A case entirely based on a ‘secret file’
juni 2005
The obligation to state the reason for the decision of the Community, guaranteed by article 253 of the EC Treaty, has as its double objective to permit on the one hand, the interested parties to know the justifications of the measures taken in order to defend their rights and, on the other hand, for the Community judge to exercise his control over the legality of the decision. None of these objectives is fulfilled in this fashion.
Prof. Sison immediately requested access to the documents that were submitted to the European Council and that became the ground to publicly label him as a terrorist and to punish him as such. Prof. Sison made this request under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 10, availing of the right of any citizen to request access to EU documents.
The Council refused to give him access arguing ‘disclosure of [those reports] and of the information in possession of the authorities of the Member States combating terrorism, could give the persons, groups or entities which are the subject of this information the opportunity to prejudice the efforts of these authorities and would thus seriously undermine the public interest as regards public security’. Secondly, in the Council’s view, the ‘disclosure of the information concerned would also undermine the protection of the public interest as regards international relations because third States’ authorities [we]re also involved in the action taken in the fight against terrorism’. Furthermore, the Council stated that some documents had been returned to the member states that produced them. It also said that it could not disclose the identity of these member states because of their refusal to be identified..
Prof. Sison filed an application for annulment of this decision (in fact three consecutive decisions of the same kind) of the European Council. This is a case subsidiary to the main case.
In the main case, still pending in the Luxembourg court, in which Prof. Sison applied for annulment of the decision to include him in the list of ‘terrorists’ he argued precisely that no fair trial was possible without the ‘evidence’ being submitted to scrutiny and contradiction. But the Council did not produce before the Court any documents that could link Jose Maria Sison to terrorist activities.
On April 26, 2005 the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg announced a decision on the application filed by Prof. Jose Maria Sison for the annulment of the decisions of the Council of the European Union to refuse him access to the file on which his inclusion in the so-called terrorist list is based. The decision of the court confirms the initial refusal decisions of the European Council. It is still subject to appeal, which Prof. Sison is committed to pursue.
The April 26 decision of the Luxembourg court in the case on access to documents can be summarised as follows:.
The question whether these documents should be submitted to scrutiny and contradiction is a question that has to be solved in the case pending on the inclusion in the list. The particular interest of Sison to have access cannot be taken into consideration in a request based on the general transparency regulation.
The Council had the right to consider the requested documents as particularly sensitive.
Both lines of argument are chilling and worrisome.
- It is obvious that Prof. Sison, like any EU citizen, has an interest to know how the Council takes the decision to label a person or an organisation as ‘terrorists’. The whole proceeding leading to very harsh sanctions has been set up as an administrative proceeding. The Council argues that there are no requirements of fair trial in such proceedings. The regulation has been made by the Council on the basis of its executive power. The list has been established as well by the Council on the basis of a secret file, probably based on secret service information. No contradiction whatsoever has been foreseen and no judicial review is foreseen before sanctions are imposed.
- Even more chilling and worrisome are the considerations of the Court concerning the sensitive character of the documents. Although they are formulated in a decision on the application of a general ‘transparency’ regulation, their wording is such that they could be applied without any difficulty to deny access to the documents even in the particular situation of an individual requesting access to the secret file that has led to his labelling as a terrorist. The Court states for example:
“80 That international co-operation concerning terrorism presupposes a confidence on the part of States in the confidential treatment accorded to information which they have passed on to the Council. In view of the nature of the document requested, the Council was therefore able to consider, rightly, that disclosure of that document could compromise the position of the European Union in international co-operation concerning the fight against terrorism.” 11
This is a wording so general that it can be used in any case and in any situation to refuse access to a secret file to a person subject to sanctions. The decision of the Court is therefore not only a threat to transparency but also to the most basic rights of defence and to the right to a fair trial.
The use of ‘Administrative law’ as a strategy to ‘avoid’ the European Human Rights Convention and the basic rights of defence
- The sanctions imposed on Prof. Sison are to be considered as criminal sanctions according to the jurisprudence of the European Human Rights Court.
