Case T‑248/13
(publication by extracts)
Mohammed Al-Ghabra
v
European Commission
(Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Freezing of the funds and economic resources of a person included on a list drawn up by a United Nations body — Inclusion of that person’s name on the list in Annex I to Regulation No 881/2002 — Action for annulment — Reasonable time — Obligation to verify and justify the merits of the grounds relied on — Judicial review)
Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber), 13 December 2016
1. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Measure entailing restrictive measures against a person or body — Measure published and notified to the addressees — Date of notification of the measure
(Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU)
2. Judicial proceedings — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Strict application of EU rules
3. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Procedure for re-examining the entry of the name of the person concerned in the list appearing in Annex I of Regulation No 881/2002 — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Infringement — Consequences
(Council Regulation No 881/2002)
4. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban — Obligation to disclose individual and specific grounds for the decisions adopted — Judicial review
(Council Regulation No 881/2002)
5. EU law — Principles — Proportionality — Proportionality of a freezing of funds and economic resources
1. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 39, 40)
2. See the text of the decision.
(see para. 43)
3. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 52, 53, 62-65)
4. For the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection to be complied with, and also, in this instance, for the principle of good administration to be observed, first, the competent EU authority must (i) disclose to the person concerned the summary of reasons provided by the Sanctions Committee which is the basis for listing or maintaining that person’s name on the list at issue, (ii) enable him effectively to make known his observations on that subject, and (iii) examine, carefully and impartially, whether the reasons alleged are well founded, in the light of the observations presented by that person and any exculpatory evidence that may be produced by him.
Respect for those rights and observance of that principle implies that, in the event of a legal challenge, the Courts of the European Union are to review, in the light of the information and evidence which have been disclosed inter alia whether the reasons relied on in the summary of reasons provided by the Sanctions Committee are sufficiently detailed and specific and, where appropriate, whether the accuracy of the facts relating to the reason concerned has been established in the light of the matters communicated to him.
By contrast, the fact that the competent EU authority does not make accessible to the person concerned and, subsequently, to the Courts of the European Union information or evidence which is in the sole possession of the Sanctions Committee or the Member of the United Nations (UN) concerned and which relates to the summary of reasons underpinning the decision at issue, cannot, as such, justify a finding that those rights and that principle have been infringed.
However, in such a situation, the Courts of the European Union, which are called upon to review whether the reasons contained in the summary provided by the Sanctions Committee are well founded in fact, taking into consideration any observations and exculpatory evidence produced by the person concerned and the response of the competent EU authority to those observations, will not have available to it supplementary information or evidence. Consequently, if it is impossible for the Courts to find that those reasons are well founded, those reasons cannot be relied on as the basis for the contested listing decision.
(see paras 70-72)
5. With reference to an objective of general interest as fundamental to the international community as the fight by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, against the threats to international peace and security posed by acts of terrorism, the freezing of the funds, financial assets and other economic resources of the persons identified by the Security Council or the Sanctions Committee as being associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban cannot per se be regarded as inappropriate or disproportionate. It is nevertheless appropriate to ascertain that, when those measures were adopted, the procedural rights of the persons concerned, notably their rights of defence, were respected.
Moreover, where, under the relevant Security Council resolutions, the Sanctions Committee had decided to list the name of an individual on its consolidated list, the competent EU authority had, in order to give effect to that decision on behalf of the Member States, to take the decision to include the name of that individual, or to maintain it, on the list at issue on the basis of the summary of reasons provided by the Sanctions Committee. In that context, the only obligations of the competent EU authority are those of respect for the rights of the defence, careful and impartial examination as to whether the alleged reasons are well founded and statement of reasons identifying the individual, specific and concrete reasons why the competent authorities consider that the individual concerned must be subject to restrictive measures.
(see paras 187, 188)