EU Targets Cyberattackers With New 'Flexible' Sanctions Regime
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 21, 2019 at 01:00 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
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.”
|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 AllTrending Stories
- 1IRE Physicians Must Consider All Conditions 'Due to' a Work Injury
- 2Social Media Policy for Judges Provides Guidance in a Changing World
- 3Demonizing Haitian Immigrants: Welcome to the Club
- 4Florida Hurricane Relief—IRS Offers Extended Deadlines and Tax Benefits
- 5How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'When the Firm Needs Something Done, Raise Your Hand,' Says Eric Kennedy of Buchalter
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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