JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)

22 April 2015 ( *1 )

‛Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures imposed on certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Zimbabwe — Restrictions on entry into and transit through the European Union — Freezing of funds — Legal basis — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Fundamental rights — Proportionality’

In Case T‑190/12,

Johannes Tomana, residing in Harare (Zimbabwe), and the 120 other applicants named in the annex hereto, represented initially by D. Vaughan QC, M. Lester and R. Lööf, Barristers, and by M. O’Kane, Solicitor, and subsequently by D. Vaughan, M. Lester and M. O’Kane,

applicants,

v

Council of the European Union, represented by B. Driessen, M. Veiga and A. Vitro, acting as Agents,

and

European Commission, represented by M. Konstantinidis, T. Scharf and E. Georgieva, acting as Agents,

defendants,

supported by

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by E. Jenkinson, C. Murrell and M. Holt, acting as Agents, and by S. Lee, Barrister,

intervener,

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Decision 2012/97/CFSP of 17 February 2012 amending Decision 2011/101/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ 2012 L 47, p. 50), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 151/2012 of 21 February 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ 2012 L 49, p. 2), and Council Implementing Decision 2012/124/CFSP of 27 February 2012 implementing Decision 2011/101/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ 2012 L 54, p. 20), in so far as those acts concern the applicants,

THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber),

composed of D. Gratsias (Rapporteur), President, M. Kancheva and C. Wetter, Judges,

Registrar: C. Kristensen, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 10 June 2014,

gives the following

Judgment

Background to the dispute

1 In Common Position 2002/145/CFSP of 18 February 2002 concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ 2002 L 50, p. 1), adopted under Article 15 of the EU Treaty, prior to its amendment by the Treaty of Lisbon, the Council of the European Union expressed its deep concern about the situation in Zimbabwe, in particular with regard to the serious infringements of human rights — notably the right to freedom of speech, association and peaceful assembly — committed by the Government of Zimbabwe. It therefore imposed restrictive measures for a renewable 12-month period, which would be subject to annual review. Those measures included, in particular, the obligation on Member States to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of the natural persons listed in the Annex to that common position, as well as the freezing of funds and economic resources of the persons and entities listed in that annex. Common Position 2002/145 was amended and extended for a period of 12 months, that is to say until 20 February 2004, by Council Common Position 2003/115/CFSP of 18 February 2003 amending and extending Common Position 2002/145 (OJ 2003 L 46, p. 30).

2 The freezing of assets and economic resources provided for in Common Position 2002/145 was implemented by Council Regulation (EC) No 310/2002 of 18 February 2002 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (OJ 2002 L 50, p. 4). The period of application of that regulation was limited to 12 months from the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. It was extended for a further period of 12 months, that is to say until 20 February 2004, by Council Regulation (EC) No 313/2003 of 18 February 2003 extending Regulation No 310/2002 (OJ 2003 L 46, p. 6).

3 Council Common Position 2004/161/CFSP of 19 February 2004 renewing restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ 2004 L 50, p. 66) made provision for the renewal of the restrictive measures established by Common Position 2002/145. In accordance with the second paragraph of Article 8 thereof, Common Position 2004/161 applied as from 21 February 2004. Article 9 thereof provided that it would apply for a period of 12 months and would be kept under constant review. That article also provided that the common position had to be ‘renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deem[ed] that its objectives ha[d] not been met’.

4 Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 of 19 February 2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (OJ 2004 L 55, p. 1) was adopted, in accordance with recital 5 in the preamble thereof, in order to implement the restrictive measures provided for in Common Position 2004/161. Article 6(1) of Regulation No 314/2004 provides, inter alia, that all funds and economic resources belonging to members of the Government of Zimbabwe and to any natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, as listed in Annex III to that regulation, are to be frozen. Article 11(b) of that regulation states that the Commission is to be empowered to amend Annex III to that regulation on the basis of decisions taken in respect of the Annex to Common Position 2004/161.

5 The period of validity of Common Position 2004/161 was extended on several occasions, most recently until 20 February 2011 by Council Decision 2010/92/CFSP of 15 February 2010 extending restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ 2010 L 41, p. 6).

6 Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP of 15 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ 2011 L 42, p. 6) repealed Common Position 2004/161. That decision made provision for the imposition, on the persons whose names appeared in the Annex thereto, of restrictive measures similar to those provided for in Common Position 2004/161.

7 In particular, Article 4(1) of Decision 2011/101 provides: ‘Member States shall take the measures necessary to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of members of the Government of Zimbabwe and of natural persons associated with them, as well as of other natural persons whose activities seriously undermine democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe. The individuals referred to in this paragraph are listed in the Annex.’

8 Article 5(1) of Decision 2011/101 provides: ‘All funds and economic resources belonging to individual members of the Government of Zimbabwe or to any natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, or belonging to any other natural or legal person whose activities seriously undermine democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe, shall be frozen. The persons and entities referred to in this paragraph are listed in the Annex.’

9 Article 6(1) of that decision provides: ‘The Council, acting upon a proposal by a Member State or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall adopt modifications to the list contained in the Annex as required by political developments in Zimbabwe.’

10 Further, Article 7 of Decision 2011/101 provides: ‘1. The Annex shall include the grounds for listing the natural or legal persons and entities. 2. The Annex shall also contain, where available, the information necessary to identify the natural or legal persons or entities concerned. With regard to natural persons, such information may include names, including aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, passport and ID card numbers, gender, address, and function or profession. With regard to legal persons or entities, such information may include names, place and date of registration, registration number and place of business.’

11 Lastly, as provided for in Article 10(2), Decision 2011/101 was to apply until 20 February 2012. Under that same article, the decision was to be kept under constant review and was to be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deemed that its objectives had not been met.

12 Article 1(1) of Council Decision 2012/97/CFSP of 17 February 2012 amending Decision 2011/101 (OJ 2012 L 47, p. 50), which is the first act against which this action is directed, replaced Article 10 of Decision 2011/101 with the following provision: ‘1. This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption. 2. This Decision shall apply until 20 February 2013. 3. The measures referred to in Article 4(1), in so far as they apply to persons listed in Annex II, shall be suspended until 20 February 2013. 4. This Decision shall be kept under constant review and shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.’

13 In addition, Article 1(2) of Decision 2012/97 provides that the term ‘Annex’ used in Decision 2011/101 is to be replaced by the term ‘Annex I’ and that the text of that annex is to be replaced by the text set out in Annex I to Decision 2012/97. Last, Article 1(3) of Decision 2012/97 provides that Annex II thereto is to be added as Annex II to Decision 2011/101.

14 Recitals 1 to 5 in the preamble of Decision 2012/97 are worded as follows: ‘(1) On 15 February 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/101 … (2) On the basis of a review of Decision 2011/101 … the restrictive measures should be extended until 20 February 2013. (3) However, there are no longer grounds for keeping certain persons and entities on the list of persons and entities to which the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/101 … apply. (4) In order to facilitate further the dialogue between the EU and the Government of Zimbabwe, the travel ban imposed on the two members of the re-engagement team of the Zimbabwe Government listed under Decision 2011/101 … should be suspended. (5) The information relating to certain persons and entities included on the list in the Annex to Decision 2011/101 … should be updated.’

15 Annex I to Decision 2011/101, as replaced by Decision 2012/97, includes the names of Mr Johannes Tomana and the 120 other applicants, as listed in Annex A.4 to the application. The names of the same persons and entities also appeared in the Annex to Decision 2011/101 before the amendments made by Decision 2012/97.

16 Article 1 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 151/2012 of 21 February 2012 amending Regulation No 314/2004 (OJ 2012 L 49, p. 2), which is the second act against which this action is directed, replaced Annex III to Regulation No 314/2004 with a new annex containing the names of all the applicants. Further, recital 2 in the preamble of that regulation is worded as follows: ‘… Decision 2011/101 … identifies the natural and legal persons to whom restrictions are to apply as provided for in Article 5 of that Decision, and Regulation … No 314/2004 gives effect to that Decision to the extent that action at Union level is required. Annex III to Regulation … No 314/2004 should, therefore, be amended to ensure consistency with this Council Decision.’

17 It should also be noted that the names of all the applicants also appeared in Annex III to Regulation No 314/2004, as in force before being replaced pursuant to Article 1 of Implementing Regulation No 151/2012.

18 Council Implementing Decision 2012/124/CFSP of 27 February 2012 implementing Decision 2011/101 (OJ 2012 L 54, p. 20), which is the third act against which this action is directed, amended the entry relating to applicant No 60, Mr Cephas George Msipa, whose name is listed in the Annex to Decision 2011/101. In particular, the following wording was added regarding that individual in the previously empty column relating to the grounds for his inclusion in the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures imposed by that decision: ‘Former Provincial Governor associated with the ZANU-PF faction of the Government.’

19 On 20 April 2012 the applicants asked the Council to provide them with ‘all of the evidence and information’ on which it had relied in making its decision to apply restrictive measures to them.

Procedure and forms of order sought by the parties

20 By application lodged at the General Court Registry on 25 April 2012, the applicants brought the present action.

21 By document entitled ‘Plea of inadmissibility’ lodged at the Court Registry on 4 July 2012, the Council asked the Court: — to verify that the applicants No 2 to No 109, all natural persons, indeed support the action; — to the extent that it turns out that they do not, to dismiss the action as manifestly inadmissible as far as these applicants are concerned, and to order the remaining applicants to pay the costs.

