Weekend Economists Salute the 99% September 26-28, 2014

[Demeter]

17. THIS IS AMAZING! RULE OF LAW LIVES! JUST NOT IN USA

European Union Court of Justice Imposes Anti-Rasmussen Rule – Sanctions Cannot Be Imposed by Reason of Fabrication, Lies, Dissimulation

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/09/european-union-court-of-justice-imposes-anti-rasmussen-rule-sanctions-cannot-be-imposed-by-reason-of-fabrication-lies-disimulation.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29

YVES:...a striking if not well publicized indictment of US casualness about lobbing charges against countries on its enemies list.

By John Helmer, the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears



In a judgement issued in Luxembourg on Thursday, September 18, the court ruled that the European Union (EU) cannot lawfully introduce sanctions against states, corporations, state organizations, or individuals without stating reasons which can be substantiated in evidence to a standard of proof tested in court.

Rasmussen, a former Danish politician, has been the most active European advocate of sanctions against Russia on claims that Russian forces have mounted an invasion of eastern Ukraine. The evidence Rasmussen has offered has included hearsay intelligence reports and a display of satellite photographs, which NATO published on August 28...The evidential value of the NATO evidence and Rasmussen’s interpretations has been challenged by a group of former CIA analysts. “Accusations of a major Russian ‘invasion’ of Ukraine, “they claim, “appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the ‘intelligence’ seems to be of the same dubious, politically ‘fixed’ kind used 12 years ago to ‘justify’ the U.S.-led attack on Iraq. We saw no credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq then; we see no credible evidence of a Russian invasion now.”

Argumentation like this over justification for the campaign of US and EU sanctions against Russia has so far not been challenged by the Russians in international court. Iran has been less reticent. Since 2010 Iran has been the target of sanctions starting with the trade in equipment and technology for uranium enrichment and nuclear weaponry. In January 2012, the EU froze assets belonging to the Central Bank of Iran, and banned all trade in gold and other precious metals with the bank and other public bodies. Six months later, an EU ban on the import, purchase and transport of Iranian crude oil came into force. European companies were also stopped from insuring Iranian oil shipments. In March 2012, SWIFT, the Brussels-based agency which processes global banking transactions, cut the Iranian banks from its system, making it almost impossible for money to flow in and out of Iran through the regular channels. In October 2012, the EU banned transactions with Iranian banks and financial institutions, as well as the import, purchase and transportation of natural gas from Iran, the construction of oil tankers for Iran, and the flagging and classification of Iranian tankers and cargo vessels.

After the sanctions campaign commenced, Bank Mellat went to court in the UK and the EU Court of Justice, challenging the allegation that it was connected to Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programmes. The bank commenced litigating in London in November 2009. Almost five years later, in June of this year, Bank Mellat won a ruling from the UK Supreme Court, the final court of appeal, rejecting the basis in evidence for the sanctions imposed on the bank. This followed a similar condemnation by the European Court, issued in January 2013. That story, and the two court judgements, can be read here.

“Mere allegations” were inadmissible to support sanctions, the two courts have ruled. The EU sanctions action against the bank had been illegal, the Luxembourg panel ruled, because “the EU Council did not… comply with the obligation to assess the relevance and the validity of the information and evidence against the applicant submitted to it, with the consequence that those measures are tainted by illegality. Lastly, the Council infringed the obligation to state reasons as regards the second, third, sixth and seventh reasons relied on against the applicant.”

To date, the UK Treasury has not paid the billion-pound compensation sought by Bank Mellat. Nor have the Iranians sued in the US courts...

MORE AMAZEMENT AT LINK