Terrorism Convictions Monitor - Procura Generale della Cassazione

Transcription

Internal EUROJUST Report
Terrorism
Convictions
Monitor
Issue 17 October 2013
Terrorism Convictions Monitor
Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Court Decisions........................................................................................................................................................ 4
I.
1.
Terrorism Convictions/Acquittals per Member State .................................................................... 4
2.
Other Court Decisions of Interest ........................................................................................................... 19
Comparative Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 22
II.
III. Legal Update ......................................................................................................................................................... 27
1.
EU ............................................................................................................................................................................ 27
2.
EU Member States ........................................................................................................................................... 29
IV. Judicial Analysis................................................................................................................................................... 30
The Way Ahead .................................................................................................................................................... 38
V.
2
Court Decisions
Comparative Analysis
Legal Update
Judicial Analysis
The Way Ahead
Introduction
The Terrorism Convictions Monitor (TCM) is intended to provide a regular overview of the
terrorism-related developments throughout the EU area. The Monitor has been developed on
the basis of open sources information available to the Case Analysis Unit and methodologies
such as individual case studies and comparative analysis. There is a link provided to each of the
respective articles found on the Internet. In addition, the current TCM includes information
exclusively provided to Eurojust by the national authorities of several Member States by
virtue of Council Decision 2005/671/JHA with no links to open sources.
Issue 17 of the TCM covers the period May-August 2013. It includes an overview of the
concluded court proceedings in the reporting period, a selection of upcoming and ongoing trials
as well as an update on relevant legal developments. The analytical part of the report contains
an analysis of a decision of the Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom, in which central issues
include the claimed terrorist nature of several publications and the relevance to the alleged
encouragement to commit acts of terrorism.
The general objective of the TCM is to inform and kindly invite the National Members to review,
confirm, and, if possible, complete the information retrieved from the various open sources. In
cases where such a confirmation and/or follow-up is needed, a special icon  will appear. The
respective National Desks will be further contacted for specific details. In cases where the
information has already been provided, it will be noted by a .
The Eurojust National Correspondents for Terrorism Matters are invited to provide information
on an ongoing basis to Eurojust, in conformity with Council Decision 2005/671/JHA.
3
I.
Court Decisions
1.
Terrorism Convictions/Acquittals per Member State
May – August 2013
Belgium
June 2013
The Court of Appeal in Antwerp sentenced one defendant to 18 months’ imprisonment and a
fine of EUR 550 for incitement to hatred and violence against non-Muslims in various
Youtube videos. Using provocative language, the defendant, who is the former spokesperson of
the banned organisation Sharia4Belgium, had called for Muslim domination and fight against
non-Muslims. Also, gun shots could be heard and images of weapons had being shown in the
videos. Furthermore, the defendant was convicted for harassment of relatives of a deceased
politician, whom he had verbally harassed in a video the day after her demise. The Court held
that the defendant had used and misused the Islam in pursuit of a “hero status” among his young
devotees whom he could influence to a high extent, and that he did not care about the serious
consequences his speeches could have.
Source: De Standaard.

At a trial at the Court of First Instance of Brussels, one defendant was found guilty of attempted
assassination in a terrorist context, illegal possession of weapons and armed rebellion
against representatives of the authorities. The man had been arrested after he attacked with
a knife two police officers in Brussels in June 2012. He had stated he was a mujahedeen who had
come from Paris to wage “holy war”. He had justified his attack with the arrest of a young
woman wearing a niqab in Brussels and the presence of “infidels” in Afghanistan. He had also
admitted he had tried to reach Somalia via Kenya with a view to joining a training camp and the
terrorist organisation Al Shabaab. The Court sentenced him to 17 years’ imprisonment and
ordered also a pecuniary penalty, restriction on his voting rights for a period of ten years and
confiscation and destruction of seized objects.
Source: Information transmitted to Eurojust by virtue of Council Decision 2005/671/JHA.

The Court of Appeal of Brussels found one defendant guilty of participation in the activities of
a terrorist group contrary to Articles 139 and 140 §1 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to
three years’ imprisonment. The man had been arrested in August 2011 while attempting to
cross the border between Kenya and Somalia. He had declared that his objective was to join the
terrorist organisation Al Shabaab and impose the sharia in the regions controlled by the
organisation. The defendant had previously been found guilty of the same offence by a lower
court in November 2012. In addition to the prison sentence, the Court of Appeal ordered also a
4
Court Decisions
Legal Update
Judicial Analysis
The Way Ahead
pecuniary penalty, restriction on his voting rights for a period of ten years and confiscation of
property.

Denmark
July 2013
Following the appeal against the guilty verdicts issued by the Copenhagen City Court, the
Kurdish satellite TV station Roj TV and its parent company Mesopotamia Broadcast A/S METV
appeared at the Eastern High Court. In January 2012 Roj TV and Mesopotamia Broadcast had
been found guilty of promoting a terrorist organisation (the Kurdistan Workers' Party, PKK)
and sentenced to pay 40-day fines of DKK 65,000 each (for a detailed analysis of the Copenhagen City
Court verdict, please see TCM, issue 15, Chapter IV. Judicial Analysis ). The Eastern High Court confirmed
the guilty verdict, revoked the broadcasting licence and increased the fine that the two
companies had to pay to a total of DKK 10,000,000. Shortly after the verdict was pronounced,
Roj TV submitted an appeal with the Supreme Court and requested the imposed fines and the
withdrawal of the broadcasting licence to be postponed until the ruling of the Supreme Court.
The defence announced also its intention to challenge the legal basis for the terrorism verdict as
the broadcasting rights had been revoked on the basis of laws designed to revoke rights from
actual people rather than organisations. The Supreme Court stated that it would hear the case
but rejected the request regarding the fines which would need to be paid without delay. In
August 2013 Roj TV declared bankruptcy.
Source: The Copenhagen Post.

France
June 2013
The Paris Appeals Court upheld the life imprisonment sentence of a defendant who had been
found guilty of complicity of terrorist acts and terrorist murders in December 2011. The man
was convicted for his role in four terrorist bomb attacks committed in 1982 and 1983 which
resulted in the death of 11 and injuries of approximately 150 people. Targets of those attacks
included trains, a Marseille train station and a Paris street. In addition to the attacks, the man
who claimed to be a freedom fighter and not a terrorist, had also been involved in the 1975
hostage taking of OPEC oil ministers in Vienna. Since 1997 he has been serving a lifelong prison
sentence for the killing of two French police officers and an informant. In June 2013 the Appeal
Court confirmed that the man would serve a minimum of 18 years in prison for the 1982-1983
attacks. He would most likely appeal the verdict to the Supreme Court. According to the defence,
the 18 years should run from 1994, when he had been jailed, which would mean that the
minimum set by the Court had already been served. The Paris Appeals Court upheld also the
acquittal of a female defendant for her alleged involvement in the Paris attack. She had been
tried in absentia in 2011.
Source: Reuters/The Australian.

5
Germany
June 2013
The Berlin State Court found one defendant guilty of membership of a foreign terrorist
organisation and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. The man, who is a Turkish
citizen, had been a high-ranking member of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Eastern
Germany and raised money for the banned organisation. According to the Court, the man and his
family had been victims of anti-Kurdish repression; therefore it did not impose a more severe
penalty.
Source: Fox News.

The Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart convicted one defendant of membership of a terrorist
organisation (the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front, DHKP-C) and ordered him to
serve one year and seven months in prison. In addition to representing the organisation in
Stuttgart, he had been involved in financial tasks, such as money transfers and collection of
donations. He had also been promoting the organisation at demonstrations, trainings and
commercial events and had been responsible for supporting detained members in Germany. The
defendant had been convicted in November 2009 to five months on probation for supporting an
organisation that is against the constitutional order. The proceedings had been transferred to
the Higher Regional Court after the Federal Court of Justice characterised the DHKP-C as
terrorist organisation according to Articles 129a, b of the German Penal Code. The DHKP-C is
mostly active abroad and has a very militant character. Several murders and bomb attacks have
been committed in Turkey since 1994 which are linked to the DHKP-C. The most recent is the
suicide attack on the U.S. embassy in Ankara in February 2013.
Source: Kostenlose Urteile.

Ireland
June 2013
The Special Criminal Court sentenced one defendant to four years’ imprisonment following the
already pronounced guilty verdict. The man had been found guilty of membership of an
unlawful organisation (IRA).

July 2013
A “nolle prosequi” was entered by the prosecution in a trial of two defendants charged with
demanding money with menaces contrary to Section 17 of the Criminal Justice Public Order
Act 1994. The state declared therewith its wish not to proceed with the trial and the judge
6
Court Decisions
Legal Update
Judicial Analysis
The Way Ahead
acceded with the application. One of the two defendants had also been charged with
membership of an unlawful organisation (IRA).

The Special Criminal Court found one defendant guilty of possession of firearms in suspicious
circumstances and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. In addition to the firearms
charge, the man had also been prosecuted for membership of an unlawful organisation (IRA)
in September 2012. The prosecution, however, had entered a “nolle prosequi” as to the
membership charge.

The Special Criminal Court found one defendant guilty of possession of firearms (a 9mm
Parabellum calibre Beretta model 9000S semi automatic pistol) and sentenced him to five years
and six months’ imprisonment. In addition to the firearms charge, the man had also been
prosecuted for membership of an unlawful organisation (IRA) in December 2012. The
prosecution, however, had entered a “nolle prosequi” as to the membership charge.

Lithuania
May 2013
The Vilnius District Court found one defendant guilty of planning a terrorist attack and
sentenced her to 10 months imprisonment. The defendant had been arrested in October 2009 on
allegations of plotting a suicide bomb attack against an object of strategic importance in Russia.
According to the prosecution, she had obtained a book on how to make explosives and had
discussed the plot with her younger brother and sister who had already been convicted in
December 2011 in Russia. The defence claimed that the actions of the accused could be qualified
as those of a combatant in the Russian-Chechen conflict, rather than terrorism. She had
confessed to planning a suicide bombing in Russia but had later withdrawn her statements
claiming that they had been made under duress. The Court, however, found the defendant guilty
of planning a terrorist attack and acquitted her of charges of setting up a criminal group. The
decisions of the Court could be appealed.
Source: 15min.lt/RIA.