22 In so far as the Council essentially requested, by means of that document, the adoption of a measure of organisation of procedure, within the meaning of Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the applicants and the Commission were invited to submit written observations on that request, which they did on 29 and 25 October 2012 respectively.

23 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 16 August 2012, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland sought leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the defendants. By order of 25 October 2012, the President of the Third Chamber of the General Court granted leave to intervene. The United Kingdom lodged its statement in intervention on 14 December 2012. The applicants, the Council and the Commission submitted written observations on that statement in intervention on 16 January, 24 January and 20 February 2013 respectively.

24 By letter of 7 November 2012, a copy of which was lodged at the Court Registry on the same date, the applicants informed the Council that applicant No 66, Mr Isack Stanislaus Gorerazvo Mudenge, had died.

25 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 19 November 2012, the applicants asked the Court to invite the Council to confirm that the material in Annex B.19 to the defence did not constitute the evidence on which the Council had relied in deciding to designate the persons affected by the restrictive measures at issue. Since this was, in essence, a request to adopt a measure of organisation of procedure, within the meaning of Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court invited the Council, the Commission and the United Kingdom to submit their observations on that request, which they all did, on 10, 11 and 7 December 2012 respectively. In its observations, the Council also informed the Court that it had replied, by letter of 27 November 2012, to the applicants’ request mentioned in paragraph 19 above and the Council produced a copy of that letter and its annexes.

26 Furthermore, since the applicants had asked the Court in the above-mentioned letter of 19 November 2012 (paragraph 26 above) to indicate that any additional material relied on by the Council at that stage of the procedure would be disregarded and would not form part of the case file, the applicants were reminded, by letter of 26 November 2012, that Article 48(1) of the Rules of Procedure applied as regards offers of further evidence.

27 In their reply, which was lodged at the Court Registry on 31 January 2013, the applicants informed the Court that applicant No 83, Mr John Landa Nkomo, had died.

28 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 25 February 2013, the Council notified the Court of the adoption of Council Decision 2013/89/CFSP of 18 February 2013 amending Decision 2011/101 (OJ 2013 L 46, p. 37). That decision amended Annex I to Decision 2011/101 so as to remove from the list of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures at issue the names of applicant No 6, Mr David Chapfika; applicant No 9, Mr Tinaye Chigudu; applicant No 16, Mr Tongesai Shadreck Chipanga; applicant No 32, Mr R. Kwenda; applicant No 38, Mr Shuvai Ben Mahofa; applicant No 42, Mr G. Mashava; applicant No 54, Mr Gilbert Moyo; applicant No 58, Mr S. Mpabanga; applicant No 60, Mr Cephas George Msipa; applicant No 64, Mr C. Muchono; applicant No 66, Mr Isack Stanislaus Gorerazvo Mudenge; applicant No 67, Mr Columbus Mudonhi; applicant No 68, Mr Bothwell Mugariri; applicant No 70, Mr Isaac Mumba; applicant No 78, Mr S. Mutsvunguma; applicant No 83, Mr John Landa Nkomo; applicant No 84, Mr Michael Reuben Nyambuya; applicant No 88, Mr David Pagwese Parirenyatwa; applicant No 89, Mr Dani Rangwani; applicant No 92, Mr Richard Ruwodo; applicant No 109, Mr Patrick Zhuwao, and applicant No 113, Divine Homes (Private) Ltd.

29 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 145/2013 of 19 February 2013 amending Regulation No 314/2004 (OJ 2013 L 47, p. 63) amended Annex III to the latter regulation so as to remove the references in that annex to the persons and entities mentioned in paragraph 28 above.

30 The applicants were invited to submit observations on the Council’s letter mentioned in paragraph 28 above, but they did not comply with that request.

31 Article 1(1) of Decision 2013/160/CFSP of 27 March 2013 amending Decision 2011/101 (OJ 2013 L 90, p. 95), replaced the text of Article 10(3) of Decision 2011/101, the new text reading as follows: ‘[t]he measures referred to in Article 4(1) and Article 5(1) and (2), in so far as they apply to persons and entities listed in Annex II, shall be suspended until 20 February 2014. The suspension shall be reviewed every three months’. Article 1(2) of Decision 2013/160 further provided that Annex II to Decision 2011/101 was to be replaced by the text set out in the Annex to Decision 2013/160.

32 The names of the majority of the applicants, both natural persons and entities, appear in Annex II to Decision 2011/101, as replaced by Decision 2013/160. The names of the following applicants are not listed there: applicant No 3, Mr Happyton Mabhuya Bonyongwe; applicant No 12, Ms Augustine Chihuri; applicant No 18, Mr Constantine Chiwenga; applicant No 75, Mr Didymus Noel Edwin Mutasa; applicant No 86, Mr Douglas Nyikayaramba; applicant No 99, Mr Perence Samson Chikerema Shiri; applicant No 102, Mr Jabulani Sibanda; applicant No 104, Mr Philip Valerio Sibanda; applicant No 120, Zimbabwe Defence Industries (Private) Ltd, and applicant No 121, Zimbabwe Mining Development Corp.

33 Article 1 of Council Regulation (EU) No 298/2013 of 27 March 2013 amending Regulation No 314/2004 (OJ 2013 L 90, p. 48) provides that ‘the application of Article 6 of Regulation … No 314/2004 is suspended until 20 February 2014 in so far as it applies to the persons and entities listed in the Annex to this Regulation’ and that ‘[t]he suspension shall be reviewed every three months’. The Annex to Regulation No 298/2013 contains the names of the same natural persons and entities as those listed in Annex II to Decision 2011/101, as replaced by Decision 2013/160 (see paragraph 32 above).

34 After a change in the composition of the Chambers of the Court, the Judge-Rapporteur was assigned to the Eighth Chamber, to which the present case was, consequently, allocated.

35 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 26 September 2013, the Council notified the Court of the adoption of Council Implementing Decision 2013/469/CFSP of 23 September 2013 implementing Decision 2011/101 (OJ 2013 L 252, p. 31). The former decision amended Annex I to Decision 2011/101 so as to de-list applicant No 121, Zimbabwe Mining Development.

36 Furthermore, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 915/2013 of 23 September 2013 amending Regulation No 314/2004 (OJ 2013 L 252, p. 23) amended Annex III to the latter regulation so as to remove the entry in that annex relating to applicant No 121.

37 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 20 February 2014, the Council notified the Court of the adoption of Council Decision 2014/98/CFSP of 17 February 2014 amending Decision 2011/101 (OJ 2014 L 50, p. 20), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 153/2014 of 17 February 2014 amending Regulation No 314/2004 and repealing Regulation No 298/2013 (OJ 2014 L 50, p. 1)

38 Article 1(2) of Decision 2014/98 replaced Article 10 of Decision 2011/101 with the following text: ‘1. This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption. 2. This Decision shall apply until 20 February 2015. 3. The measures referred to in Article 4(1) and Article 5(1) and (2), in so far as they apply to persons and entities listed in Annex II, shall be suspended until 20 February 2015. The suspension shall be reviewed every three months. 4. This Decision shall be kept under constant review and shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.’

39 Further, Article 2 of Decision 2014/98 provides that ‘[t]he persons set out in Annex I to Decision 2011/101/CFSP listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to Annex II to Decision 2011/101/CFSP’. The Annex to Decision 2014/98 contains the names of the applicants No 3, No 12, No 18, No 75, No 86, No 99, No 102 and No 104.

40 For its part, Regulation No 153/2014 provides as follows: ‘Article 1 Regulation … No 314/2004 is amended as follows: (1) in Article 6, the following paragraph is added: “4. The measures in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be suspended in so far as they concern persons and entities listed in Annex IV.” (2) the Annex to this Regulation is added as Annex IV. Article 2 Regulation … No 298/2013 is repealed. Article 3 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.’

41 Annex IV to Regulation No 314/2004, as added by Regulation No 153/2014, includes the names of all the applicants — natural persons and entities — who were still listed in Annex III to that regulation, with the sole exception of applicant No 120, Zimbabwe Defence Industries, being the only applicant in respect of whom the freezing of funds and economic resources provided for in that regulation still applies and has not been suspended.

42 The Court invited the other parties to submit observations on the Council’s letter referred to in paragraph 37 above. The applicants and the Commission complied with that request on 21 and 4 March 2014 respectively.

43 On hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur, the Court (Eighth Chamber) decided to open the oral procedure and, by way of measures of organisation of procedure provided for under Article 64 of its Rules of Procedure, invited the parties to reply in writing to certain questions and to lodge certain documents. The parties complied with that request within the prescribed period.

44 With the exception of the United Kingdom, which was absent, the parties presented oral arguments and their answers to the questions put by the Court at the hearing of 10 June 2014.

45 At the hearing, the Council added to the court file a number of press articles, which indicate that applicant No 68, Mr Bothwell Mugariri, applicant No 96, Mr Lovemore Sekeremayi and applicant No 98, Mr Nathan Marwirakuwa Shamuyarira, had died. The applicants’ representatives confirmed that the latter two individuals had died, but stated that, as far as they knew, the report of the death of Mr Mugariri was inaccurate. Further, in reply to a question from the Court, the applicants’ representatives confirmed that they regarded themselves as instructed by all the applicants and offered to produce written authorities to act (‘powers of attorney’) signed by each applicant in respect of whom no such authority to act had been annexed to the application. The Court took note of the lodging of the abovementioned documents and statements in the written record of the hearing.

