News
UK committed to keeping Hamas on EU terror list
The Foreign Office yesterday reaffirmed its position that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, despite a European General Court ruling which for the time being removed Hamas from the European Union’s (EU) terror blacklist on procedural grounds.
The EU first designated Hamas a terrorist group in 2003. In 2010, Hamas first appealed the classification over procedural issues relating to the EU’s original designation, alleging that the process infringed seven European regulations. Crucially, Hamas also challenged the quality of evidence brought against it to prove terror activity.
Yesterday, the court upheld Hamas’s complaints, concluding that the organisation had been designated a terror group, not due to “concrete examination” but rather “imputations derived from the media and the internet.” However, the court stressed that its ruling was based on “procedural grounds” and does not imply “any substantive assessment of the question of the classification of Hamas as a terrorist group.” It also said that a freeze on funds to Hamas would remain in place for three months, considered a window for the EU to challenge the ruling with new evidence of Hamas’s terror activity.
A statement from the Foreign Office indicated that the UK would contribute to such a challenge, saying, “We are studying the detail of the judgment carefully, and will work with partners to ensure that the Hamas listing at the EU is maintained.” The statement emphasised, “Today’s EU General Court judgment is procedural and does not mean the EU and UK have changed their position on Hamas.” The UK separately proscribed Hamas’s military wing in 2001.
Meanwhile, a statement from the European Union said that although “we respect” the court’s decision, it remains “a legal ruling of a court, not a political decision taken by the EU governments.” The statement added, “The EU institutions are studying carefully the ruling and will decide on the options open to them. They will, in due course, take appropriate remedial action, including any eventual appeal to the ruling.”