7
Slovak Republic
June 2013
The Košice District Court found one defendant guilty of terrorism and several other offences
and sentenced him to 25 years’ imprisonment to be served in a maximum-security prison. He
had been prosecuted for placing an explosive device in a metal garbage bin close to a fast-food
restaurant in December 2011 in Košice. The device was made up of a metal tube, explosive
powder and nails. According to the prosecution, it was due to faults in the construction that the
device had failed to cause fatalities or injuries. The defendant had also sent threatening letters
and a bomb to a local veterinarian. At court, a Czech expert testified that the actions of the
defendant showed fundamental signs of extremism and environmental terrorism. In his opinion,
the defendant was fully aware of his actions and their consequences despite of his mental issues.
The defence appealed the verdict, as it believed the defendant’s mental condition should be
taken into consideration.
Source: The Slovak Spectator.

Spain
May 2013
The April 2013 decision of the Audiencia Nacional acquitting three defendants of the terrorist
charges filed against them became final in May 2013. The three had been prosecuted for their
alleged involvement in the disturbance of the public order that had taken place in Guernika in
January 2002 during which Molotov cocktails and explosive devices had been used. As a result,
serious material damage had been caused to buildings and vehicles in the vicinity. The Audiencia
Nacional did not consider it proven that the three defendants had taken part in the events and
found them not guilty of causing terrorist damage and possession of explosive and
inflammable substances and devices.

The Audiencia Nacional found one defendant guilty of theft of a vehicle with a terrorist
purpose and causing terrorist destruction and sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment. In
May 2008 the man had placed an explosive device in a stolen van which he had parked in front
of the Maritime Sporting Club in Getxo with the intention to seek maximum possible victims and
damage to property. A warning of the forthcoming explosion had been made in a phone call to
the traffic breakdown service DYA. As a result of the powerful explosion, the façade of the club
had been completely destroyed and damages had been caused also to a number of vehicles and
other property in the vicinity. A few days later ETA had claimed the attack in a message sent to
the newspaper Gara. The decision of the Court is final.

8
Court Decisions
Legal Update
Judicial Analysis
The Way Ahead
The Audiencia Nacional acquitted one defendant suspected of having been involved in an attack
on a police vehicle in Pamplona prior to the general elections in 2008. The act had been part of
the street violence (“kale borroka”) and aimed at disturbing the public order. The defendant had
been arrested in Italy in execution of a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Spanish
authorities and surrendered to Spain in October 2010. The prosecution had initially charged him
with terrorist public disorder, attack, possession and use of inflammatory devices but later
withdrew the charges. The decision of the Court is final.

The April 2013 decision of the Supreme Court dismissing the appeal of two individuals against
their 2012 guilty verdicts became final in May 2013. The two had been convicted, together with
a third defendant, in October 2012. The Audiencia Nacional had then found them guilty of
causing terrorist destruction and sentenced them to 17 years’ imprisonment each for their
involvement in an attack against a company that had resulted in considerable damage to
businesses and buildings in the vicinity. The attack had taken place in Madrid in the early hours
of 29 January 1998. The decision regarding the third individual in the case had become final in
October 2012.

Two defendants were brought to the Audiencia Nacional for their alleged involvement in acts of
street violence (“kale borroka”) against offices of the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) in
Burlada in 2004-2005. The Court acquitted one of the defendants and found the other guilty of
causing terrorist destruction as an accomplice. The Court ordered him to serve one year, three
months and one day in prison considering his schizoaffective disorder as a mitigating factor. In
May 2004 the man had provided another suspect, not present in court, with the keys to the
entrance of the building where both his residence and the offices of the PSOE had been located.
The subsequent explosion had caused damage to the Party’s offices but not to the residences in
the building. Also in November 2005 he had caused damage to property belonging to the PSOE
by throwing paint at their façades. The decision of the Court is final.

The Audiencia Nacional acquitted one defendant who had been brought to court on charges of
membership of a terrorist organisation. The man had been surrendered to the Spanish
authorities by France as part of an investigation into acts of street violence (“kale borroka”).
Searches in his house carried out in September 2008 had resulted in the discovery of various
documents related to the campaign against the construction of high-speed train infrastructure
and other indoctrination materials in the Basque language. The defendant did not have a
criminal record. The decision of the Court is final.

9
The prosecution had filed terrorism charges against one defendant who had allegedly
participated in the attack against a bullet-proof van of the company Prosegur. The attack, that
had taken place in Sant Quirze del Vallès in July 1994, had been carried out with the objective of
stealing the money transported in the vehicle which would then be used for criminal purposes.
The van had been hit by an explosion caused by a remote-controlled car loaded with explosives
and steered in its direction. Following the explosion, the defendant had fired some shots at the
guards of the van, while other members of the group had collected the money. The total sum
stolen amounted to more than 25 million Ptas (EUR 153 000). As a result of the explosion, one of
the guards had been severely burnt and significant material damage had been caused to the
vehicle and the surrounding buildings. The defendant, who has numerous previous convictions
for his activities in relation to the terrorist organisation GRAPO, was found guilty of three counts
of attempted assassination, illicit possession of weapons, possession of explosives and
theft with violence. He was sentenced to serve a total of 33 years and six months in prison and
pay compensation to the victims of the attack. The decision of the Court became final in July
2013. Another accomplice had already been convicted for his role in the attack.

The Audiencia Nacional acquitted two individuals brought to court on charges of glorification
of terrorism. The two had been found guilty by the same court in July 2010 and sentenced to
one year of imprisonment for having participated in a demonstration during which they had
praised the terrorist organisation ETA. The guilty verdicts had been confirmed by the Supreme
Court in December 2010. However, in April 2013 the Constitutional Court had admitted the
appeal submitted by the two defendants on the grounds of unconstitutionality. It had recognised
their fundamental right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence and annulled the rulings of
the Audiencia Nacional and the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal submitted by one individual who had been convicted
in June 2012 by the Audiencia Nacional. He had been found guilty of attempted terrorist
destruction, two counts of attempted terrorist assassination, forceful robbery with a
terrorist purpose and forgery of official documents (car registration plates) with a terrorist
purpose and sentenced to a total of fifty-four years’ imprisonment and a fine. The Audiencia
Nacional had considered it proven that he had been involved in a planned attack in July 2003 for
which a car bomb placed behind the factory Iberdrola had been used. The forthcoming explosion
had been communicated to the newspaper Gara on behalf of ETA. The newspaper had informed
the emergency line and the police had managed to deactivate the device (for more details, please
see TCM, issue 14). The decision of the Supreme Court is final.

The Audiencia Nacional found two defendants guilty of thirteen counts of attempted terrorist
assassination against the Basque police, five counts of attempted terrorist assassination
against civilians and causing terrorist destruction. The two men had travelled to France
where one of them had met a notorious ETA member and received orders to prepare an attack
10
Court Decisions
Legal Update
Judicial Analysis
The Way Ahead
on the police. A ready-to-use car bomb had been provided. In September 2008 they had parked
the car in front of a police station in Ondarroa. As a result of the explosion, enormous damages
had been caused to the façade and interior of the police station, to a number of vehicles and
surrounding buildings. Police officers on duty and civilians around the building had suffered
injuries of various nature. In November 2008 the newspaper Gara had published a
communication by ETA claiming the attack on the police station. The Audiencia Nacional
convicted both defendants for their role in the attack. They were handed down sentences of a
total of 299 years’ imprisonment and will serve a maximum of 40 years in conformity with the
Spanish Penal Code. The two convicted men submitted an appeal in July 2013.

The April 2013 decision of the Supreme Court dismissing the appeal submitted by two
individuals against their 2012 guilty verdicts became final in May 2013. The two had been
brought to court at the Audiencia Nacional for their alleged involvement in a street
demonstration in July 2010, during which ETA members and prisoners had been praised. The
Audiencia Nacional had found them guilty of glorification of terrorism and dishonour of
property and sentenced them to one year imprisonment each (for further details, please see
TCM, issue 15).

At a trial at the Audiencia Nacional two defendants were sentenced to serve 15 years in prison
each after the Court found them guilty of causing terrorist destruction. The two defendants
had been prosecuted for having placed two explosive devices in busy touristic areas of Alicante
in August 2002. The upcoming explosions of the two devices had been announced by ETA via
telephone calls to the newspaper Gara and the traffic breakdown service DYA. In one of the
locations, a restaurant situated on the ground floor of an apartment building, the police had
managed to evacuate the area before the explosion. In the other location, close to a beach
discotheque, the device had been discovered a few days later and deactivated by the police. Both
acts had been claimed by ETA via a communication in the newspaper Gara that had been sent
several days after the incidents. In September 2002 the defendants had been arrested in France.
The two have previous convictions for participation in an armed group in France as well as a
number of terrorism convictions in Spain. The decision of the Court is final.

The April 2013 decision of the Audiencia Nacional convicting seven defendants and acquitting
two others of several ETA-related offences became final in May 2013. The nine had been brought
to court on a number of terrorism charges. One of them had become a member of ETA in 2007
and had received training in the use of weapons and explosives in France. Upon his return in
Spain, he had been involved in recruiting people to integrate or collaborate with ETA. With a
view to carrying out terrorist attacks, he had collected and stored in caches various material
needed for the construction of explosives, detonators and ETA anagrams. He was sentenced to a
total of 20 years and 5 months’ imprisonment and a fine after he was found guilty of belonging
11
to an armed group or terrorist organisation, possession and storing of explosive
substances as a member of a terrorist organisation, illicit possession of weapons in service of
a terrorist organisation, forgery of an official document in service of a terrorist organisation.
His co-defendants had allegedly been aware of his membership in ETA. Searches in their
residences had resulted in the discovery of material needed for the construction of explosives,
weapons, etc. One of them was convicted of belonging to an armed group or terrorist
organisation and possession and storing of explosive substances as a member of a terrorist
organisation and ordered to serve 17 years in prison. Other five co-defendants were found guilty
of collaboration with a terrorist organisation and sentenced to seven-and-a-half years’
imprisonment and a fine. One of them was acquitted of possession of explosive substances, while
two other co-defendants were acquitted of all charges brought against them by the prosecution.