46 At the hearing, the Court invited the applicants and the Council to reply in writing to certain questions and to produce certain documents, including the authorities to act required. The parties complied with the Court’s request within the time allowed, following which the written procedure was closed by decision of the President of the Eighth Chamber.

47 The applicants claim that the Court should: — annul Decision 2012/97, Implementing Regulation No 151/2012 and Implementing Decision 2012/124, in so far as they concern the applicants; — order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs.

48 The Council and the Commission contend that the Court should: — dismiss the action; — order the applicants to pay the costs.

49 The United Kingdom supports the form of order sought by the Council and the Commission seeking dismissal of the action.

Law

1. The applicants who have died

50 It is recognised in the case-law that an action for annulment brought by the addressee of a measure can be pursued by the addressee’s successor, particularly in the case of the death of a natural person (Joined Cases T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00 and T-78/00 JFE Engineering and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II-2501, paragraph 46; see also, to that effect, Case 92/82 Gutmann v Commission [1983] ECR 3127, paragraph 2).

51 In this case, as stated in paragraphs 24 and 27 above, applicant No 66, Mr I. S. G. Mudenge, and applicant No 93, Mr J. L. Nkomo, have died in the course of proceedings. Further, in reply to one of the questions put to them at the hearing for response in writing, the applicants’ representatives have confirmed that applicant No 96, Mr Lovemore Sekeremayi, and applicant No 98, Mr Nathan Marwirakuwa Shamuyarira, have died in the course of proceedings. Last, the applicants’ representatives took the opportunity to state that applicant No 32, Mr R. Kwenda, has also died in the course of proceedings.

52 With regard to all the abovementioned deceased applicants, the applicants’ representatives have stated that their successors, who are in all cases their widows, wished to continue proceedings and they lodged written statements from the widows to that effect, certified by a notary. In the remainder of this judgment, the term ‘the applicants’, in so far as it refers to the abovementioned deceased applicants, refers to their successors who have lodged a written statement expressing their wish to continue these proceedings.

2. Whether the lawyers who signed the application were instructed by all the applicants who are natural persons

53 As stated in paragraph 21 above, the Council, by a separate document, requested that the Court verify that all the applicants who are natural persons ‘indeed support the current court proceeding’. In that context, the Council argued that the applicants’ representatives had not annexed to their application any mandate (‘power of attorney’) or any other evidence capable of showing that they were duly authorised to act by the applicants No 2 to No 110 inclusive, who are natural persons.

54 The Council therefore submitted that the action had to be declared to be inadmissible in so far as it concerned those applicants, unless their representatives produced, from each of them, evidence that they wished to bring the action. The Council relied, in that context, on the judgment in Case 14/64 Barge v High Authority [1965] English Special Edition p. 51, 57. The Council’s claim was also supported by the Commission.

55 It must be recalled that, under, first, the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 19 and the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, applicable to the procedure before the General Court pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 53 of that Statute, and, second, the first subparagraph of Article 43(1) of the [General Court’s] Rules of Procedure, the parties, other than the Member States and institutions of the European Union, the EFTA Surveillance Authority or the States which are parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), must be represented by a lawyer who is authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of another State which is party to the EEA Agreement. Further, the application must contain the applicant’s name and permanent address and a statement of the signatory’s capacity. Last, the original of every pleading must be signed by the party’s agent or lawyer.

56 However, it is only with respect to legal persons that Article 44(5)(b) of the Rules of Procedure provides for the obligation to attach to the application ‘proof that the authority granted to the applicant’s lawyer has been properly conferred on him by someone authorised for the purpose’. The Rules of Procedure therefore allow natural persons to be represented by a lawyer without the lawyer being required to produce evidence of instructions to act, as is necessary in the case of legal persons (Case T-34/02 Le Levant 001 and Others v Commission [2006] ECR II-267, paragraph 64).

57 The reason why lawyers representing a natural person are not obliged to lodge evidence of instructions to act signed by their client is doubtless to be found in the fact that, if a member of the bar of one of the Member States, subject as such to a code of professional ethics, declares that he has been duly instructed by his client, that declaration is, as a general rule, deemed to be sufficiently reliable (see, to that effect, the judgment in Case C-229/05 P PKK and KNK v Council [2007] ECR I-439, paragraph 119).

58 However, if account is also taken of the provisions mentioned in paragraph 55 above, it must be concluded that, before commencing the examination of an action brought before it, the Court must satisfy itself that the lawyer who has signed the application has indeed been appointed by the person in whose name the action has been brought as that person’s representative. In the light of what is stated in paragraph 57 above, it must be concluded that, normally, the Court regards the fact that a lawyer has signed and lodged an application in the name of a natural person as an implicit declaration on the part of that lawyer that he has been duly instructed by the natural person concerned, and the Court regards that form of declaration as being sufficient. However, if there are specific factors which are capable of casting doubt on the reality of that implicit declaration, the Court may justifiably request the lawyer concerned to prove that he is in fact instructed.

59 It is in that light that the statement in Barge v High Authority, paragraph 54 above (p. 57), that the lawyer is not ‘required to produce a duly executed authority to act in the lodging of an application, subject to proof if challenged that he is so authorised’, should be understood. That statement must be placed in the context of that case, as is apparent from the Opinion of Advocate General Roemer with respect to the judgment in Barge v High Authority, paragraph 54 above (pp. 61 to 63).

60 That Opinion reveals that, at the time, it was standard practice at the Court of Justice to require a written authority to act even for applicants who were natural persons, even though the relevant provision of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice did not require it, no more than do today the General Court’s Rules of Procedure. The lawyer acting for the applicant in the case which gave rise to the judgment in Barge v High Authority, paragraph 54 above, had produced such an authority to act when lodging the application, but the authority to act which was produced referred to a different case. Subsequent to the lodging of the application, the lawyer had produced a further authority to act, covering the case concerned, and consequently the issue which had to be decided by the Court of Justice was whether that subsequent production was sufficient or whether the failure to produce a duly executed authority to act at the same time as the bringing of the action meant that the action was inadmissible. The Court of Justice decided that the former proposition should be upheld.

61 Contrary therefore to the view apparently held by the Council, it does not follow from that judgment that the other party to proceedings is entitled to request, without putting forward particular factors in support of such a request, that the lawyer of an applicant who is a natural person should produce an authority to act signed by his client, failing which the action should be dismissed as being inadmissible. If it were admitted that the other party to proceedings had such a right, that would to a great extent nullify the rule that natural persons may be represented by a lawyer without that lawyer having to produce authority to act, and would be likely to complicate and prolong proceedings unduly, particularly in cases, such as the present, where the action is brought by a large number of natural persons who, moreover, reside outside the European Union. The requirements stemming from the right to effective judicial protection, set out in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the considerations stated in paragraph 57 above are also conducive to the finding that the production of such an authority to act should not be required except where there are specific factors which cast doubt on the reality of its existence (see paragraph 58 above).

62 In this case, at the hearing, the applicants’ representatives formally confirmed, in response to a question from the Court, that they considered themselves to be duly instructed by all the applicants. Further, they offered to produce, from all the applicants for whom they had not done so, a written authority to act. Within the period granted to them for that purpose by the Court, they did in fact produce such authorities to act, certified by a notary, for the applicants No 2 to No 110, with the exception of the deceased applicants mentioned in paragraph 51 above. It should be noted, in that regard, that they also produced such an authority to act in the name of applicant No 68, Mr Bothwell Mugariri. It thus emerged that the reporting of his death, mentioned in press articles lodged in the court file at the hearing by the Council, was inaccurate. Further, it must be observed that, in the light of what is stated in paragraph 60 above, the fact that the signing of the authorities to act produced post-dated the lodging of the action is of no importance.

63 It must therefore be concluded that the reality of the authority to act given by each of the applicants to their representatives before the Court cannot reasonably be doubted.

3. Whether the applicants continue to have an interest in bringing proceedings

64 In accordance with settled case-law, the purpose of the action must, like the interest in bringing proceedings, continue until the final decision, failing which there will be no need to adjudicate, which presupposes that the action must be liable, if successful, to procure an advantage for the party bringing it (see Case C-362/05 P Wunenburger v Commission [2007] ECR I-4333, paragraph 42 and case-law cited, and Joined Cases C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P and C-382/06 P Flaherty and Others v Commission [2008] ECR I-2649, paragraph 25).

65 It must be observed that, with regard to some of the applicants, the restrictive measures at issue have been repealed (see paragraphs 28, 29, 35 and 36 above). Further, with regard to all the applicants whose names continue to be listed as persons and entities subject to those measures, with one exception, the application of the measures has been suspended (see paragraphs 32, 33 and 37 to 41 above).

