Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2015:748
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 the applicants’ arguments in their pleadings. 145 Consequently, it follows from the considerations set out in paragraphs 132 to 144 above that sufficient reasons are provided for the inclusion of Triple’s name in Annex V to Decision 2010/639 and Annex IB to Regulation No 765/2006, by Implementing Decision 2012/171 and Implementing Regulation No 265/2012 respectively, and also for the retention of that name on the lists by Decision 2012/642, Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012, Decision 2014/750 and Implementing Regulation No 1159/2014. – The other applicants 146 Implementing Decision 2012/171 and Implementing Regulation No 265/2012 included the names of the other applicants on the list on the ground that they were ‘[s]ubsidiar[ies] of Triple’. 147 As mentioned in paragraph 133 above, when the funds of a person or an entity already subject to restrictive measures are frozen, there is a not insignificant danger that that person or entity may exert pressure on the entities it owns or controls or which belong to it in order to circumvent the effect of the measures applying to it. Consequently, the freezing of the funds of those entities is necessary and appropriate in order to ensure the effectiveness of the measures adopted and to guarantee that those measures are not circumvented. 148 However, as is clear from paragraph 134 above, restrictive measures can be applied to legal persons or entities owned or controlled by those already subject to those measures only on condition that the acts by means of which the restrictive measures at issue are adopted provide for the application of those measures. 149 As is clear from paragraphs 135 and 136 above, when Implementing Decision 2012/171 and Implementing Regulation No 265/2012 were adopted, neither Decision 2010/639 nor Regulation No 765/2006, in the versions applicable to this case, made any provision for the Council enabling the Council to include, on the lists, the names of legal persons, entities or bodies owned or controlled by other persons or entities whose names were included on those lists. 150 It follows that, in the light of the provisions in force at the date of adoption of Implementing Decision 2012/171 and Implementing Regulation No 265/2012, the other applicants were not able to understand the reason for their inclusion on the lists since that reason did not make it possible to determine which criterion the Council had relied on to justify the adoption of restrictive measures. 151 However, regarding the reasoning for the retention of the names of the other applicants on the lists, by Decision 2012/642 and Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012, which is identical to that set out in paragraph 146 above, it must be considered that, under the provisions cited in paragraph 127 above, that reasoning was sufficient. It must also be held that the other applicants merely assert that the Council failed to provide reasons as to how Triple’s subsidiaries benefit from or support the authorities, without explaining why, in the light of the provisions cited in paragraph 127 above, the fact that they are Triple’s subsidiaries is not a sufficient reason for the inclusion of their names. 152 As regards the retention of the names of NefteKhimTrading, Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple, Rakovsky brovar and Triple-Veles on the lists, by Decision 2013/534 and by Regulation No 1054/2013, it should be recalled that, at the date of adoption of those measures, the applicable listing criteria were those referred to in paragraph 127 above. It follows that since the reasons for that retention are identical to those on which Decision 2012/642 and Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012 based their retention on the lists, it must also be held that sufficient reasons were provided for Decision 2013/534 and Implementing Regulation No 1054/2013. 153 Finally, as regards the retention, on the lists, of the names of Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Variant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple and Rakovsky brovar by Decision 2014/750 and Implementing Regulation No 1159/2014, it must also be held, for the same reasons as those stated in paragraph 152 above, that sufficient reasons were provided for those measures. 154 It follows from all the considerations set out in paragraphs 120 to 153 above that Implementing Decision 2012/171 and Implementing Regulation No 265/2012 must be annulled in so far as those measures included, on the lists, the names of NefteKhimTrading, Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Variant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple, Rakovsky brovar, TriplePharm and Triple-Veles on the ground that they were ‘[s]ubsidiar[ies] of Triple’. 