Case T‑572/11
Samir Hassan
v
Council of the European Union
(Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Actions for annulment — Adaptation of claims — Out of time — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality — Action for damages)
Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber), 16 July 2014
1. Judicial proceedings — Measures repealing and replacing the contested measure in the course of proceedings — Application to amend pleas for annulment formulated in the course of the proceedings — Time-limit for the submission of such an application — Point from which time starts to run — Date of communication of the new measure to the persons concerned
(Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Council Decisions 2011/515/CFSP, 2011/782/CFSP, 2012/739/CFSP, 2013/185/CFSP and 2013/255/CFSP; Council Regulations No 843/2011, No 36/2012 and No 363/2013)
2. 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 notify
(Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Council Decisions 2011/515/CFSP, 2011/782/CFSP, 2012/739/CFSP, 2013/185/CFSP and 2013/255/CFSP; Council Regulations No 843/2011, No 36/2012 and No 363/2013)
3. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Restrictive measures against Syria — Prohibition of entry and transit and freezing of funds of certain persons and entities responsible for violent repression against the civilian population — Obligation to disclose incriminating evidence — Scope
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 41(2), and 47; Council Decision 2011/515/CFSP; Council Regulation No 843/2011)
4. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Right to be heard — Right to a fair trial and effective judicial protection — Prohibition of entry and transit and freezing of funds of certain persons and entities responsible for violent repression against the civilian population in Syria — Such persons and entities not notified of the evidence against them or given a hearing — Lawfulness
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 41(2), and 47; Council Decisions 2011/515/CFSP, 2011/782/CFSP, 2012/739/CFSP, 2013/185/CFSP and 2013/255/CFSP; Council Regulations No 843/2011, No 36/2012 and No 363/2013)
5. Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Prohibition of entry and transit and freezing of funds of certain persons and entities responsible for violent repression against the civilian population — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Obligation to notify the individual and specific reasons justifying such measures — Scope — Means of communication
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 41(2), and 47; Council Decision 2011/782/EC; Council Regulation No 36/2012)
6. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Restrictive measures against Syria — Prohibition of entry and transit and freezing of funds of certain persons and entities responsible for violent repression against the civilian population — Decision falling within a context known to the person concerned, enabling him to understand the scope of the measure taken in his regard — Whether a summary statement of reasons is sufficient
(Art. 296 TFEU; Council Decisions 2011/273/CFSP, 2011/515/CFSP, 2011/522/CFSP, 2011/782/CFSP, 2013/185/CFSP and 2013/255/CFSP; Council Regulations No 843/2011, 36/2012 and No 363/2013)
7. 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 Decisions 2011/515/CFSP, 2011/782/CFSP, 2013/185/CFSP and 2013/255/CFSP; Council Regulations No 843/2011, No 36/2012 and No 363/2013)
8. 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 the annulled decisions and regulations until expiry of the time-limit for an appeal or the dismissal thereof
(Arts 264, second para., TFEU and 266 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 56, first para., and 60, second para.; Council Decisions 2011/515/CFSP, 2011/782/CFSP, 2013/185/CFSP and 2013/255/CFSP; Council Regulations No 843/2011, No 36/2012 and No 363/2013)
9. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Burden of proof — One of the conditions not satisfied — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety
(Art. 340, second para., TFEU)
10. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Actual and certain damage — Burden of proof — Requirement not met
(Art. 263, second para., TFEU)
1. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 31-33, 37, 38)
2. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 33, 37, 38)
3. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 48, 49, 52-54, 57)
4. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 52, 53)
5. Where the Council has the address of a person covered by restrictive measures, it is required to inform that person of the adoption of those measures by means of an individual notification. However, the lack of an individual notification does not necessarily lead to the annulment of an act if the applicant’s rights are safeguarded. Indeed, where the Council has failed to meet its obligation to notify the applicant individually of an act, but the applicant has become aware of the act in question and lodged an action against it within the time-limits, his rights of the defence have not been affected, since he has had the opportunity to defend himself.
(see paras 59-61)
6. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 67-73, 78, 79)
7. Judicial review as to the legality of the grounds for entering or maintaining a person on the list of persons covered by sanctions under the common foreign and security policy requires that such 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 necessary that the information or evidence produced 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.
(see paras 88, 89, 94)
8. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 96, 98, 99, 101)
9. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 105, 106)
10. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 107, 108)