66 However, in the judgment in Case C‑239/12 P Abdulrahim v Council and Commission [2013] ECR, relating to the situation of a person affected by restrictive measures which were adopted because of his alleged links with terrorist organisations and were repealed in the course of proceedings, the Court of Justice stated that such measures have substantial negative consequences and a considerable impact on the rights and freedoms of the persons affected. The Court of Justice held that, apart from the freezing of funds as such which, through its broad scope, seriously disrupts both the working and the family life of the persons affected and impedes the conclusion of numerous legal acts, account must be taken of the opprobrium and suspicion that accompany the public designation of the persons affected as being associated with a terrorist organisation. The Court of Justice also held that the interest of such an applicant in bringing proceedings is retained, despite the removal of his name from the list at issue, for the purpose of having the Courts of the European Union recognise that he should never have been included on the list or that he should not have been included under the procedure which was adopted by the EU institutions. The Court of Justice further stated that whilst recognition of the illegality of a contested act cannot, as such, compensate for material harm or for interference with one’s private life, it is nevertheless capable of restoring the reputation of the person concerned or constituting a form of reparation for the non-material harm which he has suffered by reason of that illegality, and of thereby establishing that he retains his interest in bringing proceedings. Last, the Court of Justice held that the fact that the repeal of the restrictive measures concerned was definitive does not prevent an interest in bringing proceedings from continuing to exist so far as concerns the effects of the acts which imposed those measures between the date of their entry into force and that of their repeal (the judgment in Abdulrahim v Council and Commission, paragraphs 70 to 72 and 82).

67 Although restrictive measures were imposed on the applicants in this case not because of their links with terrorist organisations, but because they were either members of a government which, according to the authors of the contested acts, committed serious infringements of human rights, were associated with those government members, or were persons whose activities seriously undermined democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe, the reasoning of the Court of Justice in Abdulrahim v Council and Commission, paragraph 66 above (paragraphs 70 to 72 and 82), is also applicable, mutatis mutandis, to their situation, and accordingly it must be concluded that their interest in bringing proceedings continues to exist notwithstanding the repeal, with respect to some of them, and the suspension, with respect to others, of the restrictive measures at issue.

4. Arguments put forward by the Commission challenging the admissibility of the action

68 First, the Commission disputes the admissibility of the claim for annulment of the Council’s measures in so far as the claim concerns the Commission, as it lacks the capacity to be sued with respect to the Council’s acts.

69 However, in so far as the action seeks the annulment both of two acts adopted by the Council and an act adopted by the Commission, the applicants have properly referred, in the application, to those two institutions as being the defendants in this case.

70 Secondly, the Commission states that, in its opinion, the claim for the annulment of Implementing Decision 2012/124 should be regarded as having been brought solely in the name of applicant No 60, Mr Cephas George Msipa, who is the only person concerned by that decision. The Commission has doubts about the admissibility of such a claim, as the decision in question amends Decision 2011/101 only in so far as concerns the grounds for inclusion of that applicant in the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures at issue and, therefore, does not alter his legal situation. The Commission adds that, should the Court consider the claim for the annulment of that decision to have been brought by all applicants, it should dismiss that claim as inadmissible ‘since none of the Applicants has legal interest in challenging this Council act’.

71 That argument cannot be accepted. It must be observed that, after the amendment of Decision 2011/101 by means of Decision 2012/97, which, inter alia, replaced Annex I to the former decision with a new annex, Implementing Decision 2012/124 again amended Annex I to Decision 2011/101 with regard to applicant No 60, in order to add in the column relating to grounds for designation, previously empty, the text mentioned in paragraph 18 above. It follows that, like Decision 2012/97, Implementing Decision 2012/124 is of direct and individual concern to applicant No 60 and alters his legal situation, in that it adds to Annex I to Decision 2011/101, as replaced by Decision 2012/97, grounds to justify the imposition on him of the restrictive measures at issue.

72 Consequently, applicant No 60 may competently seek the annulment of Implementing Decision 2012/124. Where one and the same action is involved, and it is found that the bringing of the action by one applicant is admissible, there is no need to consider whether the other applicants are entitled to bring proceedings (Case C-313/90 CIRFS and Others v Commission [1993] ECR I-1125, paragraph 31, and Joined Cases T-374/94, T-375/94, T-384/94 and T-388/94 European Night Services and Others v Commission [1998] ECR II-3141, paragraph 61). The action seeks the annulment of the contested acts, in so far as they concern the applicants. Since Implementing Decision 2012/124 refers by name only to applicant No 60, it is obvious that if the action is upheld, that decision will be annulled only with regard to him.

5. Substance

73 In support of their action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law, claiming, first, that there was no proper legal basis for including persons or entities who are neither leaders of Zimbabwe nor their associates in the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures at issue, second, a manifest error of assessment, third, infringement of the obligation to state reasons, fourth, infringement of the applicants’ rights of defence and, fifth, infringement of the principle of proportionality.

74 The Court will examine, initially, the first plea in law, on the legal basis for the contested acts, then the third and fourth pleas in law, which raise questions of procedure and, last, the second and fifth pleas in law, which relate to the substance of the case.

The first plea in law: there was no adequate legal basis for including persons or entities who are neither leaders of Zimbabwe nor their associates in the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures at issue

75 By the first plea in law, the applicants claim, in essence, that there is no adequate legal basis to justify the inclusion, in the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures at issue, of numerous persons who are not even alleged to be leaders of Zimbabwe or individuals or entities associated with those leaders. According to the applicants, the mere allegation of past criminal conduct or other misconduct against the persons concerned is not sufficient to warrant their inclusion in the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures in question.

76 It must be observed, in that regard, that the first of the acts against which this action is brought, namely Decision 2012/97, was adopted on the basis of Article 29 TEU, which states the following: ‘The Council shall adopt decisions which shall define the approach of the Union to a particular matter of a geographical or thematic nature. Member States shall ensure that their national policies conform to the Union positions.’

77 Article 29 TEU is also the basis of Decision 2011/101, as amended by Decision 2012/97.

78 Article 29 TEU is part of Title V of the EU Treaty, headed ‘General provisions on the Union’s external action and specific provisions on the common foreign and security policy’. Article 21 TEU, which is also part of Title V, provides: ‘1 The Union’s action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles which have inspired its own creation, development and enlargement, and which it seeks to advance in the wider world: democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law. … 2. The Union shall define and pursue common policies and actions, and shall work for a high degree of cooperation in all fields of international relations, in order to: (a) safeguard its values, fundamental interests, security, independence and integrity; (b) consolidate and support democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the principles of international law; (c) preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, with the principles of the Helsinki Final Act and with the aims of the Charter of Paris, including those relating to external borders; (d) foster the sustainable economic, social and environmental development of developing countries, with the primary aim of eradicating poverty; … 3. The Union shall respect the principles and pursue the objectives set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 in the development and implementation of the different areas of the Union’s external action covered by this Title and by Part Five of [the FEU] Treaty, and of the external aspects of its other policies. …’

79 The third act the annulment of which is sought by the action, namely Implementing Decision 2012/124, constitutes a ‘decision implementing a decision defining a Union action or position’, in this case Decision 2012/97. Implementing Decision 2012/124 was adopted on the basis of Article 6(1) of Decision 2011/101 (see paragraph 9 above), in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 31(2) TEU.

80 Last, the second act against which this action is directed, namely Implementing Regulation No 151/2012, was adopted on the basis of Article 11(b) of Regulation No 314/2004 (see paragraph 4 above). As regards Regulation No 314/2004, it was itself adopted on the basis of Articles 60 EC and 301 EC. Those articles were amended by the Treaty of Lisbon and are now Article 75 TFEU and Article 215 TFEU respectively.

81 According to the applicants, the contested acts broaden the scope of the restrictive measures adopted against Zimbabwe, so that they include not only natural and legal persons who are alleged to be members of the government or their associates, but also individuals who are not alleged to be associated with the government but who are alleged to have been engaged in activities that undermine democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe. With regard to that latter category of individuals, it is not alleged that they have any link with the leaders of Zimbabwe. A large number of persons have, according to the applicants, been included among those subject to the contested acts on the basis of unsupported accusations of serious criminal acts and other offences. No evidence or material justifying the assertions relating to those persons to be found in the contested acts, and not even any particular information in that regard, has been adduced. In many cases, the crimes or offences referred to in the contested acts were committed before the formation of the Government of National Unity which was in power in Zimbabwe at the time when the contested acts were adopted.

82 First, the Court must reject as being of no relevance to this plea in law, which concerns the absence of an adequate legal basis for the adoption of the contested acts, the applicants’ arguments that, in essence, the matters of fact referred to with regard to a number of the persons affected by the restrictive measures established by those acts are not proved or are lacking in detail. That is because such arguments are solely of relevance to show either that an error of fact was committed by the authors of the contested acts, or that reasons for those acts were not adequately stated. Such errors do not affect the existence of an adequate legal basis justifying the adoption of the acts concerned, which issue is the only subject matter of this plea in law. Plainly, if it happens to be the case, contrary to what is asserted by the applicants, that such a legal basis exists, it would still be necessary to examine, first, whether the authors of those acts did not commit a manifest error of assessment in considering that the facts of this case justified recourse to that legal basis for the adoption of those acts and, secondly, whether the authors of those acts provided in that regard a sufficient statement of reasons. Those questions might perhaps be of relevance only in the context of examination of the second and third pleas in law.

83 Second, it must be recalled that (i) the first of the contested acts (Decision 2012/97) essentially extended the duration of the validity of Decision 2011/101 and replaced the Annex to the latter decision containing the names of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures which that decision established, (ii) the second of the contested acts (Implementing Regulation No 151/2012) replaced Annex III to Regulation No 314/2004 containing the names of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources established by that regulation and (iii) the third of the contested acts (Implementing Decision 2012/124) amended the entry relating to applicant No 60, Mr Cephas George Msipa, as it appeared in the Annex to Decision 2011/101 as replaced by Decision 2012/97. In other words, each of the three acts at issue is an act which amends an earlier act.

