CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

CYIL 14 (2023) APPLICATION OF EU SANCTIONS IN MEMBER STATES – CASE OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC judicial protection 63 and second rely upon substantial rights like above-mentioned right to property. 64 Turning to Mr. Hambalek, he faces both, financial and travel restriction in the light of the Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP. 65 Starting with the latter, travel bans are a special category of restrictive measures. These measures do not require additional legislative action because their implementation falls under the responsibilities of individual Member States. Travel bans restrict access to the territories of the Member States and therefore to the EU. 66 In addition, a travel ban is in conflict with right to move set forth in Article 21 TFEU. The decisions taken under Article 29 of the TEU create a legal basis for EU Member States to deny entry and/or passage to their own territories, but the latter ultimately have the final say on entry and on granting exemptions. 67 What is rather unique in the case of Mr. Hambalek is the fact that he possesses only Slovakian citizenship and his permanent residency is in the Slovak Republic. His attempts to enter the Czech Republic were unsuccessful, 68 however he is not facing any other limitation within the jurisdiction of the Slovak Republic regarding travel. The original intention of a travel restriction imposed on sanctioned individuals was to prevent them from entering the territory of the European Union but in this case, the restrictions shall be enforced by other Member States because the Slovakian Constitutional provisions 69 do not allow to expel its own citizens. This is also confirmed in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 in Article 1(2). 70 The CJEU dealt with a similar question in joined Case T-307/12 and T-408/13, Adib Mayaleh v Council . 71 A sanctioned individual sought the annulment of restrictive measures due to the fact that he held dual citizenship with Syria and France. The GC ruled that such restrictions were consistent with Article 21(1) TFEU, for decisions adopted on the basis of Article 29 TEU ‘ are clearly provisions adopted in application of the EU Treaty ’. 72 The EU law itself states that an EU citizen could be subjected to EU sanctions. Council Regulation (EU) No 269/14 of 17 March set forth in Article 17 that: ‘ this Regulation shall apply to […] any person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State .’ Hence, adding an EU citizen on the list is not inherently a violation of the EU law. Presumably then, any EU Member State will implement the travel restriction on Mr. Hambalek and refuse to grant permission to enter its territory. This is in line with the above mentioned decision in Mayaleh where the GC held that ‘ that provision thus recognises that the 63 Right to effective judicial protection is enshrined in Article 47 of Charter. See also: Case T- 255/ 15 Almaz- Antey v Council [2017] EU:T:2017:25, paras. 66–68. 64 See e.g.,: Case C-84/95, Bosphorus v Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications and Others [1996] ECLI:EU:C:1996:312; Case C-548/ 09 P Bank Melli Iran v Council [2011] EU:C:2011:735. 65 In general, we could conclude that freezing assets and travel ban are most common restriction imposed on individual whereas countries usually face export or import bans. 66 Giumelli (n 39), p. 38. 67 Ibid . 68 Šelestiaková (n 10). 69 Article 23(4) of the Slovakian Constitution states: Every citizen has the right to free entry to the territory of the

Slovak Republic. A citizen cannot be forced to leave his homeland, and he cannot be expelled. 70 Paragraph 1 shall not oblige a Member State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory. 71 Case T-307/12 and T-408/13, Adib Mayaleh, v Council [2014] ECLI:EU:T:2014:926. 72 Ibid, para. 195.

219