Case T‑653/11

Aiman Jaber

v

Council of the European Union

(Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Period for bringing proceedings — Partial inadmissibility — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Burden of proof — Adjustment of temporal effects of annulment)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber), 13 November 2014

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 — Notification to the person concerned by means of a publication in the Official Journal of the European Union — Lawfulness — Conditions — Council unable to effect notification

(Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(1) and (2); Council Decisions 2011/273/CFSP, 2011/488/CFSP and 2011/782/CFSP; Council Regulations No 442/2011 and No 755/2011)

2.      Judicial proceedings — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure

(Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.)

3.      Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Concept — Need for an actual and current interest — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant — Interest having to subsist until the delivery of the court decision — Act repealing and replacing the contested measure during the proceedings — Applicant not demonstrating an interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate

(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Decisions 2011/782/CFSP, 2012/739/CFSP and 2013/185/CFSP)

4.      European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Restrictive measures against Syria — Ambit of the review

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP; Council Regulations No 36/2012 and No 363/2013)

5.      Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Limitation by the Court — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Syria — Risk of serious and irreversible undermining being caused to the effectiveness of any asset-freezing likely to be, in future, decided by the Council against the persons concerned by the annulled measure — Maintenance of the effects of annulled decisions and regulations until expiry of the time-limit for an appeal or dismissal of the appeal

(Arts 264, second para., TFEU and 266 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 56, first para., and 60, second para.; Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP; Council Regulations No 36/2012 and No 363/2013)

1.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 38-40, 46-50)

2.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 48)

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 53-56, 63-68)

4.      Concerning Council acts imposing restrictive measures on Syria, the effectiveness of the judicial review guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union requires, in particular, that as part of the review of the lawfulness of the grounds which are the basis of the decision to list or to maintain the listing of a given person on the lists of persons subject to sanctions, the Courts of the European Union are to ensure that that decision 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 whether those reasons, or, at the very least, one of those reasons, deemed sufficient in itself to support that decision, is substantiated. 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. It is necessary that the information or evidence produced by the authority in question should support the reasons relied on against the person concerned. If that material is insufficient to allow a finding that a reason is well founded, the Courts of the European Union shall disregard that reason as a possible basis for the contested decision to list or maintain a listing.

Where the evidence provided by the Council does not contain any indicia capable of supporting its claims against the applicant, it follows that the Council has not discharged its burden of proof under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

(see paras 80, 81, 85, 86)

5.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 88-94)