ROMANIA ON C-RE8-01539 AND TERRORIST FINANCE:

S E C R E T BUCHAREST 000772

NOFORN
SIPDIS

STATE FOR EUR/ERA BROCKWELL AND EUR/CE ASCHEIBE
STATE ALSO FOR INR
USEU BRUSSELS FOR LSNYDER

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/30/2018
TAGS: EFIN ETTC PTER PREL PGOV PINR UNSC KTFN RO
SUBJECT: ROMANIA ON C-RE8-01539 AND TERRORIST FINANCE:
LITTLE WORRY ABOUT FALLOUT FROM ECJ RULING

REF: A) STATE 83598 B) SNYDER- EU TFCO EMAILS SEP 1-26

Classified By: DCM Jeri Guthrie-Corn for reasons 1.4(b) and (d)


1. (S/NF) Summary. In response to ref A request for
information, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) provided
EconOff a brief outline of the procedure that led up to the
Muhajedin-E Khalq (MEK) listing within the EU. MFA believes
that this listing will remain in place for the immediate
future. MFA also shared further insight into the mechanics
of the European Commission's process for listing an
organization. With regard to the European Court of Justice
ruling on the Kadi and Al-Barakaat cases (ref B),the
Government of Romania (GOR) sees little reason to be
concerned. The GOR believes that ultimately the Commission
will devise legal rules which would meet the ECJ's
requirements, while at the same time maintaining a system for
effectively implementing UNSCR 1267 sanctions. End summary.


2. (S/NF) EconOff met on September 23rd with Elena Paris,
Unit Chief in the Office for the Implementation of
International Sanctions at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
(MFA),to discuss ref A request for information about the
terrorism listing process within the EC. Paris explained
that EC listings may be proposed by any "competent authority"
and that listings are reviewed every six months. Listings
are adopted by consensus and must have an evidence-based
reason to believe that an individual or group is connected to
terrorism. There is no automatic link between a Member State
domestic listing and an EC listing, meaning that the
"competent authority" proposing a listing in any given case
may be different. With regard to the MEK, Paris was
reluctant to go into details, except to say that France had
proposed a listing after the UK had withdrawn its own
proposal, and that the Council consensus was that there was
sufficient reason to believe the group was connected to
international terrorism. The implication is that the UK was
able to support an EC listing at the lower "reason to
believe" standard, despite being forced to lift its own
domestic designation; i.e. the UK was unable to propose the
EC listing but did not object to the consensus opinion.
Paris offered that the evidence presented in support of the
MEK listing was strong, and that she did not expect a
delisting to result from the upcoming six-month reviews.


3. (SBU) Paris told EconOff that the ECJ ruling in the Kadi
and Al-Bakaarat cases (ref B) poses little threat in her view
to automatic, or near-automatic, listings based on UNSCR

1267. The MFA's interpretation of the Court's decision is
that implementing 1267 sanctions is still permitted under EU
legislation, but that the method for putting this listing in
place must provide for reasonable human rights protections.
Paris claimed to have seen no legal drafts yet laying out how
this would be accomplished, but believes that the scope of
the Court's decision in this case was rather limited. She
expects that a legal framework will soon be developed which
will protect both the implementation of 1267 sanctions and
the due process procedures that the ECJ found lacking in its
recent decision.


5. (C) Comment. Based on post's conversation with the MFA,
it appears that designations proposed at the EC level may be
easier to accomplish, in some aspects, than a domestic
listing for certain Member States. The rather loose
consensus style for decisions, and the relatively limited
"reason to believe" standard, may allow Member States to
support a listing that would be impossible to accomplish
domestically based on the same evidence. End Comment.
TAUBMAN