155 The other pleas in law will therefore be examined only to the extent that they apply to, first, Implementing Decision 2012/171 and Implementing Regulation No 265/2012, in so far as they relate to Mr Chyzh and Triple, second, Decision 2012/642 and Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012, in so far as they relate to all applicants, third, Decision 2013/534 and Implementing Regulation No 1054/2013, in so far as they relate to NefteKhimTrading, Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple, Rakovsky brovar and Triple-Veles and, fourth, Decision 2014/750 and Implementing Regulation No 1159/2014, in so far as they relate to Mr Chyzh, Triple, Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Variant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple and Rakovsky brovar. Plea alleging errors of assessment 156 The applicants maintain, in essence, that the Council must prove, on the basis of precise and concrete evidence, that they benefit from or support the regime of President Lukashenko. They state, moreover, that MSSFC Logoysk and Triple Agro Agricultural Complex (ACC), whose names were included on the lists by the contested acts are, in actual fact, Triple’s branches which do not have their own legal personality, and not Triple’s subsidiaries. 157 The Council submits that Mr Chyzh is one of the leading businessmen in Belarus and that the regime of President Lukashenko has close and mutually beneficial ties with influential businessmen in Belarus. It states that it is difficult to give material evidence of the payment of bribes, but that it is ‘most unlikely’ that the favours granted by the regime to the applicants would not have been returned in one way or another. It adds that tax payments by Triple and Mr Chyzh are an obvious form of financial support to the regime which, combined with Mr Chyzh ties to the regime, demonstrates that the applicants support the regime. 158 The Council also claims that, given the links between the regime and business leaders, public awards and concessions are not awarded following an objective public procurement procedure. It adds that it is only required to show that Triple benefits from the regime and not to prove that it obtained special or exceptional favours. 159 The Council also argues that Mr Chyzh benefits from the regime in that, first, he and one of President Lukashenko’s sons headed a delegation to Russia to promote Belarusian business interests; second, President Lukashenko, by presidential edict, granted him land in his native village of Sabali for the construction of a tourist and cultural centre; third, he obtained 99-year lease of land, was exempted from paying the related mandatory contributions and benefited from the assistance of the local administration to complete his construction project; and, fourth, Triple obtained a contract to build housing for the army and real estate for the Belarusian Ministry of Defence, which is unique for its scale and length. 160 The Council also argues that, given President Lukashenko’s attachment to sport, the fact of playing a role in sports bodies is one way of developing links with the regime and supporting it. It argues in that regard, first, that one of President Lukashenko’s sons is Chair of the central council of the President’s Sports Club and that another of his sons is a member of that club, like Mr Chyzh; second, that the latter is Chair of the football club FC Dynamo Minsk and Chair of the Belarusian Federation of wrestling, which confirms his association to the regime; third, that Mr Chyzh is President Lukashenko’s regular hockey partner. It adds that the fact that there may be also other reasons for Mr Chyzh’s sporting positions than attempts to please the President Lukashenko does not exclude or diminish the relevance of his association to the regime. 161 Finally, it is apparent from information in the public domain that, at public events, Mr Chyzh frequently appears alongside President Lukashenko, which further supports their association. Mr Chyzh’s relations with President Lukashenko and his sons, both personally and through his business interests, demonstrate that Mr Chyzh is associated with the Belarusian leadership. 162 As regards Triple’s subsidiaries, the Council argues that it only needs to demonstrate that they are indeed subsidiaries of an entity whose name is included on the lists. 163 The Council further states that, according to Triple’s website, Triple-Agro Agricultural Complex (ACC) ‘was formed as a separate structural self-sustained division of … Triple’. Even if that entity is a branch of Triple, the designation of the latter is sufficient for it to be covered without a separate inclusion of its name on the lists being necessary. 164 The effectiveness of the judicial review guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union requires that, as part of the review of the lawfulness of the grounds which are the basis of the decision to list or to maintain the listing of a given person or entity, the Court is to ensure that that decision, which affects that person or entity individually, is taken on a sufficiently solid factual basis. That entails a verification of the factual allegations in the 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). 