Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2018:546
Date: 2018-09-13
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: External relations;Common foreign and security policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber), 13 September 2018 1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Acts prohibiting all EU operators from carrying out certain types of financial transaction with entities established outside the European Union more than 50% owned by an entity included in the lists of entities subject to restrictive measures — Action brought by an entity over 50% owned by an entity included on those lists — Whether admissible (Art. 263, 4th para. TFEU; Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP, Art. 1(1)(b) and Annex I; Council Regulation No 833/2014, Art. 5(1)(b) and Annex III) 2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Restrictions on access to the EU capital market — Obligation to identify in the statement of reasons the specific and concrete elements justifying the measure — Decision falling within a context known to the person concerned, enabling him to understand the scope of the measure taken against him — Whether summary statement of reasons permissible (Art. 296, 2nd para. TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(c); Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP; Council Regulation No 833/2014) 3. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Restrictions on access to the EU capital market — Obligation to disclose incriminating evidence — Scope — Unlawfulness of the act depending on proving the procedural relevance of the infringement of the obligation (Art. 275, 2nd para. TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 41(2)(a) and 47; Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP; Council Regulation No 833/2014) 4. Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Restrictions on access to the EU capital market — Rights of defence — Notification of incriminating evidence — Subsequent decision maintaining the name of the applicant on the list of persons subject to those measures — No new grounds — Infringement of the right to be heard — None (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP, Art. 1(1)(a) and Annex I; Council Regulation No 833/2014, Art. 5(1)(a) and Annex III) 5. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Restrictions on access to the EU capital market — Right of access to documents — Rights subject to an application in that behalf before the Council — Duty to act within a reasonable time (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP; Council Regulation No 833/2014) 6. Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Restrictions on access to the EU capital market — Restriction of the right to property and of the freedom to pursue an economic activity, and damage to reputation — Breach of principle of proportionality — None (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 16, 17 and 52(1); Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP; Council Regulation No 833/2014) 7. Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Restrictions on access to the EU capital market — Judicial review of legality — Appropriateness of the restrictive measures — Restrictive measures pursuing a legitimate aim of the common foreign and security policy (Art. 21 TEU; Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP; Council Regulation No 833/2014) 8. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim for a declaratory judgment — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) 9. International agreements — European Union Agreements — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Effects — Primacy over EU secondary legislation — Scope — EU primary law — Not included — Restrictive measures laid down by a decision adopted on the basis of Article 29 TEU and by a regulation based on Article 215 TFEU — Restriction of the rights stemming from the agreement — Whether permissible — Conditions (Art. 29 TEU; Arts 215 and 216(2) TFEU; EEC-Turkey Association Agreement; Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP; Council Regulation No 833/2014) 1. The condition that there must be direct concern to a natural or legal person, as laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, requires the contested EU measure to affect directly the legal situation of the individual and leave no discretion to its addressees, who are entrusted with the task of implementing it, such implementation being purely automatic and resulting from EU rules without the application of other intermediate rules. An entity over 50% held by an entity listed in the annexes to Decision 2014/512/CFSP and to Regulation No 833/2014, concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, is directly concerned by the restrictive measures prohibiting all EU operators from carrying out certain types of financial transaction with any legal person, entity or body established outside the Union owned for more than 50% by an entity listed in those annexes. Those measures apply directly to it, as an immediate consequence of the fact that it is more than 50% owned by an entity whose name is listed in the annexes to those acts, without leaving any discretion to their addressees, who are entrusted with the task of implementing them Although those provisions lay down prohibitions which apply in the first place to credit institutions and other financial bodies established in the European Union, the aim and the effect of those prohibitions is directly to affect the entities over 50% owned by an entity whose name is listed in the annexes to those acts, whose economic activity is limited as a result of the application of those measures in respect of them. Self-evidently it is for the bodies established in the European Union to apply those measures, given that the acts adopted by the EU institutions are not, as a rule, intended to apply outside the territory of the European Union. That does not, however, mean that the entities affected by the provisions on access to the capital market are not directly concerned by the restrictive measures applied with regard to them. (see paras 50-53) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 70, 71, 74, 77, 79-81) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 86-89, 92, 94, 97, 98, 101) 4. See the text of the decision. (see paras 103, 104) 5. See the text of the decision. (see paras 105, 107) 6. See the text of the decision. (see paras 113, 114, 116, 117, 120, 121, 124-130, 136, 138, 142, 157) 7. See the text of the decision. (see paras 119, 155, 156) 8. See the text of the decision. (see para. 135) 9. Given that the agreements concluded by the European Union bind the EU institutions and the Member States, the validity of a measure of secondary EU legislation may be affected by the fact that it is incompatible with such rules of international law. Accordingly, the validity of Decision 2014/512/CFSP and Regulation No 833/2014, concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, may be assessed in the light of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey and the additional protocols thereto, provided however that, first, the nature and the broad logic of the agreement in question do not preclude this and, secondly, the provisions relied upon appear, as regards their content, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise. However, the primacy of the international agreements concluded by the European Union over EU secondary legislation does not extend to EU primary law. Consequently, even in the absence of an express provision in the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement and the additional protocols thereto enabling a party to take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security, it is possible for the Council to restrict the rights stemming from that agreement and the additional protocols thereto as a result of its powers under Article 29 TEU and Article 215 TFEU, provided that such restrictions are non-discriminatory and proportionate. (see paras 147, 148, 150, 151)