Case T‑593/11

Fares Al-Chihabi

v

Council of the European Union

‛Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Right to property — Right to respect for private life — Proportionality’

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber), 30 April 2015

Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Prohibition of entry and transit and freezing of funds of certain persons and entities responsible for violent repression against the civilian population — Restriction of the right to property and respect for private life — No breach of principle of proportionality

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Clear and precise statement of the pleas relied on — Lack of clarity and precision — Inadmissibility

Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies having regard to the situation in Syria — Limits to that obligation — Overriding considerations concerning the security of the Union and its Member States — Adverse effect on the legitimate interests of the person concerned

Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies having regard to the situation in Syria — Decision falling within a context known to the person concerned, enabling him to understand the scope of the measure taken against him — Whether a summary statement of reasons is sufficient

Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies associated with the Syrian regime — Rights of defence — Disclosure of inculpatory evidence — Subsequent decision maintaining the name of a person on the list of persons concerned by those measures — No new grounds — No infringement of the right to be heard

EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies associated with the Syrian regime — Obligation to disclose individual and specific grounds for the decisions adopted — Scope — Notification to the person concerned by means of a publication in the Official Journal — Lawfulness

See the text of the decision. (see paras 36-43, 54, 55)

In the case of a decision maintaining a person’s name on the list of persons covered by restrictive measures, as opposed to cases where the name is listed for the first time, the competent EU authority is in principle under a duty to disclose to that person, before the decision is adopted, the evidence on which it bases that decision, so that that person will be able to defend his rights. However, where the Council supplements the reasons for placing the applicant’s name on a list of persons covered by restrictive measures, a distinction must be made, according to the acts in question. Whilst any subsequent fund-freezing decision must in principle be preceded by notification of the new inculpatory factors and a hearing, that is not the position where the grounds of a subsequent decision freezing funds are in substance the same as those already relied on for the adoption of an earlier decision. Accordingly, a simple statement to that effect may suffice. Thus, lack of individual notification of such a decision, for which the Council simply repeated the reasons for the initial listing, without adding or amending anything, does not adversely affect defence rights. However, in the case of a decision for the purposes of which the Council amended the reasons for the initial inclusion of the applicant’s name in the list in question, before such a measure is adopted, new evidence must be notified and the right to be heard respected. (see paras 44-48)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 61-67, 71, 76)

As regards the entry of a person’s name in the lists of persons covered by restrictive measures against Syria, in order correctly to discharge its obligation to give reasons for an act imposing restrictive measures, the Council must mention the elements of fact and law on which the legal justification of those measures depends and the considerations which have led it to take those measures. It follows that, in principle, the statement of reasons for such an act must cover not only the legal conditions for applying restrictive measures, but also the actual and specific reasons why the Council considers, in the exercise of its broad discretion, that the person concerned should be subject to such measures. However, detailed publication of the complaints put forward against the parties concerned might not only conflict with the overriding considerations of public interest related to the security of the European Union and its Member States, or the conduct of their international relations, but also jeopardise the legitimate interests of the persons and entities in question, in that it would be capable of causing serious damage to their reputation, so that, exceptionally, it is permissible for only the operative part of the decision and a general statement of reasons to appear in the version of the fund-freezing decision published in the Official Journal, it being understood that the actual, specific statements of reasons for that decision must be formalised and brought to the knowledge of the parties concerned by any other appropriate means. (see paras 72, 73)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 94-96)