84 In that regard, it must be noted that the wording of ‘natural or legal persons whose activities seriously undermine democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe’, as referred to by the applicants in their arguments as summarised in paragraph 81 above, is to be found only in the text of Decision 2011/101 (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above). In contrast, as stated in paragraph 4 above, the freezing of funds and economic resources established by Regulation No 314/2004 concerns, as stated in Article 6(1) of that regulation, only the ‘funds and economic resources belonging to members of the Government of Zimbabwe and to any natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them’.

85 It follows that the issues raised by this plea differ according to whether it relates to, on the one hand, the first and third contested acts, which amend Decision 2011/101 and, on the other, the second contested act, which amends Regulation No 314/2004.

86 In the first case, the question which arises is, essentially, whether Article 29 EU, which is stated to be the legal basis of Decision 2012/97 (and of Decision 2011/101 which it amended), constitutes an adequate legal basis to justify the adoption of the restrictive measures mentioned in Decision 2012/97 against ‘natural or legal persons whose activities seriously undermine democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe’. In that regard, it must be observed that, if the answer to that question is in the negative, it would logically follow that Decision 2011/101 would also lack a legal basis, with regard to persons falling in the abovementioned category. It must therefore be concluded that, by this plea, the applicants are also raising, implicitly but clearly, a plea of illegality against Decision 2011/101. It follows from Article 277 TFEU that the applicants are entitled to raise such a plea, even where they could have competently sought the annulment of Decision 2011/101 and failed to do so (see, to that effect and by analogy, Case C-11/00 Commission v ECB [2003] ECR I-7147, paragraphs 74 to 78; Case C-442/04 Spain v Council [2008] ECR I-3517, paragraph 22, and Case C-91/05 Commission v Council [2008] ECR I-3651, paragraphs 29 to 34).

87 In the second case, namely that of Implementing Regulation No 151/2012, the question which arises is whether there is a legal basis justifying the amendment of Regulation No 314/2004 in order to list in Annex III thereto, containing the names of persons and entities whose funds and economic resources are to be frozen, the names of persons or entities who were listed in the Annex to Decision 2011/101, as amended by Decision 2012/97, on the ground that they were engaged in activities seriously undermining democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe, although, as stated in Article 6(1) of Regulation No 314/2004, that regulation provides for solely the freezing of funds and economic resources belonging to members of the Government of Zimbabwe and to any natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them.

88 The Court will therefore examine both those questions in turn.

The legal basis of Decisions 2011/101 and 2012/97 and Implementing Decision 2012/124

89 The applicants put forward three closely linked arguments which cannot be understood other than as calling into question the competence of the Council to adopt, on the basis of Article 29 EU, Decisions 2011/101 and 2012/97 against persons who were engaged in activities seriously undermining democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe.

90 First, the applicants claim that, while supporting democracy, the rule of law and human rights (in addition to combating terrorism) are legitimate objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), the Council and Commission do not have competence to legislate generally in the areas of criminal law or civil law. Their competence in that field is strictly limited and set out in Articles 82 TFEU to 86 TFEU, and it is stated in Article 40 TEU that they must not exceed their powers. Thus, according to the applicants, while the European Union may adopt minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences in areas of serious cross-border crime, and may approximate national laws in order to ensure effective implementation of a European Union policy, neither the Council nor the Commission has competence to use the Common Foreign and Security Policy in order to impose a freezing of funds or a travel ban on individuals simply on the basis that they are alleged to have been involved in the past in crimes or serious misconduct.

91 Secondly, according to the applicants, it is necessary that there should be a clear and obvious link between individuals subject to restrictive measures and the legitimate CFSP objectives of the European Union as regards a third country. Yet there is no link between individuals accused of criminal or serious misconduct in the past and any legitimate objective of the CFSP Policy. There is no explanation of how the imposition of a freezing of funds or a travel ban on those individuals, who are not said be associated with the current Government of Zimbabwe, can achieve any legitimate objective. The applicants who fall within that category are not terrorists who could use their finds and economic resources to further international terrorist activities, nor are they people who are responsible for or have any control over any policy implemented by the Government of Zimbabwe.

92 Third, the Council is obliged, when adopting restrictive measures, to explain how the measures are appropriate and proportionate to achieving a legitimate objective. Yet in this case, no legitimate foreign policy justification has been provided for imposing restrictive measures on non-State actors in Zimbabwe on the basis of allegations that they have committed crimes or serious offences in the past. Nor is there any explanation of how the application of a fund freezing measure or a travel ban on individuals who have no responsibility for nor influence over the policy of the Government of National Unity in Zimbabwe at the time of adoption of the contested acts is an appropriate and proportionate way of achieving any legitimate CFSP objective.

93 It must be observed that it is clear from a reading of Article 21 TEU in conjunction with Article 29 TEU, the wording of which articles is stated in paragraphs 78 and 76 respectively above, that the adoption of measures intended to advance, in the rest of the world and, consequently, in Zimbabwe, democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, may be the subject of a decision based on Article 29 TEU (see, to that effect, the judgment of 28 May 2013 in Case T‑200/11 Al Matri v Council, paragraph 46). In their arguments, as summarised above, the applicants do not in a general sense dispute that conclusion, but claim solely that restrictive measures, such as those at issue in this case, imposed on persons or entities solely on the basis of their conduct, alleged to constitute either a crime or serious misconduct, cannot qualify as measures which may be adopted on the basis of Article 29 TEU. The applicants further maintain that such conduct may, at most, be covered by measures adopted on the basis of provisions relating to judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which is the subject of Articles 82 TFEU to 86 TFEU.

94 Those arguments of the applicants disregard however the background of the activities seriously undermining democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe in which the persons whose names are listed in Annex I to Decision 2011/101 are said to have engaged. It is necessary therefore to recall that background, as it emerges from the recitals in the preambles of Decision 2011/101 and the preceding acts.

95 Thus, recital 1 in the preamble of Common Position 2002/145, namely the first Common Position adopted with regard to Zimbabwe (see paragraph 1 above), reads as follows: ‘On 28 January 2002, the Council expressed its serious concern about the situation in Zimbabwe, in particular the recent escalation of violence and intimidation of political opponents and the harassment of the independent press. It noted that the Government of Zimbabwe has not taken effective measures to improve the situation as called for by the European Council in Laeken last December.’

96 Common Position 2002/145 was amended and extended by Common Position 2003/115. Recital 2 in the preamble of the latter is worded as follows: ‘There has been further degradation in the situation in Zimbabwe, where the serious infringements of human rights and of the freedom of opinion, of association and of peaceful assembly continue to occur.’

97 Common Position 2004/161, which repealed and replaced Common Position 2002/145, also refers, in recital 6, to ‘the continuing deterioration in the human rights situation in Zimbabwe’, which justified the renewal of restrictive measures adopted by the Union with regard to that country for a further period of 12 months. According to recital 7 of the same Common Position, ‘[t]he objective of these restrictive measures is to encourage the persons targeted to reject policies that lead to the suppression of human rights, of the freedom of expression and of good governance’.

98 It is plain to see that the Council considered that the situation in Zimbabwe had not improved since, as stated in paragraph 3 above, the Council successively extended the duration of validity of Common Position 2004/161 until 20 February 2009‘in view of the situation in Zimbabwe’, the standard wording used in the various common positions which effected those extensions.

99 In 2008 elections took place in Zimbabwe. As stated by the Council, the EU High Representative for the CFSP referred, in a statement of 22 June 2008, to the ‘unacceptable systematic campaign of violence, obstruction and intimidation led by the Zimbabwean authorities, which has continued for several weeks’ and he considered that ‘[u]nder those conditions, the elections have become a travesty of democracy’.

100 As the Council also states, without contradiction from the applicants, following agreement between the party in power in Zimbabwe, ZANU-PF, and the opposition, a ‘Global Political Agreement’ (‘the GPA’) was entered into by them on 15 September 2008, with provision for, inter alia, the formation of a new government of national unity containing not only members proposed by ZANU-PF, already in power before the formation of that government, but also members proposed by the opposition. Mr Robert Mugabe remained President of Zimbabwe. That government was finally formed on 9 February 2009, but, according to the Council, the years which followed were marked by a power struggle between ZANU-PF and the opposition parties. In that struggle, Mr Robert Mugabe retained the support of the Zimbabwean security apparatus, comprising the country’s army, intelligence services, police and prison system. According to the Council, the body which co-ordinates that apparatus, namely the Joint Operations Command is, to a large extent, responsible for the violence during the 2008 elections, and the individuals who were members of that body in 2008 continue as such.

101 Council Common Position 2009/68/CFSP of 26 January 2009, renewing restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ 2009 L 23, p. 43), extended the period of validity of Common Position 2004/161 for an additional year, until 20 February 2010. Recital 3 in the preamble of Common Position 2009/68 states that the reason for that extension was ‘[i]n view of the situation in Zimbabwe, in particular given the violence organised and committed by the Zimbabwean authorities and the continued blocking of the implementation of the political agreement signed on 15 September 2008’. Likewise, Decision 2010/92, which extended the period of validity of Common Position 2004/161 until 20 February 2011, refers, in its recital 3, to ‘the lack of progress in the implementation of [the GPA]’.

