Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2014:1043
Date: 2014-12-09
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: External relations;Common foreign and security policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful

summary of reasons underpinning that decision, with the consequence that judicial review cannot be restricted to an assessment of the cogency in the abstract of the reasons relied on, but must concern whether those reasons, or, at the very least, one of those reasons, deemed sufficient in itself to support that decision, is substantiated (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P Commission and Others v Kadi [2013] ECR, paragraph 119. 129 To that end, it is for the Courts of the European Union, in order to carry out that examination, to request the competent European Union authority, when necessary, to produce information or evidence, confidential or not, relevant to such an examination (see, to that effect, Commission and Others v Kadi, paragraph 128 above, paragraph 120). That is because it is the task of the competent European Union authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the reasons relied on against the person concerned are well founded, and not the task of that person to adduce evidence of the negative, that those reasons are not well founded (see Commission and Others v Kadi, paragraph 128 above, paragraph 121). For that purpose, there is no requirement that that authority produce before the Courts of the European Union all the information and evidence underlying the reasons alleged. It is however necessary that the information or evidence produced should support the reasons relied on against the person concerned (see, to that effect, Commission and Others v Kadi, paragraph 128 above, paragraph 122). 130 In this case, the Council adduces no concrete evidence from which it can be established that Mr Peftiev and Mr Dzmitry Lukashenko together control the applicant. The Council does no more than state that, since one of the grounds for the listing of Mr Peftiev is that he has links to the Lukashenko family, the Council could ‘reasonably decide that Mr. Peftiev controls the applicant in conjunction with Dzmitry Lukashenka’. 131 It must therefore be held that the Council has not established that the ground alleged against the applicant to justify its continued listing by means of Decision 2012/642 and Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012 is well founded. 132 It follows that Decision 2012/642 and Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012 must be annulled, in so far as they concern the applicant, and there is no need to examine the other pleas in the action. 133 It follows from all the foregoing that the action must be entirely upheld and the contested acts must be annulled. Costs 134 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been asked for in the successful party’s pleadings. 135 Since the Council has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the applicant. 136 In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 87(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the institutions which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs. Consequently, the Commission shall bear its own costs. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber) hereby: 1. Annuls Council Decision 2011/357/CFSP of 20 June 2011, amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus, Council Regulation (EU) No 588/2011 of 20 June 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus, Council Decision 2011/666/CFSP of 10 October 2011 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1000/2011 of 10 October 2011 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1017/2012 of 6 November 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as those acts concern Sport-pari ZAO; 2. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sport-pari; 3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. Kanninen Pelikánová Buttigieg Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 9 December 2014. [Signatures] * Language of the case: English.