Committee on Legal Affairs
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
JURI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 1
I close the vote. This was adopted. Then we go to compromise B, open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it.
Then I go to amendment 108, and this is also a local vote. Open the vote. Okay. Close the vote, and this was rejected. We go to compromise C, open the vote, close the vote, and adopt it.
We go to 113. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it. 114.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. 115. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Reject it. 116. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Reject it. One 17. Open the vote. Close the vote. Also rejected.
119. Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected. One hundred twenty, open the vote.
Close the vote. Reject it. Compromise D, open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it.
We move to 132. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. One hundred thirty-three.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. 134. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Reject it. 137. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Reject it. One 40 o. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it.
141. Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected 144. Open the vote.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
C'est ça. Compromise. Compromise. Sorry. Compromise.
Compromise. Open the vote. That was too fast. Compromise. Yes.
Speaker 1
Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it. Then we go to 144. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Rejected. 145. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Rejected. 146. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it.
Compromise. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopted Amendment 14. Open the vote.
Speaker 1
Close the vote. Adopt it. 148. Open the vote. Close the vote.
This was rejected. 151, open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected. 152, open the vote.
Close the vote. Adopted. 153. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Rejected. Compromise G. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopted 155, Bohensky.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected 156. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Rejected 158. Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected. 159.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. One 60. One 60.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. 162. One hundred sixty-two.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it. And then we go to compromise H. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Adopt it. Amendment 174. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Reject it. Compromise is a no. I. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Adopted, 177. Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected, 181. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Reject it. 187. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Rejected. 188. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it.
189. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. 190.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. Then we go to amendment 191. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Reject it. 192. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Reject it. 193. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it.
Now we go to compromise J. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it. We move to amendment 195.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. Next is 196. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Reject it. Next one is 203. Open the vote. 203.
Close the vote. Reject it. Next is 204. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Adopted. 205. Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected 206.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected 206. Open the 200 vote. Close the vote.
Adopted 208. Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected. Then we'll move to compromise K.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it. Then we'll move to the second paragraph of amendment 209, Mr. Sepera's amendment. Open the floor.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. Next one is 211. First part.
First part. Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected. Then we move to compromise.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopted. Now we go to amendment 216. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Rejected. Next is 2:17. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Rejected. 2:18. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it.
2:19. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. Amendment 226.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. And now we go to compromise, M. No.
28. 228. Sorry. 228. Open the vote.
Two eight. Yes. Yes. Close the vote. Rejected.
Next is compromise M. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it. Now we move to amendment 136.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
No compromise. I'm sorry. I'm missing compromise number. Okay. Compromise (n.)
Speaker 1
Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it. And now it's 238. Two, three, six.
Sorry. 236. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it.
Next one is 2,373. Open the vote. Close the vault. Adopt it. 238.
Open the vault. Close the vote. Reject it. 242. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Reject it. Go to 243. Open the vote. Reject it.
24,253. We go to 253. Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected 252 is the next one to be voted on.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. Compromise everything. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Adopt it. Next amendment is 254. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Reject it. 255. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it.
Two sixty. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. Two hundred sixty-one.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. Next is 264. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Reject it. Next is 2265. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Reject it. 266. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it.
Two, three, three. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. Amendment 28.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected. Amendment 30, open the vote. Close the vote.
Adopted amendment 32. Open the vote. Close the vote. Amendment 37 was rejected. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Rejected. Amendment 33. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Rejected. Amendment 36. Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected.
Amendment 38. Open the vote. Close the vote. Amendment 39 was rejected. Open the vote.
Open. Now, it's open. Close the vote. Reject it. Amendment 40.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. Amendment 41, open the vote. Close the vote.
Reject it. Amendment 42, open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. Amendment 43.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Or reject it. Amendment 44, open the vote. Close the vote.
Adopted amendment 45. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopted amendment 46. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Rejected. Amendment 47. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Reject it. Amendment 48. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it.
Amendment 49. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. Amendment 40-64.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Amendment 68 was rejected. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Amendment 69 was rejected. Open the vote. Close the vote. Amendment 70 was rejected. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Amendment 71 was rejected. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it.