165 To that end, it is for the Courts of the European Union, in order to carry out that examination, to request the competent EU authority, when necessary, to produce information or evidence relevant to such an examination (judgments in Commission and Others v Kadi, cited in paragraph 164 above, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 120, and 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 EU 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 judgment in Commission and Others v Kadi, cited in paragraph 164 above, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 121). For that purpose, there is no requirement that that authority produce before the Court of the European Union 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, judgment in Commission and Others v Kadi, cited in paragraph 164 above, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 122). – Mr Chyzh 166 As stated in paragraphs 14, 15, 24, 27, 39 and 40 above, it is apparent from Implementing Decision 2012/171, Regulation No 265/2012, Decision 2012/642, Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012, Decision 2014/750 and Implementing Regulation No 1159/2014, that Mr Chyzh’s name was included and then retained on the list on the grounds that, in essence, first, he was providing financial support to the regime of President Lukashenko through Triple, which was, in particular, involved in activities resulting from public awards and concessions from the regime, and, second, that the sporting positions he retains, in particular being Chair of the Board of the football club FC Dynamo Minsk and Chair of the Belarusian Federation of wrestling, confirmed his association to the regime. 167 As regards, first, Mr Chyzh’s alleged financial support of the regime, the Council argues, first, that it is ‘widely known’ that he is one of the leading businessmen in Belarus and the regime of President Lukashenko has close ties with those businessmen. Mr Chyzh does not deny that he is a businessman who is successful and who is known to the public. However, even assuming that Mr Chyzh is a leading businessman in Belarus, and that that fact is widely known, it cannot however be inferred from this that he financially supports the regime, as the Council contends. 168 It should be noted in that regard that the Council provides no evidence showing that Mr Chyzh financially supports the regime. First, as the applicants point out, the study commissioned by the European Parliament on the impact of sanctions against Belarus, relied on by the Council, and dated May 2012, was made after the adoption of Implementing Decision 2012/171 and Implementing Regulation No 265/2012 by which Mr Chyzh’s name was included on the list in Annex V to Decision 2010/639 and Annex IB to Regulation No 765/2006, respectively, such that it may not form the basis of those listings. In any case, as argued by the applicants, no evidence is produced in that study of Mr Chyzh’s support for the regime. The Council, moreover, merely cites that study, without identifying, within that study, evidence establishing that Mr Chyzh financially supports the regime. 169 Next, the Council cannot infer from Mr Chyzh’s tax payment that he supports the regime, since such a payment constitutes a legal obligation applicable to all Belarusian taxpayers. 170 Moreover, as regards Mr Chyzh’s alleged payment of bribes to officials of that regime, suffice it to note that the Council does not provide proof of this. It merely asserts that, even if it is difficult to provide hard evidence of the payment of bribes, it is ‘most unlikely’ that the favours granted to Mr Chyzh by the regime have not been returned one way or another. In doing so, the Council does not provide any evidence of the payments of bribes by Mr Chyzh or that he provided any other consideration to the regime. 171 Finally, as regards the public awards and concessions obtained by Mr Chyzh that allegedly show both his support for the regime and the benefit that he draws from it, it must first be noted that Mr Chyzh does not dispute that Triple in fact obtained, as specified by the Council in the defence, a land concession for a period of 99 years, for the construction of a tourist and cultural centre and significant housing for the army and real estate for the Belarusian Ministry of Defence. 172 It is important to point out, however, that the Council itself admits that such awards could theoretically be granted based on merit, following an impartial public procurement procedure, but in the present case, this was not the situation given the links between the regime and businessmen. However, without concrete evidence in support of that assertion, the Council cannot rely only on the general consideration that close links exist between the Lukashenko regime and Belarusian businessmen in order to infer from this that Triple was granted public awards and concessions other than of its own merit. 173 Moreover, in response to a measure of organisation of the procedure, cited in paragraph 47 above, relating to the concrete evidence which allowed the Council to state that Triple had obtained public awards and concessions on the basis of considerations which were not related to merit, the Council merely replied that it had no evidence to support the conclusion that, in Belarus, public awards were granted through an open, transparent and fair procedure for the award of contracts. In so doing, the Council has failed to establish that Triple obtained public awards and concessions because of Mr Chyzh’s links to the regime. 174 In that regard, it is apparent from the case-file that, in Belarus, public awards and concessions are governed by Belarusian law which provides for a procedure for the award of contracts, which the Council fails to rebut. 