Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2025:315
Date: 2025-03-19
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: External relations;Common foreign and security policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible

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, judgment of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 119). 72 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 judgment of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 120 and the case-law cited). 73 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 or entity concerned are well founded, and not the task of that person or entity to adduce evidence of the negative, that those reasons are not well founded (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 121). 74 If the competent European Union authority provides relevant information or evidence, the Courts of the European Union must then determine whether the facts alleged are made out in the light of that information or evidence and assess the probative value of that information or evidence in the circumstances of the particular case and in the light of any observations submitted in relation to them by, among others, the person or entity concerned (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 124). 75 Such an assessment must be carried out by examining the evidence and information not in isolation but in their context. The Council discharges its burden of proof if it presents to the Courts of the European Union a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence to establish that there is a sufficient link between the entity subject to a measure freezing its funds and the regime or, in general, the situations being combated (see judgment of 12 February 2020, Kanyama v Council, T‑167/18, not published, EU:T:2020:49, paragraph 93 and the case-law cited). 76 As regards the reliability and probative value of evidence, including that from digital sources, it should be borne in mind that the activity of the Court of Justice and of the General Court is governed by the principle of the unfettered evaluation of evidence, and that it is only the reliability of the evidence produced which is decisive when it comes to the assessment of its value. In addition, in order to assess the probative value of a document, regard should be had to the credibility of the account it contains, and in particular to the person from whom the document originates, the circumstances in which it came into being, the person to whom it was addressed and whether, on its face, the document appears to be sound and reliable (see, to that effect, judgments of 14 March 2018, Kim and Others v Council and Commission, T‑533/15 and T‑264/16, EU:T:2018:138, paragraph 224, and of 12 February 2020, Kande Mupompa v Council, T‑170/18, EU:T:2020:60, paragraph 107 (not published)). 77 In the second place, having regard to the preventive nature of the restrictive measures at issue, if, in the course of their review of the lawfulness of the contested decision, the Courts of the European Union consider that, at the very least, one of the grounds for listing is sufficiently detailed and specific, that it is substantiated and that it constitutes in itself sufficient basis to support that decision, the fact that the same cannot be said of other such grounds cannot justify the annulment of that decision (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 130). 78 In the third place, it should be borne in mind that restrictive measures are measures of a precautionary and, by definition, provisional nature, the validity of which always depends on whether the factual and legal circumstances which led to their adoption continue to apply and on the need to persist with them in order to achieve their objective. It is thus for the Council, in the course of its periodic review of those restrictive measures, to conduct an updated assessment of the situation and to appraise the impact of such measures, in order to determine whether they have made it possible to attain the objectives pursued by the initial inclusion of the names of the persons and entities concerned on the list at issue or whether the same conclusion in respect of those persons and entities can still be drawn (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 February 2020, Amisi Kumba v Council, T‑163/18, EU:T:2020:57, paragraphs 58 and 59, and of 26 October 2022, Ovsyannikov v Council, T‑714/20, not published, EU:T:2022:674, paragraph 67 and the case-law cited). 79 It is in the light of those principles that the Court must determine whether the Council committed an error of assessment in finding that, in the present case, there was a sufficiently solid factual basis capable of justifying the maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue on the ground that it benefits from and supports the regime of President Lukashenko. 80 As regards the first ground for maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists at issue set out in the contested acts, it should be noted that it is identical to the ground stated in the 2022 maintaining acts. Thus, the Council continues to refer to the fact that, when the contested acts were adopted, the applicant was one of the main real estate developers and constructors in Belarus, which is developing the Minsk World centre, described by the applicant itself as the largest investment of its kind in Europe and for which it received property development rights for plots of land. The Council takes the view that, as such, the applicant is benefiting from and supporting the regime of President Lukashenko. 