Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2016:462
Date: 2016-09-09
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: External relations;Common foreign and security policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful

summary of reasons underlying that decision, with the consequence that judicial review is not to be restricted to assessment of the cogency in the abstract of the reasons relied upon, but must deal with the question whether those reasons, or, at the very least, one of them, deemed sufficient in itself to support that decision, have or has been substantiated (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). 29 To that end, it is for the Courts of the European Union to carry out that examination, requesting the competent EU authority, when necessary, to produce information or evidence, confidential or not, relevant to such an examination. That is because it is the task of the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the reasons relied upon against the person concerned are well founded, and not the task of that person to adduce evidence to the contrary, showing that those reasons are not well founded. There is no requirement that that authority should produce before the Courts of the European Union all the information and evidence inherent in the reasons alleged in the measures whose annulment is sought. It is, however, necessary that the information or evidence produced should support the reasons relied upon against the person concerned (see judgment of 28 November 2013, Council v Fulmen and Mahmoudian, C‑280/12 P, EU:C:2013:775, paragraphs 65 to 67). 30 The arguments put forward by the applicant in support of the first plea in law will be examined by the Court in the light of those considerations. 31 By Implementing Decision 2014/730 and Implementing Regulation No 1105/2014, the Council included the applicant’s name in the lists at issue on the following grounds: ‘Vice-President of Finance and Administration at Tri-Ocean Energy, which has been listed by the Council for benefiting from and supporting the Syrian regime. [The applicant] is therefore associated with a listed entity. In view of his senior position in Tri-Ocean Energy, he is responsible for the activities of the entity in supplying oil to the regime.’ 32 Those grounds essentially concern the applicant’s position in Tri Ocean Energy. 33 Therefore, the grounds for inclusion of the applicant’s name in the lists at issue must be assessed in relation to the grounds for the listing of Tri Ocean Energy to which that plea refers. In that regard, it must be stated that the validity of the listing of the applicant is based on the inclusion of Tri Ocean Energy in the lists at issue and depends on the validity of that registration. 34 It should be noted that in its judgment of 9 September 2016, Tri Ocean Energy v Council (T‑719/14), the Court found that the Council erred in law by including Tri Ocean Energy in the lists set out in the Annexes to Implementing Decision 2014/678 and Implementing Regulation No 1013/2014. It follows that the inclusion of the applicant’s name cannot legitimately be justified by the grounds set out in Implementing Decision 2014/730 and Implementing Regulation No 1105/2014, relating to the functions performed by the applicant in Tri Ocean Energy, as an entity recognised as benefiting from or supporting the Syrian regime. 35 The first plea must therefore be upheld, without it being necessary to consider the other arguments in support of that plea. 36 In the light of the foregoing, the action must be upheld in its entirety and the contested measures annulled without it being necessary to consider the other arguments raised by the applicant. Costs 37 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 applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicant has applied for costs and the Council has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber) hereby: 1. Annuls Council Implementing Decision No 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as they apply to Mohamed Farahat; 2. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Farahat. Van der Woude Wiszniewska-Białecka Ulloa Rubio Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 9 September 2016. [Signatures] ** Language of the case: English.