Lithuania / Supreme Administrative Court / A-858-47/2014 Vladimir Peftiev, ZAO Beltechexport, ZAO Sport-Pari, PUE BT Telecommunications v the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania (Lietuvos Respublikos užsienio reikalų ministerija) and the Financial Crime Investigation Service (Finansinių nusikaltimų tyrimo tarnyba)

Key facts of the case:

Applicants, on the basis of Art. 3 (1) of Council Regulation No. 765/2006, requested the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to “unfreeze” certain amounts of money which were frozen under Council Regulation No. 588/2001 in order to pay for legal representation before the General Court of the EU. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs rejected the request without providing any substantial arguments why it made such a decision. The applicants challenged that refusal by stating, among other things, that the respondent failed to substantiate its decision. The position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was that Art. 3 (1) gives it absolute discretion whether to unfreeze money or not; therefore, the issue of motives is of no relevance. Once confronted with the case, the Court decided to refer the preliminary ruling request to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The CJEU delivered a preliminary ruling on 12 June 2014 (C-314/13, Peftief). The Supreme Administrative Court delivered a ruling on the basis of the judgment rendered by the CJEU.

Paragraphs referring to EU Charter: 

 

Art. 41 establishes the right to good administration, one of its components is the duty of administration to give reasons to its decisions (Art. 41 (2) (c)). Art. 3 (1) (b) of the Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that, when taking a decision on whether to grant a derogation requested under that provision with a view to bringing an action challenging the lawfulness of restrictive measures imposed by the European Union, the competent national authority does not enjoy an absolute discretion, but must exercise its powers in a manner which upholds the rights provided for in the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and observes the indispensable nature of legal representation in bringing such an action before the General Court of the European Union.

Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language): 

 

Chartijos 41 straipsnis įtvirtina teisę į gerą administravimą, viena iš jos sudedamųjų dalių yra administracijos pareiga pagrįsti savo sprendimus (41 straipsnio 2 dalies c punktas). Reglamento 3 straipsnio 1 dalies b punktas turi būti aiškinamas taip, kad kompetentinga nacionalinė institucija neturi absoliučios diskrecijos, kai priima sprendimą dėl pagal šią nuostatą pateikto prašymo taikyti išimtį, kad būtų galima pareikšti ieškinį ir užginčyti Europos Sąjungos nustatytų ribojamųjų priemonių teisėtumą, ir savo kompetenciją turi vykdyti laikydamasi Europos Sąjungos pagrindinių teisių chartijos 47 straipsnio antros pastraipos antrame sakinyje numatytų teisių ir reikalavimo, kad reiškiant ieškinį Bendrajame Teisme ieškovui turi atstovauti advokatas.

Language: 
Lithuanian
Deciding body (original language): 
Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas
Language: 
Lithuanian