81 The applicant does not deny that it continues to develop the Minsk World centre. However, it submits that that fact does not substantiate the finding that it benefits from or supports the regime of President Lukashenko, since, first, it secured the development rights for the Minsk World centre on merit alone and the conditions under which it was entrusted with developing that centre are lawful and consistent with projects of that kind, and, secondly, the measures taken against it by the regime of President Lukashenko since July 2022 show that it does not receive any preferential treatment from that regime but that, on the contrary, the regime treats it unfavourably. 82 As regards the applicant’s arguments concerning the conditions under which it secured and is developing the Minsk World centre, it should be observed that the applicant adduces exactly the same evidence in support of those arguments as that adduced in the case which gave rise to the judgment of 28 June 2023, Dana Astra v Council (T‑239/21, not published, EU:T:2023:364), with the result that those arguments must be rejected for the same reasons as those set out by the Court in that judgment. In that connection, the Court held in its judgment that in order to facilitate the development of the Minsk World centre, the applicant had obtained advantages and privileges from the regime which, contrary to what it claims, are not only indicative of the closeness and good contacts that it maintains with the regime of President Lukashenko, but also demonstrate the benefit which it derives from that regime (judgment of 28 June 2023, Dana Astra v Council, T‑239/21, not published, EU:T:2023:364, paragraph 56). In addition, having regard to the size and prestigious nature of the Minsk World centre for the regime, confirmed by the public statements made by President Lukashenko himself, and the particular importance of that centre to the Belarus economy, the Court found that those factors demonstrate support on the applicant’s part for the regime of President Lukashenko (judgment of 28 June 2023, Dana Astra v Council, T‑239/21, not published, EU:T:2023:364, paragraph 77). 83 As for the applicant’s arguments alleging that the measures taken against it by the regime of President Lukashenko since July 2022 show that it does not receive any preferential treatment from that regime but that, on the contrary, the regime treats it unfavourably, it is true that, when the contested acts were adopted, the applicant was caught by several measures taken by the regime of President Lukashenko in respect of certain Belarusian undertakings with foreign capital. 84 Thus, on 1 July 2022, by means of Resolution No 436 of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus, the applicant was included on the list of Belarusian legal persons with foreign capital originating from States considered to have committed hostile acts against Belarus and the transfer of whose shares is subject to restrictions. Furthermore, Presidential Decree No 386 of 31 October 2022 and Law No 240-3 of 3 January 2023 respectively introduced, in relation to Belarusian legal persons with foreign capital originating from States considered to have committed hostile acts against Belarus, including the applicant, a prohibition on the reorganisation of those legal persons and a right to seize their property in favour of the regime. 85 However, the applicant has not succeeded in demonstrating either how the adoption of such measures by the regime of President Lukashenko permits the inference that that regime treated it unfavourably or how, even if such unfavourable treatment were proven, it would be capable of casting doubt on the assessment that, when the contested acts were adopted, the applicant continued to benefit from and support the regime of President Lukashenko by developing the Minsk World project, considered to be the largest investment of its kind in Europe and one of particular importance to that regime. 86 First, the applicant does not claim that the measures taken against it by the regime of President Lukashenko affected the very conditions under which it had secured and continues to develop the Minsk World centre, conditions that were already held by the Court in its judgment of 28 June 2023, Dana Astra v Council (T‑239/21, not published, EU:T:2023:364) to be indicative of the benefit which it derives from that regime and the support provided to it (see paragraph 82 above). 87 Several items of evidence produced by the Council show, on the contrary, that when the contested acts were adopted, the applicant was still the only real estate developer for the Minsk World centre, regarded as the largest investment of its kind in Europe and a major project for that regime, that it continued to develop that centre on plots of land owned by the Belarusian State for which it had received property development rights, and that it continued to enjoy the same advantages granted by presidential decrees for the construction of that centre. 