Britain is wrong to impose restrictions on the payment of social security to the wives of terrorism suspects, the senior advocate of the European Court of Justice wrote on Thursday.

The opinion by Advocate General Paolo Mengozzi is not binding but is intended to advise the European Court of Justice, the European Union's top court, when it rules later this year on a case referred to it by Britain's highest court.
 

Judges have followed the opinions of advocates-general in the majority of cases decided by the court. The case could have far-reaching repercussions for Britain's anti-terrorism laws.
 

The case involves social security payments, including income support, child benefit and housing assistance, made by British authorities to the wives of three suspects who have had their assets frozen under Britain's anti-terrorism laws.
 

Under the laws, the social security benefits, which in this case amount to several hundred pounds a week, cannot be made available "directly or indirectly, to, or for the benefit of" anyone who is on a terrorism sanctions list.
 

In such circumstances, Britain's Treasury has the right to impose tighter restrictions on the payments, making them subject to a licence that further limits access and use of the funds.

In the case under deliberation, the wives of the suspects - who Britain says have links to al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban - have appealed against the Treasury restrictions, saying they are a violation of their rights.
 

Their first appeal was rejected. But in a second appeal to the House of Lords, Britain's highest court, judges had concerns about how the law was being applied. In April 2008, they asked the European Court of Justice to provide a ruling.
 

Any decision by the European court, which is expected to issue a final judgment in 3-6 months, will be binding on the House of Lords and on courts throughout the EU.
British authorities had no immediate comment.

Restrictions challenged
In his 26 page written opinion, Mengozzi argued the phrase "directly or indirectly, to, or for the benefit of" was open to interpretation, saying it could be used to justify excessively restricted access to social security payments.
 

While he acknowledged that the payments made to the wives could benefit their husbands, he disputed whether those benefits could easily be converted into funds to finance terrorism.

"It seems to me ... impossible to regard the payment of social security and social assistance benefits to the appellants by authorities in the United Kingdom as making 'funds' available for the benefit of a designated person," he wrote.
 

"It is not, of course, inconceivable that acts may be committed that evade the prohibitions laid down by the regulation, but that could happen even if a third party did not take responsibility for the expenses in question.
 

Mengozzi advised the European Court of Justice to rule that the extra restrictions should not apply, arguing they were unjustified and violated the appellants' right to respect for their family life.
 

Source: Reuters