Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 September 2017 — Uganda Commercial Impex v Council

(Cases T‑107/15 and T‑347/15)

(Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against the Democratic Republic of the Congo — Freezing of funds — List of the persons, entities and bodies acting in breach of the embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list)

1. European Union—Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions—Restrictive measures taken against the Democratic Republic of the Congo—Freezing of funds of persons acting in breach of the arms embargo imposed on that Republic—Ambit of the review—Proof the measure well-founded—No obligation on the Council systematically to verify evidence submitted by the United Nations—Obligation on the Council to examine carefully and impartially the evidence on which the applicant’s designation by the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council is based (Art. 257, second para. TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 41 and 47; Council Decisions 2014/862/CFSP and (CFSP) 2015/620; Council Regulations No 1275/2014 and 2015/614) (see paras 53-55, 76-82)

2. Common foreign and security policy—Restrictive measures taken against the Democratic Republic of the Congo—Freezing of funds of persons acting in breach of the arms embargo imposed on that Republic—Nature of those measures—Purely protective measures—No criminal character (Arts 21 and 29 TEU; Council Decisions 2014/862/CFSP and (CFSP) 2015/620; Council Regulations No 1275/2014 and 2015/614) (see para. 63)

3. Judicial proceedings—Time-limit for producing evidence—Article 85(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court—Scope (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 85(2) and 92(7)) (see para. 72)

4. EU law—Principles—Rights of defence—Right to effective judicial protection—Freezing of funds of persons acting in breach of the arms embargo imposed on the Democratic Republic of the Congo—Obligation to disclose individual and specific grounds for the decisions adopted—Obligation to enable the person concerned effectively to put forward his point of view on the grounds held against him (Art. 220(1) TFEU; Council Decisions 2014/862/CFSP and (CFSP) 2015/620; Council Regulations No 1275/2014 and 2015/614) (see paras 96-98)

5. Common foreign and security policy—Restrictive measures taken against the Democratic Republic of the Congo—Freezing of funds—Rights of defence—Notification of inculpatory evidence—Subsequent decision maintaining the name of the applicant on the list of persons covered by those measures—No new grounds—Infringement of the right to be heard—None (Council Decisions 2014/862/CFSP and (CFSP) 2015/620; Council Regulations No 1275/2014 and 2015/614) (see para. 97)

6. EU law—Principles—Rights of defence—Restrictive measures taken against the Democratic Republic of the Congo—Freezing of funds of persons acting in breach of the arms embargo imposed on that Republic—Right of access to documents—Right to be heard—Rights subject to an application in that behalf before the Council (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2); Council Decisions 2014/862/CFSP and (CFSP) 2015/620; Council Regulations No 1275/2014 and 2015/614) (see para 102)

7. Actions for annulment—Pleas in law—Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons—Separate ground from the one concerning substantive legality (Arts 263 TFEU and 296 TFEU) (see paras 109, 110)

8. Acts of the institutions—Statement of reasons—Obligation—Scope—Freezing of funds of persons acting in breach of the arms embargo imposed on the Democratic Republic of the Congo—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 sufficient—Limits—Statement of reasons not capable of consisting of a general and stereotyped formulation (Art. 296 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(c); Council Decisions 2014/862/CFSP and (CFSP) 2015/620; Council Regulations No 1275/2014 and 2015/614) (see paras 111-113)

9. Common foreign and security policy—Restrictive measures taken against the Democratic Republic of the Congo—Freezing of funds of persons acting in breach of the arms embargo imposed on that Republic—Restriction of the right to property and the free exercise of an economic activity—Breach of principle of proportionality—None (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 16 and 17(1); Council Decisions 2014/862/CFSP and (CFSP) 2015/620; Council Regulations No 1275/2014 and 2015/614) (see paras 123-125)

Re:

APPLICATION, in Case T‑107/15, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2014/862/CFSP of 1 December 2014 implementing Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2014 L 346, p. 36) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1275/2014 of 1 December 2014 implementing Article 9(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2014 L 346, p. 3), and, in so far as necessary, for a declaration that Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2005 L 193, p. 1) is not applicable to the applicant and, in Case T‑347/15, an application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/620 of 20 April 2015 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2015 L 102, p. 43) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/614 of 20 April 2015, implementing Article 9(4) of Regulation No 1183/2005 (OJ 2015 L 102, p. 10), and, in so far as necessary, for a declaration that Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1183/2005 is not applicable to the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T‑107/15 and T‑347/15 for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions;