JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)
14 July 2021 (*)
(Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela – Freezing of funds – Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists – Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists – Error of assessment – Right to property)
In Case T‑553/18,
Delcy Eloina Rodríguez Gómez, residing in Caracas (Venezuela), represented by F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers,
applicant,
v
Council of the European Union, represented by A. Antoniadis, S. Kyriakopoulou and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents,
defendant,
APPLICATION based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 12) and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 5), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant,
THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber),
composed of R. da Silva Passos, President, I. Reine (Rapporteur) and L. Truchot, Judges,
Registrar: B. Lefebvre, Administrator,
having regard to the written part of the procedure and further to the hearing on 4 September 2020,
gives the following
Judgment
Background to the dispute
1 The applicant, Ms Delcy Eloina Rodríguez Gómez, is the Vice-President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. She was also President of the National Constituent Assembly (‘the Constituent Assembly’) and a member of the Presidential Commission for the Constituent Assembly.
Implementation of the system of restrictive measures: Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 and Regulation (EU) 2017/2063
2 On 13 November 2017, the Council of the European Union adopted Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2017 L 295, p. 60). The reason for adopting that decision, according to recital 1 thereof, was the continuing deterioration of democracy, the rule of law and human rights in Venezuela.
3 Decision 2017/2074 contains, in essence, first, a prohibition on exporting to Venezuela arms, military equipment or any other equipment that might be used for internal repression, as well as monitoring equipment, technology or software and, secondly, a prohibition on providing financial, technical or other services in relation to such goods and technologies.
4 Article 6(1) of Decision 2017/2074 provides, in addition, as follows:
‘Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of:
(a) natural persons responsible for serious human rights violations or abuses or the repression of civil society and democratic opposition in Venezuela; or
(b) natural persons whose actions, policies or activities otherwise undermine democracy or the rule of law in Venezuela;
as listed in Annex I.’
5 Article 7 of Decision 2017/2074 provides:
‘1. All funds and economic resources belonging to or owned, held or controlled by:
(a) natural or legal persons, entities or bodies responsible for serious human rights violations or abuses or the repression of civil society and democratic opposition in Venezuela;
(b) natural or legal persons, entities or bodies whose actions, policies or activities otherwise undermine democracy or the rule of law in Venezuela;
as listed in Annex I, shall be frozen.
2. All funds and economic resources belonging to or owned, held or controlled by natural or legal persons, entities and bodies associated with the persons, entities or bodies referred to in paragraph 1, as listed in Annex II, shall be frozen.
3. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex I or II.
…’
6 Article 8 of Decision 2017/2074 reads as follows:
‘1. The Council, acting by unanimity upon a proposal by a Member State or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall establish and amend the lists in Annexes I and II.
2. The Council shall communicate the decision referred to in paragraph 1, including the grounds for the listing, to the natural or legal person, entity or body concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person, entity or body with an opportunity to present observations.
3. Where observations are submitted, or where substantial new evidence is presented, the Council shall review the decision referred to in paragraph 1 and inform the natural or legal person, entity or body concerned accordingly.’
7 The second paragraph of Article 13 of Decision 2017/2074 provides that the decision is to be kept under constant review and is to be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.
8 On the date when Decision 2017/2074 was adopted, Annexes I and II thereto did not yet contain the name of any person or entity.
9 On the basis of Article 215 TFEU and Decision 2017/2074, on 13 November 2017, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2017 L 295, p. 21). Regarding the freezing of funds of the persons concerned, that regulation reproduces, in essence, the provisions of Decision 2017/2074. In particular, Annexes IV and V to the regulation correspond, respectively, to Annexes I and II to Decision 2017/2074. Pursuant to Article 17(4) of that regulation, those two annexes are to be reviewed at regular intervals and at least every 12 months.
10 On the date when Regulation 2017/2063 was adopted, Annexes IV and V thereto did not yet contain the name of any person or entity.
11 The first paragraph of Article 13 of Decision 2017/2074 provided, in its initial version, that that decision was to apply until 14 November 2018.