Amendment 78, open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected. Amendment 79. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Adopted 80. The vote is opened. Amendment 80. Close the vote.
Adopted amendment 81. Open the vote. Close the vote. Amendment 82 was rejected. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Amendment 83 rejected. Open the vote. Close the vote. Amendment 84 rejected.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected Amendment 85. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it.
K. And then the last vote is roll call. Open the vote. Close the vote. This was rejected.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Okay. The next one is monitoring the application of European Union law in '23, '24, and '25, and the rapporteur is Mr. Jalimas. Mister Jalimas, would you like to take the floor?
Dainius Žalimas
Very shortly, I would like to express my gratitude to all the shadows, to all the staff who worked on the text. We really reached, I think, acceptable compromises for all. So, thank you very much, and I ask you for your support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And there will be a block vote together on compromise amendments one, two, three, four, five, and six. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
And now, we go to the oral amendment. The compromises were adopted. Open the vote for the oral amendment. Oral amendment. Yeah.
At the end of the voting list. At the end of the voting list. Just before, well, it depends on the voting list. In my case, it's page 12. Yeah.
But all our amendments are here. The text was already submitted. Yeah. The vote is open. The vote is open.
Speaker 1
Okay. The vote is closed. This was adopted, and then we went to the final vote. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
This was adopted. Congratulations, Mr. Jalimas. The next and last vote for today's proposal for regulation amending, no? Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. Proposal for regulation amending regulations regarding the simplification of the implementation of harmonized rules on artificial intelligence. And that aperture is Mr. Lagudinsky. Mister Lagudinsky, would you like to take the floor? I love you all.
Speaker 1
That's it. Yeah. I'm okay. Let's vote. Amendment 80.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. Amendment 81. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Rejected. 82. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Rejected. 84. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it.
Compromise too. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it. Now, we go to amendment 85.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it. Amendments 87 and 88 will be voted on together because they are connected. So, open the vote.
Close the vote. Rejected. I think it's the same for 86 and 89, also connected, voted together. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Amendment 90 rejected. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopted Amendment 92. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Adopted. Amendment 93. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Adopt it. Compromise one. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it.
Compromise three. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it. Compromise for.
Open the vote. So, for what? We have to restart. What do we have to do? We have to restock because this is the last roll call.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Roll call. Okay. We have some technical issues. It must be a roll-call issue. Okay.
Speaker 1
Compromise for the roll call. Okay. Close the vote. Adopt it. 110.
Amendment 110. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it. One two.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it. Compromise five: open the vote. Close the vote.
Adopt it. 119. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it.
120. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. One hundred twenty 121.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. One, two, two. 122.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. Then we go to 1, 2, 3. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Reject it. And then we go to 124. 124. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Reject it. 125. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Amendment 127 rejected. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopted 126. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Rejected. 128. Open the vote. Which one?
Speaker 1
Reject it. 1:30. Close the vote. Adopted 129. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Reject it. 131. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Reject it. 132. 32. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Rejected. 133. Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected.
134. Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected. 136.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected 135. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Rejected. Amendment 20. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it.
Amendment 21, open the vote. Close the vote. Adopted Amendment 22. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Adopted Amendment 23. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopted amendment 137. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Rejected amendment 138. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it.
139. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. 140.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. Compromise 6. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Adopt it. Now we go to amendment 144. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Reject it. 145. Open the vote. Amendment 145. Close the vote.
Rejected. Amendment 26. Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected 146.
Speaker 1
149. Close the vote. Reject it. 150. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Reject it. 151. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Reject it. Amendment 27. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it.
Speaker 1
Okay. We go to +1. +1. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Reject it. Then, we go to amendment 29. 29. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Rejected. Amendment 157, open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected. Amendment 30.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopted. Amendment 158. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Adopted. Amendment 159. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Adopt it. Amendment 160. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopted.
Amendment 161. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. Amendment 31.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. Then we go to amendment 162. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Adopt it. Amendment 164. Open the vote. 163.
Speaker 1
Yes. Open the vote. 163. Close the vote. Rejected.
Amendment 164. 164. Close the vote. Reject it. Yeah.