175 Furthermore, the Court must reject the Council’s argument that it is enough to establish that Mr Chyzh obtained public awards and concessions in order to conclude that he benefits from the regime, and that it is not necessary to show that they were obtained as a result of favours from the regime of President Lukashenko. Such an argument would lead to the inclusion of the names on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures, any undertaking who is a party, in Belarus, to a public procurement contract, even where that contract was awarded following a lawful procedure for the award of contracts, which would exceed, evidently, the objective pursued by the EU legislature. 176 It should be added, moreover, that the Council’s position is based on circular reasoning when it contends, on the one hand, that the fact that Mr Chyzh’s companies win public contracts demonstrates that he is close to the regime and, on the other hand, that those companies win the contracts at issue because of Mr Chyzh’s close links to that regime. 177 As for the other alleged favours which Mr Chyzh obtained from the regime, such as the fact that he headed, with one of President Lukashenko’s sons, a delegation to Russia to promote the business interests of Belarus, relied on in the Council’s defence, it should be pointed out, as argued by the applicants, that the practice, which is moreover common internationally, of including business leaders in delegations visiting foreign countries, to promote economic and industrial interests, cannot prove that those business leaders benefit from the regime. Moreover, the Council merely cites a short newspaper article showing that the discussions focused on prospects of cooperation in the field of heavy industry, in particular the production of Belarusian dump trucks in Russia without establishing the benefit which Mr Chyzh drew from his participation in the delegation. 178 Second, as regards the grounds relied on against Mr Chyzh relating to his role in sports in order to establish his association with the regime, the Council merely states that, given the importance that President Lukashenko attaches to sport, the mere fact that Mr Chyzh occupies positions in sports bodies demonstrates his association with the regime. In doing so, it provides no concrete evidence demonstrating that association. It merely states that Mr Chyzh is a member of the Central Council of President Lukashenko’s sports club, Chair of the Board of the football club FC Dynamo Minsk, Chair of the Belarusian Federation of wrestling and is a regular hockey partner of President Lukashenko. 179 Mr Chyzh does not dispute that he occupies positions in certain sports clubs, as described above, or that he plays hockey alongside President Lukashenko. He contends, however, that these elements do not establish how he is associated with the regime of President Lukashenko 180 The Court must hold that being a member or chair of sports clubs cannot, as such, establish that Mr Chyzh supports or benefits from the regime on the sole ground that President Lukashenko has an attachment to sport. In that regard, Mr Chyzh also claims that the President’s sports club is a sports association comprising 200 members including sportsmen and is open to anyone including foreigners, which the Council does not dispute. In addition, Mr Chyzh indicates that it is well known that he is a former Greco-Roman wrestler, that he practiced wrestling, football and hockey all his life and that it is in that capacity that he occupies positions in several sports bodies, which the Council moreover fails to refute. 181 Finally, it should be noted that it is not apparent from the ‘declassified’ documents, sent by the Council to the Court on 7 August 2013, that the Council relied on concrete evidence to justify the inclusion of Mr Chyzh’s name on the lists. Many of those documents are indeed notes or reports drawn up by the Council itself. 182 In those circumstances, it must be held that the Council has not adduced concrete evidence justifying the validity of the inclusion of Mr Chyzh’s name on the lists by Implementing Decision 2012/171 and Implementing Regulation No 265/2012, and the retention of that name on those lists by Decision 2012/642, Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012, Decision 2014/750 and Implementing Regulation No 1159/2014. – Triple 183 It is first necessary to recall that Triple’s name was included on the lists by Implementing Decision 2012/171 and Implementing Regulation No 265/2012, on the ground that that company was owned by Mr Chyzh and financially supported the regime of President Lukashenko (see paragraph 132 above). 184 As regards the first ground for inclusion, namely Mr Chyzh’s ownership of Triple, it has already been mentioned, in paragraphs 133 and 134 above, that if the freezing of an entity’s funds is necessary in order to ensure the effectiveness of the measures adopted, the fact remains that the acts by which the restrictive measures at issue were adopted must provide for the application of those measures to the entities owned or controlled by persons or entities already subject to those measures. As is clear from paragraph 136 above, when Implementing Decision 2012/171 and Implementing Regulation No 265/2012 were adopted, neither Decision 2010/639 nor Regulation No 765/2006, in the versions applicable to this case, made any provision enabling the Council to include, on the lists, the names of legal persons, entities or bodies owned or controlled by other persons or entities whose names were included on those lists. 