12 By contrast, no expiry date was specified in Regulation 2017/2063.
Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists: Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899
13 On 25 June 2018, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 amending Decision 2017/2074 (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 12). On the same day, the Council adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 implementing Regulation 2017/2063 (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 5). That decision and that implementing regulation (together, ‘the initial acts’) were published that day in the Official Journal of the European Union. Recital 4 of the initial acts states that ‘in view of the continuing deterioration of the situation in Venezuela, 11 persons [had to] be included in the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures’ in Annex I to Decision 2017/2074. The initial acts therefore amended that annex. The applicant’s name was thus included in it as follows: ‘12. – Name: Delcy Eloina Rodríguez Gómez – Identifying information: Vice President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Date of birth: 18.5.1969 – Reasons: Vice President of Venezuela, former President of the illegitimate Constituent Assembly and former member of the Presidential Commission for the illegitimate National Constituent Assembly. Her actions on the Presidential Commission and then as President of the illegitimate Constituent Assembly have undermined democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela, including usurping the powers of the National Assembly and using them to target the opposition and prevent them taking part in the political process – Date of listing: 25.6.2018’.
14 On 26 June 2018, a notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2017/2074, as amended by Decision 2018/901, and in Regulation 2017/2063, as implemented by Implementing Regulation 2018/899, concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela was published in the Official Journal(OJ 2018 C 222, p. 6).
15 By email of 12 July 2018, the Council sent to the applicant’s representative the documents on which the initial acts were based, namely a working document dated 16 May 2018 bearing the reference ST 10885/2018 EXT 5 COREU CFSP/0250/18, a document dated 21 June 2018 bearing the reference WK 7667/2018 INIT, a document dated 21 June 2018 bearing the reference WK 7672/2018 INIT, a document dated 21 June 2018 bearing the reference WK 7673/2018 INIT, a document dated 21 June 2018 bearing the reference WK 7674/2018 INIT and a document dated 25 June 2018 bearing the reference WK 7753/2018 INIT.
Events subsequent to the bringing of the present action
16 On 6 November 2018, Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 amending Decision 2017/2074 (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10) extended the application of the restrictive measures until 14 November 2019, including in respect of the applicant. Decision 2018/1656 also replaced item 7 in Annex I to Decision 2017/2074, thereby amending the reason for listing another person subject to the restrictive measures at issue. On 6 November 2018, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 implementing Regulation 2017/2063 (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 1) also amended to the same effect item 7 of Annex IV to the latter regulation.
17 By letter of 7 November 2018, the Council informed the applicant’s representative that the decision had been taken to extend the application of the restrictive measures at issue in respect of the applicant. In addition, he was informed of the possibility of submitting an application for revision of that decision to the Council by 23 August 2019. That letter went unanswered.
18 On 7 November 2018, a notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2017/2074, as amended by Decision 2018/1656, and in Regulation 2017/2063, as implemented by Implementing Regulation 2018/1653, concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela was published in the Official Journal (OJ 2018 C 401, p. 2).
Procedure and forms of order sought
19 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 19 September 2018, the applicant brought the present action.
20 By separate document lodged at the Court Registry on 17 January 2019, the applicant modified her application, on the basis of Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, in order to seek in addition the annulment of Decision 2018/1656 and of Implementing Regulation 2018/1653, in so far as those acts concern her. The Council submitted its observations on the statement of modification to the Court Registry on 15 February 2019.
21 The written part of the procedure was closed on 5 April 2019.
22 Following a change in the composition of the Chambers of the General Court, pursuant to Article 27(5) of the Rules of Procedure, the Judge-Rapporteur was transferred to the Seventh Chamber, to which this case was consequently assigned.
23 By letter of 28 October 2019, the parties were invited to submit observations on the potential joinder of Cases T‑550/18, Harrington Padrón v Council, T‑551/18, Oblitas Ruzza v Council, T‑552/18, Moreno Reyes v Council, T‑553/18, Rodríguez Gómez v Council, T‑554/18, Hernández Hernández v Council and T‑32/19, Harrington Padrón v Council, for the purposes of the oral part of the procedure. The Council replied that it had no objections to such a joinder. The applicant did not reply within the prescribed period.
24 By decision of 19 November 2019, the President of the Seventh Chamber of the General Court decided to join those cases (‘the joined cases’) for the purposes of the oral part of the procedure. On the same day, the oral part of the procedure was opened.
25 On 28 January 2020, the Seventh Chamber decided to fix the date for the hearing in the joined cases for 24 April 2020.
26 On 7 February 2020, in the context of the measures of organisation of procedure provided for in Article 89 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court asked the parties in the joined cases to answer questions in writing before the hearing and orally at the hearing. The parties in the joined cases replied to the questions for written answer within the prescribed period. On 13 March 2020, the Court invited them to submit observations on the other party’s replies. The parties in the joined cases submitted their observations within the prescribed period.