15. 165. Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected.
166. Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected. 167.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected. 168. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Rejected. 169. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Adopt it. K. And then we go to 172. Open the vote. 172.
Close the vote. Rejected 173. Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected 1174.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. 175. Open the vote.
Close the vote. 175. Rejected. Close the vote. Mister Mandel, can you take your phone conversation outside the room?
Speaker 1
Okay. Close the vote. Reject it. 100, 77. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Rejected 178. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopted: 179. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Rejected 180. Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected 181.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected 182. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Reject it. 183. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it.
184. 184. Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected 185.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected 186. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Rejected 187. Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected. Compromise 7.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopted amendment 194. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Rejected. Compromise 7a. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it, and we move to 207.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected. 208. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Adopt it. Amendments 209 and 210 are identical. So, I open the vote. No.
Speaker 1
Close the vote. Reject it. 212. Close the vote. Adopted: 213.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Amendment 35 was rejected. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Rejected. Compromise 8. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopted amendment 37.
Close the vote or reject it. Amendment 38. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. 40.
Amendment 40. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. Amendment 41.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it. And then we move to Amendment 44. 44, open the vote.
Close the vote. Reject it. Amendment 48. Open the vote. 46.
46. Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. Amendment 48.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Reject it. Amendment 50. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Reject it. Amendment 53. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Adopted amendment 54. Close the vote. Reject it. Amendment 55. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Reject it. Then, we go to amendment 62. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Reject it. Amendment 7. Open the vote. Close the vote. Amendment 63 rejected.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Amendment 64 was rejected. 64. Open the vote.
Call the vote. Rejected. Amendment 65. Open the vote. Call the vote.
Reject it. Amendment Eight. Open the vote. Call the vote. Reject it.
And then 66, open the vote, close the vote, and reject it. Amendment 67: open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected. Amendment 68, open the vote. Close the vote.
Rejected. Amendment 69, open the vote. Close the vote. Amendment 70 was rejected. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Amendment 71 was rejected. Open the vote. Close the vote. Amendment 72 was rejected.
Open the vote. Close the vote. Amendment 75 rejected. Open the vote. Tenneke Street.
75. Yes. Open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected amendment 10. Open the vote.
Close the vote. Adopted amendment 78. Open the vote. Close the vote. Adopt it. Amendment 79, open the vote.
Close the vote. Reject it. And the final vote is going to be a roll call. Open the vote. Close the vote.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
18 in favor. Six against. No abstentions. Congratulations, Mr. Lagodinsky. The last vote is under rule 107, paragraph 1, draft recommendation or draft council decision on the conclusion on behalf of the European Union.
Bear with me just a minute. One more vote. And the rapporteur is Mr. Diepevan. Mister Diepevan, would you like to take the floor? That is not the case.
Speaker 1
Let's vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. And this was adopted. Congratulations, Mr. Raptor.
Zero to 5.
Speaker 8
22. Yes. In favor, no abstentions, no votes against. We have to take the hearing now. Okay.
Speaker 9
Dear colleagues, please take your seats. Yes. Colleagues, please take your seats. Dear colleagues of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Subcommittee on Human Rights, I'm glad to preside over this joint hearing with my colleague, the Chair, Satturi. Our meeting today continues the tradition of close cooperation between committees on the defense of international law and justice, and thank you for the common work, dear Munir.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
We'll focus on the important question of the immunity of officials of the United Nations and of the International Criminal Court. This topic relates to the very foundations of international accountability and the effective functioning of international organizations. This discussion constitutes a timely opportunity to deepen our understanding of these issues, which have direct relevance for the interpretation and application of international law, as far as the European Union is concerned, but also for the functioning of the international legal order and accountability mechanisms that the European Union supports. Understanding how the principles and practices apply in these areas is essential for addressing emerging challenges to the international legal order. We are honored to welcome three distinguished experts who will share their insights, offering perspectives that will help us understand the current doctrine and practice.
This discussion will contribute to our broader reflection on how the European Union can support the rule of law globally while navigating the complex realities of international governance. Dear Munir, the floor is yours for your opening remarks and the introduction of our distinguished speakers.
