CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

CYIL 14 (2023) APPLICATION OF EU SANCTIONS IN MEMBER STATES – CASE OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC Conclusion The adoption of EU sanctions against Russia after February 2022 represents a paradigmatic change. In comparison with the sanctions imposed after the annexation of Crimea in 2014, the latest measures are much more extensive. Despite the sceptical voices and outright critics of EU’s sanctions policy, it is unlikely that we will see any fundamental changes in this regard. Rather, the emphasis will be put upon strengthening the existing framework and preventing the circumvention of sanctions in place. To achieve that, it is imperative to focus on the implementation and enforcement on the national level. We have pointed out the various challenges connected to this and discussed some of the actions taken so far. We have pointed out that sanctions are one of the most important foreign policy tools of the EU. Nevertheless, regarding the procedure of adoption of sanctions, one question that remains is the requirement of unanimity which may sometimes impede the effective and swift reaction of the EU to international crises. There is currently a debate about the possible reform of this procedure, though the initial reaction of some Member States (mainly from Central Europe) was rather negative than in favour. Time will show if any change occurs in this context. The implementation and enforcement of sanctions is facing numerous obstacles not only from the fact that the application is different in each Member State but also due to the lack of legal harmonization. However, the EU has tried to react to these deficiencies, for instance by improving the communication and exchange of information among Member States themselves and the EC. Another measure was the introduction of the prohibition on the circumvention of sanctions. As the legal order of each Member State regulates the circumvention or violation of sanctions differently, further harmonization is required to avoid forum shopping or other unwelcomed phenomenon. The lack of (political) will, inadequate institutional and legal structure, “know-how”, and material or human resources decrease the implementation and enforcement of sanctions in Slovak Republic. The basic problem lies in the highly decentralized institutional structure, instead of a central authority which would be responsible for these tasks. The aforesaid problems also lead to the fact that the Slovak Republic has failed to be more active in, for instance, the freezing of Russian assets. Last but not least, the precedence of EU law in the context of sanctions must be emphasized, albeit the implementation and enforcement are the responsibility of Member States. Mr. Hambalek challenged the imposition of sanctions on the national level where the procedure is regulated by the Slovakian Administrative Code and the Sanctions Act – however, the EU regulation is the legal basis of the sanctions against him (not the administrative procedure) and the regulation is directly applicable. It is essential to note that the listing of individuals on the EU Sanctions list is the key moment and not the implementation itself. The national authorities are not entitled to modify the sanctions – they shall only implement and enforce them.

223