88 Thus, the article of 3 February 2023, published on the official Belarusian news agency’s website and produced as exhibit 2 in document WK 16892/2023 INIT, states that the construction of the Minsk World centre is being carried out in accordance with Presidential Decree No 456 of 22 September 2014 on the implementation of the ‘Minsk-City multifunctional centre’ investment project, under which the applicant received privileges and advantages not provided for in general legislation and the purpose of which was to facilitate the implementation of that large-scale project of particular importance for the regime (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 June 2023, Dana Astra v Council, T‑239/21, not published, EU:T:2023:364, paragraphs 57 and 60). Similarly, the articles of 7 October 2022, 4 November 2022 and 8 November 2022, published on the official Belarusian news agency’s website ‘belta.by’ and produced, respectively, as exhibits 5, 7 and 6 of document WK 17491/2022 INIT, describe the applicant as one of the main real estate developers and constructors in Belarus which continues to develop the Minsk World centre on plots of land of approximately 300 hectares, for which it received property development rights from the Belarusian authorities. Articles such as these highlight the scale of the Minsk World centre, in terms of both its size and the infrastructure built on the site, which includes administrative, commercial, socio-cultural, sporting and residential facilities. 89 Secondly, the measures cited by the applicant as evidence of it having been treated unfavourably by the regime of President Lukashenko (see paragraph 84 above) were taken in respect of 190 Belarusian undertakings with foreign capital originating from States considered to have committed hostile acts against Belarus, with the result that it cannot be inferred from the adoption of those measures alone that the applicant was singled out for unfavourable treatment by the regime of President Lukashenko. 90 Thirdly, and in any event, several items of evidence produced by the Council show that, contrary to what the applicant claims, it continued its activities, in particular the development of the Minsk World centre, despite the measures taken by the regime of President Lukashenko referred to in paragraph 84 above. 91 Thus, when the 2023 maintaining acts were adopted, the articles of 4 November 2022 and 8 November 2022 published on the official Belarusian news agency’s website ‘belta.by’ and the article of 8 November 2022 published on the website ‘bir.by’, which were produced, respectively, as exhibits 7, 6 and 2 in document WK 17491/2022 INIT, describe the progress of the Minsk World centre and the applicant’s success in the development of that centre. The applicant’s success in developing the Minsk World centre is also highlighted by the applicant’s director who, in several statements referred to in those articles, welcomes the latest achievements and the progress made in relation to that centre. 92 Similarly, as regards the 2024 maintaining acts, it is apparent from the article of 30 November 2023, published on the official Belarusian news agency’s website ‘belta.by’ and produced as exhibit 3 in document WK 16892/2023 INIT, and from the article of 5 December 2023, published on the website ‘realt.onliner.by’ and produced as exhibit 5 in document WK 16892/2023 INIT, that the development of the Minsk World centre by the applicant was progressing successfully, with its completion being announced for the end of 2027. The latter article draws attention not only to the applicant’s continued development of the Minsk World centre, but also to the speed with which the development of that centre is progressing. In particular, it underlines that the applicant took only one year to build the highest tower in the country, comprising 42 floors and measuring almost 180 metres in height. 93 Such evidence, which also includes statements made by the applicant’s director himself, is credible proof that, when the contested acts were adopted, the applicant was continuing to develop the Minsk World centre successfully under the same conditions as those which, according to the Court, demonstrated that the applicant benefited from and supported the regime of President Lukashenko, despite the measures taken by that regime described in paragraph 84 above. 94 It is true that the applicant claims that, because of those measures, several of its co-contractors and partners terminated their contracts and had to be wound up, resulting in delays, penalties and difficulties in continuing to develop the Minsk World centre. In the same vein, the applicant submits that, owing to the measures taken against it by the regime of President Lukashenko, it is now the target of nationalisation by that regime and no longer has any choice but to continue its activities in Belarus, in particular the development of the Minsk World centre, since its withdrawal from the Belarusian market would allow that regime either to nationalise its assets or to collect, for the State budget, 25% of the proceeds from the sale of its subsidiaries, which would be tantamount to providing financial support to the regime. 95 However, concerning the alleged contractual terminations and windings-up, it must be stated that the applicant has not succeeded in establishing either that it was treated unfavourably by the regime of President Lukashenko or, in any event, that the contractual terminations and windings-up of its partners had specific consequences for the continued development of the Minsk World centre. 