CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

CYIL 14 (2023) APPLICATION OF EU SANCTIONS IN MEMBER STATES – CASE OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC Since we are focusing on the autonomous category of sanctions in the present article, we would like to emphasize further the autonomous character of EU sanctions. It is emphasized by the fact that only approximately two thirds of sanctions imposed by the EU overlapped with UN sanctions and compared to US, the practice is more distinctive. 31 The autonomous character of EU sanction policy is also strengthened by the fact that EU Regulation 2271/96 of the European Union prohibits EU entities and individuals to respect sanction regimes which are not in line with EU CFSP. 32 The EC is responsible for ensuring, through monitoring, that the regulations imposing restrictive measures adopted under Article 215 TFEU are implemented and enforced by the Member States. It also supports individuals, businesses, humanitarian operators, and Member States in their efforts to apply sanctions, by publishing guidance notes and answering questions of interpretation raised by national competent authorities. However, the implementation and enforcement of restrictive measures still causes various difficulties to which we now turn. 2. Implementation and Enforcement of EU Restrictive Measures on National Level As we described above, the EU has its own mechanism of sanctions adoption. Nonetheless, the implementation and enforcement of EU sanctions are the responsibility of Member States and its national authorities and provisions of national law. In other words, the EU is creating an obligation for Member States to use national legislation to implement sanctions, therefore the implementation is a matter of national law, not EU law, despite the fact that EU law is the source of the obligation. The duty of Member States to implement sanctions adopted on EU level is also enshrined in Article 29 which states that: ‘ Member States shall ensure that their national policies conform to the Union positions. ’ The specific nature of the EU sanction system is also underlined by the fact that each Member State has its own sanction policy and could adopt unilateral sanctions unrelated to EU sanction policy. Accordingly, Member States can impose unilateral sanctions due to its sovereignty but on the other hand, it cannot undermine EU policy due to its obligation to loyal cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU, otherwise it can trigger a legal action by the EC. An example of this unilateral approach towards sanction policy of EU Member States is the action of Baltic States which imposed sanction on Belarusian president 31 In some instances, the EU has acted before the UN, for example in Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia/ Eritrea, the Former Yugoslavia. Some EU sanctions have gone further than UN ones: for example, Iran and North Korea, although less extensive than US ones. Some have been maintained after the UN has lifted them – for example in cases of Libya and Former Yugoslavia. See Jentleson (n 10) 183. 32 The adoption of blocking regulation was a reaction to the US Helms – Burton Act that aimed to punish companies that trade with property confiscated from American citizens after 1959. The most problematic part of the law is its extraterritorial character, as it affects all companies that do business with Cuba. For further discussion relating to process of adoption of blocking regulation, see e.g.,: VAN DEN BERG , M., ‘The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act: Violations of International Law and the Response of Key American Trade Partners’ (1997) 21 Maryland Journal of International Law 279; VENTURA, D., ‘Contemporary blocking statutes and regulations in the face of unilateral and extraterritorial sanctions’ in BEAUCILLON, CH., (ed), Research Handbook on Unilateral and Extraterritorial Sanctions (Edward Elgar Publishing 2021).

213