Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2013 —
Anbouba v Council

(Case T‑563/11)

Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Burden of proof — Manifest error of assessment — Rights of defence — Obligation to state reasons — Procedure by default — Application to intervene — No need to adjudicate

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)) (see paras 26, 27)

2.                     Common foreign and security policy — Specific restrictive measures against certain persons and bodies in view of the situation in Syria — Decision to freeze funds — Evidence — Recourse to presumptions — Lawfulness — Rebuttable — Infringement of the rights of the defence — None (Art. 6(1) TEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2011/522/CFSP, Art. 5; Council Regulation No 442/2011, as amended by Regulation No 878/2011, Art. 14(2) and (4)) (see paras 35-37, 40-42)

3.                     Judicial proceedings — Producing evidence — Time-limit — Evidence lodged out of time — Conditions (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), and 48(1)) (see paras 51, 52)

4.                     Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application — Reference to annexes as a whole — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 57)

5.                     EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds of certain persons and bodies in view of the situation in Syria — Obligation to disclose incriminating evidence — Scope (Art. 6(1) TEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 41(2)(a), and 47; Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2011/522/ CFSP, Art. 5; Council Regulation No 442/2011, as amended by Regulation No 878/2011, Art. 14(2)) (see paras 64-66, 68)

6.                     Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies in view of the situation in Syria — 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 TFEU; Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2011/522/CFSP; Council Regulation No 442/2011, as amended by Regulation No 878/2011) (see paras 74-76)

Re:

First, application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 16), of Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 247, p. 17), of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56), of Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 1), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), in so far as the applicant is named in the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, and, second, application for payment of compensation for damage suffered.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the Commission’s application for leave to intervene;

2. Dismisses the application;

3. Orders Mr Issam Anbouba to bear his own costs.