Case T-6/23: Action brought on 12 January 2023 — UC v Council
Date: 2023-01-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, freedom of movement, international sanctions, natural person, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2023104EN.01003602.xml










20.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/36






Action brought on 12 January 2023 — UC v Council
(Case T-6/23)
(2023/C 104/56)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: UC (represented by: P. Bekaert and S. Bekaert, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/2398 of 8 December 2022 implementing Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2397 of 8 December 2022 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (‘the contested acts’) to the extent that those acts concern the applicant, and










—


order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging exceedance of competences, infringement of Articles 75 and 215 TFEU, infringement of Article 13(1) TEU, infringement of Article 15(3) TFEU and infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.






—


Council Decision (CFSP) 2010/788 and Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 infringe Article 31 TEU and Articles 75 and 215 TFEU, respectively;










—


in not making publicly accessible the minutes and voting results of this decision and this regulation, as well as the resulting amending decisions and regulations and the contested acts, in contrast to the other regulations and decisions of the Council, the transparency rules are also breached.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the second indent of Article 3 of Decision (CFSP) and Article 2b(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 infringe the principle of legal certainty, the principle of proportionality and the principle of effectiveness. In addition, Article 2b(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 is broader than the legal act it implements.






—


the second indent of Article 3 of Decision (CFSP) 2010/788, as amended by Decision (CFSP) No 2022/2377 of 5 December 2022 and Article 2b(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005, as amended by Regulation (EC) 2022/2373 of 5 December 2022, each create, by using a criterion with a wording so general in nature, such a broad category of persons that the principle of legal certainty, the principle of proportionality and the principle of effectiveness are infringed;










—


in addition, the group of persons referred to in Article 2a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 is broader than the group described in the legal act which the regulation is intended to implement.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and of Article 296 TFEU (obligation to state reasons).






—


the reasons given are defined in a highly general, brief and vague manner, and are also insufficiently concrete and precise. The applicant moreover challenges each of the reasons given in the contested acts, both in fact and in law. The Council breaches the obligation to state reasons, as enshrined in inter alia Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter and the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of the defence and infringement of Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter, as well as of Article 215 TFEU. Article 296 TFEU.






—


the rights of defence, including the right to be heard and the right of access, as referred to in inter alia Article 41(2)(a) and (b) of the Charter, have been breached. The absence of these legal safeguards also amounts to an infringement of Article 215 TFEU.














5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the right to property and infringement of the principle of proportionality.






—


the freezing of the applicant’s assets in the most general manner breaches the applicant’s right to property and restricts that right disproportionately, both in view of its general application and its indefinite duration.














6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the freedom of movement, breach of the right of residence and of establishment provided for in Article 45(1) of the Charter, infringement of Articles 20 and 21 TFEU and of the principle of proportionality.






—


the applicant’s only nationality is the Belgian nationality. A sanction by which he may no longer enter the European Union — not even in transit — and his access to the Belgian territory is obstructed infringes freedom of movement, breaches the right of residence and of establishment and is disproportionate.














7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the right of defence and of the right to effective judicial protection, application of Article 47 of the Charter.






—


the right of defence and the right to effective judicial protection have been breached. The applicant requests the Council to provide the General Court and the parties with all necessary information in order for the EU judicature to be able to verify, also concretely and on their factual basis, the grounds cited by the Council in general terms for placing the applicant on the sanctions list.