A/HRC/33/48 58. What remains unsettled is whether individuals or entities found to have been unlawfully subject to European Union restrictive measures could be awarded damages by the European Union courts. Under article 268 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, private parties may bring action for damages before the General Court alleging a non-contractual liability of the European Union.54 The Special Rapporteur confirmed that, to date, there has been only one decision by a European Union court granting damages to victims of wrongful restrictive measures. In this case,55 the applicant, an Iranian company, was listed in 2011 in the restrictive measures relating to nonproliferation against the Islamic Republic of Iran. The General Court found that the Council had “manifestly erred” in listing the applicant and had not discharged its burden of proof. It found that the Council’s error was “sufficiently serious” and had caused damage to the company’s reputation. As such, the Court annulled the company’s listing and awarded compensation for reputational harm suffered. However, the damages awarded were modest.56 59. Even if the judicial review of restrictive measures by European Union courts provides some form of legal remedy to affected persons and entities, and even if the scope and intensity of such judicial review appears unrivalled worldwide, some matters of concern remain. In particular, the practice of “relisting” delisted individuals or entities on other grounds, which is widely applied by the Council of the European Union, appears to the Special Rapporteur as a challenge to the authority of the European Union courts. Moreover, the pressure put on the courts by some States that have publicly criticized the delisting jurisprudence is a cause for concern.57 In the same way, the Special Rapporteur notes that uncertainties as to the possibility of actually obtaining compensation for damages as a result of unlawful restrictive measures from the courts are a significant limitation to the effectiveness of remedies for victims of unlawful restrictive measures in the European Union legal system. European Court of Human Rights 60. The European Court of Human Rights is competent to adjudicate on cases brought by individuals or legal entities for violations of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.58 54 55 56 57 58 16 member of the European Union against the European Commission before the General Court: see Swiss Confederation v. European Commission, C-547/10P, General Court (Third Chamber), Judgment of 7 March 2013. See A. Rosas, “Counter-terrorism and the rule of law: issues of judicial control”, in Counterterrorism: International Law and Practice, A.M. Salinas de Frias, K.L.H. Samuel and N.D. White, eds. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 91. See Safa Nicu Sepahan v. Council of the European Union, T-384/11, General Court (First Chamber), Judgment of 25 November 2014. This case is currently under appeal before the Court of Justice (C45/15 P). A few other cases in which delisted persons or entities are seeking damages are currently pending before the General Court. In this case, Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. claimed €7.66 million plus interest, including €2 million in damages for harm to its reputation, however, the Court awarded only €50,000 as compensation for reputational damage. Judge Allan Rosas noted that “it is true that the case law [of EU courts] has caused some consternation and concern among the Council and the Commission and some [EU] member States fearing that this judicial control would undermine the efficiency of EU sanctions; see Allan Rosas, “EU sanctions policies”. The European Convention on Human Rights was adopted in Rome on 4 November 1950 and entered into force on 3 September 1953. All 47 member States of the Council of Europe have ratified the Convention.