For the European Court of Humans Rights, three criteria determine the existence of a ‘criminal charge’: the legal qualification of the litigious infringement in national law, the nature of this charge, and the nature and degree of severity of the sanctions. These three criteria are fulfilled with the registration of the persons as referred to in the list. There is not any doubt that the sphere in which the challenged decision fits, namely the fight against terrorism, forms integral part of the penal matter. The proof of this penal nature in European law is reinforced by the adoption by the Council of the European Union of the framework decision of 13 June 2002 relating to the fight against terrorism 12 which defines, in a vague manner, the incriminating acts . The nature of the infringement does not allow additional hesitation since “persons, groups or entities are aimed at making or trying to make an act of terrorism, participating in such an act or facilitating its realisation”. As for the degree of severity of the sanction, it is also fulfilled. Indeed, the freezing of the assets such as it is envisaged is comparable to a total deprivation and for an unspecified duration of the right of ownership of the groupings concerned.
It is absurd that the supposedly heinous crime of terrorism is invoked the justify the sanctions against Prof. Sison but said sanctions are arbitrarily described as administrative sanctions rather than as criminal sanctions in order to prevent him from exercising his right to due process and to deprive him of a whole a range of basic human rights, without which ‘civil death’ is the result.
According to the jurisprudence of the European Human Rights Court all guarantees provided for by the European Human Rights Convention should be applied to the proceedings that led to the sanctions against Prof. Sison.
The Community legislation recognises the fundamental principle of respect for the rights of defence like that of a right to a fair trial (see judgements of the Court of December 17, 1998, Baustahlgewebe / Commission, C-185/95 P, point 21, and of March 28, 2000, Krombach, C-7/98, Rec. p. I-1935, point 26).
Prof. Sison has been denied all basic rights amongst others the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, basic rights of defence such as the possibility to contradict any accusations, access to an independent and impartial court etc. (see further) 13
- The European Council developed a very worrying strategy to ‘circumvent’ the European Human Rights Convention and the International Covenant and Civil and Political Rights.
It applies to what is obviously a criminal matter, so-called ‘administrative proceedings’.
This ‘circumvention strategy’ is very similar to the strategies developed by the US to deprive Guantanamo prisoners of a legal status and the one used by the UK authorities to detain suspects for indefinite periods without any review by the Courts.
The regulation n° 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism has been adopted by the Council of Ministers, a political body without any judicial character.
The list established in accordance with this regulation are likewise Council decisions. The Council therefore plays the role of legislator and judge.
It seems that the decision to include Jose Maria Sison in the list is based on ‘information’ provided by secret services (possibly even from outside the EU). This type of information is considered as being of an ‘administrative type’, in opposition to ‘evidence’ in a judicial process. The ‘administrative’ type of information can be used for policy making. It is however a general principle of fair trial that such information can not be used as ‘evidence’ in a trial to impose sanctions on a person unless the administrative information meets all requirements of ‘evidence’ in a criminal trial, mainly being submitted to contradiction by the defendant.
As explained above three years after being imposed sanctions upon, Prof. Sison did not get any access to the elements that were at the bases of the decision. He does not now the nature or the content of the information discussed by the members of the European Council. He was not heard by any authority before being included in the list.
Finally the sanctions are put into practice by political and administrative authorities, finance ministries, customs administrations, etc.
The Court of First Instance of the European Union does not have full jurisdiction. It cannot replace the Council’s decision by its own. It can only annul the decision of the council. This also is characteristic for an administrative proceeding. This type of court proceedings cannot be considered as a an access to an independent court in the sense of Art. 6 of the European Human Rights Convention.
The European Council explicitly argues that the guarantees for a fair trial provided for by the European Human Rights Convention do not apply in this case because, according to the Council, the nature of the proceedings is administrative and not criminal. It is therefore obvious that the choice of an ‘administrative’ proceeding to impose sanctions is a deliberate decision to ‘avoid’ all guarantees granted to a defendant and to deprive him in this way of his basic rights of defence, to a fair trial etc.
