Seco boss calls EU action “questionable under the rule of law”

Ever since the Russian army invaded Ukraine a year ago, the western world has been trying to find the right way to persuade warmonger Vladimir Putin (70) to surrender.

At the moment, representatives of the European Union are looking for ways to seize the foreign currency reserves of the National Bank of Russia and not only block, but also seize the assets of the Russian oligarchs. Idea: The money should be used to finance the rebuilding of Ukraine.

Switzerland has largely adopted EU sanctions in recent months: 7.5 billion Swiss francs and 15 properties from wealthy Russian assets are currently blocked. However, the federal government excludes the possibility that these funds will one day be seized, as the EU and also the US think.

A few days ago, the Federal Council issued a statement stating that “The seizure of frozen private assets is against the Federal Constitution, the applicable legal system and violates Switzerland’s international obligations”. This final decision caused international excitement. The leading business newspaper “Financial Times” also made it an issue.

The basis for the statement was statements made by an internal administrative working group chaired by the Federal Office of Justice. However, the legal analysis was provided by the State Secretariat of Economic Affairs (Seco), which is responsible for the enforcement and monitoring of economic sanctions in Switzerland.

Based on the Public Information Act, SonntagsBlick was able to view the article submitted to the Council of States Legal Affairs Committee at the end of October 2022. Signed by none other than Seco director Helene Budliger Artieda (57).

The legal interpretation does not look very ostentatious at first glance. Budliger dryly explains to Artieda why the Embargo Act, Penal Code, Illegal Entities Act, or Federal Law on International Legal Aid in Criminal Matters cannot provide a legal basis for the expropriation of the Russian oligarchs.

EU criticism

On the other hand, the episode where the Seco boss discusses what legal basis should be created to enable future expropriations in Switzerland is explosive. In the relevant passage, the EU Foreign Minister accuses the EU of wanting to make a dubious maneuver to secure the seizure of Russian funds in the future.

Specifically, it concerns the extension of the reporting obligation for sanctioned persons and entities. Since July 2022, they have to report the assets they hold in an EU member state. If a sanctioned Russian fails to comply with this obligation, the EU classifies it as circumvention and must be penalized by member states.

Depending on the country, “seizure of undeclared assets” may also be considered, according to Budliger Artieda.

Officially, the planned extension of the reporting obligation is about tracking down more oligarch funds. But Budliger Artieda does not believe that more presence of sanctioned Russians will be discovered as a result. He has his suspicions, as he stated in a confidential letter to the legal commission: “The purpose of this extension of the reporting obligation appears to be more to punish violations of this new measure.”

Two paragraphs later, the senior official continues: “If one (…) assumes that the extension of the reporting obligation is primarily aimed at establishing a legal basis for the criminal confiscation of assets, it will be from the rule of law and the rule of law. policy opinion is questionable.”

this is sleeping. The head of the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, which is responsible for enforcing Russian sanctions in Switzerland, accuses his colleagues in Brussels of creating the possibility of a “suspicious rule of law” to seize the frozen assets of Russian oligarchs through the back door. .

How did Budliger Artieda get involved? And: Does the federal government also represent this view in direct consultation with the EU?

Seco is squirming

When asked by SonntagsBlick, the Seco boss tried to put his statements into perspective. The media office reports: “Seco follows EU decisions very closely and, after the expanded reporting obligation was introduced, made an assessment of their possible benefits and implications for Switzerland in relation to their adoption into national law. The quoted passage refers to these considerations and in no way refers to the EU. It does not reflect the attitude towards a decision to be taken by the

This argument is not convincing. Because it doesn’t change the fact that Budliger Artieda sees the extension of the reporting obligation and the punishment of violations of this measure as “questionable under the rule of law” – and thus the actions of the EU.

Meanwhile, it remains unclear how the Seco boss’ insult was received in Brussels. The media office of the Council of Europe, which has decided to extend the reporting requirement in the summer, does not want to comment on the “internal processes of a non-EU institution”.
At least not publicly.

Source :Blick