Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber), 13 November 2014 — Aiman Jaber v Council of the European Union

Reports of Cases

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)

13 November 2014 *

(Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of

funds — Action for annulment — Period for bringing proceedings — Partial inadmissibility —

Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Burden of proof — Adjustment of temporal effects

of annulment)

In Case T-653/11,

Aiman Jaber, residing in Lattakia (Syria), represented by M. Ponsard, D. Amaudruz and A. Boesch,

lawyers,

applicant,

v

Council of the European Union, represented by B. Driessen and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents,

defendant,

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning

restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 11), Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of

9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 1),

Council Implementing Decision 2011/302/CFSP of 23 May 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273 (OJ

2011 L 136, p. 91), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 504/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing

Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 45), Council Implementing Decision 2011/367/CFSP of

23 June 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 164, p. 14), Council Implementing

Regulation (EU) No 611/2011 of 23 June 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 164,

p. 1), Council Implementing Decision 2011/488/CFSP of 1 August 2011 implementing Decision

2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 199, p. 74), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 755/2011 of 1 August

2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 199, p. 33), Council Implementing Decision

2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 20), Council

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 of 23 August 2011 implementing Regulation

No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 amending

Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 16), Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011

amending Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of

23 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 247, p. 17), Council Regulation (EU)

No 950/2011 of 23 September 2011 amending Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 247, p. 3), Council

Decision 2011/684/CFSP of 13 October 2011 amending Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 33),

Council Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 amending Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ

2011 L 269, p. 18), Council Decision 2011/735/CFSP of 14 November 2011 amending Decision

2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 296, p. 53), Council Implementing Decision 2011/736/CFSP of 14 November

2011 implementing Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 296, p. 55), Council Regulation (EU) No 1150/2011

* Language of the case: French.

EN

ECLI:EU:T:2014:948

1

JUDGMENT OF 13. 11. 2014 — CASE T-653/11

JABER v COUNCIL

of 14 November 2011 amending Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 296, p. 1), Council Implementing

Regulation (EU) No 1151/2011 of 14 November 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011

L 296, p. 3), Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures

against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56), Council Implementing

Regulation (EU) No 1244/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011

L 319, p. 8), Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures

in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), Council

Decision 2012/206/CFSP of 23 April 2012 amending Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 110, p. 36),

Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782 (OJ

2012 L 126, p. 9), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing

Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 3), Council Regulation (EU) No 509/2012 of

15 June 2012 amending Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 156, p. 10), Council Decision

2012/322/CFSP of 20 June 2012 amending Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 45), Council

Implementing Decision 2012/335/CFSP of 25 June 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012

L 165, p. 80), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 544/2012/CFSP of 25 June 2012

implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 20), Council Regulation (EU)

No 545/2012 of 25 June 2012 amending Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 23), Council

Decision 2012/420/CFSP of 23 July 2012 amending Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 196, p. 59), Council

Implementing Decision 2012/424/CFSP of 23 July 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012

L 196, p. 81), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 673/2012 of 23 July 2012 implementing

Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 196, p. 8), Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of

29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782 (OJ

2012 L 330, p. 21), Council Implementing Decision 2013/185/CFSP of 22 April 2013 implementing

Decision 2012/739 (OJ 2013 L 111, p. 77), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of

22 April 2013 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2013 L 111, p. 1), and Council Decision

2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14),

in so far as those acts concern the applicant,

THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber),

composed of M. van der Woude, President, I. Wiszniewska-Białecka and I. Ulloa Rubio (Rapporteur),

Judges,

Registrar: C. Heeren, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 11 June 2014,

gives the following

Judgment

Background to the dispute

1

The applicant, Aiman Jaber, is a Syrian national trained in mechanical engineering who carries on a

business in the area of steel, construction materials and the import and export of agricultural goods.

Decision 2011/273 and Regulation No 442/2011

2

On 9 May 2011, the Council of the European Union — strongly condemning the violent repression of

peaceful protest in various locations across Syria and calling on the Syrian security forces to exercise

restraint instead of repression — adopted Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures

against Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 11). In view of the seriousness of the situation, the Council imposed

2

ECLI:EU:T:2014:948

JUDGMENT OF 13. 11. 2014 — CASE T-653/11

JABER v COUNCIL

an arms embargo, a ban on exports of internal repression equipment, and restrictions on the admission

to the European Union, and the freezing of funds and economic resources, of certain persons and

entities responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria.