The April 2013 ruling of the Supreme Court on the appeal of one individual against her 2012
conviction became final in May 2013. The woman had been found guilty of two counts of
robbery with intimidation committed with a terrorist purpose and sentenced to serve a
total of 13 years in prison and pay compensation to La Caixa bank whose assets had been the
targets of two attacks in April and May 2002. The robberies had been committed with the
intention to finance terrorist activities of GRAPO (for further details, please see TCM, issue 14).
Following the appeal submitted by the defence, in April 2013 the Supreme Court partially
annulled the earlier court decision and reduced the imposed penalty to a total of eight years’
imprisonment.

June 2013
The Audiencia Nacional found one defendant guilty of attempted terrorist destruction and
sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. The sentence imposed was slightly less that the ten
years requested by the prosecution. The man had been arrested in France in February 2004 and
subsequently convicted of criminal association and other offences. Following the completion of
his prison term, he had been surrendered to the Spanish authorities that had been investigating
his alleged involvement in a planned car bomb attack in Bilbao in June 2003 targeting offices of
Antena 3, the El Pais and El Mundo newspapers, as well as other property in a busy part of town.
The police had been warned by the newspaper Gara on behalf of ETA and managed to isolate the
area. The bomb had not exploded due to a defect in the mechanism connecting the timer and the
device. The attack had been claimed by ETA in a communication to the newspaper Gara. The
decision of the Court became final in July 2013.

Two defendants had been brought to court on charges of glorification of terrorism, resisting
the authorities and bodily harm. The two had been arrested for their alleged involvement in
an unauthorised gathering that had taken place in Fuenterrabia in September 2010. Some of the
participants in the gathering had been carrying a poster and refused to identify themselves to
12
Court Decisions
Legal Update
Judicial Analysis
The Way Ahead
the police that had arrived on the spot. Following the hostile acts against the police forces, they
had applied force as permitted by law. The two defendants had violently resisted the police
when they had tried to establish their identity. The Audiencia Nacional acquitted both
defendants of the charge of glorification of terrorism and found one of them guilty of resisting
the authorities sentencing him to six months’ imprisonment and payment of compensation to
one of the victims. The same defendant was also found guilty of bodily harm and ordered to
serve additional 10 days. The decision of the Court became final in July 2013.

The Audiencia Nacional acquitted one defendant brought to court on charges of making threats
with a terrorist purpose and ill treatment. The defendant had been arrested in relation to a
clash with some football fans following the victory of the Spanish national team in the Euro Cup
final in July 2012. The man, together with his wife and a friend, had encountered a group of
people in the streets of Donostia. According to protected witnesses, he had shouted at them in
Basque language, after which the two groups had entered into a fight. A few days later, a video
taken with the mobile phone of one of the protected witnesses had been distributed by various
media. Consequently, the judge in charge had ordered the detention of the defendant who was
acquitted of the charges in June 2013. The decision became final in September 2013.

One defendant brought to the Audiencia Nacional on the charge of glorification of terrorism
was acquitted by the Court. He had been arrested on suspicion of having been involved in
activities linked with the terrorist organisation ETA. In August 2011 the police had discovered
two banners bearing ETA’s anagram and related text that had been hung in a public location in
Portugalete. The Court, however, found him not guilty. The decision of the Court is final.

The Supreme Court acquitted four defendants of the charge of glorification of terrorism. The
four had been found guilty by the Audiencia Nacional in September 2012 and sentenced to one
year imprisonment each. The Audiencia Nacional had considered it proven that the defendants
had placed photographs of ETA prisoners in a public location in Basauri in October 2011. The
police had been informed of the acts by a protected witness. At the time of their detention, the
police also found ETA related banners and posters of different sizes. (for further details, please
see TCM, issue 15).

13
July 2013
The Audiencia Nacional found one defendant guilty of collaboration with a terrorist
organisation and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment and a fine. The man had established
virtual contacts with the organisation Red Ansar Al Mujahideen which is known to be engaged in
online propaganda and recruitment activities. From his home in Alicante, he had been active in
the Ansar Al Mujahideen forum and registered web domains that had been transferred to a
leader of the organisation who was residing in Saudi Arabia. The Court however did not
establish that he had a physical contact or met any of the Red Ansar Al Mujahideen’s leaders. In
2010 he had entered a jihadist forum recruiting militants for conflict zones, such as Afghanistan,
Chechnya and Somalia. The defendant collaborated with the police and provided information
related to the activities and projects of the Ansar Al Mujahideen. The Court acquitted him of the
charge of participation in a terrorist organisation. The decision of the Court is final.

The Audiencia Nacional found one defendant guilty of causing terrorist destruction and
handed down a 15 year sentence, a penalty that is in conformity with the one sought by the
prosecution. The man had been arrested in relation to an attack on a building that had been in
construction for the judiciary in Amurrio. The attack had been carried out in November 1996
using an explosive device and had caused material damage. The defence submitted an appeal.

At the Audiencia Nacional one defendant was brought to court on charges of belonging to an
armed group, spreading terrorist material and glorification of terrorism. According to the
prosecution, the defendant had been active on a number of jihadist forums on the Internet,
including ‘Al Shumukh Al Islam’, ‘Ansar Al Mujahideen’ and ‘Al fidaa’ that broadcast videos made
by jihadist terrorist groups, engage in radical jihadist propaganda and indoctrination and serve
as a platform for terrorist recruitment. The defendant had also administered a webpage,
‘Shabaka al Haqiqa Al Ikhbaria’, where he had posted images, videos and news related to acts of
Al Qaida and other terrorist groups. For the acts described, the prosecution asked for a prison
sentence of 12 years. The Court found the defendant guilty of spreading terrorist material and
handed down a two-year imprisonment sentence. The decision of the Court has been appealed.

The Supreme Court acquitted three individuals and dismissed the appeals submitted by two
others. The five had been found guilty of belonging to an armed group by the Audiencia
Nacional in June 2012 and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment each. The Audiencia Nacional
had acquitted four other co-defendants. The nine had been prosecuted as a result of a police
investigation into street violence (“kale borroka”) in Navarra de Barañain at the end of 2007 and
arrested for their alleged membership of Segi or Ekin. However, the membership of any of them
of those organisations could not be proven (for further details, please see TCM, issue 14).

14
Court Decisions
Legal Update
Judicial Analysis
The Way Ahead
The Audiencia Nacional found three defendants guilty of terrorist assassination of a member
of the security and armed forces of the State and causing terrorist destruction and sentenced
each of them to serve a prison term of 45 years. The penalty is in conformity with what had been
requested by the prosecution. The three had become members of ETA in 2006. In June 2009
they had carried out an attack against a police chief in Bilbao by activating an explosive device at
his approaching car. The victim had later passed away as a result of his injuries. Serious material
damage had also been caused to vehicles parked in the vicinity. During the searches carried out
in the defendants’ residences, the police had found instruction manuals on how to make
explosives, material and items needed for this purpose as well as various weapons. Following
the guilty verdicts of the Court, the defence submitted appeals in September 2013.

The Audiencia Nacional convicted one defendant of causing terrorist destruction and
sentenced him to 16 years’ imprisonment. Together with some other ETA members, he had
installed an explosive device in a hotel in Getxo in June 2003. Shortly before the device had been
activated, an ETA member had called the newspaper Gara warning about the forthcoming
explosion which had allowed the notification of the police and the evacuation of the hotel. As a
result of the explosion, the hotel and a vehicle nearby had been seriously damaged. The man had
been arrested in France on the basis of a European Arrest Warrant issued in March 2004 and
surrendered to Spain in July 2012. The decision of the Court is final.

Two defendants appeared at the Audiencia Nacional on allegations of collaboration with ETA
and weapons and explosives charges. Following the August 2000 explosion of a vehicle in which
four ETA members had passed away, the police had found a number of items in the debris.
Among these, keys of a residence in Galdácano rented by the two defendants in order to provide
shelter for the four deceased ETA members. During the searches of the residence, the police had
found material for the manufacture of explosives, weapons, documents related to possible
targets and cash. Following the death of the four, the accused had left for France where they had
been arrested and convicted of criminal association in 2008. Following the completion of their
prison terms, they had been surrendered to Spain on the basis of the arrest warrant issued by
the Spanish authorities in July 2002. In July 2013 the Audiencia Nacional acquitted the two of
collaboration with an armed group but found them guilty of storing weapons, munitions, or
explosive substances or devices and sentenced each of them to eight years’ imprisonment. An
appeal has been submitted.

15
United Kingdom
May 2013
At a trial at the Belfast Crown Court one defendant was charged with providing property for
terrorism. His basement had allegedly been used by the Republic Action Against Drugs (RAAD)
to make photographs that appeared in a Strabane newspaper in May 2010 together with a
statement that warned drug dealers of violent reprisals. The photographs showed masked men
holding a drug dealer hostage. According to the prosecution, the defendant was also one of the
masked men on the photographs. Expertise confirmed that the defendant’s basement had been
used to make the photographs; however, the Court could not establish that the defendant had
known about that. The Court stated also that it could not be sure “beyond reasonable doubt” that
the defendant was one of the masked men in the photographs. As a result, the defendant was
acquitted of the charge.
Source: BBC.

June 2013
The Woolwich Crown Court convicted six defendants for plotting an attack on a rally of the
right-wing English Defence League (EDL) in June 2012. The attack was planned to be carried out
using guns, swords, knives and a homemade nail-bomb but failed due to the fact that the plotters
had arrived too late at the rally location. The plot had been revealed after a routine police check
on one of their cars, as a result of which the bomb, weapons and extremist material had been
found. When preparing the attack, the plotters had consulted various extremist and propaganda
materials, including the ´Inspire´ magazine. One of them had been under “low-level” surveillance
by the security services for alleged connection with another major terrorist plot, while another
had served a prison sentence for possession of terrorist material. For the EDL rally plot the
Court sentenced three of the defendants to 19-and-a-half years of imprisonment and the other
three defendants were ordered to serve 18 years and nine months. All six will spend five years
on licence following the completion of their prison terms.
Source: The Guardian/The Independent.

