Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Judicial proceedings — Decision or regulation replacing the contested measure in the course of proceedings — New factor — Extension of the initial pleadings

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2); Council Decisions 2012/739/CFSP and 2013/255/CFSP)

2. Judicial proceedings — Decision or regulation replacing the contested measure in the course of proceedings — New factor — Extension of the initial pleadings — Condition — Initial pleadings directed against the replaced measure — None — Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2); Council Regulation No 363/2013)

3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Freezing of the funds of persons, entities or organisations associated with the Syrian regime — Obligation to communicate the reasoning to the person concerned at the same time as the measure adversely affecting him or immediately thereafter — Correction of an error of reasoning during the proceedings before the Court — Not permissible

(Art. 296, second para., TFEU; Council Decisions 2012/172/CFSP, 2012/739/CFSP and 2013/255/CFSP; Council Regulation No 36/2012)

4. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Freezing of the funds of persons, entities or organisations associated with the Syrian regime — Obligation to communicate the reasoning to the person concerned at the same time as the measure adversely affecting him or immediately thereafter — Limits — Safety of the Union and the Member States or conduct of their international relations — Decision falling within a context known to the person concerned, enabling him to understand the scope of the measure taken in his regard — Admissibility of a summary statement of reasons

(Art. 296, second para. TFEU; Council Decisions 2012/739/CFSP and 2013/255/CFSP; Council Regulation No 36/2012)

5. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Obligation to state reasons — Plea distinct from that of the lawfulness of the contested decision

(Art. 263, second para., TFEU)

6. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Freezing of the funds of persons, entities or organisations associated with the Syrian regime — Obligation to disclose individual and specific grounds for the decisions adopted — Scope

(Art. 296, second para., TFEU; Council Decisions 2012/739/CFSP, Art. 27(2) and (3), and 2013/255/CFSP, Art. 30(2) and (3))

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

(Council Decisions 2012/739/CFSP, 2013/185/CFSP and 2013/255/CFSP; Council Regulation No 36/2012)

8. Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds and restrictions on admission of persons, entities or organisations associated with the Syrian regime — Application to natural persons solely because of their family connection with the country’s leaders — Lawfulness

(Arts 75 TFEU and 215 TFEU; Council Decisions 2011/782, Arts 18(1), and 19(1), 2012/739, Arts 24(1), and 25(1), and 2013/255, Arts 27(1), and 28(1))

9. Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds and restrictions on admission of persons, entities or organisations associated with the Syrian regime — Restrictions on the right to property — No breach of the principle of proportionality

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 7 and 17; Council Decisions 2011/782/CFSP, 2012/739/CFSP and 2013/255/CFSP; Council Regulation No 36/2012)

Summary

1. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 33)

2. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 38, 39)

3. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 47-50, 61)

4. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 47-50, 61)

5. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 53)

6. Compliance with defence rights, and in particular the right to be heard with regard to restrictive measures, does not require the EU authorities to communicate their grounds to the person or entity concerned before entering the name of that person or entity on the list imposing restrictive measures for the first time. Such prior communication would be liable to jeopardise the effectiveness of the freezing of funds and resources imposed by those authorities. In order to attain the objective pursued by that regulation, such measures must, by their very nature, take advantage of a surprise effect and apply immediately.

(see paras 66-69, 79)

7. In the matter of restrictive measures taken in the context of the common foreign and security policy, the argument concerning a surprise effect of those measures cannot in principle be validly put forward as regards compliance with defence rights in relation to subsequent measures maintaining the name of a person on the list of those subject to restrictive measures.

However, the right to be heard prior to the adoption of decisions maintaining restrictive measures against persons already covered by them presupposes that the Council has new incriminating evidence against those persons.

There is no infringement of the defence rights of a person who has not made use of the possibility to be heard on the subject of the adoption of certain subsequent measures, despite publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of a notice for the attention of persons and entities to which those restrictive measures apply.

(see paras 70-78)

8. In the matter of the common foreign and security policy, under Article 18(1) and Article 19(1) of Decision 2011/782, restrictions on admission to the territory of the Member States and the freezing of funds and economic resources apply not only to the persons responsible for violent repression against the civilian population in Syria, but also to persons benefiting from or supporting the regime, and persons associated with them. Those provisions reappear in Article 24(1) and Article 25(1) of Decision 2012/739 and Article 27(1) and Article 28(1) of Decision 2013/255. By acting in that way, the Council intended to fall back on a presumption that persons whose connections with members of the Syrian regime were proved were deemed to benefit from that regime or to support it and were therefore associated with it.

Regarding restrictive measures applying to a third country, the categories of natural persons at whom restrictive measures may be directed include those whose connection with the third country concerned is quite obvious, namely the leaders of third countries and the individuals associated with them. Therefore such a criterion may be used provided that it is provided for by the decisions containing the restrictive measures in question and that it is consistent with the objective of those decisions. In that regard, a person who is the sister of the President of Syria and the widow of a member of the Syrian government is manifestly a person connected with the leaders of the Syrian regime by reason of her family connection with her brother and, while he was alive, the posts held by her husband.

The presumption in question is, moreover, rebuttable, the persons targeted by the restrictive measures remaining free to refute it.

(see paras 88, 89, 92, 93, 100)

9. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 112-120)