CJEU - T-709/14 / Judgment

Tri Ocean Energy v. Council
Policy area
Foreign and security policy
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
09/09/2016
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:T:2016:459
  • CJEU - T-709/14 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment

    Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:

    THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber) hereby:

    1. Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2014/488/CFSP of 22 July 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 793/2014 of 22 July 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as they concern Tri-Ocean Trading;
    2. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Tri-Ocean Trading.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter
    1. According to case-law, the discretion enjoyed in this area by the Council does not prevent the courts of the European Union from determining, when carrying out the review of lawfulness, whether the facts upon which the Council has relied are true and accurate. The effectiveness of the judicial review guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also requires the Courts of the European Union to satisfy themselves that a decision that affects the person or entity concerned individually rests on a sufficiently solid factual basis. That entails checking the factual allegations in the summary of reasons underlying that decision, with the consequence that judicial review is not to be restricted to assessment of the cogency in the abstract of the reasons relied upon, but must deal with the question whether those reasons, or, at the very least, one of them, deemed sufficient in itself to support that decision, have or has been substantiated (judgment of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 119).