The Belfast Crown Court sentenced one defendant to six-and-a-half years’ imprisonment
following his guilty plea to seven offences of having firearms and explosives with intent to
endanger life and under suspicious circumstances and having articles for use in
terrorism. Following a high-speed pursuit in August 2011, the police had found explosives and
guns in his car. His fingerprints had also been discovered on a semi-automatic pistol found in a
firearms workshop in September 2010 in Newry. The police had found in his possession a coffee
jar bomb, component parts for other bombs and a variety of guns, 100 rounds of assorted bullets
and suspected shotgun propellant. The man had previously been convicted of possession of
explosives with the intent to endanger life in 1975 and sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Source: Belfast Telegraph.

16
Court Decisions
Legal Update
Judicial Analysis
The Way Ahead
July 2013
The Southwark Crown Court sentenced one defendant to four years’ imprisonment after it found
him guilty of three counts of possessing a record containing information of a kind likely to
be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism in June 2013. The record
included bomb-making instructions, the ´Inspire´ magazine and ‘39 Ways to Serve and Participate
in Jihad’. The documents had been downloaded from the Internet and stored on three external
hard drives. According to the police, he had links to two radical preachers. All three of them had
joined the demonstration organised in London by the group Muslims Against Crusades on the
day of the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in the United States. The defendant had claimed
that he had only gathered the material out of curiosity and in order to understand both
moderate and extreme Islam so that he could use the information to counter arguments about
extremism.
Source: BBC/The Guardian.

August 2013
The Dingwall Sheriff Court convicted one defendant who admitted downloading information
containing instructions on how to make an improvised explosive device. The Court
sentenced him to serve four months in prison after he stated he was not willing to pay a fine or
carry out community service. The man had been arrested after council workers had alerted the
police of items they had come across when installing a central heating system in his home. He
suffers from some health problems and had learning difficulties in school but refused to have the
reports made by three psychiatrists and a psychologist to be considered by the Court.
Source: Ross-shire Journal.

At a trial at the Gloucester Crown Court one defendant was found guilty of 13 offences, including
arson and stealing ingredients to make explosives. In 2012 the man had been involved in a
series of incidents that included the making of a fake nail bomb which he ignited in a railway
carriage at the Dean Forest Railway station in Lydney in July 2012 and the breaking into a
factory with the help of a 14-year old boy in order to steal bomb-making ingredients in
September the same year. In addition to the possession of cannabis, shoplifting, and possession
of an offensive weapon, he had been charged with assaulting a teenage drug dealer and
perverting the course of justice together with another defendant. The man was handed down a
sentence of five-and-a-half years in a young offenders institute for all the offences and will serve
approximately half of it.
Source: The Citizen Online.

The High Court dismissed the appeal submitted by one individual against her 2011 conviction
for wilfully failing to comply with a duty imposed under or by virtue of Schedule 7 to the
Terrorism Act 2000 as well as her claim that the Schedule 7 powers in question violated her
rights under Articles 5, 6 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The appellant,
whose husband is serving a sentence for terrorist offences in France, had been held at East
17
Midlands Airport upon arrival from Paris in January 2011 in accordance with Schedule 7 to the
Terrorism Act 2000 which allows the police to hold someone for up to nine hours and question
them about whether they are involved in terrorism. The woman had refused to answer
questions in the absence of a lawyer. Following a telephone conversation with a lawyer, she had
still refused to cooperate and had later been found guilty of failing to comply with a duty. In her
appeal to the High Court, she had claimed that her detention at the airport had violated her right
to privacy and family life and restricted her freedom of movement between two EU countries.
She had claimed also that the powers under schedule 7 were so widely drawn that they meant
that anyone could be stopped without reasonable suspicion.
According to the High Court, the balance struck between individual rights and the public interest
in protection against terrorism did not violate the fundamental human rights in question. The
High Court ruled that the Schedule 7 powers were neither arbitrary nor disproportionate but
also pointed out that it would urge those concerned to consider a legislative amendment,
introducing a statutory bar to the introduction of Schedule 7 admissions in a subsequent
criminal trial. The appellant’s defence is expected to appeal and bring the case to the Supreme
Court.
Source: Judiciary of England and Wales/BBC.