Speaker 10
I speak French. Mister Chairman, dear Elon, like you, I'm very happy that this hearing is a manifestation of the deep cooperation between our two committees. All of the forces in parliament need to be mobilized on the issue at hand: international law. The last annual report on the situation of human rights and democracy in the world was adopted in plenary on January 21. Discrediting and attacking multilateral organizations has serious consequences and fosters a culture of impunity.
International institutions, their officials, and entities that cooperate with them are increasingly the targets of attacks and threats. The international community, including the European Union, has a duty to defend international law and the rules-based order by making sure that the rules are respected by all, including their partners. This is a difficult time for international justice, and it's regrettable that the EU's blocking statute has not yet been activated to protect the ICC from the extraterritorial effects of sanctions. To give you an example, we have two academics, two university professors in Europe. One has declined an invitation because they hold an American passport.
Passport. So, this has limitations on academic freedom and freedom of expression. I would like to thank Cedric Ringaard, who will talk to us about the legal framework for immunity in the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, along with his recommendations. We also have Betty Horler, a judge on the International Criminal Court. Miss Horler is a judge who is continuing her work despite the US sanctions, and I thank her for participating in our work.
Your immunity deserves to be protected by the state's party to the Rome Statute. I also want to welcome the presence of DG FISMA, from whom we'll be hearing about the blocking statute. We know that this is a sensitive matter, and we appreciate that we will hear from you about the technical aspects of the blocking statute. And we look forward to hearing from the commissioner at a later date. Let me start by inviting Professor Ringer to speak to us for 7 minutes.
Speaker 11
Thank you. I hope you hear me well. Thank you for the kind introduction, Mr. Chairman. So, I've been asked to provide an overview of the international law regime on the immunity of UN staff and experts on the one hand, and ICC staff and the ICC on the other hand.
Let me start with the UN, the United Nations. Now there is a convention, the 1946 Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. All UN member states, including the United States, are parties to this convention. Now, this convention applies to the UN itself, UN staff members, and also to UN experts on missions. So, we are aware of the sanctions.
The chair has referred to them, threats of sanctions as well, directed at UN special rapporteurs on human rights. Also, ICC judges and prosecutors will discuss that in a minute. Now, special reporters of the United Nations qualify as UN experts on mission, even if they are not formally staff members of the UN. This has actually been clear since the 1989 advisory opinion given by the International Court of Justice. Now, rapporteurs are entitled to immunity.
UN staff are entitled to immunities, meaning that they are protected from any form of legal process, whether it is judicial or administrative, initiated by a member state. Now, sanctions qualify as administrative legal constraints. They interfere with the independent performance of the rapporteur's functions during their mission. Now, some member states—I'm not going to name names—but some member states may argue that a rapporteur acted outside their functions and is accordingly not entitled to immunity. But I would like to point out that member states cannot decide this unilaterally.
Such a determination, acting outside the scope of one's functions, should be made by the UN itself, by the UN Secretary-General in the first place. Now, if a dispute persists, the UN General Assembly, acting with a majority, may request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. And under the UN Convention, such an opinion may actually be binding. Of course, it may take some time before the court gives its opinion, and there is no guarantee that the sanctioning member state will comply with the court's ruling. Let me now turn, secondly, to the International Criminal Court, the ICC.
There is an article in the Rome Statute of the ICC, Article 48, which provides for the privileges and immunities of the ICC judges, the prosecutor, the deputy prosecutors, and the registrar. This protection is on a par with that of heads of diplomatic missions, basically ambassadors, meaning that immunity is nearly absolute. For that matter, other staff members of the ICC also enjoy immunities, but they are called functional immunities, which are necessary for the performance of their functions. Again, immunity here means that ICC staff cannot be subjected to any form of legal process, which logically includes sanctions and criminal convictions. Now, the problem here is that some states have never joined the ICC.
That's different for the United Nations. So, think of the United States; think about the Russian Federation. For these countries, the ICC statute, in fact, imposes no obligations. So, they may argue that this article, which I just discussed, Article 48 on immunities, is not binding on them. Now, it could be argued that the article is of unwritten customary international law, meaning that it is also binding on non-parties given the universal aspirations of the ICC.