96 By those arguments, the applicant furnishes no evidence to show that a decision intended to subject it to unfavourable treatment was taken by the regime of President Lukashenko in respect of it or its partners. Thus, the applicant’s partners decided, of their own accord, to terminate their contracts with the applicant in the context of the development of the Minsk World centre. Similarly, the applicant has not succeeded in demonstrating that the alleged windings-up form part of the regime’s unfavourable treatment of it or are a direct consequence of the measures taken by that regime. On the contrary, it is apparent from the evidence produced by the applicant in the annexes to the reply that, of the five partners subject to winding-up proceedings, such proceedings were active in respect of three of them prior to 1 July 2022, namely before the applicant’s inclusion on the list of Belarusian legal persons with foreign capital originating from States considered to have committed hostile acts against Belarus. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the claimed windings-up may have been caused by economic factors unrelated to the measures taken by the regime in respect of the applicant and are not therefore a direct consequence of those measures. 97 In any case, the applicant has not demonstrated, to the requisite legal standard, the impact of the contractual terminations and windings-up of its partners on the continued development of the Minsk World centre. First, as the Council rightly pointed out, it is impossible to assess the precise impact of the alleged contractual terminations of six of the applicant’s partners and the windings-up of five of them without an overview of the number of partner undertakings involved and the tasks carried out in the context of the development of that multifunctional centre, covering almost 300 hectares and comprising numerous administrative, commercial, socio-cultural, sporting and residential facilities. Secondly, the applicant’s claims concerning the difficulties in continuing with the development of the Minsk World centre as a result of the contractual terminations and windings-up of its partners are contradicted by the items of evidence set out in paragraphs 91 and 92 above, which, contrary to what the applicant submits, are credible since they originate, in part, from official sources of the regime, rely on statements made by the applicant’s director himself and post-date the adoption by the regime of President Lukashenko of the measures referred to in paragraph 84 above. 98 The same finding must be made as regards the delay alleged by the applicant in the development of the Minsk World centre and as regards the proceedings brought against it and the penalties imposed by the regime of President Lukashenko as a result of that delay. 99 The applicant has not demonstrated that the delay in the development of the Minsk World centre as well as the proceedings brought and penalties imposed are a direct consequence of the measures taken by the regime of President Lukashenko (see paragraph 84 above). As the Council rightly stated, it cannot be ruled out that the delay and slowdown in the development of the Minsk World centre may be explained by other factors, whether internal or external to the applicant. As regards the penalties imposed and proceedings brought, it is apparent from the evidence adduced by the applicant that these fall within the contractual and regulatory framework governing relations between the Belarusian State and the applicant and are the result of the applicant’s breach of its obligations, in particular concerning the scheduled deadlines for the construction and development of the Minsk World centre. 100 In any event and as has been noted in paragraphs 91 and 92 above, several items of evidence show that the development of the Minsk World centre by the applicant was progressing successfully when the contested measures were adopted, with its completion expected by the end of 2027. Such evidence also points to the speed with which the development of that centre is progressing. 101 As regards the alleged risks of nationalisation, suffice it to note that the applicant invokes only one nationalisation measure taken in respect of it by the regime of President Lukashenko as of the date of adoption of the contested acts, namely the transfer to the City of Minsk of a school as part of stage 16 of construction of the Minsk World centre. 102 In addition, it must be stated that the applicant has not succeeded in demonstrating that such a transaction actually amounts to a nationalisation measure decided upon by the regime of President Lukashenko as a result of the measures adopted against it, as referred to in paragraph 84 above. In support of its arguments, the applicant merely produces, in Annex C.4 to the reply, a certificate recording the costs incurred in connection with the construction of that school and the transfer of those costs to the City of Minsk. That certificate does not contain any information or indications showing that that transfer followed on from a nationalisation measure decided upon by the regime. Furthermore, the applicant itself acknowledged that, in the context of the development of the Minsk World centre, it was required to invest almost 200 million United States dollars (USD) in State-owned infrastructure and in that regard expressly cited the example of a school. It cannot therefore be ruled out that such a transfer was a consequence of the applicant’s binding commitments as part of the development of the Minsk World centre rather than a consequence of the measures taken against it by the regime of President Lukashenko and, therefore, of the alleged unfavourable treatment to which it claims to be subject. 