18
Court Decisions
2.
Legal Update
Judicial Analysis
The Way Ahead
Other Court Decisions of Interest
May – August 2013
Germany
July 2013
The Federal Administrative Court allowed the extradition of a Turkish man to Turkey where he
is suspected of committing terrorist offences. The man had allegedly participated in the board of
several Kurdish organisations that supported the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). He is also
suspected of taking part in demonstrations and other related events in support of the terrorist
organisation. Earlier, his plea against extradition had been successful. The Court had considered
the fact that he had been living in Germany and his underage children were German citizens. In
July 2013, however, the Federal Administrative Court confirmed the lawfulness of the
extradition in accordance with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice regarding
underage EU citizens and ruled that the public interests can outweigh the private interests of the
defendant and his family.
Source: Kostenlose Urteile.
Ireland
July 2013
The High Court in Dublin ruled in favour of the surrender to the United Kingdom of the selfproclaimed leader of the Scottish National Liberation Army. The extradition had been sought by
the Scottish authorities via a European Arrest Warrant on seven charges one of which bears a
life sentence. The charges included threatening with hoax bombs and with water supply
poisoning of several cities, as well as packages containing caustic and poisonous substances
allegedly sent to public figures, including a former UK Prime Minister. The threats had been
made by telephone calls to Scottish newspapers and agencies. The man, who had been residing
in Ireland for more than 30 years, had contested the extradition claiming that it was a gross
interference in his family life since he could be prosecuted in Ireland as well. He had also
claimed abuse of process as his prosecution had previously been sought on similar offences. The
judge, however, ruled that Scotland could claim jurisdiction as the results of the offences had
been felt there and ordered his surrender to the Scottish authorities.
Source: Breaking News.
The Netherlands
July 2013
The Court of Appeals of The Hague ruled against the extradition of a Dutch citizen of Pakistani
origin to the United States where he is suspected of involvement in attacks on U.S. forces. The
man had been arrested in Pakistan in 2010 for working with Al Qaida between 2004 and 2010
and for planning an attack against an U.S. army base in Afghanistan. He claimed he had been
19
tortured during his eight-month long arrest and the U.S. authorities had been aware of this. In
April 2011 the Pakistani authorities had boarded him on a plane to the Netherlands and he had
been taken into custody upon his arrival at Schiphol. According to the Court of Appeal, there was
too much unclarity about the involvement of the U.S. authorities in the torture of the suspect in
Pakistan. The Court expressed also its concern that the plans of the U.S. authorities to replace
the current treatment that the man receives for his post-traumatic stress disorder with another
one may be harmful to him. The Dutch government has decided to launch an appeal to the
Supreme Court.
Source: BBC/NRC.
The United Kingdom
June 2013
The High Court overturned the complicity in torture claim made against the MI5 by one
individual convicted of terrorist offences in 2007. The man had then been found guilty of
conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life, together with four other co-defendants at
the Old Bailey. All five defendants had been given life sentences for plotting to bomb public
places such as a nightclub in London and a shopping centre in Kent using chemical fertiliser
bombs. The man had been living in Pakistan in 2004 when he had surrendered to the Pakistani
authorities. According to his statements, he had been told he had been arrested following orders
from the United Kingdom. Upon his arrival in the United Kingdom in February 2005, he had
been arrested and had claimed that while in detention in Pakistan he had been tortured by the
Inter-Services Intelligence agency and admitted to things he had not done. He had claimed that
the MI5 had been complicit in his alleged torture but had never accused any British officer of
directly mistreating him. At his criminal trial and the subsequent appeal, the court had rejected
the claim of complicity in mistreatment. In 2009 the man had filed a civil claim against MI5, MI6,
the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the Attorney General for their alleged complicity in his
torture in Pakistan. The authorities had, in turn, classified the claim as an abuse of process, as
according to them it had represented an unacceptable collateral attack on the rulings of the
judge at the criminal trial. The High Court ruled in their favour confirming the previous
judgment and arguing that evidence supporting the claimant’s case should be dealt with by a
criminal appeal, not civil proceedings.
Source: The Guardian.
At a trial at the Old Bailey one defendant admitted breaches of restrictions imposed on him and
was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment. The defendant was the first person to be
convicted under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigations Measures Act 2011. These
measures replaced the control orders that had been applied before. The man is among the ten
persons who are subject to a terrorism prevention investigation measures order that places
electronic tags and certain conditions on suspects. The man admitted to have taken part in a
"public and broadcast discussion... without having obtained prior permission from the Home
Office", meeting a number of persons there and entering an Internet cafe without permission.
Source: Birmingham Mail.
20
Court Decisions
Legal Update
Judicial Analysis
The Way Ahead
The Court of Justice of the European Union
July 2013
The European Court of Justice considered the appeals submitted by the European Commission,
the Council and the United Kingdom against an earlier ruling in relation to a judgment of the
General Court according to which the EU may not impose restrictive measures on one person,
without evidence to substantiate his involvement in terrorist activities. In October 2001 the
person had been included in the consolidated list drawn up by the Security Council Sanctions
Committee and containing persons or entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al Qaida
network or the Taliban. Following this designation, the person had become subject of freezing of
funds and other financial resources in accordance with the respective Security Council
resolutions. Subsequently, the person had been listed in the Annex to Council Regulation (EC)
No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against
certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al Qaida network and the
Taliban. In 2005 the General Court had ruled that European regulations implementing the UN
Security Council measures enjoy, in essence, immunity from jurisdiction. In 2008, however, the
Court had held that the Courts of the EU must ensure the full review of the lawfulness of all EU
acts, including those designed to implement UN Security Council resolutions. According to the
Court, obligations imposed by an international agreement cannot prejudice the principle that EU
measures must respect fundamental rights. Council Regulation No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002
had therefore been annulled since it had infringed a number of fundamental rights enjoyed
under EU law (e.g. rights of the defence, right to effective judicial protection). Subsequently, the
European Commission had disclosed to the person the summary of reasons for his listing.
Having received his comments on those reasons, by virtue of Commission Regulation (EC) No
1190/2008 of 28 November 2008 amending for the 101st time Council Regulation (EC) No
881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and
entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al Qaida network and the Taliban, the Commission
had decided to maintain his name on the EU list of persons subject to restrictive measures. The
General Court had then annulled the Commission regulation, holding that it was its task to
ensure full and rigorous judicial review of the lawfulness of that measure, extending to the
information and evidence substantiating the reasons underpinning the measure, however, the
person’s rights of defence and his right to effective judicial protection had been infringed.
Following the appeals brought by the European Commission, the Council and the United
Kingdom, in July 2013 the Court ruled that the EU must disclose to the person concerned the
evidence underpinning its decision to list him or maintain his listing and that the person should
be in a position to effectively make known his views on the grounds relied on against him. The
listing EU authority should establish, in case of a challenge, that the reasons relied on against the
person concerned are well founded. The Court ruled that the majority of the reasons relied on
against the person concerned were sufficiently detailed and specific to allow effective exercise of
the rights of the defence and judicial review of the lawfulness of the contested measure. It
pointed out, however, that, since no information or evidence had been produced to substantiate
the allegations that the person had been involved in activities linked to international terrorism,
those allegations were not such as to justify the adoption of restrictive measures against him at
EU level. Consequently, the Court considers that the Commission’s further regulation must be
annulled.
Source: European Court of Justice.
21
II.
May – August 2013
Court Decisions on Terrorist Offences in the EU Member States
In the period May – August 2013 terrorism-related court decisions were reported in nine EU
Member States: Belgium1, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, the Slovak Republic,
Spain and the United Kingdom (please see Figure 1 below). They include also decisions on
appeals, as well as decisions rendered earlier in 2013 that became final in the reporting period.2
Figure 1
Member States with terrorism-related convictions/acquittals
Member States without terrorism-related convictions/acquittals
The data for Belgium includes also one conviction on charges of incitement to hatred and violence against nonMuslims.
2 The comparative analysis that follows in this chapter includes only those court decisions that were rendered in the
reporting period and does not include the ones that were pronounced earlier in the year but became final in the
period May – August 2013. It does not include the “nolle prosequi” entered by the prosecution in the trial of two
defendants in July 2013 in Ireland.
1
22
Court Decisions
Legal Update
Judicial Analysis
The Way Ahead
Convictions and Acquittals
According to the available information, several Member States had a full conviction rate with no
acquittals pronounced in the reporting period. For some of them, e.g. Belgium, Denmark and
Ireland, this trend continues since the beginning of the year, while Germany is the country
where no acquittals for terrorist offences were reported in 2011, 2012 and the first eight
months of 2013. For the first time since the initiation of the TCM a terrorism-related court
decision was pronounced in the Slovak Republic.
A closer look at the court decisions rendered in all Member States in the reporting period
reveals an average acquittal rate of 27% (please see Figure 2 below). This acquittal rate is lower
compared to the one reported in the first four months of 2013. The average acquittal rate for the
period January – August 2013 (30%) is similar to the acquittal rate reported in 2012. As
mentioned earlier, in certain cases the acquittal rates can be considered in the general context of
the preventive and protective efforts put in place by the Member States.
Figure 2
MEMBER STATE
CONVICTIONS
ACQUITTALS
TOTAL
ACQUITTALS
AS %
Belgium
3
-
3
0%
Denmark
2
-
2
0%
France
1
1
2
50%
Germany
2
-
2
0%
Ireland
3
-
3
0%
Lithuania
1
-
1
0%
Slovak Republic
1
-
1
0%
Spain
21
15
36
42%
United Kingdom
11
1
12
8%
TOTAL
45
17
62
27%
Types of Terrorism
As reported in the TCM since 2008, the majority of verdicts, also in the period May – August
2013 and since the beginning of 2013 in general, related to separatist terrorism. The majority of
separatist terrorism verdicts were rendered in Spain and concerned acts linked to the terrorist
organisation ETA. In four other Member States the pronounced separatist terrorism verdicts
related to other terrorist organisations and groups: the PKK (in Denmark and Germany), IRA in
Ireland and Chechen separatist groups (in Lithuania). In Belgium all verdicts pronounced in the
reporting period, as well as since the beginning of the year, concerned religiously-inspired
terrorism. Two left-wing terrorism cases were reported in Germany and Spain, linked to the
terrorist organisations DHKP-C and GRAPO respectively. In the Slovak Republic the court issued
a guilty verdict in a case qualified by experts as extremism and environmental terrorism (please
see Figure 3 below).
23
Figure 3
MEMBER STATE
Separatist
Religiouslyinspired
Left-wing
Not specified
TOTAL
Belgium
-
3
-
-
3
Denmark
2
-
-
-
2
France
-
-
-
2
2
Germany
1
-
1
-
2
Ireland
3
-
-
-
3
Lithuania
1
-
-
-
1
Slovak Republic
-
-
-
1
1
Spain
33
2
1
United Kingdom
-
8
-
4
12
TOTAL
40
13
2
7
62
36
Types of Convicted Offences
The overview below presents the types of offences of which the individuals brought to trial were
found guilty.3 The overview focuses on offences that amount to at least 5% of the guilty verdicts.
In order to ensure certain relativity, the offences are shown as a percentage. In the cases where
one individual was found guilty of more than one offence, all convicted offences are included
separately.
The analysis considered the countries’ specifics and definitions of offences in the national
legislations. With a view to avoid fragmentation, and terminology or translation inaccuracies,
some offences have been grouped, e.g. offences such as ‘participation in a terrorist organisation’,
‘belonging to a terrorist organisation’, ‘membership of a terrorist organisation’ have been
combined under ‘membership of a terrorist organisation or similar’.
A closer look at the information available in open sources or shared with Eurojust in the
reporting period reveals a slightly narrower spectrum of terrorist offences in the Member States
concerned (please see Figure 4 below), compared to what was reported in previous issues of the
TCM. The majority (43%) of the convicted offences in May – August 2013 were related to
(attempted) assassination. The second largest type of offences (14%) concerned illicit
