17 October 2014 10:37 am Views - 1056
European Union judges struck down anti-terrorism sanctions imposed on the LTTE by the European Union, citing a technicality, but said on Thursday that the assets of the Sri Lankan group should remain frozen for the time being, Reuters reported. The bloc's lower court said a decision by EU leaders in 2006 to place the LTTE on a list of terrorist organisations had been based on "imputations derived from the press and the Internet" rather than on direct investigation of the group's actions, as required by law. It said in a statement that the EU had also failed, when following Indian sanctions on the Tigers, to ensure that India gave sufficient judicial protection to those it accused. However, the court rejected the LTTE's contention that it was exempt from EU anti-terrorism legislation because it was engaged in an "armed conflict" with the Sri Lankan government and bound by the laws of war. The court, which stressed it was expressing no view on whether the LTTE was a terrorist organisation, said EU laws on terrorism also applied to armed conflicts. Saying that sanctions might be applied in future against the Tigers, who were defeated militarily in 2009, the court said assets that were frozen should remain so "temporarily". The Court stressed that those annulments, on fundamental procedural grounds, do not imply any substantive assessment of the question of the classification of the LTTE as a terrorist group within the meaning of Common Position 2001/931.
Sri Lanka expresses concernsDecision may have an impact on the majority of Lankans living in EU
The Government said yesterday that it was concerned about the decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to cancel the EU regulations proscribing the LTTE and also said that the decision may have an impact, including from a security perspective, on the large majority of Sri Lankans living in EU territory.
"The ECJ decision may have an impact including from a security perspective, on the large majority of Sri Lankans living in EU territory, as well as EU citizens of Sri Lankan origin"
It said that the defendants of the case had been the Council and Commission of the European Union, together with two member states, the Netherlands and the UK. |