Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2015:747
Date: 2015-10-06
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;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 in Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, ECR, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 119). 111 To that end, it is for the Court, in order to carry out that examination, to request the competent European Union authority, when necessary, to produce information or evidence relevant to such an examination (judgments in Commission and Others v Kadi, cited in paragraph 110 above, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 120 and of 16 September 2013 in Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council, T‑489/10, ECR, EU:T:2013:453, paragraph 42). 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, namely that those reasons are not well founded (see, to that effect, judgment in Commission and Others v Kadi, cited in paragraph 110 above, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 121). For that purpose, there is no requirement that that authority produce before the Court 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, cited in paragraph 110 above, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 122). 112 In the present case, it should be noted that the name of the applicant was retained on the lists by Decision 2012/642, Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012, Decision 2014/750 and Implementing Regulation No 1159/2014 on the ground that it was a ‘[s]ubsidiary of Triple’, which is also retained on the lists by those same measures. 113 As stated in paragraph 101 above, at the date of adoption of Decision 2012/642, Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012, Decision 2014/750 and Implementing Regulation No 1159/2014, having regard to the provisions of Article 4(1)(b) of Decision 2012/642 and Article 2(5) of Regulation No 765/2006, as amended by Regulation No 1014/2012, the Council could retain the applicant’s name on the list on the ground that it was a subsidiary of Triple. 114 However, as is clear from the judgment of 6 October 2015 in Chyzh and Others v Council (T‑276/12, paragraphs 184 to 187), delivered today, the retention of Triple’s name on the lists, by Decision 2012/642, Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012, Decision 2014/750 and Implementing Regulation No 1159/2014 was not justified, such that the Court has annulled the measures as they relate to Triple. 115 In those circumstances, even assuming that the applicant is owned or controlled by Triple, the retention of its name on the lists, by Decision 2012/642, Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012, Decision 2014/750 and Implementing Regulation No 1159/2014 on the ground that it is a subsidiary of Triple, is not justified (see, to that effect, judgments in Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council, cited in paragraph 111 above, EU:T:2013:453, paragraphs 75 to 77 and Nabipour and Others v Council, cited in paragraph 98 above, EU:T:2013:640, paragraphs 81 to 86). In that regard, it should be noted that, at the hearing, following a question put by the Court on the consequences of the annulment, in T‑276/12, of the inclusion and then retention of Triple on the lists, the applicant replied that the annulment of its own inclusion would be automatic since its designation is based on that of Triple. The Council agreed with the applicant’s response. 116 In those circumstances, it is not necessary to rule on the argument, put forward at the hearing by the applicant, that, first, Triple’s holding in the applicant’s capital is not a majority holding and, second, there is no evidence that the applicant could circumvent the freezing of funds to which Triple is subject. 117 It follows that the plea alleging errors of law and errors of assessment is well founded in so far as Decision 2012/642, Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012, Decision 2014/750 and Implementing Regulation No 1159/2014 are concerned. 118 In view of all the foregoing, the Court must uphold the action in part and annul the contested measures in so far as they concern the applicant, without there being any need for the Court to consider the other complaints and pleas in law. The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it seeks annulment of Decision 2013/534 and Implementing Regulation No 1054/2013. Costs 119 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been asked for in the successful party’s pleading. 120 In the circumstances of this case, where the Council has failed on the heads of claim seeking annulment, which were the main subject-matter of the case, it must be ordered to bear all the costs incurred by the applicant, in addition to its own costs, as applied for in the applicant’s pleadings. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber) hereby: 1. Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2012/171/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 265/2012 of 23 March 2012 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, 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, Council Decision 2014/750/CFSP of 30 October 2014 amending Decision 2012/642 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1159/2014 of 30 October 2014 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus in so far as they relate to Football Club ‘Dynamo-Minsk’ ZAO; 2. Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it seeks annulment of Council Decision 2013/534/CFSP of 29 October 2013 amending Decision 2012/642 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1054/2013 of 29 October 2013 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006; 3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder; 4. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Football Club ‘Dynamo-Minsk’. Kanninen Pelikánová Buttigieg Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 6 October 2015. [Signatures] * Language of the case: English.