27 As the hearing, originally scheduled for 24 April 2020, was postponed on account of the health crisis, the parties in the joined cases presented oral argument and replied to the Court’s oral questions at the hearing on 4 September 2020.
28 The applicant claims that the Court should:
– annul the initial acts, and Decision 2018/1656 and Implementing Regulation 2018/1653 (together, ‘the contested acts’) in so far as their provisions concern the applicant;
– order the Council to pay the costs.
29 The Council contends that the Court should:
– dismiss the action;
– in the alternative, if the restrictive measures were to be annulled in respect of the applicant, order that the effects of Decision 2018/1656 be maintained in relation to her until the partial annulment of Implementing Regulation 2018/899 takes effect;
– order the applicant to pay the costs.
Law
Admissibility of the modification of the application
30 In her statement of modification, by which the applicant seeks the annulment of Decision 2018/1656 and Implementing Regulation 2018/1653, she submits that, by those two acts, the Council maintained her name on the list in Annex I to Decision 2017/2074 and on the list in Annex IV to Regulation 2017/2063 after her situation was reviewed and for the same reason as that stated for her initial listing. That decision and that implementing regulation had the effect of extending the period during which the restrictive measures at issue apply to her until 14 November 2019.
31 In the context of its observations on the statement of modification, the Council raises a plea of inadmissibility in so far as that statement seeks the annulment of Implementing Regulation 2018/1653, on the ground that the applicant lacks standing to bring proceedings. The Council argues that that implementing regulation does not specifically name the applicant and does not replace a measure of direct and individual concern to her. As a result, the applicant does not have standing to bring proceedings.
32 In its reply to a question asked in the context of measures of organisation of procedure, the Council adds that the periodic review provided for in Article 17(4) of Regulation 2017/2063 does not necessarily lead to the adoption of a new legal act. According to the Council, in the present case, if it had not been necessary to amend the information regarding a person other than the applicant, Implementing Regulation 2018/1653 would not have been adopted. Neither the purpose nor the effect of that act was to maintain the applicant’s name on the list in the annex to Regulation 2017/2063. As a result, the Council submits that the applicant does not have an interest in bringing proceedings against that act.
33 In that regard, it must be observed that the second paragraph of Article 13 of Decision 2017/2074 provides that that decision is to be kept under constant review. Recital 2 of Decision 2018/1656 expressly refers to a review of Decision 2017/2074.
34 By contrast, Implementing Regulation 2018/1653 does not contain such a reference. It cannot, however, be inferred therefrom that the Council did not review the situation and that that absence of review precludes the modification of the application. Article 17(4) of Regulation 2017/2063 provides, in fact, that the list set out in Annex IV thereto is to be reviewed at regular intervals and at least every 12 months. However, the admissibility of an action cannot depend on the Council’s discretion as to whether or not it considers that it has in fact reviewed the retention on the lists at issue of the name of the person concerned, which would be contrary to the principle of legal certainty (judgment of 9 July 2014, Al-Tabbaa v Council, T‑329/12 and T‑74/13, not published, EU:T:2014:622, paragraph 47). The Council cannot therefore claim, in the present case, that it has not reviewed the applicant’s situation, contrary to its obligations, in order to gain an advantage concerning the admissibility of the action brought against Implementing Regulation 2018/1653. Moreover, on account of the fact that the two texts are closely interrelated, it must be held that the review of the situation which the Council acknowledges it carried out in order to adopt Decision 2018/1656 was a necessary preliminary step to the adoption of Implementing Regulation 2018/1653 also.
35 In the light of the foregoing, the pleas of inadmissibility raised by the Council must be rejected and it must be held that the form of order sought in the statement of modification is admissible, including in so far as it covers Implementing Regulation 2018/1653.
Substance
36 In support of her action, the applicant raises two pleas in law alleging, first, ‘manifest errors of assessment’ and a lack of corroborating evidence and, second, infringement of the right to property. Those pleas are directed against all of the contested acts.
The first plea in law, alleging ‘manifest errors of assessment’ and a lack of corroborating evidence
37 The applicant divides the first plea into two parts, alleging, first, ‘manifest errors of assessment’ of her functions and role and, second, a lack of corroborating evidence and a ‘manifest error of assessment’ of the evidence.
