner i enlighet med ett förordnande i enlighet med ett förordnande första stycket får re- första stycket får re- om förbud i förhållande till en om förbud i förhållande till en blockerad stat i fråga om stat, ett område, en fysisk eller juridisk person, en grupp eller en enhet i fråga om 1.utlänningars vistelse här i landet, 2.in- eller utförsel av varor, pengar eller andra tillgångar, 8.undervisning och utbildning. Ett förbud får inte gälla egendom som är avsedd endast för inneha- varens personliga bruk. Den som uppsåtligen bryter mot förbud som har meddelats enligt 2§ döms till böter eller till fängelse i högst eller, om brottet är grovt, till fängelse i högst . Den som har be- gått gärningen av grov oaktsam- Den som uppsåtligen bryter mot förbud som har meddelats enligt 2 eller 4 §§ döms till böter eller till fängelse i högst eller, om brottet är grovt, till fängelse i högst . Den som har begått gärningen av het döms till böter eller till grov oaktsamhet döms till böter eller till fängelse i högst sex må- Första stycket gäller också den som bryter mot förbud i den som bryter mot förbud i förhållande till tredje land i en förhållande till en stat eller ett område utanför Europeiska uni- sanktioner som har beslutats av onen eller mot förbud i förhål- Europeiska gemenskapen 1. med lande till fysiska eller juridiska stöd av artikel 60 eller artikel personer, grupper eller enheter i 301 i Fördraget om upprättan- en förordning om ekonomiska det av Europeiska gemenskapen, sanktioner som har beslutats av Europeiska gemenskapen 1. med stöd av artikel 60 eller artikel 301 i Fördraget om upprättan- det av Europeiska gemenskapen eller någon av dessa artiklar i förening med artikel 308 i För- draget, eller 2. före med anledning av ett sådant beslut eller en sådan rekommendation som avses i 1 § första stycket 1. Till ansvar enligt denna paragraf skall inte dömas om brottet är ringa. Till ansvar skall inte heller dömas för anstiftan av eller med- hjälp till en gärning som avses i denna paragraf. Åtal för brott enligt 8 § får väckas bara efter förordnande av regeringen eller den myndighet som regeringen bestämmer. Regeringen eller den myndig- het som regeringen bestämmer meddelar föreskrifter om vilka åklagare som är behöriga att väcka åtal för brott enligt 8 §. För att genomföra sanktioner i enlighet med ett förordnande en- ligt 3 § första stycket får regeringen meddela föreskrifter om att en utlänning kan avvisas enligt utlänningslagen (2005:716), om 1. utlänningen skäligen kan 1. utlänningen skäligen kan antas ha hemvist i eller tillhöra antas ha hemvist i eller tillhöra en blockerad stat, och en stat, ett område, en grupp eller en enhet som är föremål för sank- tioner enligt 1 § första stycket, 2. utlänningen har begått eller avser att begå en handling som står i strid med antingen förbud enligt 4 § eller förbud i en sådan av Europeiska gemenskapen beslutad förordning som avses i 8 § andra stycket. Tillkännagivande i svensk författningssamling Regeringen skall i svensk författningssamling ge till känna vilka förordningar om ekono- miska sanktioner som har be- slutats av Europeiska gemen- skapen och för vilka straffansvar gäller här i landet direkt enligt 8 § andra stycket. Regeringen skall i svensk författningssamling ge till känna vilka förordningar om ekono- miska sanktioner som har be- slutats av Europeiska unionens råd och för vilka straffansvar gäller här i landet direkt enligt 8 § andra stycket. lag om frysning av tillgångar m.m. Härigenom föreskrivs följande. 1 § Denna lag innehåller bestämmelser för genomförande av För- enta nationernas säkerhetsråds resolution (2001). Lagen gäller inte de personer, grupper och enheter som omfattas av frysningsåtgärder enligt en förordning om ekonomiska sanktio- ner som har beslutats av Europeiska gemenskapen. 2 § Ekonomiska tillgångar skall frysas och får inte betalas ut eller förfogas över på annat sätt om de tillhör någon som skäligen kan misstänkas för att ha begått, planera att begå, försöka att begå eller medverka till terroristbrott enligt lagen (2003:148) om straff för terroristbrott. Detsamma gäller ekonomiska tillgångar som 1.tillhör juridiska personer, grupper eller enheter som ägs el- ler kontrolleras, direkt eller indirekt, av någon som avses i första stycket, 2.tillhör fysiska eller juridiska personer, grupper eller enhe- ter som handlar istället för någon som avses i första stycket eller ovan under 1 eller på sådana personers, grup- pers eller enheters uppdrag, eller 3.utgör avkastning av egendom som ägs eller kontrolleras, direkt eller indirekt, av någon som avses i denna paragraf. Ekonomiska tillgångar och finansiella tjänster får inte, direkt eller indirekt, tillhandahållas någon som avses i första stycket och andra stycket 1 och 2. 3 § Beslut om frysning av ekonomiska tillgångar samt om förbud att tillhandahålla ekonomiska tillgångar och finansiella tjänster meddelas av åklagare. Beslut skall meddelas utan dröjsmål om det kan ske utan att det äventyrar fortsatt utredning och lagföring av den brottslighet saken rör . Vid åklagarens handläggning av ärenden enligt denna lag gäller inte vad som sägs i 32 § förvaltningslagen (1986:223). Åklagarens beslut gäller . 4 § Om det inte längre finns skäl för ett beslut enligt 2 § skall be- slutet genast hävas. Ett beslut enligt 2 § skall också hävas om den som beslutet avser blir föremål för motsvarande åtgärder enligt en förordning om ekonomiska sanktioner som har beslutats av Europeiska gemen- skapen. 5 § Beslut i brottmål om kvarstad och beslag enligt bestämmelserna i 26 och 27 kap. skall ha företräde framför ett be- slut enligt 2 §. Egendom skall också kunna förverkas utan att be- slutet hindrar det. 6 § Regeringen eller den myndighet regeringen bestämmer får medge undantag från ett beslut enligt 2 § i de fall det är nödvändigt för att tillgodose grundläggande behov eller, i särskilda fall, för att betala extraordinära kostnader. Regeringen eller den myndighet regeringen bestämmer får med- dela kompletterande föreskrifter om undantag från beslut enligt 2 §. 7 § Åklagarens beslut enligt denna lag får överklagas hos . Vid överklagande gäller lagen (1996:242) om domstolsärenden. Klaganden har rätt att ta del av det som har tillförts ärendet med de begränsningar som följer av 14 kap. 5 § första stycket sekre- tesslagen (1980:100). 8 § Vid överklagande av ett beslut skall offentligt biträde förordnas för den som beslutet avser om detta är en fysisk person och det inte måste antas att behov av biträde saknas. 9 § Den som uppsåtligen underlåter att följa ett beslut enligt 2 § som har meddelats av åklagaren eller rätten, döms till böter eller fängelse i högst eller, om brottet är grovt, till fängelse i högst . Den som begår gärningen av grov oaktsamhet döms till böter eller till fängelse . Till ansvar enligt denna paragraf skall inte dömas om brottet är ringa.