Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2009:748
Date: 2009-12-03
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: External relations;Free movement of capital;Common foreign and security policy
Concepts: Appeals;Rights of the defence and procedural guarantees;Right to property;General
Procedure: Action for annulment;Action for annulment - successful;Action for damages;Appeal - successful;Action for damages - decision unnecessary
Origin: United Kingdom;Ireland

Summary of the Judgment 1. Appeals – Interest in bringing proceedings – Examination by the Court of its own motion 2. Community law – Principles – Fundamental rights – Obligation to observe – Condition of lawfulness of every Community measure, including measures giving effect to Security Council resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations – Observance ensured by the Community judicature (Arts 220 EC and 307 EC; Art. 6(1) TEU; Council Regulation No 881/2002) 3. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Regulation imposing restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban – Rights of the defence – Scope (Council Regulation No 881/2002) 4. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Regulation imposing restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban – General and continuing freezing of the funds, assets and other economic resources of those persons and entities without those persons or entities having been heard – Breach of the right to property (Council Regulation No 881/2002) 1. The Court may, of its own motion, raise the objection that a party has no interest in bringing or in maintaining an appeal because an event occurring after the judgment of the General Court removes the prejudicial effect thereof as regards the appellant, and declare the appeal inadmissible or devoid of purpose for that reason. The adoption of Regulation No 954/2009 amending for the 114th time Regulation No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban cannot be considered to constitute a fact occurring after the judgments dismissing the actions brought by the appellants for annulment of that regulation capable of rendering the appeals brought against those judgments devoid of purpose. The adoption of Regulation No 954/2009, which retroactively replaces Regulation No 881/2002, is not to be regarded as equivalent to annulment pure and simple of that latter regulation in so far as it concerns the appellants by which they have obtained the only result that their actions could have secured for them, and which would mean that there was no longer any need for the Court to adjudicate. (see paras 58, 61-62, 64) 2. The Community judicature must, in accordance with the powers conferred on it by the Treaty, ensure the review, in principle the full review, of the lawfulness of all Community acts in the light of the fundamental rights forming an integral part of the general principles of Community law, including review of Community measures which, like Regulation No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban, are designed to give effect to resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. (see para. 71) 3. Because, when adopting restrictive measures, such as those imposed by Regulation No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban, the Council neither communicated to the persons concerned the evidence used against them to justify the restrictive measures imposed on them nor afforded them the right to be informed of that evidence within a reasonable period after those measures were enacted, those persons did not have the opportunity to make their point of view in that respect known to advantage. Their rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard, were therefore not respected. Moreover, given the failure to inform them of the evidence adduced against them and having regard to the relationship between the rights of defence and the right to an effective legal remedy, the parties concerned were also unable to defend their rights with regard to that evidence in satisfactory conditions before the Community judicature, with the result that it must be held that their right to an effective legal remedy was infringed also. (see paras 83-86) 4. The imposition of restrictive measures, such as the freezing of funds, laid down by Regulation No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban, in respect of certain persons, by including them in the list contained in Annex I to that regulation, constitutes an unjustified restriction of their right to property, for that regulation was adopted without furnishing any guarantee enabling them to put their case to the competent authorities, in a situation in which the restriction of their property rights must be regarded as significant, having regard to the general application and actual continuation of the freezing measures affecting them. (see paras 92-93)