38 It must be observed that the two parts overlap in so far as, in the context of the second part, the applicant directs her complaints alleging a lack of corroborating evidence and a ‘manifest error of assessment’ of the evidence against, in particular, the Council’s assessment of her role as former President of the Constituent Assembly and former member of the Presidential Commission. They should therefore be examined together.
39 First of all, the applicant submits that she is no longer either President of the Constituent Assembly or a member of the Presidential Commission, whose activities ended following the establishment of the Constituent Assembly, meaning that she is no longer in a position to adopt any measure whatsoever in connection with the Constituent Assembly.
40 Next, the applicant criticises the Council for having failed to provide any evidence capable of demonstrating her responsibility for the approval of the decisions of the Constituent Assembly or her active participation in the Presidential Commission. According to the applicant, the President of the Constituent Assembly performs merely organisational and administrative functions relating to the management and proper functioning of that assembly. The applicant cannot be held responsible for the decisions taken by the Constituent Assembly, which is a collegiate body. With regard to her position as member of the Presidential Commission, the applicant states that she did not participate in any of the meetings of that council and that she therefore did not take part in, let alone participate actively in, the decisions of that body.
41 Lastly, the applicant states that an examination of the evidence adduced by the Council shows that that evidence was not a sufficiently solid factual basis for including her name on the lists at issue.
42 The Council contests the applicant’s arguments.
43 It should be borne in mind that the effectiveness of the judicial review guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) requires, inter alia, that the Courts of the European Union are to ensure that the decision, which affects the person or entity concerned individually, is taken on a sufficiently solid factual basis. That entails a verification of the factual allegations in the summary of reasons underpinning that decision, with the consequence that judicial review cannot be restricted to an assessment of the cogency in the abstract of the reasons relied on, but must concern the question of whether those reasons, or, at the very least, one of those reasons, deemed sufficient in itself to support that decision, is substantiated (judgments of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 119, and of 28 November 2013, Council v Fulmen and Mahmoudian, C‑280/12 P, EU:C:2013:775, paragraph 64).
44 To that end, it is for the Courts of the European Union, in order to carry out that examination, to request the competent European Union authority, when necessary, to produce information or evidence, confidential or not, relevant to such an examination (see judgment of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 120 and the case-law cited; judgment of 28 November 2013, Council v Fulmen and Mahmoudian, C‑280/12 P, EU:C:2013:775, paragraph 65).
45 That is because it is the task of the competent European Union authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the reasons relied on against the person concerned are well founded, and not the task of that person to adduce evidence of the negative, that those reasons are not well founded (judgments of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 121, and of 28 November 2013, Council v Fulmen and Mahmoudian, C‑280/12 P, EU:C:2013:775, paragraph 66).
46 For that purpose, there is no requirement that that authority produce before the Courts of the European Union all the information and evidence underlying the reasons alleged in the act sought to be annulled. It is however necessary that the information or evidence produced should support the reasons relied on against the person concerned (judgments of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 122, and of 28 November 2013, Council v Fulmen and Mahmoudian, C‑280/12 P, EU:C:2013:775, paragraph 67).
47 So far as concerns the types of evidence which may be relied on, the prevailing principle of EU law is the unfettered evaluation of the evidence available (judgment of 6 September 2013, Persia International Bank v Council, T‑493/10, EU:T:2013:398, paragraph 95 (not published)). In that regard, it is important to recall that, in the absence of investigative powers in third countries, the assessment of the EU authorities must rely on publicly available sources of information, reports, articles in the press, or other similar sources of information (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 March 2018, Kim and Others v Council and Commission, T‑533/15 and T‑264/16, EU:T:2018:138, paragraph 107). It is clear from the case-law that, inter alia, in some situations, the Courts of the European Union may take into account reports from international organisations (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 June 2015, Ipatau v Council, C‑535/14 P, EU:C:2015:407, paragraph 48).
48 Moreover, according to settled case-law, having regard to the preventive nature of the restrictive measures adopted by the Council, if, in the course of their review of the lawfulness of the contested acts, the Courts of the European Union consider that, at the very least, one of the reasons mentioned in those acts in respect of a person on whom those measures are imposed is sufficiently detailed and specific, that it is substantiated and that it constitutes a sufficient basis in itself to support the decision to include or retain the name of the person on the lists annexed to those acts, the fact that the same cannot be said of other such reasons cannot justify the annulment of those acts (see, to that effect, judgments of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 130; of 28 November 2013, Council v Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft, C‑348/12 P, EU:C:2013:776, paragraph 72; and of 26 March 2019, Boshab and Others v Council, T‑582/17, not published, EU:T:2019:193, paragraph 221).