possession, storing, etc. of weapons and explosives. Causing damage or destruction with a
terrorist purpose presented 11% of the convicted offences. In comparison with what was
reported in the previous issue of the TCM, there is a decrease in convictions for membership of a
terrorist organisation or similar (constituting 16% in the period January – April 2013) and no
reported convictions on some other recurring offences, such as recruitment for example.
The overview that follows is based on the information on offences as found in open sources or as reported to
Eurojust by the national authorities. Open sources information can be incomplete or inaccurate; therefore the
overview should be treated with caution until confirmed by the competent authorities of the respective Member
States.
3
24
Court Decisions
Legal Update
Judicial Analysis
The Way Ahead
Figure 4
50%
43%
40%
30%
20%
14%
10%
11%
8%
6%
5%
0%
Pronounced Sentences
The severity of the penalties pronounced in the court proceedings related to terrorism that were
concluded in the period May – August 2013 ranged between four months and 54 years’
imprisonment (please see Figure 5 below). In France the court handed down a life imprisonment
sentence to one individual and in Denmark the two legal entities that were found guilty were
ordered to pay a fine. In some cases pecuniary penalties were given in addition to prison terms.
Prison sentences were sometimes also accompanied by temporary deprivation of certain civil
rights.
The majority of the penalties imposed (24%) are of up to five years’ imprisonment. The
penalties of up to ten years’ imprisonment present 47%, while those exceeding 20 years’
imprisonment comprised 20% of all the penalties handed down in the reporting period. In
comparison with what was reported in the previous TCM, there is a decrease in the penalties of
up to five or ten years’ imprisonment and an increase in the ones exceeding 20 years’
imprisonment.
25
Figure 5
Number of sentences per length
25
20
7
15
2
6
5
0
26
3
10
1
2
2
1
BE
DK
FR
1
6
2
2
2
1
1
1
DE
IE
LT
SK
3
2
ES
UK
Other/Unavailable
30+ years
26-30 years
21-25 years
16-20 years
11-15 years
6-10 years
0-5 years
Court Decisions
III.
Legal Update
Judicial Analysis
The Way Ahead
Legal Update
1. EU
May – August 2013
European Institutions
May 2013
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 439/2013 of 13 May 2013 amending for the
192nd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures
directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network was adopted.
The Regulation amends Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 by deleting one natural person
from the list.
Source: Official Journal of the European Union.
June 2013
The Joint Proposal for a Council Regulation amending for the 193rd time Council Regulation
(EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain
persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network was presented. It maintains the
listing of Usama Bin Laden in Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 and provides for
additional exemption from the freezing measures in accordance with paragraph 32 of UNSC
Resolution 2083 (2012).
Source: Council of the European Union.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 632/2013 of 28 June 2013 amending for the
194th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures
The Regulation amends Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 by updating the information
regarding one entity on the list. It adds Jabhat al Nusrah, Jabhet al-Nusra, Al-Nusrah Front, The
Victory Front, Al-Nusrah Front for the People of the Levant, and Islamic State in Iraq and the
Levant as aliases of Al-Qaida in Iraq.
July 2013
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 646/2013 of 4 July 2013 amending Council
Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons
and entities with a view to combating terrorism was adopted. The Regulation amends Annex I to
Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 by replacing the address details under the heading ‘Latvia’.
27
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 652/2013 of 9 July 2013 amending for the 195th
time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures
from the list and updating the information regarding another natural person on the list.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 682/2013 of 17 July 2013 amending for the
from the list.
Council Decision 2013/395/CFSP of 25 July 2013 updating and amending the list of persons,
groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the
application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision 2012/765/CFSP
was adopted. The Decision sets out the list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3
and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP apply.
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 714/2013 of 25 July 2013 implementing Article 2(3)
of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain
persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing
Regulation (EU) No 1169/2012 was adopted. The Regulation replaces the list provided for in
Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 with a new one. The list includes, inter alia, the
Hezbollah Military Wing. Following the adoption of the Regulation, the Council underlined that
the decision does not hinder the continuation of dialogue with all political parties in Lebanon
and does not affect the assistance delivered to Lebanon.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 731/2013 of 29 July 2013 amending for the
from the list and updating the information regarding another natural person on the list.
August 2013
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 754/2013 of 5 August 2013 amending for the
198th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive
measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network
was adopted. The Regulation amends Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 by adding one
28
Court Decisions
Legal Update
Judicial Analysis
The Way Ahead
natural person to the list and updating the information regarding four other natural persons
on the list.
Directive 2013/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013 on
attacks against information systems and replacing Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA
was adopted. The Directive points out the increasing concern about the potential for terrorist or
politically motivated attacks against information systems which form part of the critical
infrastructure of Member States and of the Union. It recognises the existence of significant gaps
and differences in Member States’ laws and criminal procedures in the area of attacks against
information systems which may hamper the fight against organised crime and terrorism, and
may complicate effective police and judicial cooperation in this area.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 831/2013 of 29 August 2013 amending for the
from the list and updating the information regarding three other natural persons on the list.
2. EU Member States
May – August 2013
The United Kingdom
July 2013
The UK government endorsed an Order providing that the al-Nusrah Front and Jabhat al-Nusrah
li-ahl al Sham should be treated as alternative names for the organisation which is already
proscribed under the name Al Qa’ida. The list of proscribed terrorist organisations was updated
accordingly. In the annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament
covering the period June 2012 – June 2013 the al-Nusrah Front is mentioned as “offshoot” of Al
Qaida in Iraq based in Syria that has access to significant numbers of foreign fighters, including
UK nationals.
Sources: Gov.uk.
29
IV.
Judicial Analysis
The present analytical chapter has been produced in an attempt to provide an insight into terrorist
judgements rendered throughout the EU area. It is intended to help practitioners and offer relevant case
studies and/or comparative analyses. The judgments to be analysed have been purposefully selected. The
analysis focuses on the most interesting aspects of the case, rather than covering all issues and arguments
addressed by the court.
Procedure: Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), the United Kingdom
Date of decision: 21 December 2012
Introduction
In December 2011 the Kingston-upon-Thames Crown Court found one defendant guilty of seven
counts of disseminating a terrorist publication by distribution, contrary to s.2(1)(a) and (2) of
the Terrorism Act 2006, and four counts of possessing information likely to be useful to a person
committing or preparing an act of terrorism, contrary to s.58(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The disseminated publications (books and DVDs) were sold in a bookshop managed by the
defendant and/or offered for sale on its website. The defendant, who had been charged with a
total of 30 counts contrary to the above-mentioned sections of the Terrorism Act 2006 and the
Terrorism Act 2000, was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.4 Following his conviction, the
man submitted an appeal which was considered by the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal.
The analysis that follows focuses on some aspects considered in the decision of the Court of
Appeal. Particular attention is given to the role of evidence, such as possession of similar
material by terrorist offenders, the claimed terrorist nature of several publications and the
relevance to the alleged encouragement to commit acts of terrorism.
Grounds of Appeal
A. The appellant submitted an appeal against his conviction of seven counts of disseminating a
terrorist publication by distribution, contrary to s.2(1)(a) and (2) of the Terrorism Act 2006.5
The appeal was based on the ground that the first instance judge permitted the prosecution to
adduce in evidence the possession by terrorist offenders of material similar or identical to that
allegedly disseminated by the appellant, for the purpose of considering whether the material
comprised “a terrorist publication” in conformity with s.2 of the Terrorism Act 2006.
B. The appellant sought an additional ground of appeal against his conviction of one of those
counts claiming that the first instance judge failed to leave to the jury the constituent parts of the
offence created by s.2 of the Terrorism Act 2006 in terms which were compatible with the
The defendant was previously arrested as part of an operation to foil a plot to kidnap and kill a member of the armed
forces. At the trial that followed, the prosecution accepted that there was no link between the appellant and the plot.
5 The relevant provisions of the Terrorism Act 2006 are included at the end of this chapter.
4
30
Court Decisions
Legal Update
Judicial Analysis
The Way Ahead
appellant's right of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on
Human Rights (ECHR).
The Case at the Court of Appeal
A. First ground of appeal
When deliberating on the first ground of appeal, the Court of Appeal considered the relevant
facts, the prosecution case, the defence case and the direction given to the jury by the first
instance judge.
The Facts
The appellant was the manager of the Maktabah Islamic bookshop in Birmingham, which traded
both from the bookshop and by means of a website, and published for sale books, articles, videos
and DVDs. The publications, for which the appellant was charged and convicted by the Kingstonupon-Thames Crown Court and which were subject of his appeal, included:
1) “Milestones—Special Edition”, edited by the appellant in his pen name and containing the
original “Milestones”, written by a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood, executed
in Egypt in 1966 by the Egyptian authorities, as well as a biography of the author of
“Milestones”, and nine appendices containing works by various authors.
2) “Malcolm X, Bonus Disc”, containing a film about the life of the deceased Muslim leader, a
number of trailers and other recordings of interviews with the families of men who had
died “fighting” U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Israeli forces in the occupied Palestinian
territory, and footage of a suicide bomber driving to his death in Iraq.
3) “21st Century Crusaders”, purporting to be a documentary focusing upon the suffering of
Muslims around the world and including an interview with a masked man who defended
terrorist attacks by or on behalf of Al Qaida.
4) “The Lofty Mountain”, including, inter alia, a text written by a deceased Muslim leader6,
as well as accounts of the 1987 Battle of the Lion's Den and the author’s account of the
role of the killed Al Qaida leader in expelling the Russian army from Afghanistan
5) “Join the Caravan”, a book founded upon a text by the author of “The Lofty Mountain”.
6) “Defence of the Muslim Lands”, a book founded upon a text by the author of “The Lofty
Mountain” and including appendices discussing the justification for suicide operations in
Chechnya.
7) ”The Absent Obligation”, centred on a text written in the 1970s by an Egyptian Muslim
executed by the Egyptian authorities. The text argued for the need for jihad in defence of
the Islamic faith against a corrupt ruler.
According to open sources, the author is also known as the Father of Global Jihad and was a teacher and mentor of
the killed Al Qaida leader, and co-founder of Hamas and Lashkar-e-Taiba. Source: Wikipedia.
6
31
The prosecution case
According to the prosecution, those books, articles, videos and DVDs supported the case for
militant Islam. It alleged that the appellant intended his conduct to be a direct or indirect
encouragement of acts of terrorism or that he was reckless as to whether his conduct would
have that effect. The above-mentioned publications sought to encourage the followers of Islam
to attack unbelievers and to seek martyrdom in the pursuit of jihad. They sought to achieve that
encouragement by providing a purported theological justification for such attacks, particularly,
but not exclusively, on those who occupied Islamic lands, and by celebrating the achievements of
militant and terrorist followers of Islam.
The prosecution presented evidence of the possession of several of the publications by offenders
convicted of terrorist offences. Among those offenders were the seven individuals convicted in
relation to a plot to blow up aircraft flying between Great Britain and the United States using
improvised explosives, one individual convicted of making an explosive substance with the
intent to endanger life and the preparation of terrorist acts, two individuals convicted of
membership of Al Qaida, one of the investigated in relation to the bombing of the London
Underground on 7 July 2005, etc. According to the analysis of the prosecution, 26% of the 94
searches performed in the course of investigations into terrorist offences by May 2008 revealed
items disseminated by Maktabah. This evidence was claimed to be relevant as to whether the