185 It follows that the Council erred by including Triple’s name on the lists, by Implementing Decision 2012/171 and Implementing Regulation No 265/2012, on the ground that that company was held by Mr Chyzh. 186 As regards the second ground for inclusion, namely that Triple financially supported the regime of President Lukashenko, it must be first pointed out that the Council does not provide any evidence in that respect. It merely states that Triple pays taxes and bribes to the Belarusian authorities. However, as is apparent, mutatis mutandis, from paragraphs 169 and 170 above, Triple cannot, on the basis of those allegations alone, be regarded as supporting the regime of President Lukashenko. 187 Furthermore, in the light of the considerations set out in paragraphs 142 to 144 above, Triple’s name is regarded as having been retained on the lists by Decision 2012/642, Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012, Implementing Decision 2014/750 and Implementing Regulation No 1159/2014 on the ground, first, that that company is owned by Mr Chyzh and, second, that the company supports the regime. 188 It should be noted, first, as stated at paragraphs 166 to 182 above, that the Council erred by retaining Mr Chyzh’s name on the lists in Decision 2012/642, Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012, Decision 2014/750 and Implementing Regulation No 1159/2014. Consequently, the retention of Triple’s name on the lists, by the same measures, cannot be based on the ground that Triple is owned by Mr Chyzh. Restrictive measures against entities owned or controlled by a person or another entity is justified only if the name of the person or entity owning or controlling them was validly included on the lists (see, to that effect, judgments in Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council, cited in paragraph 165 above, EU:T:2013:453, paragraphs 75 to 77 and Nabipour and Others v Council, cited in paragraph 137 above, EU:T:2013:640, paragraphs 81 to 86). 189 Next it should be recalled that the Council does not provide evidence of Triple’s support for the regime. As stated in paragraph 184 above, the Council merely asserts that Triple pays taxes and bribes to the Belarusian authorities, without proving those allegations. 190 In those circumstances, it must be held that the Council erred by including Triple’s name on the list in Annex V to Decision 2010/639 and Annex IB to Regulation No 765/2006 by Implementing Decision 2012/171 and Implementing Regulation No 265/2012 and, then by retaining the inclusion of that name on the lists by Decision 2012/642, Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012, Decision 2014/750 and Implementing Regulation No 1159/2014. – Applicants other than Mr Chyzh and Triple 191 First, and as a preliminary point, the Court must hold that, even if MSSFC Logoysk and Triple Agro Agricultural Complex (ACC) were mere branches of Triple — since they do not have separate legal personality from Triple and therefore cannot bring proceedings — that would have no consequence on the inclusion of Triple’s name in the contested measures. 192 Second, in the light of the number of applicants and taking into account the above considerations, it is necessary to begin by determining the acts in respect of which the present plea must be examined. 193 Bearing in mind the observations made in paragraph 155 above, the Court must examine the merits of: – the retention on the lists of the names of NefteKhimTrading, Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple, Variant, TriplePharm, Rakovsky brovar and Triple-Veles, by Decision 2012/642 and Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012; – the retention on the lists of the names of NefteKhimTrading, Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple, Rakovsky brovar and Triple-Veles, by Decision 2013/534 and Implementing Regulation No 1054/2013; – the retention on the lists of the names of Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple, Variant and Rakovsky brovar, by Decision 2014/750 and Implementing Regulation No 1159/2014. 194 It should be recalled, next, that the reason for the retention on the lists of the names of the applicants cited in paragraph 193 above by Decision 2012/642, Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012, Decision 2013/534, Implementing Regulation No 1054/2013, Decision 2014/750 and Implementing Regulation No 1159/2014 respectively, is that they are ‘subsidiar[ies] of Triple’. 195 As is clear from paragraphs 187 to 190 above, the Council has failed to establish that it was justified in retaining Triple’s name on the lists by Decision 2012/642, Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012, Decision 2014/750 and Implementing Regulation No 1159/2014. 196 It must therefore be held that the Council erred by retaining on the lists, on the ground that they were Triple’s subsidiaries, on the one hand, the names of NefteKhimTrading, Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple, Variant, TriplePharm, Rakovsky brovar and Triple-Veles by Decision 2012/642 and Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012, and, on the other hand, the names of Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple, Variant and Rakovsky brovar by Decision 2014/750 and Implementing Regulation No 1159/2014 (see, to that effect, judgments in Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council, cited in paragraph 165 above, EU:T:2013:453, paragraphs 75 to 77 and Nabipour and Others v Council, cited in paragraph 137 above, EU:T:2013:640, paragraphs 81 to 86). 