49 It is in the light of those principles that it is appropriate to examine whether the reasons for the applicant’s inclusion in and retention on the lists at issue – based on the fact that she is the Vice-President of Venezuela, former President of the illegitimate Constituent Assembly and former member of the Presidential Commission for the illegitimate Constituent Assembly, and stating that her actions on the Presidential Commission and then as President of the illegitimate Constituent Assembly have undermined democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela, including by usurping the powers of the National Assembly and using them to target the opposition and prevent them from taking part in the political process – are vitiated by errors of assessment.
50 As set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, in accordance with Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Decision 2017/2074, the general criterion established for the purposes of inclusion in the lists at issue covers, inter alia, natural persons ‘whose actions, policies or activities otherwise undermine democracy or the rule of law in Venezuela’. That criterion is also set out in Article 8(3) of Regulation 2017/2063.
51 In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, as regards the general context in Venezuela, it is clear from recitals 1 and 5 to 8 of Decision 2017/2074 and recitals 1 and 2 of Regulation 2017/2063 that the contested acts were adopted on account of the continuing deterioration of democracy, the rule of law and human rights in Venezuela, as a result of, inter alia, the use of excessive force, and the repression of civil society and democratic opposition. Recital 6 of Decision 2017/2074 states that on 2 August 2017, the European Union expressed its deep regret at the decision of the Venezuelan authorities to continue with the election of a Constituent Assembly, a decision that durably worsened the crisis in Venezuela and risked undermining other legitimate institutions foreseen by the Venezuelan Constitution, such as the National Assembly.
52 That general context of the situation in Venezuela was also referred to by the Council before the Court, without it being disputed by the applicant. The Council thus recalled that, after December 2015, following elections to the National Assembly, a coalition of opposition parties had won a majority of the seats. In January 2016, the then President of Venezuela declared a state of emergency in Venezuela and ruled by decree. By April 2017, demonstrations had taken place almost daily for several months, which resulted in the death and injury of many civilians and thousands of arrests. In May 2017, the then President of Venezuela announced the creation of a Constituent Assembly, the members of which were elected on 30 July 2017 through an electoral process which was boycotted by the opposition.
53 The Council’s file contains, as part of the evidence justifying the inclusion and retention of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, inter alia, a letter and report of the Organization of American States (OAS) and a letter of the international non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch, containing information on the illegal and unconstitutional nature of the Constituent Assembly, the encroachment of that assembly’s powers on those of the National Assembly in particular.
54 In particular first, in its letter of 9 September 2017 and report of 31 December 2017, drafted therefore shortly after the elections to the Constituent Assembly on 30 July 2017, the OAS stated that there were serious concerns regarding the unconstitutional nature of the creation of the Constituent Assembly. More specifically, it raised concerns regarding how the government had decided to apportion places within that body by prioritising certain groups over others, thereby breaching the principle of universal suffrage.
55 Second, Human Rights Watch, in its letter of 9 September 2017, stated that the presidential decree establishing the Constituent Assembly was illegal and breached the provisions of the Venezuelan Constitution, which requires prior consultation of the population, and, following its creation, the Constituent Assembly had appropriated the legislative powers of the democratically elected National Assembly.
56 It should be noted that the above information is consistent with the European Union’s concerns described in recital 6 of Decision 2017/2074, cited in paragraph 51 above. In addition, that information and its reliability have not been called into question by the applicant.
57 In those circumstances, the Council was fully entitled to consider that the Constituent Assembly was illegitimate. The Council was therefore also fully entitled to consider that, by accepting the role of president of such a body and the role of member of the Presidential Commission for that body, the applicant had, in carrying out her duties, necessarily undermined democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela. Consequently, the evidence in the Council’s file is sufficient to show that the applicant was responsible for the approval of the decisions of the Constituent Assembly and was an active participant in the Presidential Commission.