items were terrorist publications within the meaning of s.2(3) and (4) of the Terrorism Act
2006, as to the appellant's intent in distributing the publications under s.2(1), and/or whether
the material was being disseminated by the appellant within the meaning of s.2(2) of the same
act.
In the view of the prosecution, the evidence that these publications were found in the hands of
terrorists provided a proper basis for the conclusion by the jury that they were terrorist
publications. The fact that the prospective readership of such documents included those who
were engaged in acts of terrorism was essential in order to assess whether it was likely that a
publication would be understood, at least by some, as an encouragement to the commission of
acts of terrorism.
The prosecution called also two experts to assist the jury at the Kingston-upon-Thames Crown
Court in judging the publications. They gave evidence about the mainstream religion and the
corruption of the Islamic concept of “jihad of the sword” for modern political purposes, as well
as the radicalisation of young Muslims, the development of Al Qaida and the relationship
between one of the authors of the publications and Al Qaida leadership. Both experts were
permitted to give their opinion upon the likely effect of the publications in the context in which
they were disseminated.
The defence case
With regard to the latter, the defence claimed that the jury should not rely upon the opinion of
the experts called by the prosecution. Their expertise and independence were challenged in
cross-examination. According to the defence, none of the publications disseminated by the
appellant encouraged acts of terrorism. They placed into the market for interested readers and
viewers material whose content was, and encouraged, only intelligent discussion of religious
and political theory. Upon a proper reading or viewing it did not encourage acts of terrorism.
With regard to the evidence of the possession of several of the publications by convicted
terrorist offenders, the defence submitted that it did not have to do with the alleged facts of the
32
Court Decisions
Legal Update
Judicial Analysis
The Way Ahead
offences charged. If it was admissible at all, then it was admissible as bad character evidence. An
investigation into the motivation of each of those offenders would be required in order to find
out whether or not a publication was understood by those offenders as encouraging acts of
terrorism. According to the defence, the possession of several of the publications by convicted
terrorist offenders was not substantially probative as to whether a publication was a “terrorist
publication”.
Many of the convicted terrorists had also other publications in their possession and if they had
been influenced at all, they might have been influenced by that other material rather than the
one referred to in the present case. It was entirely possible that those “of a jihadi disposition”
acquire all sorts of material as a form of declaration or self-justification. It did not follow that
they were converted to jihadism or were encouraged by the terms of the publications
themselves to commit terrorist acts. Furthermore, according to s.2(8) of the Terrorism Act 2006,
“it is irrelevant … whether any person … is in fact encouraged or induced by that matter to
commit, prepare, or instigate acts of terrorism”. In the view of the defence, the declaration of
irrelevance should have been determinative of the judge's decision as to the admission of the
material. The issue of the material's capacity to encourage was to be judged solely upon an
assessment of its contents in the context in which it was disseminated.
Direction of the first instance judge
The judge directed the jury to consider each publication in turn when considering the capacity of
any of the publications as an encouragement to terrorist acts. However, when considering
whether the appellant intended to encourage, or was reckless as to whether others would be
encouraged, the jury were entitled to consider all of the publications disseminated by the
appellant.
With regard to the possession of several of the publications by convicted terrorist offenders, the
judge accepted the appellant's contention that there was no more than a tenuous link between
the possession by terrorists of such material and the intention of the appellant in disseminating
it. The judge, however, considered it valuable explanatory evidence to know who bought the
publications as well as the fact that the defendant was known personally to the author of one of
these publications. The judge accepted the prosecution’s submission as to the relevance and
probative value of the evidence to the question of whether the publication concerned is in fact a
terrorist publication at the time it was distributed or possessed by the defendant. The judge
considered it clearly relevant that a small, but significant, number of those, who came by the
publications, did in fact commit terrorist offences.
The first instance judge recognised the potential of the evidence of the possession of several of
the publications by convicted terrorist offenders to cause unfair prejudice to the appellant. In his
judgment, however, the jury was to place the evidence in the limited category in which the judge
allowed the prosecution to put it.
The opinion of the Court of Appeal
The first instance judge found the evidence of the possession of several of the publications by
convicted terrorist offenders to be relevant as to whether the content of the publications was
likely to be understood by some or all persons, to whom it was or may become available, as a
direct or indirect encouragement to commit acts of terrorism. The jury was to judge the effect of
each publication upon the mind of its reader, not upon the jury’s own mind. A publication's
33
readership may include historians, theologians, academics, liberal and conservative Muslims,
militant jihadists, the weak and impressionable, and the strong and independent. Therefore, the
jury had to consider the range of people who formed the market for the publication.
According to the Court of Appeal, it was probable that among Maktabah’s readership there
would be some who were more likely than others to interpret any given text as encouragement.
The judge correctly found that the composition of the publication's readership could be an
important facet of the jury's consideration of the issue whether some of them would understand
the publication to be an encouragement to commit terrorist acts. If the jury had admissible
evidence that some readers had in fact been encouraged by a publication to commit terrorist
offences, that evidence would also be relevant to their consideration of the likely effect of the
publication upon its readership. However, the Court of Appeal noted the danger of elision of the
consideration of the readership of a publication for the purpose of judging the publication's
likely effect upon them, on the one hand, and the consideration of evidence that people who had
read it were in fact encouraged to commit terrorist offences, on the other.
The Court of Appeal rejected the argument of the appellant that evidence, which demonstrated
that people were encouraged by a publication, was inadmissible because s.2(8) of the Terrorism
Act 2006 provided that it was irrelevant for the purposes of that section whether or not anyone
was encouraged by a publication. The Court of Appeal referred to s.2(7) and (8), according to
which the offence could be committed (1) whether the encouragement was to commit a specific
terrorist act or terrorists acts generally; and (2) whether or not any person was actually
encouraged to commit acts of terrorism. Admissible evidence that a person was indeed
encouraged by a publication to commit terrorist acts would be admissible in support of the
prosecution case that people were likely to be encouraged by the publication to commit terrorist
acts. The prosecution, however, did not rely on the evidence of the possession of several of the
publications by convicted terrorist offenders in order to prove that certain individuals were
encouraged to commit terrorist acts, as this evidence was not direct.
In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the evidence was admissible, if at all, for the extremely
limited purpose of demonstrating that among the readership of the Maktabah publications were
people who were prepared to commit terrorist acts. But if the evidence was admitted for that
purpose, it was relevant only to the question whether such people were likely to regard the
contents of the publication as encouragement to commit terrorist acts. It was not admissible in
proof of the fact that people had been so encouraged. The Court of Appeal pointed out the
danger that the jury would condemn the publication purely by reason of its association with
known terrorists. The temptation to move to the conclusion that terrorists would not be in
possession of a publication unless it encouraged them to acts of terrorism was considered by the
Court of Appeal as a powerful one; but such a conclusion would, in its opinion, be speculative,
unfair and prejudicial.
The Court of Appeal referred also to the danger of elision of two questions: “Would some of the
readership have understood the publication to be an encouragement to commit terrorist acts?”
and “Did the publications encourage terrorists to commit the terrorist acts?” According to the
Court of Appeal, the presented statistics that 26% of the 94 searches performed in the course of
investigations into terrorist offences by May 2008 revealed items disseminated by Maktabah,
added another prejudicial dimension. A proper “statistical” exercise, in the Court’s opinion,
would be very difficult to carry out, and would pose formidable problems of explanation to the
jury. The 26% figure itself might be dubious, as it did not include those who would be disposed
to carry out terrorist acts if they had the chance, nor those who might have committed violent
offences with an undetected terrorist motive. The Court of Appeal pointed out that it was not
known how many young Muslim men with no terrorist intentions whatsoever possessed the
34
Court Decisions
Legal Update
Judicial Analysis
The Way Ahead
relevant material. Therefore, the 26% figure had no substantial probative value in showing
either that those who possessed the relevant material were likely to be terrorists or that the
relevant material was likely to encourage the commission of terrorist acts.
The Court of Appeal did not consider that the evidence was admissible except for the narrowest
purpose. If it was to be admitted at all, the terms of the admission should have been strictly
confined. The reference to s.2(8) of the Terrorism Act 2006 was not enough to avoid the risk of
the improper use of the evidence to establish encouragement or to remove the risk of prejudice
merely by association. In any case, it was essential that the limitations and pitfalls of the
evidence should have been explained to the jury. Even though the first instance judge recognised
the potential of the evidence of the possession of several of the publications by terrorist
offenders to cause unfair prejudice to the appellant, within the summing-up he did not provide
any direction warning the jury against making improper use of the material.
B. Additional ground of appeal
The additional ground of appeal was confined to the capacity of “Milestones—Special Edition” to
encourage acts of terrorism. In his submission, the appellant referred to Article 10 (Freedom of
expression) of the ECHR. In the pre-trial hearing the first instance judge held that the defendant
“had knowledge of a serious and obvious risk that a publication will have the effect of
encouraging, directly or indirectly, the commission of terrorist offences”. The judge found that
the offence created a legitimate and proportionate restriction on the right of the individual to
freedom of expression, as provided for in Article 10(2) of the ECHR.7
The appellant built his arguments on several claims, including that the subject matter of the
publication was “political or religious ideas” and that the publication was a “legitimate
expression of a political or religious view”. He alleged a violation of Article 10 of the ECHR, since,
without further restrictions, the offence as created by s.2 of the Terrorism Act 2006 would be
disproportionate and unnecessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security
and for the prevention of disorder and crime.
At the first instance trial, the judge directed the jury not to return a guilty verdict unless they
were sure of the following three facts: (1) that the appellant distributed a publication; (2) that at
the time of distribution the publication would be understood by a significant number of its
readers, directly or by necessary implication, to be encouraging the instigation, preparation or
commission of a terrorist offence within a reasonable time-scale; and (3) that at the time of
distribution the appellant intended that the publication should be so understood or, knowing of
a serious and obvious risk that it would be so understood, he distributed it. In judging the
capacity of the publication to encourage unlawful acts of terrorism, the question whether the
publication was a correct interpretation of the teaching of Islam was of marginal relevance.
The Court of Appeal considered the definition of the offence, as it was formulated by the judge to
the jury, as well as the terms in which he guided them as to their legitimate approach. According
to the Court of Appeal, the judge defined the offence in a way which could not arguably offend
the appellant's right to freedom of expression, as defined in Article 10 of the ECHR. It was
Article 10(2) reads as follows: “The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities,
may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of
disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for
preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of
the judiciary.”
7
35
perfectly obvious to the jury that they could not convict the appellant merely because his
publication expressed a religious or political view, whether controversial or not. In the opinion
of the Court of Appeal, it could not be argued that a publication, which to the knowledge of the
appellant carried a real risk that it would be understood by a significant number of readers as
encouraging the unlawful commission of terrorist offences, should be entitled to exemption (in
consequence of Article 10 of the ECHR) merely because it expressed political or religious views.
Decision of the Court of Appeal
The Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal regarded the convictions upon the seven counts
covered by the first ground of appeal as unsafe. Those convictions were quashed. The appeal on
