Joined Cases T‑423/13 and T‑64/14
Good Luck Shipping LLC
v
Council of the European Union
(Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran — Freezing of funds — Error of law — Legal basis — Error of assessment — No evidence)
Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber), 24 May 2016
1. European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Restrictive measures against Iran — Measures in the context of the fight against nuclear proliferation — Ambit of the review
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 41(2), and 47; Council Decisions 2010/413/CFSP and 2013/270/CFSP; Council Regulations No 267/2012 and No 522/2013)
2. European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Restrictive measures against Iran — Measures in the context of the fight against nuclear proliferation — Ambit of the review — Exclusion of matters brought to the knowledge of the institution after the adoption of the contested decision
(Council Decisions 2010/413/CFSP and 2013/270/CFSP; Council Regulations No 267/2012 and No 522/2013)
3. Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Rights of defence — Notification of inculpatory evidence — Subsequent decision maintaining the name of the applicant on the list of persons covered by those measures
(Council Decisions 2010/413/CFSP and 2013/270/CFSP; Council Regulations No 267/2012 and No 522/2013)
4. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Right of access to documents — Right subject to request for access being made to the Council
(Council Decisions 2010/413/CFSP and 2013/270/CFSP; Council Regulations No 267/2012 and No 522/2013)
5. Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Scope — Absolute authority of res judicata — Consequences of an annulling judgment having the force of res judicata — Plea a matter of public policy capable of being raised by the EU judicature of its own motion
(Art. 264 TFEU)
6. Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Acts instituting restrictive measures to be applied to entities owned or controlled by an entity covered by the freezing of funds — Annulment of the restrictive measures covering that latter entity — Consequences — Invalidity of the restrictive measures covering the entities owned or controlled
(Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and 2013/270/CFSP; Council Regulations No 267/2012 and No 522/2013)
7. Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Acts instituting restrictive measures to be applied to entities owned or controlled by an entity covered by the freezing of funds — Annulment, for non-compliance with the general listing criteria, of the restrictive measures covering that latter entity — Consequences — Invalidity of the restrictive measures covering the entities owned or controlled — Modification of the general listing criteria — Irrelevant
(Council Decisions 2010/413/CSFP and 2013/661/CFSP; Council Regulations No 267/2012 and No 1154/2013)
8. Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Limitation by the Court — Restrictive measures against Iran — Partial annulment at two different times of two acts comprising identical restrictive measures — Risk of legal certainty being seriously affected — Maintenance of the effects of the first of those acts until the taking effect of annulment of the second
(Arts 264, second para., TFEU and 266 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 56, first para., and 60, second para.; Council Decisions 2010/413/CFSP, 2013/270/CFSP and 2013/661/CFSP; Council Regulations No 267/2012, No 522/2013 and No 1154/2013)
1. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 46-52)
2. The legality of an act whereby restrictive measures have been adopted against an entity may, in principle, be assessed only on the basis of the elements of fact and law on which they were adopted and not on the basis of information which was brought to the Council’s knowledge after the adoption of those measures, even if the latter takes the view that that information could legitimately complement the grounds stated in those measures and also provide a basis for their adoption.
(see para. 55)
3. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 56, 57, 60, 63-65)
4. See the text of the decision.
(see para. 62)
5. See the text of the decision.
(see para. 76)
6. The legality of an entity’s inclusion on the list of persons or entities covered by restrictive measures on the grounds of its links with another entity included on that list is conditional on that other entity, at the date of listing, being lawfully included on that list. Since the freezing of the funds of entities owned or controlled by an entity which has been lawfully included on the list in question, or acting on its behalf, is necessary and appropriate in order to ensure the effectiveness of the measures adopted vis-à-vis the latter entity and to ensure that those measures are not circumvented, the inclusion of those entities on those lists can no longer be held to be justified by those objectives if there is no valid inclusion of the name of that other entity on the list.
The Council thus errs in law where it bases the decision to maintain an entity’s inclusion on the list of persons or entities covered by restrictive measures by reason of its links with another listed entity, where the inclusion of the latter’s name is subsequently deleted from the legal order following an annulling judgment. Even if the effects of the inclusion of the name of that other entity on the list are maintained by the annulling judgment until expiry of the period for lodging an appeal, that inclusion is nevertheless deleted retroactively from the legal order where the said period has expired.
(see paras 77, 79, 83)
7. Where the General Court annuls restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran and, in an annulling judgment, prescribes a period during which the effects of an annulment of a measure will be suspended in order to enable the Council to remedy the infringements identified by adopting, as appropriate, new general criteria for inclusion on the list of persons or entities subject to restrictive measures and new restrictive measures intended to freeze the funds of the entity concerned for the future, neither those new general listing criteria nor those new restrictive measures enable measures found to be illegal by the annulling judgment to be rendered lawful.
Moreover, the mere modification, during the period of suspension of the effects of the annulment, of the said general listing criteria does not have the effect of validating, since that modification took place, entries on the lists in question which were made on the basis of previous general listing criteria, and which, when the period of suspension of the effects of the annulment expired, were deleted retroactively from the legal order and deemed never to have existed.
Thus, the Council errs in law by deciding to maintain the entry of the name of an entity on the list of persons or entities covered by restrictive measures on account of its links with another entity whose inclusion on that list had been annulled, even if that decision to maintain the entry took place after the adoption of new general criteria for entry on the list of persons or entities subject to restrictive measures in order to ensure that the entry of the name of that other entity conforms to the those new general listing criteria .
(see paras 80, 97, 100)
8. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 101-106)