197 Concerning the retention on the lists of the names of NefteKhimTrading, Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple, Rakovsky brovar and Triple-Veles by Decision 2013/534 and Implementing Regulation No 1054/2013, it must be recalled, as is clear from paragraphs 33 and 35 above, that it was based on the same grounds as those set out when Decision 2012/642 and Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012 were adopted. 198 Therefore, the finding, as is clear from paragraphs 195 and 196 above, that the fact of being Triple’s subsidiary did not justify the retention, on the lists, of the names Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple and Rakovsky brovar by Decision 2012/642 and Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012 is capable of being applied to Decision 2013/534 and Implementing Regulation No 1054/2013 in so far as they apply to the applicants cited in paragraph 197 above. 199 Thus, even though Decision 2013/534 and Implementing Regulation No 1054/2013 have not been annulled in so far as they apply to Triple, that does not mean that the retention of Triple’s name on the lists by those measures must be regarded as justified in the context of the review of the validity of retaining, on the lists, the names of NefteKhimTrading, Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple, Rakovsky brovar and Triple-Veles, by Decision 2013/534 and Implementing Regulation No 1054/2013. 200 Given the foregoing considerations, it is necessary to consider that it is not necessary to rule on the argument, put forward at the hearing by the applicants that Triple does not hold any shares in the capital of six of the applicants, namely NefteKhimTrading, Askargoterminal, Altersolutions, Rakovsky brovar, TriplePharm and Triple-Veles. 201 In consequence, in the light of the considerations set out in paragraphs 194 to 200 above, it must be concluded that the Council erred: – by retaining on the lists, by Decision 2012/642 and Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012, the names of NefteKhimTrading, Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple, Variant, TriplePharm, Rakovsky brovar and Triple-Veles; – by retaining on the lists, by Decision 2013/534 and Implementing Regulation No 1054/2013, the names of NefteKhimTrading, Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple, Rakovsky brovar and Triple-Veles; – by retaining on the lists, by Decision 2014/750 and Implementing Regulation No 1159/2014, the names of Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple, Variant and Rakovsky brovar. 202 In the light of all of the foregoing, the Court must uphold the action in part and annul Implementing Decision 2012/171, Implementing Regulation No 265/2012, Decision 2012/642 and Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012 in so far as they relate to all the applicants, Decision 2013/534 and Implementing Regulation No 1054/2013 in so far as they relate to NefteKhimTrading, Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple, Rakovsky brovar and Triple-Veles, and also Decision 2014/750 and Implementing Regulation No 1159/2014 in so far as they relate to M. Chyzh, Triple, Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Variant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple and Rakovsky brovar, without there being any need for the Court to consider the other pleas in law. Costs 203 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. 204 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 applicants, in addition to its own costs, as applied for in the applicants’ 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 and 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 in so far as they relate to Mr Yury Aleksandrovich Chyzh, Triple TAA, NefteKhimTrading STAA, Askargoterminal ZAT, Bereza Silicate Products Plant AAT, Variant TAA, Triple-Dekor STAA, KvartsMelProm SZAT, Altersolutions SZAT, Prostoremarket SZAT, AquaTriple STAA, Rakovsky brovar TAA, TriplePharm STAA and Triple-Veles TAA; 2. Annuls 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 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus in so far as they relate to NefteKhimTrading, Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple, Rakovsky brovar and Triple-Veles; 3. Annuls 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 Mr Chyzh, Triple, Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple, Variant and Rakovsky brovar; 4. Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it seeks annulment of Decision 2013/534 and Implementing Regulation No 1054/2013 in so far as they concern Mr Chyzh, Triple, Variant and TriplePharm; 5. Dismisses the action as to the remainder; 6. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Mr Chyzh, Triple, NefteKhimTrading, Askargoterminal, Bereza Silicate Products Plant, Triple-Dekor, KvartsMelProm, Altersolutions, Prostoremarket, AquaTriple, Variant, Rakovsky brovar, TriplePharm and Triple-Veles. Kanninen Pelikánová Buttigieg Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 6 October 2015. [Signatures] * Language of the case: English.