CELEX: 62013CA0314
Language: en
Date: 2014-06-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-314/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Užsienio reikalų ministerija, Finansinių nusikaltimų tyrimo tarnyba v Vladimir Peftiev, BelTechExport ZAO, Sport-Pari ZAO, BT Telecommunications PUE (Requests for preliminary rulings — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Belarus — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Exceptions — Payment of professional fees associated with legal services — Discretion of the competent national authority — Right to effective judicial protection — Effect of unlawful origin of funds — None)

25.8.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 282/13
            
         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Užsienio reikalų ministerija, Finansinių nusikaltimų tyrimo tarnyba v Vladimir Peftiev, BelTechExport ZAO, Sport-Pari ZAO, BT Telecommunications PUE
   (Case C-314/13) (1)
   
   ((Requests for preliminary rulings - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Belarus - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Exceptions - Payment of professional fees associated with legal services - Discretion of the competent national authority - Right to effective judicial protection - Effect of unlawful origin of funds - None))
   2014/C 282/18
   Language of the case: Lithuanian
   
      Referring court
   
   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Užsienio reikalų ministerija, Finansinių nusikaltimų tyrimo tarnyba
   
      Defendants: Vladimir Peftiev, BelTechExport ZAO, Sport-Pari ZAO, BT Telecommunications PUE
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, as amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 84/2011 of January 2011 and by Council Regulation (EU) No 588/2011 of 20 June 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that, when taking a decision on whether to grant a derogation requested under that provision with a view to bringing an action challenging the lawfulness of restrictive measures imposed by the European Union, the competent national authority does not enjoy an absolute discretion, but must exercise its powers in a manner which upholds the rights provided for in the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and observes the indispensable nature of legal representation in bringing such an action before the General Court of the European Union.
               The competent national authority may verify that the funds release of which is requested are intended exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services. It may also set the conditions it deems appropriate in order to guarantee, inter alia, that the objective of the sanction imposed is not frustrated and the derogation granted is not distorted.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 765/2006, as amended by Implementing Regulation No 84/2011 and by Regulation No 588/2011, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that of the main proceedings, in which a freezing of funds and economic resources is based on that regulation, a derogation from the freezing of funds and economic resources in order to pay for legal services must be appraised in accordance with that provision, which makes no reference to the origin of the funds or possible unlawful acquisition thereof.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 233, 10.8.2013.