Yes, so some kind of objective legal regime would be established that needs to be respected also by non-member states. But it is not clear whether, legally speaking, such an argument is fully convincing. Now that said, Article 48 may entail that states parties, including The Netherlands, which is the host state of the ICC. I'm currently based in The Netherlands, and other EU countries have what we call a positive obligation to protect the immunity of ICC staff, which means that even if they themselves don't interfere with the immunity of ICC staff, they must nevertheless take steps to prevent others, states that are not parties, from interfering. Such steps could be taken collectively, notably by the European Union, which, for that matter, has also entered into a cooperation agreement with the ICC that entered into force in 2006.
I would be happy to expand during the questions and answers on the steps the EU should take. Finally, and this is the last leg of my presentation, I would like to draw your attention to another article in the ICC statute, which is Article 70, dealing with contempt of court or offences against the administration of ICC justice. Now, under that article, the ICC can convict a person, not a state, to imprisonment or a fine if that person has retaliated against an official of the court, for instance, a judge, on account of duties performed by that official or another official of the ICC, and sanctions can be considered here as a form of retaliation. Now, of course, non-parties can claim that they are not bound by Article 7, and a conviction will be hard to enforce anyway. But I think that the symbolic value of a conviction for contempt of court should not be underestimated.
I thank you for your attention, and I look forward to the discussion.
Speaker 12
Thank you very much indeed. And now, I give the floor to Betty Hoeller, who is in the room. And you have 7 minutes, madam.
Speaker 13
Honorable chairs, honorable members of the European Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for organizing this discussion on this important topic and for the invitation to join you. I want to address two points with you today. First, the consequences of US sanctions against me and my fellow judges. Second, the importance of giving effect to the privileges and immunities of international officials for their official acts and the value of institutional resilience. I was among the first 4 ICC judges sanctioned by the United States on June 5.
Speaker 14
These unilateral sanctions are based on President Trump's executive order 14203, titled "Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court." The consequences of the sanctions were immediate. The sanctions have had, and continue to have, a real impact on my life. As sanctioned persons, we and our family members are banned from traveling to the United States. My colleagues with assets in the U.S.
Speaker 13
S. I have seen those assets frozen. As a sanctioned person, I no longer have access to American products and services, even in Europe. My Apple ID, iCloud, Amazon, Airbnb, PayPal, and other accounts have all been blocked or canceled. These cancellations happen overnight, without advance warning.
The most serious consequences of sanctions are felt in two areas: banking and the use of information technology. For example, all my credit cards were canceled immediately after being sanctioned. Because there is no non-US credit card alternative, it is impossible for a sanctioned individual to have a credit card. This makes it difficult, and sometimes impossible, to do everyday things like making a reservation, buying a plane ticket, or subscribing to an online news outlet. For me, as a European citizen with no ties to the United States, living in Europe and working for an international organization based in Europe, the impact of these unilateral sanctions here in Europe has been especially concerning.
In particular, the compliance of European financial operators is important. A European bank, whose client I was for decades, announced that it was closing my bank account a day after I was sanctioned. My account was then closed within a few days. I have experienced disruptions in paying bills and transferring funds within Europe. Although a transaction may be between two European banks, in euros, without any US nexus, it may still get rejected.
This is because a bank will automatically reject payments to and from a sanctioned individual. The effects of sanctions are not limited to us, the sanctioned persons. They also have consequences for our family members. My colleagues with children have reported visas for their children being revoked and their education and employment opportunities disrupted. Living with US sanctions means living in constant uncertainty.
A bank card that works today may not work tomorrow. An insurance company that insures your house today may terminate the contract tomorrow. We are discovering new obstacles every week. The US sanctions have also caused us to adjust working protocols within the court to ensure that, as judges and as sanctioned individuals, we can continue to perform our functions unhindered. The individual sanctions against ICC officials have also impacted the court as an institution.
Commercial operators, including European ones, have terminated their contracts with the ICC because of fear or confusion over the sanctions. At the same time, the threat of additional sanctions, including against the organization as a whole, remains very real. This brings me to my second point: the role of privileges and immunities, and the issue of institutional resilience. The reason for US sanctions against me and my judicial colleagues is our judicial work. Judicial voting and legal reasoning are core judicial acts.