102 It is against that background that the Court must set the reference made, in Articles 4 and 5 of Decision 2011/101 (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above), to persons ‘whose activities seriously undermine democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe’. It is apparent that that reference is not to any conduct which might constitute a crime or an offence under ordinary criminal law or civil law. The reference relates, patently, to the conduct of the persons who perpetrated the acts which led the Council to assert that the leaders of Zimbabwe were responsible for an ‘escalation of violence’, ‘intimidation of political opponents and the harassment of the independent press’ (see paragraph 95 above), ‘serious infringements of human rights and of the freedom of opinion, of association and of peaceful assembly’ in the country (paragraph 96 above) or again a ‘systematic campaign of violence, obstruction and intimidation led by the Zimbabwean authorities’ (paragraph 99 above).

103 Those findings are confirmed by the wording of Articles 4 and 5 of Decision 2011/101. While, clearly, conduct which constitutes a crime or an offence may seriously harm the rights of the individuals who are its victims, it is difficult to imagine that such conduct might harm democracy itself or the rule of law, where there is no collusion between the persons directly implicated in that conduct and some, at least, of the leaders of the country concerned.

104 It must also be observed that the effect of the GPA and the formation of the so-called Government of National Unity was not wholly to remove from power the leaders of Zimbabwe against whom the accusations summarised above were made (see also, in that regard, paragraph 109 below). At most, the result was a sharing of power between those same leaders and the former opposition parties.

105 In those circumstances, the Court holds that Article 29 TEU constitutes an adequate legal basis for the adoption of decisions such as Decisions 2011/101 and 2012/97, with regard to the persons referred to in paragraph 102 above. Contrary to what is claimed by the applicants, the restrictive measures concerned by those two decisions were not imposed on those persons on the ground of their alleged implication in any conduct whatsoever which might constitute a crime or an offence, but because of the alleged conduct on their part which, while also falling in all probability within the scope of criminal or, at the least, civil law, was part of a strategy of intimidation and systematic violation of the fundamental rights of the Zimbabwean people, responsibility for which the Council assigned to the leaders of that country. It is precisely on that last ground that the persons who were accused of such conduct could legitimately be the subject of a measure such as the two abovementioned decisions, adopted on the basis of Article 29 TEU.

106 It is also because of that last ground that there is a link, of the kind referred to by the applicants in their arguments summarised in paragraph 91 above, between the conduct of those persons and the legitimate objectives of the CFSP, as set out in Article 21 TEU. When account is taken of the objective of the restrictive measures concerned, renewed by Decision 2011/101 (see paragraph 97 above), it was absolutely reasonable to include, among the persons subject to such measures, the alleged perpetrators of the violence and intimidation for which the leaders of Zimbabwe had, in the view of the Council, to assume political responsibility, and not those leaders alone. Regardless of whether any action could be taken under criminal, or civil, law against the persons allegedly involved in the alleged violence, it was legitimate and compatible with the objectives of the CFSP to adopt measures intended to encourage those individuals, and others, to ‘reject policies that lead to the suppression of human rights, of the freedom of expression and of good governance’, which, in their case, would mean that they should not engage in any similar conduct in the future.

107 As regards the applicants’ argument summarised in paragraph 92 above, it must be observed that that argument does not, in fact, relate to the legal basis for the contested acts, but involves a claim that the statement of reasons for those acts is insufficient. Even if that finding is set aside, suffice it to state that, as is apparent from the recital of the considerations for the various acts which established and extended the restrictive measures at issue, as set out in paragraphs 95 to 101 above, and as will be argued as part of the analysis of the third plea in law below, the Council provided a sufficient statement of the reasons which led it to include, among the persons subject to those measures, the persons who are concerned by this plea in law.

108 The applicants also claim that, in any event, the restrictive measures at issue are not an appropriate means to achieving any legitimate objective in a proportionate manner. They put forward five arguments in this regard. First, although those measures purport to be aimed at members of the current government, they focus entirely on issues relating to the former Government of Zimbabwe, and not the government which is in power following the implementation of the GPA. Further, the current government (‘the Government of National Unity’) is supported by the European Union, with which it is engaged in dialogue. Second, the activities and misconduct alleged against the applicants relate, in a certain number of cases, to a period before the formation of the Government of National Unity. Third, the imposition of a fund freezing measure and a travel ban on individuals who have no association with the government or who are not involved with or in control of the policies that government is implementing cannot in any event achieve any legitimate CFSP objective. Fourth, the United Kingdom, which proposed that individuals be added to the list of persons affected by the restrictive measures at issue, applies a strategy which seeks to maintain pressure on ‘hardliners’. That is not a stated objective of the CFSP and cannot justify the extension of restrictive measures to non-State actors in Zimbabwe who are alleged to have engaged in criminal conduct in the past. Fifth, even if the contested measures were appropriate, they remain disproportionate for the reasons set out with regard to the fifth plea in law.

109 The last of those five arguments consists of no more than a reference to arguments put forward by the applicants in support of their fifth plea in law, examined in paragraphs 285 to 302 below. As regard the other four, they start, very obviously, from the premise that the formation of the so-called Government of National Unity, as provided for by the GPA, resulted in the complete replacement of all the leaders of Zimbabwe. However, as has been pointed out in paragraph 100 above, that was not the case. While, admittedly, the Government of National Unity contained representatives of the opposition, it also contained representatives of ZANU-PF, namely the party which was in power when the violence, intimidation and infringements of fundamental rights, alleged by the Council in the various common positions and decisions relating to Zimbabwe, as mentioned above, took place. As is apparent from the Council’s answer to one of the questions put to it by the Court as a measure of organisation of procedure, essentially the members of the Government of National Unity proposed by ZANU-PF were previously members of the former government. Further, the President of Zimbabwe, Mr Robert Mugabe, continued to hold that office.

110 In those circumstances, contrary to what the applicants appear to believe, there is no question of a radical and comprehensive change in the Zimbabwean leadership, following the formation of the Government of National Unity, pursuant to the GPA. It was therefore open to the Council, even after the formation of that government, to adopt, on the basis of Article 29 TEU, a decision providing for restrictive measures against both those of the Zimbabwean leadership who had previously been part of the leadership of that country in the past or their associates and also persons who had, in the past, engaged in activities which seriously undermined democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe. That applies a fortiori when, as is clear from the recitals of Common Position 2009/68 and Decision 2010/92, referred to in paragraph 101 above, the Council considered that the implementation of the GPA was subject to ‘continued blocking’ and was characterised by a ‘lack of progress’.

111 Moreover, as regards, more specifically, the fourth argument, which refers to an alleged distinct strategy of the United Kingdom, that argument is based on a report of a House of Commons committee, produced by the applicants as an annex to their application. Suffice it to state in that regard that, as pointed out, in essence, by the Council, the legality of the contested acts must be assessed on the basis of the grounds set out in those acts themselves and not on matters allegedly taken into consideration by the United Kingdom Government which led it to support those acts. That is even more the case, as again stated by the Council, where those acts were plainly not adopted by the United Kingdom alone, but by all the representatives of the Member States, meeting within the Council.

112 Taking into account all the foregoing, it must be concluded that Article 29 TEU constituted an adequate legal basis for the adoption of Decision 2012/97 and, moreover, for Decision 2011/101 which was amended by it. Further, Implementing Decision 2012/124 was also adopted on an adequate legal basis, namely Article 6(1) of Decision 2011/101.

The legal basis of Implementing Regulation No 151/2012

113 As stated above (see paragraph 80 above), the Commission adopted Implementing Regulation No 151/2012 on the basis of Article 11(b) of Regulation No 314/2004.

114 First, it is clear that, on its own wording (see paragraph 4 above), the provision in question concerns ‘decisions taken in respect of the Annex to Common Position 2004/161’. Yet, as observed in paragraph 6 above, Common Position 2004/161 was repealed by Decision 2011/101.

115 Admittedly, it would have been preferable if the wording of Article 11(b) of Regulation No 314/2004 had been updated, to substitute for the reference to the repealed Common Position 2004/161 a reference to Decision 2011/101 which replaced it. However, even in the absence of such updating, it is obvious that the provision concerned must be interpreted as also covering any decision relating to a measure, such as in this case Decision 2011/101, which, repealing Common Position 2004/161, took the place of that common position and essentially contains identical provisions.

116 A comparative examination of the provisions of the two acts concerned reveals that Articles 1 to 5 of Decision 2011/101 are, with the exception of some ad hoc amendments of an ancillary nature, identical to the corresponding articles of Common Position 2004/161, in the version in force at the time of its repeal. Article 6 of Decision 2011/101 reproduces, in paragraph 1, the text of Article 6 of Common Position 2004/161, but also contains two further paragraphs designed to safeguard the rights of defence of persons affected by the restrictive measures that are imposed. A new Article 7, containing information on the Annex to Decision 2011/101, plainly to guarantee compliance with the obligation to state reasons, is placed between Article 6 of that decision and Article 8 thereof, the text of the latter being identical to that of Article 7 of Common Position 2004/161. Article 9 of Decision 2011/101 consists of one sentence repealing Common Position 2004/161 while, essentially, the last article (Article 10) of Decision 2011/101 corresponds to Article 9 of Common Position 2004/161. Decision 2011/101 does not contain any article comparable to Article 10 of Common Position 2004/161, but the latter article provides for no more than the publication of the Common Position concerned in the Official Journal. The absence of a comparable provision in the text of Decision 2011/101 is without doubt due to the fact that its publication in the Official Journal is directly provided for by the second subparagraph of Article 297(2) TFEU.

