Restrictive measures are by far the most judicially contested type of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) decisions. Due to their considerable impact on fundamental rights and freedoms, they have led to an exceptionally high amount of litigation. Hundreds of cases have been brought before the ECJ, whereby the applicants, i.e., targeted persons in third countries, have challenged the validity of these EU acts. Targeted persons have, in this way, activated/mobilized the judicial review of the ECJ, as well as EU-derived rights, from third countries.
This paper illustrates that, despite the existence of over 45 sanctions regimes currently in force, the activation of judicial review from third countries varies significantly from one regime to the other. Some regimes have been extremely contested, such as those against Iran, Syria, terrorism, and more recently, Russia and Belarus – and register the higher number of actions for annulment. Whereas other regimes have never been challenged. Accordingly, this paper intends to illustrate who has activated the judicial review of the ECJ, from where, and why. By mapping the existing case law, it addresses the initial two questions (i.e., who and from where); whereases, by applying empirical methodology, it investigates the "triggering elements" of sanctions litigation, delving into the motivations that drive such legal actions (i.e., why). This study places a specific emphasis on unravelling the reasons behind the mobilization of judicial review.