Conclusion
- Taking the fight against terrorism as a pretext the European Union, as the US did before, is criminalising movements and individuals engaged in the struggle for national and social liberation. Even mere dissent is criminalised and labelled as ‘terrorism’
- The case of Jose Maria Sison clearly shows that the main aim of criminalising the national and social liberation movement is merely political: force those who oppose foreign domination and domestic oppression and exploitation into capitulation.
- To succeed such criminalisation process of opposition and dissent the US and the European Union and its member states reinstall proceedings and sanctions that were characteristic for criminal proceedings in Europe before the French revolution.
- In these proceedings secret files established by secret services are at the base of decisions taken against groups and individuals. No contradiction is allowed, the ‘information’ provided by secret services is not even disclosed. The argument therefore is that the information is ‘confidential and sensitive’.
- To be able to deny all basic rights of defendants in a criminal proceeding strategies are developed to use so-called ‘administrative law’ to impose sanctions.
- The case of Jose Maria Sison before the European Court of First Instance is a landmark case and will have very serious consequences for the rights of defendants. The decision in this case will be of decisive influence on one hand on the possibilities in the future for the authorities to criminalise dissent and on the other hand for progressive forces to organise and to express themselves.
Footnotes
1 Contact: jan.fermon@progresslaw.net et mathieu.beys@progresslaw.net
2 Sanctieregeling terrorisme 2002, III, August 13, 2002, Staatscourant, 153.
3 Comprehensive List of identified terrorists and groups under Executive Order 13224 issued by the Office of the co-ordinator of the Counter-terrorism, October 23, 2002.
4 Council decision 2002/848/EC of 28 October 2002.
5 See the full text of the application for annulment on the web-site www.defendsison.be
6 Judgement of 26 April 2005 available on the website of the court http://curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?lang=en&num=79949573T19030110&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET&where=%28txtdoc=CONTAINS=%27jose%27%7D%27maria%27%7D%27sison%27%29#Footnote
7 OJ of the European Communities, n° L 344 of the 28/12/2001, p. 70-75.
8 The last one is the decision 2005/221/CFSP of 14 March 2005 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2004/306/EC (OJ L 69 of 16 March 2005, pp. 64-66).
9 Statement of the Minister of External Affairs of the Netherlands, Mr. De Hoop Scheffer, 16 August 2002, Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, Vergaderjaar 2002–2003, Aanhangsel van de Handelingen , pp. 297-298.
10 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 may 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145 of 31 May 2001, p 43).
11 Judgment of 26 April 2005 available on the website of the court http://curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?lang=en&num=79949573T19030110&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET&where=%28txtdoc=CONTAINS=%27jose%27%7D%27maria%27%7D%27sison%27%29#Footnote
12 Official Journal of the E.C. n° L 164 of 22/06/2002 p. 0003 – 0007.
13 For detailed arguments on the violation of the right to a fair trial (art 6 EHRC), the violation of the principle of legality (art. 7 EHRC), the right to the freedom of expression (Article 10 ECHR), the right of association (article 11 ECHR), the right of ownership (article 1 of First Protocol ECHR) please consult the application brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Union at http://www.defendsison.be/archive/pdf/ApplicationSison.pdf
Qui sommes-nous?
Progress Lawyers Network est un réseau regroupant des bureaux d‘avocats progressistes de Bruxelles, Anvers et Gand depuis 2003. Notre initiative s‘adresse principalement aux avocats, juristes, étudiants, universitaires et défenseurs des droits de l‘homme en Belgique et à l‘étranger.
Notre pratique professionnelle porte essentiellement sur quatre domaines: le droit social, le droit pénal, le droit des étrangers et le droit familial. Aux cours des dernières années, des avocats de notre groupe ont notamment assuré la défense des travailleurs de la Sabena et celle de nombreux syndicalistes licenciés.
