CJEU - Joined Cases T-423/13 and T-64/14 / Judgment

Good Luck Shipping v EU Council
Policy area
Foreign and security policy
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
General Court (Second Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
24/05/2016
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:T:2016:308

Karta tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tal-Unjoni Ewropea

Title VI: Justice

Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial

VIEW FULL CASE
  • CJEU - Joined Cases T-423/13 and T-64/14 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    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

    Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:

    THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber) hereby:

    1. Annuls the following measures, in so far as they concern Good Luck Shipping LLC:
      – Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran;
      – Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 on restrictive measures against Iran;
      – Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran;
      – Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 on restrictive measures against Iran;
    2. Orders that the effects of Decision 2013/661 be maintained as regards Good Luck Shipping until the annulment of Regulation No 1154/2013 takes effect;
    3. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Good Luck Shipping.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter
    1. The right to effective judicial protection, which is affirmed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, requires that the person concerned must be able to ascertain the reasons upon which the decision taken in relation to him is based, either by reading the decision itself or by requesting and obtaining disclosure of those reasons, without prejudice to the power of the court having jurisdiction to require the authority concerned to disclose that information, so as to make it possible for him to defend his rights in the best possible conditions and to decide, with full knowledge of the relevant facts, whether there is any point in his applying to the court having jurisdiction, and in order to put the latter fully in a position to review the lawfulness of the decision in question (see judgment of 28 November 2013 in Council v Fulmen and Mahmoudian, C‑280/12 P, EU:C:2013:775, paragraph 61 and the case-law cited).
    2. The effectiveness of the judicial review guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights also requires that the Courts of the European Union are to ensure that the decision, which affects the person or entity concerned individually, is taken on a sufficiently solid factual basis. That entails a verification of the allegations factored 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 (see judgment of 28 November 2013 in Council v Fulmen and Mahmoudian, C‑280/12 P, EU:C:2013:775, paragraph 64 and the case-law cited).
    3. The judicial review of the lawfulness of an act whereby restrictive measures are imposed on an entity extends to the assessment of the facts and circumstances relied on as justifying it, and to the evidence and information on which that assessment is based. In the event of challenge, it is for the Council to present that evidence for review by the Courts of the European Union (see judgments of 6 September 2013 in Bateni v Council, T‑42/12 and T‑181/12, not published, EU:T:2013:409, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited, and of 16 September 2013 in Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council, T‑489/10, EU:T:2013:453, paragraph 42 and the case-law cited). In other words, 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 should support the reasons relied on against the person concerned (see judgment of 3 July 2014 in National Iranian Tanker Company v Council, T‑565/12, EU:T:2014:608, paragraph 57 and the case-law cited).