Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Key facts of the case:
The Ministry of Justice listed a private company among legal entities associated with sanctioned individuals as Person A, a sanctioned individual, was deemed factual controller of this company. The company submitted a request to the Ministry of Justice seeking the removal from this list. The company argued that it had been mistakenly listed and this caused significant damage to it.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether inclusion of a private company in the list is subject to review under the administrative procedure. The lower court had previously dismissed the application, finding that the case did not fall under administrative jurisdiction. It concluded that inclusion in the list does not directly produce factual or legal effects.
Outcome of the case:
The Supreme Court held that a person cannot be designated as an associated person (someone not directly subject to sanctions) without being guaranteed the right to a fair trial, including access to a court. Such a designation has real consequences as restrictive measures are imposed.
9. Article 47 (1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union provides that anyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by Union law have been violated has the right to an effective remedy, subject to the conditions laid down in that Article. Everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
According to the Court of Justice of the European Union, the protection of natural and legal persons against arbitrary or disproportionate interference by public authorities in their private sphere of activity is a general principle of the European Union (Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 25 November 2021 in Case C-437/19 "État luxembourgeois (Informations sur un groupe de contribuables)", ECLI:EU:C:2021:953, paragraphs 87-88 and judgment of 6 October 2020 in Joined Cases C-245/19 and C-246/19 "État luxembourgeois (Droit de recours contre une demande d'information en matière fiscale)", ECLI:EU:C:2020:795, paragraph 58.). In such a case (i.e. where a public authority interferes arbitrarily or disproportionately in a person's private activity), the person has the right to invoke Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to challenge a decision taken by a public authority (Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 25 November 2021 in Case C-437/19 "État luxembourgeois (Informations sur un groupe de contribuables)", ECLI:EU:C:2021:953, paragraphs 96-97 and judgment of 6 October 2020 in Joined Cases C-245/19 and C-246/19 "État luxembourgeois (Droit de recours contre une demande d’information en matière fiscale)", ECLI:EU:C:2020:795, paragraph 96). The Court of Justice of the European Union further held that the freezing of assets cannot have the effect of denying persons whose assets are frozen effective access to judicial redress (Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 June 2014, Peftiev and Others, C-314/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:1645, paragraph 26.). Moreover, the Court of Justice once rejected the argument that only national courts should provide effective judicial protection, as questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union may be referred for a preliminary ruling in this area (Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 28 March 2017, Rosneft, C-72/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:236, paragraphs 77-78).
...
In the light of the above, it follows that, when implementing restrictive measures against related persons, the State is under a double obligation to ensure the right to a fair trial: first, as a Member State of the European Union, by implementing European Union law (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union); and, if State discretion is exercised in any respect, then as a State Party to the Convention [European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms], accordingly ensuring the rights enshrined in Article 6 thereof.
9. Eiropas Savienības Pamattiesību hartas 47. panta pirmā un otrā daļa noteic, ka ikvienai personai, kuras tiesības un brīvības, kas garantētas Savienības tiesībās, tikušas pārkāptas, ir tiesības uz efektīvu tiesību aizsardzību, ievērojot nosacījumus, kuri paredzēti šajā pantā. Ikvienai personai ir tiesības uz taisnīgu, atklātu un laikus veiktu lietas izskatīšanu neatkarīgā un objektīvā, tiesību aktos noteiktā tiesā.
Atbilstoši Eiropas Savienības Tiesas atzītajam par vispārēju Eiropas Savienības principu ir uzskatāma fizisku un juridisku personu aizsardzība pret publiskas varas subjektu patvaļīgu vai nesamērīgu iejaukšanos šo personu privātās darbības jomā (Eiropas Savienības Tiesas 2021. gada 25. novembra sprieduma lietā „État luxembourgeois (Informations sur un groupe de contribuables)”, C‑437/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:953, 87.–88. punkts un 2020. gada 6. oktobra sprieduma apvienotajās lietās „État luxembourgeois (Droit de recours contre une demande d’information en matière fiscale)”, C‑245/19 un C‑246/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:795, 58. punkts). Šādā gadījumā (proti, ja publiskās varas subjekts (iestāde) patvaļīgi vai nesamērīgi iejaucas personas privātajā darbībā) personai ir tiesības atsaukties uz Eiropas Savienības Pamattiesību hartas 47.pantu, apstrīdot valsts iestādes izdotu lēmumu (Eiropas Savienības Tiesas 2021. gada 25. novembra sprieduma lietā „État luxembourgeois (Informations sur un groupe de contribuables)”, C‑437/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:953, 96.–97. punkts un 2020. gada 6. oktobra sprieduma apvienotajās lietās „État luxembourgeois (Droit de recours contre une demande d’information en matière fiscale)”, C‑245/19 un C‑246/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:795, 96. punkts). Eiropas Savienības Tiesa arī norādījusi, ka līdzekļu iesaldēšanai nevar būt tādas sekas, ka personām, kuru līdzekļi tiek iesaldēti, tiek liegta efektīva piekļuve tiesību aizsardzībai tiesā (Eiropas Savienības Tiesas 2014. gada 12. jūnija sprieduma lietā „Peftiev u.c.”, C‑314/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:1645, 26. punkts). Turklāt Tiesa savulaik noraidīja argumentu, ka tikai valsts tiesām ir jānodrošina efektīva tiesību aizsardzība tiesā, jo Eiropas Savienības Tiesai var uzdot prejudiciālos jautājumus šajā jomā (Eiropas Savienības Tiesas 2017. gada 28. marta sprieduma lietā „Rosneft”, C‑72/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:236, 77.–78. punkts).
Ņemot vērā minēto, secināms, ka, īstenojot ierobežojošos pasākumus saistītām personām, valstij veidojas dubults pienākums tiesību uz taisnīgu tiesu nodrošināšanā: primāri jau kā Eiropas Savienības dalībvalstij īstenojot Eiropas Savienības tiesību normas (Eiropas Savienības Pamattiesību Hartas 47. pants); un, ja kādā aspektā tiek īstenota valsts rīcības brīvība, tad kā Konvencijas dalībvalstij, attiecīgi nodrošinot tās 6. pantā ietvertās tiesības.