# C_2022051EN.01002102.xml

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/21

---

Appeal brought on 24 November 2021 by Évariste Boshab against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2021 in Case T-107/20, Boshab v Council

(Case C-708/21P)

(2022/C 51/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

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 of 15 September 2021 in Case T-107/20, Boshab v Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 September 2021 in Case T-107/20, Boshab v Council;

| — | Allow the action on the merits and annul Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 (1) in so far as it maintains the appellant at number 8 of the Annex to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 (2) in so far as it maintains the appellant at number 8 of Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Allow the action on the merits and annul Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 (1) in so far as it maintains the appellant at number 8 of the Annex to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 (2) in so far as it maintains the appellant at number 8 of Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

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

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of both proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant 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 claims that the General Court infringed the rights of the defence and, in particular, the appellant’s right to be heard, in so far as it failed to draw the necessary conclusions from the fact that the Council rendered the right to be heard meaningless by failing to carry out the necessary checks, in particular having recourse to an interview, and that, consequently, the procedure leading to renewal could have had a different outcome.

As regards the second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court made a manifest error of assessment in so far as it failed to take account of the fact that restrictive measures are precautionary in nature and, by definition, provisional, the validity of which is always subject to the continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to their adoption and to the need to maintain them in order to achieve the objective associated with them; that it did not find that the evidence put forward by the Council was in no way capable of justifying any conduct falling within the criterion for inclusion in the lists at issue, namely acts constituting serious violations of human rights; and that it did not censor the fact that the Council had not examined the evidence submitted by the appellant in the context of the review procedure and that it had not carried out its own verifications on that basis.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 134).

(2)  Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 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 2019 L 318, p. 1).

---