117 The interpretation of Article 11(b) of Regulation No 314/2004 as also referring to decisions taken in respect of the Annex to Decision 2011/101 is confirmed by recital 5 in the preamble of that decision, adopted, it should be recalled, by the Council, which is also the author of Regulation No 314/2004. That recital states that the ‘Union implementing measures [of Decision 2011/101] are set out in … Regulation … No 314/2004...’.

118 It must therefore be concluded that Article 11(b) of Regulation No 314/2004 constitutes an adequate legal basis for the adoption of an implementing regulation, such as Regulation No 151/2012, on the basis of a decision amending Annex I to Decision 2011/101. The Court must then examine the question mentioned in paragraph 87 above, namely whether such an amendment can have the effect of imposing the restrictive measures laid down by Regulation No 314/2004 on persons who are alleged to have engaged in activities seriously undermining democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe, although, under Article 6(1) of Regulation No 314/2004, that regulation provides solely for the freezing of funds and economic resources of members of the Government of Zimbabwe and of any natural or legal person, entities or bodies associated with them.

119 It must be borne in mind that Regulation No 314/2004 was adopted on the basis of Articles 60 EC and 301 EC. The applicants refer to the case-law of the Court of Justice, according to which, if measures against natural persons are to be adopted on the basis of Articles 60 EC and 301 EC as restrictive measures striking third countries, those measures must be targeted at solely the leaders of those countries and persons who are associated with those leaders (Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I-6351, paragraph 166, and Case C‑376/10 P Tay Za v Council [2012] ECR, paragraph 63).

120 The applicants further claim that, in its Proposal for a Council Regulation COM (2009) 395 final of 29 July 2009, amending Regulation No 314/2004, the Commission expressly recognised that Articles 60 EC and 301 EC were not sufficient to impose restrictive measures on people unconnected with the government and that it would need to amend Regulation No 314/2004 if it wished to impose restrictive measures on individuals and entities not alleged to be members of the Government of Zimbabwe or associated with it. That proposal was however never adopted and the restrictive measures established by Regulation No 314/2004 continued to be based on Articles 60 EC and 301 EC.

121 The Council’s response is that Decision 2011/101 was adopted after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and that it is now permissible to adopt, on the basis of Article 215(2) TFEU, restrictive measures against natural or legal persons, groups or non-State entities, not linked to the governing regime of a third country. The change effected by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon means that the Commission’s Proposal, relied on by the applicants, was overtaken by events. The Commission for its part also refers to Article 215(2) TFEU in its arguments and contends that that provision constitutes an adequate legal basis for the imposition of restrictive measures on persons or entities other than the leaders of third countries and those associated with those leaders.

122 It is certainly true that, as stated by the Court of Justice in the judgment in Case C‑130/10 Parliament v Council [2012] ECR, paragraph 51, as a result of the amendments made to primary law after the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force, the content of Article 60 EC, relating to restrictive measures with regard to capital movements and payments, and Article 301 EC, on the interruption or reduction, in part or completely, of economic relations with one or more third countries, is mirrored in Article 215 TFEU. As the Court of Justice has also confirmed, Article 215(2) TFEU allows the Council to adopt restrictive measures against natural or legal persons and groups or non-State entities, namely, measures that, before the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force, required Article 308 EC also to be included in their legal basis if their addressees were not linked to the governing regime of a third country (Parliament v Council, paragraph 53).

123 However, those considerations demonstrate only that, after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Council had available to it an adequate legal basis, constituted by Article 215(2) TFEU, to allow it to adopt a regulation imposing restrictive measures on natural or legal persons in Zimbabwe not linked to the leaders of that third country. Yet it is clear that no regulation of that kind was adopted. Regulation No 314/2004 continues to refer, in Article 6(1) thereof, to ‘individual members of the Government of Zimbabwe and to any natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them as listed in Annex III’.

124 Further, Article 11(b) of Regulation No 314/2004 must be interpreted in such a way as to be compatible with the abovementioned provision in Article 6(1) of the same regulation and it must therefore be concluded that the Commission could, by means of an implementing regulation, amend Annex III to Regulation No 314/2004 only if the persons who were to be listed in that annex could be characterised as either individual members of the Government of Zimbabwe or persons associated with them.

125 It is therefore necessary to examine, in particular, the question whether the persons listed in Annex I to Decision 2011/101 on the ground that they had engaged in activities seriously undermining democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe can be considered to fall within the category of persons associated with the members of the Government of Zimbabwe. Obviously, if one or more of those individuals are at the same time members of the Government of Zimbabwe, there is nothing to prevent their names being listed, pursuant to an Implementing Regulation adopted on the basis of Article 11(b) of Regulation No 314/2004, in Annex III to the latter regulation, since their status as members of the government is already sufficient ground for that listing.

126 In order best to appreciate the concept of an ‘associate’ of the leaders of a third country, as it is used in the case-law of the Court of Justice cited in paragraph 119 above, some elucidation of the cases which have given rise to that case-law is necessary. In the cases which gave rise to the judgment in Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, paragraph 119 above, the restrictive measures at issue were, as the Court of Justice held in paragraph 167 of that judgment, notable for the absence of any link to the governing regime of a third country. Specifically, the restrictive measures were directed directly against Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network, and the persons and entities associated with them, following the collapse of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

127 In the case which gave rise to the judgment in Tay Za v Council, paragraph 119 above, the person subject to restrictive measures was a family member of a businessman in Myanmar. The Court of Justice held that the possibility could not be ruled out that those in charge of certain businesses might be subject to restrictive measures adopted on the basis of Articles 60 EC and 301 EC, provided it was established that they were associated with the leaders of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar or that the activities of those businesses were dependent on those leaders (Tay Za v Council, paragraph 119 above, paragraph 55). However, the Court of Justice excluded the application of such measures to natural persons on the sole ground of their family connection with persons associated with the leaders of the third country concerned and irrespective of their personal conduct (Tay Za v Council, paragraph 119 above, paragraph 66).

128 Neither of those two cases is however directly comparable to the circumstances of this case. Unlike the situation in the cases which gave rise to the judgment in Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, paragraph 119 above, in this case, with respect to the grounds set out in paragraph 109 above, there is no question of a ‘collapse’ of the regime which was in power in Zimbabwe at the time when there took place the violence, intimidation and infringements of the fundamental rights of the Zimbabwean people which are relied on by the Council to justify the adoption of the restrictive measures at issue. As regards the judgment in Tay Za v Council, paragraph 119 above, suffice it to state that, in this case, there is no question of restrictive measures being imposed on persons on the sole ground that they are family members of associates of the leaders of a third country.

129 It follows that there is nothing, in the case-law of the Court of Justice examined above, to preclude the persons whose names were listed in Annex I to Decision 2012/97, on the ground that their activities allegedly seriously undermined democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe, from being regarded as falling within the category of persons ‘associated with individual members of the Government of Zimbabwe’, for the purposes of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 314/2004. That is indeed how they should be characterised, having regard to the findings and considerations in paragraphs 105, 106, 109 and 110 above.

130 In other words, it has to be concluded that, in the particular circumstances of Zimbabwe, as they emerge from the findings in paragraphs 95 to 104 above, the ‘natural persons whose activities seriously undermine democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe’ and the legal persons, entities or bodies belonging to those natural persons, all referred to in Articles 4 and 5 of Decision 2011/101, should not be regarded as other than persons associated with the members of the Government of Zimbabwe and the legal persons, entities or bodies belonging to such associates, but constitute, in fact, a particular category of those associates.

131 It is admittedly true that, at first sight, the wording of the abovementioned Articles 4 and 5, by employing the terms ‘as well as’ and ‘other … persons’, seems conducive to a conclusion to the contrary. However, when account is taken of the background which led to the adoption and extension, over a very long period, of restrictive measures against Zimbabwe, as that background is described in paragraphs 95 to 104 above, an interpretation of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 314/2004 which would permit the conclusion that the restrictive measures laid down in that regulation cannot be imposed on the persons referred to in paragraph 129 above cannot be accepted.

132 That is because it would be paradoxical to accept that the restrictive measures laid down by Regulation No 314/2004 might be adopted against family members of the leaders of Zimbabwe (see, to that effect, the judgment in Tay Za v Council, paragraph 119 above, paragraph 63 and case-law cited) on the sole ground that they are persons associated with those leaders, where they need not be accused of any specific conduct undermining democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law, and to exclude, at the same time, the adoption of such measures against persons who were the true instruments for the implementation of the policy of violence, intimidation and infringement of fundamental rights which the European Union imputes to those leaders. The characterisation of the latter persons as ‘associates’ of the leaders of Zimbabwe is even more justified than the characterisation of the family members of those leaders as such.

133 It follows that Article 11(b) of Regulation No 314/2004 constituted an adequate legal basis for the adoption of Implementing Regulation No 151/2012, with regard to all the persons concerned by the latter regulation.

