EU Approves New Sanctions Regime to Deter Cyberattackers
A London-based in-house counsel noted that the EU's decision includes broad language and appeared to be deliberately styled to “grant more flexibility” in imposing sanctions.
May 20, 2019 at 04:23 PM
3 minute read
The European Union used some uncharacteristically broad language in its decision approving the framework for bringing new sanctions against cyberattackers, according to a London-based in-house leader.
“This is highly un-technical language for a [European] Council decision,” Alessandro Galtieri, deputy general counsel of global telecom company Colt Technology Services, said Monday. He believed that the EU's decision during a May 17 meeting in Brussels was deliberately styled to “grant more flexibility” in imposing sanctions.
“A more technical approach would have been to identify cyberattacks as a reason to apply the existing sanctions regime,” Galtieri added. “But I suspect that this was seen as too cumbersome and slow, and the EU wanted to use a more flexible approach.”
The EU's decision to begin punishing cyberattackers with sanctions, including asset freezes and travel bans, comes amid concerns about possible Russian interference in the European Parliament elections next week.
U.K. Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt trumpeted the new sanctions regime as “decisive action to deter future cyberattacks.”
“For too long now, hostile actors have been threatening the EU's security through disrupting critical infrastructure, attempts to undermine democracy and stealing commercial secrets and money running to billions of Euros,” he added.
Under the new framework, EU members, including the U.K., will be able to sanction “persons or entities that are responsible for cyber-attacks or attempted cyber-attacks, who provide financial, technical or material support for such attacks or who are involved in other ways,” according to the European Council's decision.
The sanctions apply to cyberattacks and attempts that have a “significant impact” or “potentially significant effect” and originate from outside the EU or involve infrastructure, persons or entities beyond the EU's borders.
Cyberattackers who are identified could be banned from traveling to the EU and have their assets frozen, while EU residents and companies would be banned from “making funds available” to the blacklisted cyber villains.
“It won't deter state agents that much,” Galtieri said, “but may concentrate the minds of those in Beijing or Moscow with a nice pad in London and children who want to study here.”
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUnitedLex Appoints GC Renee Meisel as New CEO, Replacing James Schellhase After Short Tenure
Attorney Gives Up 25-Year Law Firm Career to Become CLO of Seattle's Pro Soccer Teams
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250