58 In the light of the considerations set out in the context of the examination of the present plea, it must be held that the Council did not commit an error of assessment when it found that the applicant had undermined democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela, without there being any need to examine, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 48 above, the relevance of the other reasons given by the Council. Furthermore, even if the applicant no longer carried out duties as President of the Constituent Assembly and member of the Presidential Commission, she remained linked to the regime which was in power in Venezuela when she, while carrying out those duties, undermined democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela. It is common ground between the parties that, at the time when the contested acts were adopted, the applicant held the position of Vice-President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Moreover, it is not apparent from the file, nor does the applicant claim, that it was the applicant herself who took the decision to cease carrying out her duties as part of the Constituent Assembly and the Presidential Commission in response to the undermining of democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela, in order to distance herself from such actions (see, by analogy, judgments of 26 March 2019, Boshab and Others v Council, T‑582/17, not published, EU:T:2019:193, paragraph 152, and of 12 February 2020, Kande Mupompa v Council, T‑170/18, EU:T:2020:60, paragraph 131 (not published)).
59 Consequently, the first plea in law must be rejected.
The second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property
60 The applicant submits that the restrictive measures imposed on her by the contested acts constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of her right to property, as protected by Article 17(1) of the Charter. Those measures have the potential of suspending the normal economic life of the person, entity or group that is listed because they deprive them of most forms of use of their funds and other assets.
61 According to the applicant, no infringement of the right to property may be justified if there is no proper assessment of the evidence demonstrating that she posed a risk to the public interest which the restrictive measures sought to protect.
62 In addition, the applicant submits, first, that the Council has not demonstrated the existence of specific conduct by her which undermined democracy or the rule of law in Venezuela. According to the applicant, such a conclusion cannot be drawn merely from her role as former President of the Constituent Assembly and former member of the Presidential Commission. In addition, she submits that the Council has not adduced precise and corroborating evidence to that effect. She concludes that the Council therefore committed a ‘manifest error of assessment’ with the result that it is not permissible to restrict the applicant’s right to property.
63 Second, the applicant submits that, in order to restrict the exercise of her right to property, the Council was required to respect the conditions laid down in Article 52(1) of the Charter. However, first, the applicant argues that she does not come within the scope of the contested acts. Second, the restrictive measures imposed against her constitute a disproportionate restriction of the exercise of her fundamental rights. In that connection, the applicant sets out some alternative, less restrictive, sanctions which could have been adopted. Third, the ‘essential content’ of the right to property was infringed regardless of the fact that the measures are temporary and reversible.
64 The Council contests the applicant’s arguments.
65 Under Article 17(1) of the Charter, everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law in so far as is necessary for the general interest.
66 Pursuant to Article 52(1) of the Charter, any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by it must, first, be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms and, second, subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the European Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.
67 In the present case, it is clear that the contested acts restrict the applicant’s right to property, since, pursuant to Article 7 of Decision 2017/2074 and Articles 8 and 9 of Regulation 2017/2063, she cannot, inter alia, make use of her funds situated within the European Union, unless she obtains specific authorisation, and since no funds or other economic resources can be made available, directly or indirectly, to her.
68 However, the right to property, as protected by Article 17(1) of the Charter, does not constitute an unfettered prerogative and may therefore be limited, under the conditions laid down in Article 52(1) of the Charter (see judgment of 21 February 2018, Klyuyev v Council, T‑731/15, EU:T:2018:90, paragraph 176 (not published) and the case-law cited).
69 Consequently, in order to comply with EU law, a limitation on the exercise of the right to property must satisfy three conditions.
70 First, the limitation must be ‘provided for by law’. In other words, the measure in question must have a legal basis. Secondly, it must refer to an objective of general interest, recognised as such by the European Union. Those objectives include those pursued under the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and referred to in Article 21(2) TEU. Thirdly, the limitation must not be excessive: it must be necessary and proportionate to the aim sought and the ‘essential content’, that is, the substance, of the right or freedom at issue must not be impaired (see judgment of 6 June 2018, Lukash v Council, T‑210/16, not published, EU:T:2018:332, paragraph 222 and the case-law cited).
71 As regards the first condition, it must be observed that, in the present case, the limitation is ‘provided for by law’, given that it is set out in Decision 2017/2074 and Regulation 2017/2063, as amended by the contested acts. Those acts are, in particular, of general application and have a clear legal basis in EU law. Moreover, the restrictions are formulated in sufficiently precise terms as regards their scope and the reasons showing why they apply to the applicant (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 November 2014, Mayaleh v Council, T‑307/12 and T‑408/13, EU:T:2014:926, paragraph 176).
72 In that regard, the applicant’s submissions that the present restriction of her right to property is not provided for by law in so far as she is not responsible for undermining democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela must be rejected.