134 All the foregoing considerations are confirmed when an examination is made of the grounds stated in connection with the listing in Annex I to Decision 2011/101, as amended by Decision 2012/97, of the applicants to whom reference is made in footnote No 33 of the application. It must be observed, in that regard, that, as correctly stated by the Council, the majority of the applicants concerned occupied positions which makes it possible to characterise them as leaders of Zimbabwe or associates of those leaders and to justify, accordingly, on that ground alone, their listing in that annex. Irrespective of that observation however, it is clear that, in all those cases, the brief description of the conduct which is imputed to them indicates that that conduct constitutes activity which is plainly linked to the policy of violence, intimidation and infringement of the fundamental rights of the Zimbabwean people which the European Union imputes to the leaders of that State.

135 Thus, for example, in the cases of Mr Joseph Chinotimba (applicant No 15) and Mr Gilbert Moyo (applicant No 54), it is alleged that they took part in acts of violence during the 2008 elections. As regards applicant No 30, Mr Nolbert Kunonga, the entry relating to him in Annex I to Decision 2011/101, as amended by Decision 2012/97, is as follows: ‘Self-appointed Anglican Bishop. Vociferous supporter of the regime. His followers were backed by the police in committing acts of violence against church supporters in 2011’. The grounds given for the listing of all the other applicants to whom reference is made in footnote No 33 in the application are broadly comparable in content.

136 In the light of all the foregoing, the first plea in law must be rejected as being unfounded.

The third plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons

137 The applicants claim that, although until 2007 no reasons were stated for the restrictive measures imposed in relation to the situation in Zimbabwe, the Council and the Commission have latterly begun to provide some reasons. However, in so far as the applicants are concerned, the reasons stated in the contested acts do not comply with the principles to be found in the case-law and they consist of general assertions, which do not disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the actual and specific reasons why the view was taken that the restrictive measures at issue should be imposed on each of the persons and entities concerned. It is, according to the applicants, impossible for a person or entity concerned to ascertain why they have been retained on the list of persons and entities subject to those restrictive measures, while the names of other persons and entities have been removed, or to find out how they could become eligible for delisting in the future. In their reply, the applicants refer ‘for example’ to the ‘too vague and general’ entries relating to 39 of the applicants which are to be found in Annex I to Decision 2011/101, as replaced by Decision 2012/97.

138 The applicants also argue that, according to the case-law, a decision to renew restrictive measures imposed previously must set out the actual and specific reasons why the relevant authority considers, following re-examination, that the freezing of the funds of the party concerned remains justified. In the present case, the defendant institutions did not comply with that obligation. The defendants have never stated whether and on what basis they consider that the activities of any of the applicants seriously undermine democracy, respect for human rights or the rule of law in Zimbabwe, even though they added entirely new allegations of serious criminal conduct in respect of the applicants, allegations which had never been put forward before.

139 The above-mentioned obligations are particularly relevant in the present case, since the defendant institutions have sought to justify the renewal of the restrictive measures in question as regards the applicants by reference to their past conduct, thereby applying an ‘undisclosed presumption’ as to the conduct of those persons in the future. The applicants refer, in that context, to the judgment in Case T-362/04 Minin v Commission [2007] ECR II-2003, paragraph 72, and claim that, as in the case which gave rise to that judgment, the defendant institutions ought to have explained why the application to them of the restrictive measures at issue remained necessary.

140 Last, the applicants claim that the defendant institutions adopted the decision to renew the restrictive measures at issue against them on the basis of undisclosed reasons. Those reasons, disclosed for the first time in the defences, consist, first, in a previously unstated definition of what the defendant institutions regard as ‘association’ with the Government of Zimbabwe, second, a description of criteria according to which the applicants could be considered to be either obstructive of or supportive of the implementation of the GPA or to be in a position to influence government policy in Zimbabwe and, third, the assumption that each of the applicants was about to engage in violence during the elections which were to take place in Zimbabwe in 2013. According to the applicants, the defendant institutions have made generalised assumptions based on unsupported allegations as regards past misconduct and their membership of a political party, ZANU-PF, to which they of course had the right to belong.

The relevant case-law

141 According to settled case-law, the purpose of the obligation to state the reasons on which an act adversely affecting an individual is based, which is a corollary of the principle of respect for the rights of the defence, is, first, to provide the person concerned with sufficient information to make it possible to ascertain whether the act is well founded or whether it is vitiated by a defect which may permit its legality to be contested before the Courts of the European Union and, secondly, to enable those Courts to review the legality of that act (see Case C‑417/11 P Council v Bamba [2012] ECR, paragraph 49 and case-law cited).

142 The statement of reasons required by Article 296 TFEU must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in such a way as to enable the person concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measures and to enable the court having jurisdiction to exercise its power of review (see Council v Bamba, paragraph 141 above, paragraph 50 and case-law cited). In particular, the statement of reasons for an act which imposes a freezing of funds must identify the actual and specific reasons why the author of that act considers, in the exercise of its discretion, that that measure must be adopted in respect of the person concerned (Council v Bamba, paragraph 141 above, paragraph 52).

143 The statement of reasons required by Article 296 TFEU must, however, be appropriate to the act at issue and the context in which it was adopted. The requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on the circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations. It is not necessary for the statement of reasons to specify all the relevant matters of fact and law, since the question whether the statement of reasons is adequate must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question. In particular, the reasons given for a decision are sufficient if it was adopted in circumstances known to the party concerned which enable him to understand the scope of the measure concerning him (see Council v Bamba, paragraph 141 above, paragraphs 53 and 54, and case-law cited).

144 In order to determine whether or not the statement of reasons in the contested acts is sufficient with regard to each of the applicants concerned by those measures, the Court must examine, first, whether those acts contain reasons that are sufficient in general terms, so as to justify the adoption and renewal of restrictive measures in view of the situation in Zimbabwe. If that requirement was respected, it would then be necessary to examine whether the contested acts contain reasons that are sufficient in the specific case of each applicant, so as to justify the imposition or renewal of the measures at issue with regard to the person or entity concerned.

The grounds for the adoption and renewal of restrictive measures against Zimbabwe

145 It must be observed that the contested acts did no more than renew, against all the applicants, restrictive measures which had been previously imposed by other acts (see paragraph 15 above). It necessarily follows that those acts were adopted in circumstances known to the applicants. Those circumstances include, in particular, the considerations and events recalled in paragraphs 95 to 104 above, and those referred to in paragraphs 109 and 110 above, of which the applicants could not have been unaware. It follows that, on a reading of the contested acts and the acts preceding them as referred to above, the applicants were in a position to understand the reasons why the Council established restrictive measures against the categories of persons referred to in Article 4(1) and Article 5(1) of Decision 2011/101 and in Article 6(1) of Regulation No 314/2004. Those reasons enable the applicants to challenge, as may be necessary, the merits of the decision to establish such measures in view of the situation in Zimbabwe, and the Court to review the legality of such measures.

146 The same is true of the reasons justifying the subsequent decisions which extended the period of validity of the measures in question. In particular, the events and considerations recalled in paragraphs 109 and 110 above, as set out in the contested acts and the preceding acts, make it possible to understand why it was decided, notwithstanding the signing of the GPA and the subsequent formation of what was called the Government of National Unity, to maintain in force the restrictive measures against persons and entities linked to ZANU-PF, which previously had monopolised power, although comparable measures were not established against members of the Government of National Unity who had not been members of the former government.

The specific grounds justifying the adoption and renewal of the restrictive measures at issue against each of the applicants

147 The Court must examine whether the contested acts contain a statement of reasons which is sufficient so far as concerns the particular reasons which led the defendant institutions to consider that each of the applicants fell within one or more of the categories of persons on whom it had been decided to impose restrictive measures.

148 In that regard, the Court must, at the outset, disregard as of no relevance to this case the argument which the applicants base on the judgment in Minin v Commission, paragraph 139 above (paragraph 72). The passage in that judgment relied on by the applicants concerns not the reasons stated in the regulations at issue in that case, but the legal basis for those regulations. More specifically, the issue in that case was whether Articles 60 EC and 301 EC could constitute an adequate legal basis for the adoption of those regulations and, in that context, the determination whether the restrictive measures imposed on the applicant in the case concerned, in his capacity as an associate of the former President of Liberia, Charles Taylor, were actually intended to interrupt or reduce, wholly or in part, economic relations with a third country, given that Charles Taylor had ceased to hold power as President in Liberia after August 2003, in other words before the adoption of those regulations in that case (Minin v Commission, paragraph 139 above, paragraphs 70 and 71). That is the background to the consideration relied on by the applicants, in paragraph 72 of that judgment, that ‘the restrictive measures taken against Charles Taylor and his associates remain necessary to prevent them from using misappropriated funds and property to interfere in the restoration of peace and stability in Liberia and the region’.

149 Yet in this case, President Mugabe and ZANU-PF did not cease to hold power in Zimbabwe. As stated above, in particular in paragraphs 109 and 110, they merely agreed to share power with the MDC party, which had previously been in opposition, and, moreover, according to the authors of the contested acts, the implementation of that power-sharing agreement, that is the GPA, was hindered by ZANU-PF. Further, it has already been observed that the reasons stated for the contested acts meet the requisite legal standard, as reasons in general terms justifying the renewal of the restrictive measures at issue notwithstanding the signing of the GPA and the formation of what was called the Government of National Unity.

150 As regards, next, the assertion that the defendant institutions attempted to justify the renewal of the restrictive measures at issue by referring to the applicants’ past conduct, it must be observed that it is not inconceivable that the past conduct of one or other of the applicants might justify the imposition or renewal of restrictive measures against him or her. That is even more the case where, as has been stated, the individuals and the political party, namely ZANU-PF, who were