# C_2021217EN.01003401.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/34

---

Appeal brought on 13 April 2021 by Évariste Boshab against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 3 February 2021 in Case T-111/19, Évariste Boshab v Council of the European Union

(Case C-242/21 P)

(2021/C 217/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Évariste Boshab (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, T. Payan, A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union notified on 3 February 2021, Évariste Boshab v Council of the European Union (T-111/19); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union notified on 3 February 2021, Évariste Boshab v Council of the European Union (T-111/19);

| — | dispose of the case in the main proceedings and annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018 in so far as it retains the appellant at number 8 of the Annex to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 September 2018 in so far as it retains the appellant at number 8 of Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

dispose of the case in the main proceedings and annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018 in so far as it retains the appellant at number 8 of the Annex to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 September 2018 in so far as it retains the appellant at number 8 of Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; (1)

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By his appeal, the appellant seeks to have the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 3 February 2021, Évariste Boshab v Council of the European Union in case T-111/19 set aside, in support of which he relies on two grounds of appeal alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and a manifest error of assessment.

As regards the first ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that the General Court infringed the rights of the defence and in particular his right to a fair hearing, in that:

| — | it held that the late notification by the Council of the European Union, without the appellant being able to submit his observations before the decision at issue renewing the restrictive measures, was not an infringement of the right to a fair hearing since it was not new evidence; and |
| --- | --- |

—

it held that the late notification by the Council of the European Union, without the appellant being able to submit his observations before the decision at issue renewing the restrictive measures, was not an infringement of the right to a fair hearing since it was not new evidence; and

| — | it did not draw the appropriate conclusions from the fact that the Council did not, in the present case, undertake any investigation. |
| --- | --- |

—

it did not draw the appropriate conclusions from the fact that the Council did not, in the present case, undertake any investigation.

Concerning the second ground of appeal, the appellant maintains that the General Court committed a manifest error of assessment, in that:

| — | it did not take into account that restrictive measures are precautionary and, by definition, provisional, their validity always depending on whether the factual and legal circumstances which led to their adoption continue to apply and on the need to continue them in order to achieve their objective; |
| --- | --- |

—

it did not take into account that restrictive measures are precautionary and, by definition, provisional, their validity always depending on whether the factual and legal circumstances which led to their adoption continue to apply and on the need to continue them in order to achieve their objective;

| — | it did not find that the evidence adduced by the Council was in any way capable of substantiating any conduct falling within the test for inclusion in the disputed lists, namely acts constituting serious human rights violations; and |
| --- | --- |

—

it did not find that the evidence adduced by the Council was in any way capable of substantiating any conduct falling within the test for inclusion in the disputed lists, namely acts constituting serious human rights violations; and

| — | it did not criticise the fact that the Council did not examine the evidence submitted by the appellant in the review procedure and did not undertake, on that basis, its own investigations. |
| --- | --- |

—

it did not criticise the fact that the Council did not examine the evidence submitted by the appellant in the review procedure and did not undertake, on that basis, its own investigations.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, OJ 2005 L 193, p. 1 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV), OJ 2008 L 352 M, p. 231 (MT).

---