A/HRC/33/48 “autonomous” European Union measures, as was made clear in the case of Kadi and AlBarakaat International Foundation v. Council and Commission.44 The courts of the European Union have developed, over time, a rich jurisprudence of cases brought by individuals or entities subject to restrictive measures and, in some cases, the applicants have actually obtained “delisting”, even if the proportion of successful cases remains limited. Dozens of new actions for annulment are brought each year before the General Court. 45 Nonetheless, as was noted by Judge Allan Rosas, the fact that sanctions decisions are, in principle, subject to a “full” judicial control does not imply that the targeted persons or entities always, or even in most cases, succeed in obtaining the annulment of the restrictive measures. In fact, in 2015, most actions for annulment of Council decisions brought before the General Court were declared inadmissible or dismissed.46 52. The central provision governing direct actions for judicial review of European Union measures before European Union jurisdictions is article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 47 Such proceedings have to be instituted within two months of the publication of the measure, or of its notification to the plaintiff or, in the absence thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff. As regards restrictive measures enacted under the Common Foreign and Security Policy, one important point is that article 275 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union excludes, as a matter of principle, judicial review of acts relating to the Common Foreign and Security Policy. 53. However, the same article 275 provides for an exception to that principle: the Court shall have jurisdiction to monitor compliance with Article 40 of the Treaty on European Union and to rule on proceedings, brought in accordance with the conditions laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 of this Treaty, reviewing the legality of decisions providing for restrictive measures against natural or legal persons adopted by the Council on the basis of Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty on European Union. 54. It is therefore expressly provided that the General Court and the Court of Justice shall be competent to review the legality of decisions providing for restrictive measures against natural and legal persons adopted on the basis of the Common Foreign and Security 44 45 46 47 14 See Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), Judgment of 3 September 2008. In the summary of the judgment, the Court made it clear that “the Community judicature must … in accordance with the powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty, ensure the review, in principle the full review, of the lawfulness of all Community acts in the light of the fundamental rights forming an integral part of the general principles of Community law, including review of Community measures which, like the regulation at issue, are designed to give effect to the resolutions adopted by the Security Council”. In 2006, five actions for annulment of such acts were brought before the General Court; more recent figures are as follows: 93 new cases in 2011, 59 in 2012, 41 in 2013, 69 in 2014 and 55 in 2015. Much fewer cases are brought on appeal before the Court of Justice. In 2015, for instance, the Court decided seven such cases. See Allan Rosas, “EU sanctions policies: value imperialism, futile gesture politics or extravaganza of judicial control?”, presentation at a seminar on European Union restrictive measures, Tallinn, 5 February 2016. Ibid. Art. 263, fourth paragraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that “any natural or legal person may … institute proceedings against an act [of a European Union institution] addressed to that person or which is of direct and individual concern to them, and against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures”.