Case T‑400/10

Hamas

v

Council of the European Union

(Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds — Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds — Reference to terrorist acts — Need for a decision of a competent authority for the purpose of Common Position 2001/931 — Obligation to state reasons — Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber), 17 December 2014

1.      Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action directed against a measure which has been repealed — Respective effects of repeal and annulment — Applicant maintaining an interest in obtaining annulment of the contested decision

(Council Decisions 2010/386/CFSP, 2011/70/CFSP, 2011/430/CFSP, 2011/872/CFSP, 2012/333/CFSP, 2012/765/CFSP, 2013/395/CFSP and 2014/72/CFSP; Council Regulations No 610/2010, No 83/2011, No 687/2011, No 1375/2011, No 542/2012, No 1169/2012, No 714/2013 and No 125/2014)

2.      Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Purely informative measure — Not included

(Art. 263 TFEU)

3.      Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Fund-freezing decision taken against certain persons and entities suspected of terrorist activities — Decision concerning a person or entity having committed terrorist acts in the past — Minimum requirements — Factual basis of the decision having to rest on matters actually examined and established in decisions of competent national authorities

(Council Common Position 2001/931)

4.      Common foreign and security policy — Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Decision to freeze funds — Adoption or maintenance on the basis of a national decision to open investigations or prosecution — Reexamination in order to justify maintenance on the fund-freezing list — Council’s duty to state reasons — Scope

(Council common position 2001/931, Art. 1(4); Council Regulation No 2580/2001)

5.      Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Limitation by the Court — Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Risk that effectiveness of the restrictive measures may be seriously and irreversibly undermined — Maintenance of the effects of the annulled decision for a period of three months or until the expiry of the time-limit for an appeal or dismissal of the appeal

(Art. 264, second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 56, first para.; Council Decision 2014/483/CFSP; Council Regulation No 790/2014)

1.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 59)

2.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 71-75)

3.      Common Position 2001/931 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism requires, for the protection of the persons concerned and in the absence of the European Union’s own means of investigation, that the factual basis of a European Union decision freezing funds in a terrorism matter be based not on material that the Council has obtained from the press or from the internet, but on material actually examined and accepted in decisions of national competent authorities within the meaning of Common Position 2001/931.

It is only on such a reliable factual basis that the Council can then exercise its broad discretion when adopting decisions to freeze funds at EU level, in particular as regards the considerations of appropriateness on which such decisions are based.

(see paras 110, 111)

4.      Although the essential question when reviewing whether to continue to include a person on the list is whether, since that person was included on the list or since the last review, the factual situation has changed in such a way that it is no longer possible to draw the same conclusion in relation to the involvement of that person in terrorist activities, with the consequence that the Council may, if necessary and within the context of its broad discretion, decide to maintain a person on the list relating to frozen funds in the absence of a change in the factual situation, the fact remains that any new terrorist act which the Council inserts in its statement of reasons during that review for the purposes of justifying maintaining the person concerned on the list relating to frozen funds must, in the two-tier decision-making system of Common Position 2001/931 and because of the Council’s lack of means of investigation, have been the subject of an examination and a decision by a competent authority within the meaning of that common position. The Council’s obligation to base its decisions to freeze funds in terrorist matters on a factual basis derived from decisions of competent authorities follows directly from the two-tier system introduced by Common Position 2001/931. That obligation is therefore not affected by the conduct of the person or group concerned. Under the obligation to state reasons, which is an essential procedural requirement, the Council must indicate, in the grounds of its decisions to freeze funds, the decisions of competent national authorities that have actually examined and established the terrorist acts which the Council takes as the factual basis of its own decisions.

(see paras 127, 129, 130)

5.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 144, 145)