A/HRC/33/48 Policy. European Union restrictive measures may also be challenged indirectly through recourse to a preliminary ruling under article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, when an issue relating to interpretation of European Union sanctions legislation arises in proceedings before a national court of one of the 27 European Union member States. 55. With regard to the various grounds for review, it should be noted that a restrictive measure may be annulled if the institution concerned is found to have “misused” its power or used its power for purposes other than that for which it was granted. However, a more common reason is manifest error of assessment.48 Such a review requires that the measures be substantiated by evidence and that the evidence be accurate, reliable, consistent and sufficiently complete. A judicial review may also be conducted in relation to rights of process, that is, the right to know the reasons for a legal measure, the right to a hearing in which one’s interests are restricted, protection of one’s right of defence in the case of possible sanction and the right to the administration of one’s affairs with due care by the European Union institutions. A review may also be requested in relation to infringement of a treaty or any rule of law relating to its application, including breach of any substantive provision of European Union law and violation of fundamental rights. It also encompasses legal principles developed by the Court of Justice, namely non-discrimination, proportionality, legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations. 49 56. Judicial review by the courts of the European Union does not extend, however, to a review of the general motivations underlying the political decision to implement a sanctions regime or to blacklist a person. This means that European Union political institutions have broad discretion in defining the general criteria which are to determine the scope of targeted persons, entities and activities.50 Therefore, it appears that the European Union courts are unlikely to address the legality of European Union restrictive measures from the viewpoint of their compliance with international law, although such compliance is actually asserted by the Council of the European Council.51 57. Even if no precedent exists, it does not seem controversial that an action for annulment of European Union restrictive measures against a specific country could also be brought before the European Union courts by the Government of a targeted State.52 It seems to be well established that a third State (non-member of the European Union) can bring proceedings before the General Court or the Court of Justice under article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, provided that the State concerned meets the standing requirements set out in that article, i.e. that the measure complained of is of “direct concern” to it.53 48 49 50 51 52 53 As was the case, for example, in Safa Nicu Sepahan v. Council of the European Union, T-384/11,General Court (First Chamber), Judgment of 25 November 2014. See D. Chalmers, G. Davies and G. Monti, European Union Law, 3rd ed. (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2010), p. 396; on judicial review of United Nations and European Union sanctions by the European Union courts, see for example, G. de Búrca, “The European Court of Justice and the International Legal Order after Kadi”, Harvard International Law Journal, vol. 51, No. 2 (2010). See Allan Rosas, “EU sanctions policies”. See Council of the European Union, Guidelines on implementation and evaluation of restrictive measures in the framework of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (15 June 2012), para. 9, in which it is stated that “the introduction and implementation of restrictive measures must always be in accordance with international law”. Consultations at the European Court of Justice, 25 May 2016. See J. Rideau, « Recours en annulation – Conditions de recevabilité », Jurisclasseur Europe (Lexis Nexis, 2011), para. 71. At least one case — not related to sanctions — has been brought by a non- 15