62022TJ0534_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 September 2024 –Belarusian Potash Company v Council
(Case T‑534/22)
(Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine – Freezing of funds – Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the list – Support for the regime – Financial support – Benefiting from the regime – Error of assessment)
1.
Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Restrictive measures against Belarus – Freezing of funds of certain persons and entities having regard to the situation in Belarus – Natural or legal persons, entities or bodies benefitting from or supporting the Lukashenko regime – Facts corresponding to support for the regime or to the act of benefitting from it – No need to distinguish between the facts
(Art. 296 TFEU; Council Decisions 2012/642/CFSP, Art. 4(1)(b), and (CFSP) 2022/881; Council Regulations No 765/2006, Art. 2(1) and (5), and 2022/876)
(see paragraphs 34, 35)
2.
Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures against Belarus – Freezing of funds of certain persons and entities having regard to the situation in Belarus – Judicial review of legality – Scope – Provision of general scope concerning an individual restrictive measure – Inclusion by way of a plea of illegality – Plea put forward implicitly – Formal nature – None
(Art. 277 TFEU; Council Decisions 2012/642/CFSP, Art. 4(1)(b), and (CFSP) 2022/881; Council Regulations No 765/2006, Art. 2(1) and (5), and 2022/876)
(see paragraphs 43, 44)
3.
European Union – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Restrictive measures against Belarus – Freezing of funds of certain persons and entities having regard to the situation in Belarus – Scope of the review – Restricted review for general rules – Criteria for adopting restrictive measures – Natural or legal persons, entities or bodies benefitting from or supporting the Lukashenko regime – Scope – Compliance with the principle of legal certainty requiring clarity, precision and foreseeability of the effects of legal rules
(Art. 215(2) TFEU; Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP, Art. 4(1)(b); Council Regulation No 765/2006, Art. 2(1) and (5))
(see paragraphs 45, 47-49, 60)
4.
Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures against Belarus – Freezing of funds of certain persons and entities having regard to the situation in Belarus – Measures adopted under an implementing power – Interpretation of the implementing measure in accordance with the basic act – Taking into account of the context of the legislation at issue
(Art. 215(2) TFEU; Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP, Art. 4(1)(b); Council Regulation No 765/2006, Art. 2(1) and (5))
(see paragraphs 45-49, 60)
5.
European Union – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Restrictive measures against Belarus – Scope of the review – Proof that the measure is well founded – Obligation on the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the reasons relied on against the persons or entities concerned are well founded – Error of assessment – None
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decisions 2012/642/CFSP and (CFSP) 2022/881; Council Regulations No 765/2006 and 2022/876)
(see paragraphs 65-68, 71-74, 77, 82, 83, 86, 102, 105)
6.
Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures against Belarus – Criteria for adopting restrictive measures – Natural or legal persons, entities or bodies benefitting from or supporting the Lukashenko regime – Concept of support for the regime – Fertiliser sector – Strategic export activity providing high revenue to the regime – Included
(Council Decisions 2012/642/CFSP, Art. 4(1)(b) and (CFSP) 2022/881; Council Regulations No 765/2006, Art. 2(1) and (5) and 2022/876)
(see paragraphs 89-92, 95-97, 100, 101)
7.
Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures against Belarus – Criteria for adopting restrictive measures – Natural or legal persons, entities or bodies benefitting from or supporting the Lukashenko regime – Concept of benefit – Existence of a monopoly on a market important to the economy – Included – Loss of the monopoly affording special privileges within that market – Included
(Council Decisions 2012/642/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2023/421, Art. 4(1)(b), and (CFSP) 2022/881; Council Regulations No 765/2006, Art. 2(1) and (5), 2022/876 and 2023/419)
(see paragraphs 103, 104, 130-133)
8.
European Union – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Restrictive measures against Belarus – Freezing of funds of certain persons and entities having regard to the situation in Belarus – Scope of the review – Proof that the measure is well founded – Obligation on the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the reasons relied on against the persons or entities concerned are well founded – Breadth of the discretion of that competent authority – Relevance of the evidence produced in connection with an earlier listing in the absence of any amendment to the grounds for listing, changes to the applicant’s situation or changes to the context of Belarus
(Council Decisions 2012/642/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2023/421, Art. 4(1)(b), and (CFSP) 2022/881; Council Regulations No 765/2006, Art. 2(1) and (5), 2022/876 and 2023/419)
(see paragraph 120)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Belarusian Potash Company AAT to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;
3.
Orders the Republic of Latvia to bear its own costs.