Nous avons également introduit des procédures contre les livraisons d‘armes belges au Népal et contre les transports d‘armement vers l‘Irak. Nous avons aussi collaboré au dépôt de la proposition de loi de l‘organisation Objectif pour les droits égaux des étrangers. Pendant l‘été 2003, une plainte a été déposée au nom de 17 victimes de guerre irakiennes contre le général américain Franks.
Pourquoi PLN?
En 2003, l‘ONU a publié un rapport selon lequel dans les dix ans à venir, le nombre de personnes vivant dans la pauvreté sans disposer d‘un accès à l‘eau potable, va atteindre les deux milliards. Cela représente un tiers de la population mondiale. La pauvreté et l‘injustice ne font qu‘augmenter. Les guerres amènent de plus en plus de personnes sur le chemin de l‘exil.
Face à ce constat, on doit bien admettre que les décideurs consacrent plus d‘efforts au développement de nouvelles législations répressives qu‘à la recherche de solutions constructives aux problèmes des gens. L‘Europe forteresse se ferme de plus en plus aux réfugiés. Des méthodes particulières d‘enquête donnent encore davantage de pouvoir aux services de police.
La lutte contre le terrorisme est aussi utilisée pour criminaliser ceux qui militent pour un changement de société. Les droits des travailleurs, de ceux et celles qui vivent d‘allocations sociales sont régulièrement diminués. De plus en plus de personnes deviennent victimes d‘un système dont le moteur principal est le profit.
Notre objectif est d‘assurer la meilleure défense possible de ceux qui sont victimes de la société actuelle et de ceux qui souhaitent la changer.
Que défendons-nous?
PLN s‘oppose aux atteintes aux droits fondamentaux au niveau national, européen et international. Nous soutenons entre autres l‘organisation des Legal Teams pour garantir les droits des manifestants.
PLN consacre une attention spéciale à la défense des droits sociaux et syndicaux.
PLN défend le droit d‘action et d‘organisation de tous les mouvements qui luttent contre l‘injustice et l‘oppression.
PLN soutient les avancées progressistes du droit des gens et du droit humanitaire international. Nous défendons la souveraineté des Etats et le droit des peuples à disposer d‘eux-mêmes et de leurs ressources naturelles.
PLN se bat contre le racisme, pour les droits égaux des étrangers et réfugiés.
PLN s‘engage pour l‘indépendance de l‘avocat et le respect des droits de la défense.
PLN défend une conception sociale du métier d‘avocat: la justice doit être accessible à chacun par le développement d‘un système national d‘assistance juridique.
Notre méthode?
Nous sommes conscients que la défense des intérêts de nos clients dépasse souvent une approche purement juridique. C‘est pourquoi nous tentons de coupler la défense individuelle à l‘amélioration des droits de groupes plus larges.
Les connaissances et le savoir-faire que nous acquérons en défendant des cas individuels, doivent pouvoir être mis au service du plus grand nombre.
Contact
Bruxelles |
||
|---|---|---|
|
Jan FERMON - Ivo FLACHET - Joke CALLEWAERT - Thomas MITEVOY - Selma BENKHELIFA - Mathieu BEYS - Axel BERNARD |
||
|
Chaussée de Haecht 55 1210 Bruxelles Belgique |
tel. 32.2.215.26.26 |
email brussels@progresslaw.net
|
Anvers |
||
|---|---|---|
|
Raf JESPERS- Edith FLAMAND - Maria (Lily) TRIPS- Enrico DE SIMONE - Lieve PEPERMANS - Zohra OTHMAN - Jo DEREYMAEKER - Jan DE LIEN - Jan BUELENS - Julie MOMMERENCY - Geertrui DAEM |
||
|
Broederminstraat 38 2018 Antwerpen Belgique |
tel. 32.3.320.85.30 |
email antwerp@progresslaw.net
|
Gand |
||
|---|---|---|
|
Norbert VAN OVERLOOP — An ROSIERS — Riet VANDEPUTTE |
||
|
Halvemaanstraat 7 9040 Gent Belgique |
tel. 32. 9.255.59.12 |
|