Le misure restrittive dell’Unione europea per sviamento di fondi pubblici alla luce della sentenza Azarov

This Insight concerns a special category of EU restrictive measures: those freezing funds and economic resources of former members of the political leadership (and/or their families) of countries falling within the European Neighbourhood Policy. These measures are addressed to persons responsible for the misappropriation of state funds. When individuals are subject to investigation for the crimes mentioned above in their country of origin, the EU freezes their resources, at the request of the concerned third countries’ authorities. The focus of the paper are restrictive measures enacted in view of the situation in Ukraine and General Court’s judgment in the case of the former prime minister of Ukraine, Azarov, who is subject to an investigation for misappropriation of funds. This case is described and placed in the context of other challenges to restrictive measures against persons identified as responsible for misappropriation of state funds (such as Al Matri and Ezz). Mr Azarov’s action was successful. Few months before the latter judgment was released, the General Court had upheld another annulment action against the same measure; this time it was introduced by another key figure of Yanukovich’s government, Mr Portnov. The judgment in Azarov is interesting since it details the circumstances in which the Council may adopt restrictive measures against persons responsible for misappropriation of public funds. The General Court certainly does not question the Council’s freedom to decide to cooperate with the national authorities of neighbour countries in order to support third countries’ new governments to recoup state funds, misappropriated by the former ruling class. Yet, the Council is required to verify that national authorities, requesting the EU’s assistance, provide details concerning either the facts alleged against the person responsible for misappropriation of funds and its responsibility in that regard. Thus, the General court by contrast with the judgement in Ezz, imposes on the Council to be very cautious when it decides to accept the request of a third country’s authority to freeze the assets of a person who is the subject of an investigation concerning the misappropriation of state funds.