Treating them as sanctionable conduct threatens not only the ICC but also challenges the international justice system as such. As the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Justice recently stated, directly targeting individual ICC judges with sanctions just for their judicial decisions amounts to an attempt to influence or punish them for their work. At the same time, US sanctions are not the only coercive measures faced by the ICC. In December, the Russian Federation convicted eight current and former ICC judges in absentia and sentenced them to prison for their judicial decisions in the Ukraine situation, among them three EU nationals. All 125 ICC States Parties, which include all EU States, have recently reaffirmed that the consequences of different coercive measures against the Court are incompatible with their obligations under the Rome Statute, the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Court, and the Headquarters Agreement.
In today's world, giving effect to the privileges and immunities of ICC officials is not just a legal obligation for ICC States Parties, but it is a practical necessity. A practical necessity that guarantees the court and its officials can continue to perform their functions and deliver on the court's mandate. My fellow judges and I continue to perform our judicial duties as we always have: independently, impartially, with integrity, and courage. This is the personal resilience that we promised in our judicial oath. Then, there is institutional resilience, which is also key for ensuring the independent functioning of the courts.
Courts are strongest when independence is built into their structures and operational capabilities. For the ICC, this means building greater financial and technological autonomy. It means reducing dependence on service providers and financial institutions of any one state. Building this autonomy and showing the way forward based on the lessons learned could also assist other international organizations if and when they come under attack from any direction. In this regard, the EU's efforts to develop and provide European-based tools have real value.
Finally, I note that in the agreement between the EU and the ICC, the European Union has committed to the obligation of cooperation and assistance and to provide, on the request of the court and subject to availability, facilities and services as may be required. Honorable chairs, members of the parliament, the EU was built and has historically championed an independent judiciary, the rule of law, and international justice. It must, I submit, continue to do so. On 5 June 2025, the US administration sanctioned 4 ICC judges. In less than a year, that number has doubled.
Today, 8 out of 18 ICC judges are subjected to US sanctions, among them 2 EU nationals. In total, on the basis of its executive order, the US administration has now sanctioned 11 ICC officials, one UN official, and several civil society organizations. While the ICC is the first international court targeted in this way, it may not be the last. Could other international and regional judges be next if and when they issue an unwelcome decision? The US administration has already, as you know, also imposed measures against a former EU Commissioner.
As an international judge and as an EU citizen, I am here today to call on the European Union to protect its citizens who have spent their lives upholding international law and are now treated like terrorists. I am here to call on the Union to protect the judicial independence of the ICC, a court that its member states created and to which they belong. A court that this parliament itself described as an indispensable cornerstone of the international justice system. Europe should speak with one voice, loudly, clearly, and collectively, to send the message that it will not accommodate pressure on judicial independence, regardless of its source. The European Parliament has already called for action, and I thank you for that.
I would now encourage the European Commission and other institutions to do the same and find workable solutions. History will record how Europe responded at this moment. This is the right moment to be on the right side of history. I thank you, and I also look forward to the discussion.
Speaker 16
Give the floor to the Head of the Sanctions Unit of FISMA of the European Commission. Go ahead.
Speaker 17
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for the invitation to speak today before the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Subcommittee on Human Rights. The discussion takes place at a time when the use of sanctions has become an increasingly prominent tool of foreign policy, raising complex legal and practical questions. Let me state upfront that the European Commission deeply regrets the recourse by the United States to sanctions and acknowledges the very difficult situation that individual judges have been put in, especially you. We, as commission services, have been in direct contact with the ICC and individual member states over the past months. We have attempted a solution of diplomatic outreach and finding practical solutions, and we will continue on this path with the aim to keep the ICC operational and to lend the commission's operational support.
But I've been asked to speak today about the blocking statute as the head of the Commission's sanctions unit. And so I will give you an overview of the procedural aspects of this important tool, which in no way prejudges whether it would be activated in this case or not. I will briefly structure my remarks into three points. First, the purpose and main objectives.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.