73 Regarding the second condition, in respect of which the applicant does not put forward any arguments, it must be stated that, as is apparent from the examination of the first plea in law, the contested acts comply, as regards the applicant, with the objective referred to in Article 21(2)(b) TEU of consolidating and supporting democracy and the rule of law in so far as they form part of a policy intended to promote democracy in Venezuela.
74 As regards the third condition, it must be recalled that the principle of proportionality, as one of the general principles of EU law, requires that measures adopted by the EU institutions do not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to attain the objectives pursued by the legislation in question. Consequently, when there is a choice between several appropriate measures, recourse must be had to the least onerous, and the disadvantages caused must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued (see judgment of 15 September 2016, Yanukovych v Council, T‑346/14, EU:T:2016:497, paragraph 164 and the case-law cited).
75 In that respect, with regard to judicial review of compliance with the principle of proportionality, the EU legislature must be allowed a broad discretion in areas which involve political, economic and social choices on its part, and in which it is called upon to undertake complex assessments. Consequently, the legality of a measure adopted in those fields can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue (see judgment of 28 November 2013, Council v Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft, C‑348/12 P, EU:C:2013:776, paragraph 120 and the case-law cited; judgment of 15 June 2017, Kiselev v Council, T‑262/15, EU:T:2017:392, paragraph 88).
76 According to the case-law, the disadvantages caused by the restrictive measures are not disproportionate to the objectives pursued, taking into consideration, first, that those measures are inherently temporary and reversible and do not therefore infringe the ‘essential content’ of the right to property, and, second, that they may be derogated from in order to cover basic needs, legal costs or even the extraordinary expenses of the persons concerned (see judgment of 21 February 2018, Klyuyev v Council, T‑731/15, EU:T:2018:90, paragraph 182 (not published) and the case-law cited).
77 In the present case, regarding the appropriateness of the restrictive measures, such as those imposed on the applicant, with reference to an objective of general interest as fundamental to the international community as the protection of democracy and the rule of law, it is apparent that the freezing of the funds, financial assets and other economic resources of the persons identified as being involved in the undermining of democracy in Venezuela cannot be regarded as inappropriate (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 February 2020, Boshab v Council, T‑171/18, not published, EU:T:2020:55, paragraph 134 and the case-law cited).
78 As regards the necessity of those measures, it should be noted that alternative and less restrictive measures are not as effective in achieving the goal pursued when they make it possible to circumvent the restrictions imposed or there is a likelihood that they will not target the person concerned effectively (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 September 2016, Alsharghawi v Council, T‑485/15, not published, EU:T:2016:520, paragraph 84 and the case-law cited).
79 The applicant suggests two alternative measures which, according to her, would be less restrictive. She proposes, first, a prohibition on EU citizens engaging in transactions related to, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in the purchase of any debt, including accounts receivable, issued by the Government of Venezuela, or, second, a prohibition on EU citizens participating in the transfer by the Venezuelan Government of any equity interest in any entity owned 50% or more by the Government of Venezuela.
80 In that regard, it must be stated that it is apparent from, in particular, recital 7 of Decision 2017/2074 that the targeted restrictive measures at issue ‘should be imposed against certain natural and legal persons responsible for serious human rights violations or abuses or the repression of civil society and democratic opposition and persons, entities and bodies whose actions, policies or activities undermine democracy or the rule of law in Venezuela, as well as persons, entities and bodies associated with them’. The alternative measures proposed by the applicant do not enable the aims pursued in Decision 2017/2074 and Regulation 2017/2063 to be achieved. Therefore, the applicant’s argument in this regard must be rejected.
81 In addition, it must be borne in mind that Article 7(4) of Decision 2017/2074 and Article 9(1) of Regulation 2017/2063 provide for the possibility of releasing certain frozen funds or economic resources so that the persons concerned can satisfy basic needs or meet certain commitments.
82 In that regard, the applicant submits that the ‘essential content’ of the right to property was infringed regardless of the fact that the measures are temporary and reversible. That argument must be rejected in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 76 above.
83 It follows that the contested acts do not infringe the applicant’s right to property and the second plea in law must be rejected.
84 Consequently, as the first plea in law has also been rejected, the action must be dismissed in its entirety.
Costs
85 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, she must be ordered to pay the costs in accordance with the form of order sought by the Council.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)
hereby:
1. Dismisses the action;
2. Orders Ms Delcy Eloina Rodríguez Gómez to pay the costs.
da Silva Passos | Reine | Truchot |
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 14 July 2021.