In January 2016 the US Office of Foreign Assets Control adopted an important exemption for US companies in the context of the liberalisation of sanctions with Iran.
University of Oslo on 24-27 November 2015 hosted guest lectures at the institutes for Sea Law and European Union Law.
GCO is delighted to be a sponsor of the WorldECR’s 2015 Export Control & Sanctions FORUM which will be held in Washington DC on 21-22 September.
The historic agreement between Iran and the P5+1 countries to dismantle sanctions will unlock the floodgates of pent-up demand to enter the Iranian market and secure access to its oil resources.
The key word, however, is "will" as the joint agreement foresees a relaxation of sanctions leading to their final withdrawal spread out over a period of possibly 8 years or more.
John Grayston is speaking at a Eurocentrum Online conference in Singapore on 12 November.
The session will focus on those situations in which EU sanctions impact on business conducted in Asian region.
The next round of sanctions have been adopted and we are now waiting for their publication. The suggestions are that more individuals, companies active in dual use products and companies in the financial services sector will be affected. This then would mark a further development of the SMART sanctions adopted at the end of July.
As we cannot yet see the new measures it is worth just noting the three key issues that should be taken into account when we finally do review the text:
Since our last blog entry on the issue (here), the EU has adopted the Regulation imposing the EU import ban on goods and certain services from Crimea and Sevastopol. The Regulation, which came into force on 25 June 2014, contained two exceptions: (i) a grandfather clause for contracts and (ii) goods presented to the Ukrainian authorities to confirm their origin. The EU published however on the 4th of July a correction relating to the second exception.
At its meeting of 23 June 2014, the Council of the European Union decided that from the 25th of June onwards goods originating in Crimea and Sevastopol may no longer be imported into the European Union, except if they have been granted a certificate of origin by the Ukrainian authorities. Furthermore, providing financial and insurance services related to the import of such goods will equally be prohibited. Such total import ban measures are relatively exceptional for the EU.
In the just published 2014 OFAC (*) Civil Penalties Information Chart four out of the ten companies who settled with the US authorities since January 2014 for alleged breaches of US trade sanctions are non-US companies. Three of them are EU companies.
Whereas the number of OFAC enforcement actions per year has been declining in the last decade, the financial amounts involved per year have been rising. Even though the biggest fines or settlements have usually been with financial institutions, other sectors, and both large and small companies as well as private individuals can and do get hit by US measures.
The General Court is considering to adopt a series of sensible modifications in its Rules of Procedure.
One of the most striking proposals is the introduction of a more stringent rules and protections in relation to access to confidential information held by EU Institutions in the context of acts adopted under Article 215 TFEU.
This will be of particular concern in cases concerning eg application of EU Sanctions. We attach below a link to the latest draft which has being submitted to the EU Council.
Click here to view
The EU adopted further sanctions against Russia on Friday. Leaving to one side the political aspects, from a purely commercial level, for companies subject only to EU jurisdiction (as compared to those subject to EU and US measures) the current EU sanctions are unlikely to have any direct commercial impact.
The EU has responded directly to the worsening situation in Ukraine by agreeing "as a matter of urgency to introduce targeted sanctions including asset freeze and visa ban against those responsible for human rights violations, violence and use of excessive force. Member States agreed to suspend export licences on equipment which might be used for internal repression and reassess export licences for equipment covered by Common Position 2008/944/CFSP".
The WorldECR journal of export controls and sanctions has published a focus edition on export control activities in Brussels and some of its export control lawyers.
It can be downloaded from here: http://www.worldecr.com/wp-content/uploads/WorldECR-Brussels-Focus.pdf
John Grayston will be speaking at the WorldECR conference on sanctions and export control in London in November 2013. He will talk on how the EU will shape a new export control regime.
Full details of the conference are at: http://www.worldecr.com/conference/
Almost all goods controlled in the EU as dual use are controlled as a result of EU Regulation 428/2009. Certain goods can also be controlled at EU level for exports to specific third countries due to EU sanctions against those countries.
By measures adopted on 3 and 4 May 2012 the EU implemented full economic sanctions against certain individuals in the Republic of Guinea Bissau.
The measures list 6 persons only.
The EU Council has adopted a further set of additional restrictions on trade with Syria which now includes a ban on trade in luxury goods. This is the thirteenth addition to EU sanctions with Syria adopted since the start of 2011.