Language of document : ECLI:EU:T:2016:689

Case T‑720/14

Arkady Romanovich Rotenberg

v

Council of the European Union

(Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures having regard to actions compromising or threatening Ukraine — Freezing of funds — Restrictions on admission to territory of the Member States — Natural person actively supporting of implementing actions compromising of threatening Ukraine — Physical person benefiting from the Russian decision-makers responsible for the annexation of Crimea — Rights of defence — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest errors of assessment — Right to property — Freedom to conduct a business — Right to respect for private life — Proportionality)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber), 30 November 2016

1.      Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — 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 TFEU; Council Decisions 2014/145/CFSP and 2014/508/CFSP; Council Regulations No 269/2014 and No 826/2014)

2.      Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — 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 against him — Whether summary statement of reasons sufficient

(Art. 296 TFEU; Council Decisions 2014/145/CFSP and 2014/508/CFSP; Council Regulations No 269/2014 and No 826/2014)

3.      Actions for annulment — Grounds — Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons — Separate ground from the one concerning substantive legality

(Arts 263 TFEU and 296 TFEU)

4.      European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Ambit of the review — Proof the measure well-founded — Obligation on the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the grounds held against the persons or entities concerned well-founded

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decisions 2014/145/CFSP and 2014/508/CFSP; Council Regulations No 269/2014 and No 826/2014)

5.      Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Criteria for adopting restrictive measures — Provision of active material or financial support to the Russian decision-makers responsible for the annexation of Crimea or the destabilisation of Eastern Ukraine — Benefit drawn from those decision-makers — Concept — No need to establish a link between the advantages obtained and the annexation of Crimea or the destabilisation of Eastern Ukraine

(Council Decisions 2014/145/CFSP and 2014/508/CFSP; Council Regulations No 269/2014 and No 826/2014)

6.      Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Criteria for adopting restrictive measures — Persons responsible for actions or policies compromising or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine — Concept — Owner of the company responsible for the construction of a bridge between Russia and Crimea — Person responsible for a campaign designed to persuade Crimean children of their Russian citizenship — Included

(Council Decisions 2014/145/CFSP, 2015/432/CFSP, 2015/1524/CFSP and 2016/359/CFSP; Council Regulations No 269/2014, No 427/2015, No 1514/2015, No 353/2016)

7.      EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Right to be heard — Right to a fair trial and effective judicial protection — Freezing of funds of certain persons and entities having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Said persons and entities not notified of the inculpatory evidence and not given a hearing — Lawfulness — Subsequent decision maintaining the name of the applicant on the list of persons covered by those measures — No infringement of the right to be heard

(Art. 6(1) TEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 41(2)(a), and 47; Council Decisions 2014/145/CFSP, 2015/432/CFSP, 2015/1524/CFSP and 2016/359/CFSP; Council Regulations No 269/2014, No 427/2015, No 1514/2015, No 353/2016)

8.      Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds of certain persons and entities having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Restriction on the right to respect for private and family life, the right to property and the right to conduct a business — No breach of principle of proportionality

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 7, 16 and 17; Council Decisions 2015/432/CFSP, 2015/1524/CFSP and 2016/359/CFSP; Council Regulations No 427/2015, No 1514/2015 and No 353/2016)

1.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 47)

2.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 48, 49)

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 58)

4.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 70-72, 116)

5.      In the context of an action seeking the partial annulment of certain restrictive measures against natural or legal persons whose actions compromise or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, brought by a natural person regarded by the Council as a person providing active material or financial support to the Russian decision-makers responsible for the annexation of Crimea or the destabilisation of Eastern Ukraine, or benefiting from those decision-makers, that criterion for entering the said person on the lists of persons and entities covered by the restrictive measures does not require that the persons or entities concerned benefit personally from the annexation of Crimea or the destabilisation of Eastern Ukraine. It is sufficient that they benefit from one of the ‘Russian decision-makers’ responsible for those events, and it is not necessary to establish a link between the advantages enjoyed by the designated persons and the annexation of Crimea or the destabilisation of Eastern Ukraine.

For that criterion to be capable of being applied, the Russian decision-makers from whom the benefits enjoyed by those targeted are derived must already at the very least have started to prepare the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Eastern Ukraine. Where that condition is satisfied, it must be concluded that the recipients of those benefits cannot be unaware of the involvement of those decision-makers in the preparations, and can expect their resources, derived at least in part from those benefits, to be targeted by restrictive measures, with the aim of preventing them from being able to support the decision-makers in question.

However, if the said criterion were applicable even when the abovementioned condition is not satisfied, the principle of legal certainty would be compromised.

(see paras 87, 91, 92)

6.      In the context of an action seeking the partial annulment of certain restrictive measures against natural or legal persons whose actions compromise or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, brought by the owner of the company which has been awarded a State contract for the construction of a bridge from Russia to the illegally annexed Autonomous Republic of Crimea, given that the bridge will establish direct access to Crimea from Russia thereby facilitating trade between Russia and Crimea, not only in relation to goods and services, but also from a military point of view, the Council was entitled to consider that, in the light of the political and military developments in the region, which were characterised by Russia’s actions leading to the holding of what was described as a referendum on the status of Crimea followed by the recognition by Russia of the results of that referendum and the illegal annexation of Crimea, the construction of the bridge in question would consolidate the integration of Crimea into Russia, thereby further undermining the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Moreover, the project established by the said person amongst others, following orders of the President of Russia in connection with the alignment of Crimea to Russian educational standards, consisting in a public relations campaign designed to persuade Crimean children that they are Russian citizens living in Russia, supports the Russian government’s policy of integrating Crimea into Russia and thus contributes to further compromising the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

(see paras 118, 121, 128, 129)

7.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 143-146, 150-159, 161, 162)

8.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 166-186)