the additional ground was rejected.
Section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006, in its relevant parts, provides as follows:
“2. (1) A person commits an offence if he engages in conduct falling within sub-section (2) and, at the time he does so
(a) he intends an effect of his conduct to be a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to the
commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism;
(b) he intends an effect of his conduct to be the provision of assistance in the commission or preparation of such acts;
or
(c) he is reckless as to whether his conduct has an effect mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b).
(2) For the purposes of this section a person engages in conduct falling within this sub-section if he –
(a) distributes or circulates a terrorist publication;
...
(f) has such a publication in his possession with a view to its becoming the subject of conduct falling within any of
paragraphs (a) to (e).
(3) For the purposes of this section a publication is a terrorist publication, in relation to conduct falling within subsection (2), if matter contained in it is likely –
(a) to be understood, by some or all of the persons to whom it is or may become available as a consequence of that
conduct, as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or
instigation of acts of terrorism; or
(b) to be useful in the commission or preparation of such acts and to be understood, by some or all of those persons,
as contained in the publication, or made available to them, wholly or mainly for the purpose of being so useful to
them.
(4) For the purposes of this section matter that is likely to be understood by a person as indirectly encouraging the
commission or preparation of acts of terrorism includes any matter which –
(a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts; and
(b) is matter from which that person could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being
glorified as conduct that should be emulated by him in existing circumstances.
(5) For the purposes of this section the question whether a publication is a terrorist publication in relation to
particular conduct must be determined –
(a) as at the time of that conduct; and
(b) having regard both to the contents of the publication as a whole and to the circumstances in which that conduct
occurs.
(6) In sub-section (1) references to the effect of a person's conduct in relation to a terrorist publication include
references to an effect of the publication on one or more persons to whom it is or may become available as a
consequence of that conduct.
(7) It is irrelevant for the purposes of this section whether anything mentioned in sub-sections (1) to (4) is in relation
to the commission, preparation or instigation of one or more particular acts of terrorism, of acts of terrorism of a
particular description or of acts of terrorism generally.
(8) For the purposes of this section it is also irrelevant, in relation to matter contained in any article, whether any
person –
(a) is in fact encouraged or induced by that matter to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism; or
36
Court Decisions
Legal Update
Judicial Analysis
The Way Ahead
(b) in fact makes use of it in the commission or preparation of such acts.
(9) In proceedings for an offence under this section against a person in respect of conduct to which sub-section (10)
applies it is a defence for him to show –
(a) that the matter by reference to which the publication in question was a terrorist publication neither expressed his
views nor had his endorsement (whether by virtue of section 3 or otherwise); and
(b) that it was clear, in all the circumstances of the conduct, that that matter did not express his views and (apart from
the possibility of his having been given and failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (3) of that section) did
not have his endorsement;
(10) This sub-section applies to the conduct of a person to the extent that –
(a) the publication to which his conduct related contained matter by reference to which it was a terrorist publication
by virtue of sub-section (3) (a); and
(b) that person is not proved to have engaged in that conduct with the intention specified in sub-section (1) (a).
…
(13) … ‘publication’ means an article or record of any description that contains any of the following, or any
combination of them –
(a) matter to be read;
(b) matter to be listened to;
(c) matter to be looked at or watched.”
37
V.
The Way Ahead
Ongoing/Upcoming Trials
May – August 2013
The overview below includes a selection of ongoing and upcoming trials where decisions are expected within
the next few months. Any further developments, resulting in convictions or acquittals, will be presented in the
next issue(s) of the TCM.
Belgium
The case against the members of the extremist group Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw (BBET) will
be heard again in October after it has been stopped awaiting a decision of the Constitutional
Court. The defendants have been charged with terrorism and possession of weapons following
house searches in 2006 that revealed hundreds of weapons. The ruling of the Court is expected
at the end of 2013 or beginning of 2014.
Source: HLN.
Denmark
Eleven individuals have been charged with terrorist fundraising to the benefit of the Kurdistan
Workers' Party (PKK). The eleven have allegedly collected 130 million kroner (EUR 17.4 million)
for the terrorist organisation and are believed to have had close and long-lasting relationships
with the separatists. Six persons have been accused of having actively participated in collecting
money in Denmark, four are suspected of having distributed funds to other European countries,
while one individual is also accused of having sent money to the PKK in 2006 and 2007. The
prosecution is still to announce the penalties it will seek.
Source: Global Post.
France
One person has been charged with attempted murder linked to a terrorist enterprise for the
alleged stabbing of a French soldier in Paris. The stabbing that happened in a busy part of the
city came shortly after a soldier was stabbed dead in the Woolwich area of London. The suspect
has admitted the attack. An hour before the attack he bought two knives, then said a Muslim
prayer and stabbed the soldier several times in the neck. According to the prosecution, the
suspect had a clear intention to kill his victim. He had a record for petty crime and was known to
have been radicalised but had not been considered dangerous.
Source: BBC.
38
Court Decisions
Legal Update
Judicial Analysis
The Way Ahead
Germany
The Higher Regional Court of Munich continues the hearings in the case of a series of racist
murders of mainly Turkish victims. A female defendant – an alleged member of the far-right
National Socialist Underground (NSU) and the only survivor of the three-member group – is
charged for her role in the murders. The other two members of the group had committed suicide
following an unsuccessful bank robbery. Four alleged abetters stand trial as well. According to
the prosecution, the woman aided and abetted major criminal offences. She is indicted for her
involvement in the murder of nine immigrant shopkeepers and a policewoman. In addition, she
is charged with abetting two bomb attacks, arson and 15 bank robberies with several injured
victims. The prosecution is aiming for a lifelong sentence. The Court has thus far heard several
witnesses but not the defendant. A note from the board of enquiry of the German Bundestag is
expected in September, emphasizing the mistakes in the investigations against the terror group.
The Court announced that an end of the proceedings would not be reached before the end of
2014.
Sources: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung/Die Welt.
Greece
Five individuals have been charged with participation in a terrorist group for their alleged
involvement in the activities of the Conspiracy of the Cells of Fire. The prosecution has pressed
additional charges against two of them for allegedly establishing and joining a criminal
organisation with the purpose of committing robberies. The evidence includes, inter alia, genetic
material.
Source: Athens News Agency.
Six individuals face charges of membership of a terrorist organisation (the Revolutionary
People’s Liberation Party/Front, DHKP-C) and possession of weapons with the intent to use
them in acts of terrorism. The three Greek and three Turkish citizens were arrested following
the seizure of an arms shipment in the Aegean Sea. A speedboat intercepted by the Greek
authorities and allegedly heading to Turkey had antitank weapons, handguns, hand grenades
and improvised explosive devices as well as DHKP-C flags on board. Three of the arrested
individuals are wanted by Turkey on suspicion of membership of DHKP-C. Two others were
arrested in Athens and charged with using forged identity documents.
Source: EnetEnglish.
Italy
The prosecution has brought terrorism charges against activists opposing the construction of
the high-speed rail (TAV) that will connect Lyon, France, and Turin, Italy. The activists used
stones, firecrackers and other explosive devices to attack the police when they attempted to
execute search orders in the premises of the anti-TAV protestors. Over the past few years, series
of protests have been organised against the TAV project due to its cost and environmental
impact and several activist have been convicted and imprisoned. It is, however, for the first time
that terrorism charges have been pressed.
Source: ANSA.
39
The Netherlands
At a trial in Rotterdam one defendant has been accused of preparing a terrorist act based on his
alleged plans to travel to Syria with the intention to wage jihad. The case which was heard by the
judge in July 2013 is the first case in the Netherlands in which a defendant is prosecuted for
plans to participate in jihadist activities abroad. Following the examinations by a psychologist
and a psychiatrist the defendant was declared to be suffering from a psychiatric condition. As a
result, the prosecution asked the Court to declare the defendant guilty without imposing a
penalty. Instead, the public prosecutor requested the Court to commit the defendant to a mental
hospital for a period of one year. In August 2013 the Rotterdam Court stated that more
information was needed from the psychologist and the psychiatrist who examined the defendant
before. The Court is expected to reconvene for a new hearing in October 2013 in which these
experts are invited to give further information. 8
Source: Nederlands Dagblad/De Telegraaf.
At the Rotterdam Court one defendant has been charged with planning to travel to Syria in order
to commit a terrorist attack. The public prosecutor has postponed the case for October in order
to wait for the outcome of the case mentioned above which concerns similar allegations. The
defendant in the present case was initially arrested in May 2012, following his Internet postings
that he was willing to take part in jihad in Syria. At the time of his arrest, the police found 10
meters of ignition cord, a kilo of aluminium powder and several DVDs with jihadist materials.
The defendant was released on bail in June 2013, provided that he would stay in the
Netherlands. However, later, he got arrested in Germany. According to the prosecution, the
defendant carried almost no luggage and intended to travel to Syria through Turkey. The
defendant, however, claimed that he merely wanted to visit Istanbul and have “some time off”.9
Source: De Volkskrant.
The leader of the extremist group Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw (BBET) faces trial in Alkmaar for
possession of weapons, together with another group member and activists of the Dutch neo-Nazi
group Ulfhednar, related to the Dutch Blood and Honour. The BBET leader was arrested together
with some members of the Ulfhednar in October 2011 on a signal by the intelligence service. The
men carried a big bag full of weapons and munitions.
Source: HLN.
The United Kingdom
One man has been charged with three offences related to the dissemination of extremist
materials. The man was arrested after he gave an interview in the BBC’s Newsflash programme
about one of the two individuals charged with the May 2013 murder of a soldier in Woolwich,
London. According to the police, the disseminated materials included a series of video-taped
lectures ‘In Pursuit of Allah's Governance on the Earth’, as well as some other videos and texts,
which the prosecution qualified as direct or indirect encouragement to the commission,
preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
Source: The Guardian.
8
9
The outcome of the case will be reported in the next issue of the TCM.
Idem.
40
Court Decisions
Legal Update
Judicial Analysis
The Way Ahead
Two individuals have been charged with encouragement to the commission, preparation or
instigation of acts of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications. The charges relate to
the making and distribution of videos about the killing of a soldier in Woolwich, London, in May
2013. The plea and the case management hearing is expected in November 2013.
Source: Sky News/The Irish Examiner.
One defendant has been charged with terrorism-related murder, preparing acts of terrorism and
causing an explosion likely to endanger life. He was arrested for his alleged involvement in the
bombing of three mosques in Walsall, Tipton and Wolverhampton in June and July 2013 and the
murder of an 82-year old Muslim who was killed as he walked home from a mosque. The man,
who has a year-long visa to stay in the United Kingdom, admitted his actions were motivated by
racial hatred. In his apartment the police found chemicals and bomb-making equipment.
According to the police, he was not linked to any organisation but would have likely continued to
commit further offences, if he had not been arrested. The sentencing is expected in October
2013.
Source: BBC.
41
42
Contact and Analysis Team
Contact
Michèle Coninsx, President of Eurojust and Chair of the Counter-Terrorism Team
Analysis Team
Alinde Verhaag, Head of Case Analysis Unit
Petya Ibens, Analyst, Case Analysis Unit
Patrick Van Berlo, Intern to the Case Analysis Unit
Annabell Ketels, Intern to the Case Analysis Unit
43
Eurojust October 2013
Copyright of EuroJust 2012

Terrorism Convictions Monitor - Procura Generale della Cassazione

Transcription

Similar documents

5. Die Britse militere diens: Plaaslike Burger

Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing

Stony Brook Press V. 23, N. 03 - DSpace Home

The New Wave of Terrorism: The ISIS Case

Hypothetically Speaking - Philadelphia Bar Association

Why Buy Travel Insurance?

YAYASAN BUDI PENYAYANG MALAYSIA (522532-M)

2016 May-June - Warren County Bar Association

ff!J

Dynzel Jones - Media Trackers

- Santa Clara Law Digital Commons

Volume VII, Issue 4 - Perspectives on Terrorism