103 Lastly, the Court must reject the applicant’s argument that it no longer has any choice but to continue its activities in Belarus, in particular the development of the Minsk World centre, since, in the context of the measures taken by the regime of President Lukashenko, its withdrawal from the Belarusian market would allow that regime either to nationalise its assets or to collect, for the State budget, 25% of the proceeds from the sale of its subsidiaries, which would be tantamount to providing financial support to the regime. 104 That line of argument is based on circular reasoning which amounts to conceding that, if it is not to support the regime of President Lukashenko, the applicant must continue to carry on its activities under the same conditions as those which have already been held to be indicative of the benefit which it derives from that regime and the support provided to it. 105 It follows therefrom that the applicant has not succeeded in demonstrating that – when the contested acts were adopted – it was the subject of unfavourable treatment by the regime of President Lukashenko, in particular in the context of the development of the Minsk World centre. Furthermore, since, when the contested acts were adopted, the applicant was continuing to develop that centre under the same conditions as those which were found by the Court in its judgment of 28 June 2023, Dana Astra v Council (T‑239/21, not published, EU:T:2023:364), to be indicative of the benefit which the applicant derives from the regime of President Lukashenko and the support provided to it, the applicant could be regarded, at the time of adoption of the contested acts, as a person who benefited from and supported that regime. 106 In the light of all the foregoing, the Council did not err in its assessment when it found that the applicant benefited from and supported the regime of President Lukashenko as it is one of the main real estate developers and constructors in Belarus, which is still developing the Minsk World centre – described by it as the largest investment of its kind in Europe – on plots of land for which it received development rights. 107 That conclusion is not called into question by the applicant’s claim that the development of the Minsk World centre does not attest to its support for the regime of President Lukashenko, since a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, support provided to the Belarusian economy and, on the other, support provided to the regime of President Lukashenko. 108 In that regard, it should be noted that the documents produced by the Council concerning the conditions in which economic activities are carried on in Belarus attest to the fact that, under the regime of President Lukashenko, the Belarusian economy is characterised by the control that the regime exercises over both the public and private sectors and that, having regard to the business environment and economic reality in Belarus, activities on the scale of those pursued by the applicant, in particular the development of the Minsk World centre, are not possible without the endorsement of President Lukashenko. 109 Thus, among the materials contained in document WK 735/2024 INIT, the article of 3 March 2023 published on the website ‘sceeus.se’, the article of 18 October 2023 published on the website of the media outlet ‘Deutsche Welle’ (‘dw.com’), the articles of 20 November 2023 taken from the websites ‘udf.by’ and ‘zerkalo.io’, and the article of 4 December 2023 published on the official website of the United States Department of State (‘state.gov’), produced, respectively, as exhibits 1, 5, 6, 7 and 2, illustrate the extent of the economic interventionism practised by the regime of President Lukashenko and the penalties incurred in the event of non-compliance with the regulatory measures implemented. Such articles are agreed on the fact that the pursuit of significant economic activities is possible only with the endorsement of the regime of President Lukashenko. 110 It follows from the foregoing that the first ground for maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, according to which the applicant is one of the main real estate developers and constructors in Belarus, which is developing the Minsk World centre – described by it as the largest investment of its kind in Europe – on plots of land for which it received development rights, and on that basis benefits from and supports the regime of President Lukashenko, is substantiated to the requisite legal standard. Furthermore, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 77 above, the finding that that ground is substantiated to the requisite legal standard is sufficient to reject the single plea in law raised by the applicant, without there being any need to examine the other arguments it has put forward and which are directed against the second and third grounds justifying the maintenance of restrictive measures against the applicant, since the fact that those grounds might be unsubstantiated cannot lead to annulment of the contested acts. 111 The action must therefore be dismissed. Costs 112 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 113 In the present case, since the applicant has been unsuccessful and the Council has applied for costs, the applicant must be ordered to pay the costs. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Dana Astra IOOO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. Svenningsen Laitenberger Stancu Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 19 March 2025. V. Di Bucci M. van der Woude Registrar President * Language of the case: English.