EU court dismisses Zimbabwe sanctions appeal

via EU court dismisses Zimbabwe sanctions appeal | eNCA 22 April 2015

BRUSSELS – A top European Union court dismissed an appeal by Zimbabwe’s attorney general and more than 100 other figures linked to the Harare government to have EU sanctions removed.

The 28-nation bloc began easing visa ban and asset freeze sanctions against Zimbabwe‘s ruling elite early last year in the hope of encouraging reforms but left top officials including President Robert Mugabe on the blacklist.

Zimbabwe Attorney General Johannes Tomana, as well as 109 other people including top police and army officers, plus 11 companies, had called on the General Court of the European Union to annul the sanctions order.

The General Court, second only to the European Court of Justice, said however that they were correctly identified as close to Mugabe’s government and its “serious infringement of human rights”.

Tomana had been put on the sanctions list because he had “engaged in activities that seriously undermine democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law,” the Court said in a statement.

The inclusion of the other individuals and companies were broadly comparable, it said.

The court said there was an adequate legal basis for the sanctions since the positions they held “are such that it is legitimate to characterise them as leaders of Zimbabwe or as associates of those leaders and thereby to justify, on that ground alone, their being listed.”

The EU first imposed sanctions against Zimbabwe in 2002 over its rights record but decided to ease them in the hope this would encourage Mugabe, now 91, to introduce some measure of reform.

Mugabe earlier this year took up the one-year rotating chairmanship of the African Union saying that he cared little for what the West might say.

“If they want to continue it’s up to them but these sanctions are wrong,” he said at the time, adding: “If Europe comes in the spirit to cooperate and not the spirit to control us and control our ways, they will be very welcome.”


  • comment-avatar
    masvukupete 8 years ago

    Confused. Does it now mean the sanctions are legal? Kikikikiki.

    Does this put to rest the argument whether or not they were/are sanctions?

    Kubvunza wo zvangu.

  • comment-avatar
    Michael 8 years ago

    The question remains – what did the sanctions actually entail. There were –

    * individual sanctions against the ZANU-PF leadership for a variety of reasons, mostly based on election theft, violence and corruption and this basically include travel restrictions to EU countries and investment by individuals – mostly looted money – in those countries;

    * the issue of importing of military equipment; and

    * the usage of State Companies to overcome the former 2.

    There was no financial restrictions in respect of loans. Zimbabwe took loans previously n- the money vanished into thin air – and no lending institution would lend money unless there are serious signs of repayment of the present debts and an overhaul of the administration to ensure that future loans are not end up in the pockets of individuals as happened in the past. This cannot be described as sanctions – it is plain and simple applying of standard financial management principles.

    The EU never place an embargo on food imports and millions of starving people lived off free food supplies funded by the same countries that is being accused of applying sanctions.

    The whole sanctions story is used to cover up gross maladministration by the Zimbabwe Government.

  • comment-avatar
    antonio 8 years ago

    well explained michael, but the problem in zim, is that many peole are fooled by the mugabe thievies to believe that the sanctions are the sole catalyst to economic melt down being experienced in zimbabwe. the truth of the matter is that thievies in mugabe regime were prevented from entering european countries to spend money stolen from zim as they are doing in south africa. do you know that the former mugabe pilot bought a mansion in durban south africa which many rich people in that coutry could not afford to buy because it was too expensive whylist ordinary zimbabwean can not afford three meals per day. what a shame mugabe