3

The names of the persons responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria

as well as those of the natural or legal persons and entities associated with them are listed in the

Annex to Decision 2011/273. Pursuant to Article 5(1) of that decision, the Council, acting upon a

proposal by a Member State or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security

Policy, may amend the Annex. The applicant’s name does not appear in it.

4

Given that some of the restrictive measures taken against Syria fall within the scope of the TFEU, the

Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view

of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 1). This regulation is, in the main, identical to Decision

2011/273, but provides for the release of frozen funds in certain circumstances. The list of persons,

entities and bodies recognised as being responsible for the repression in question or as being

associated with those responsible, set out in Annex II to that regulation, is identical to the list

appearing in the Annex to Decision 2011/273. The applicant’s name does not appear on it. Pursuant to

Article 14(1) and (4) of Regulation No 442/2011, where the Council decides to subject a natural or

legal person, entity or body to the restrictive measures referred to, it shall amend Annex II accordingly

and, in addition, shall review the list contained therein at regular intervals and at least every 12

months.

5

By Implementing Decision 2011/488/CFSP of 1 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273 (OJ

2011 L 199, p. 74), the Council amended Decision 2011/273 in order to, in particular, apply the

restrictive measures in question to other persons and entities. In addition to the applicant’s name, line

4 of the table in the Annex to that decision contains various items of information, including the date of

inclusion of the applicant’s name on the list, in this instance ‘1 August 2011’, the applicant’s place of

birth and the following reasons:

‘Associate of Mahir al-Assad for the Shabiha militia. Directly involved in repression and violence

against the civilian population and co-ordination of Shabiha militia groups.’

6

On the same day, the Council — acting under Article 215(2) TFEU and Decision 2011/273 — adopted

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 755/2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 concerning

restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 99, p. 33). The applicant’s name

appears in line 4 of the table in the Annex to that implementing regulation together with the same

information and reasons as those set out in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2011/488.

7

On 2 August 2011, the Council published in the Official Journal of the European Union the Notice for

the attention of the persons to which restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/273, as

implemented by Implementing Decision 2011/488, and in Regulation No 442/2011, as implemented

by Implementing Regulation No 755/2011 apply (OJ 2011 C 227, p. 3).

8

Decision 2011/273 and Regulation No 442/2011 were also implemented or amended, in particular, by

the following acts, which do not mention the applicant’s name in the lists annexed thereto:

— Council Implementing Decision 2011/302/CFSP of 23 May 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273

(OJ 2011 L 136, p. 91) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 504/2011 of 23 May 2011

implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 45);

— Council Implementing Decision 2011/367/CFSP of 23 June 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273

(OJ 2011 L 164, p. 14) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 611/2011 of 23 June 2011

implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 164, p. 1);

ECLI:EU:T:2014:948

3

JUDGMENT OF 13. 11. 2014 — CASE T-653/11

JABER v COUNCIL

— Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision

2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 20) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 of

23 August 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 1);

— Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011

L 228, p. 16) and Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 amending Regulation

No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 1);

— Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011

L 247, p. 17) and Council Regulation (EU) No 950/2011 of 23 September 2011 amending

Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 247, p. 3);

— Council Decision 2011/684/CFSP of 13 October 2011 amending Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 269,

p. 33) and Council Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 amending Regulation

No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 18);

— Council Decision 2011/735/CFSP of 14 November 2011 amending Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011

L 296, p. 53) and Council Regulation (EU) No 1150/2011 of 14 November 2011 amending

Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 296, p. 1);

— Council Implementing Decision 2011/736/CFSP of 14 November 2011 implementing Decision

2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 296, p. 55) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2011 of

14 November 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 296, p. 3);

— Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1244/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing

Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 8).

Decision 2011/782 and Regulation No 36/2012

9

By Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and

repealing Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56), the Council considered it necessary to impose

additional restrictive measures in view of the gravity of the situation in Syria. For the sake of clarity,

the measures imposed by Decision 2011/273 and the additional measures were integrated into a single

legal instrument. Article 18 of Decision 2011/782 lays down restrictions on admission to the European

Union and Article 19 thereof provides for the freezing of funds and economic resources of the persons

and entities listed in Annex I thereto. The applicant’s name appears in that Annex in line 34 of the

table containing the list in question under the heading ‘A. Persons’, together with the same

information and reasons as those set out in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2011/488.

10

On 2 December 2011, the Council published in the Official Journal the Notice for the attention of the

persons and entities to which restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/782 and Regulation

No 442/2011 as implemented by Implementing Regulation No 1244/2011 apply (OJ 2011 C 351,

p. 14).

11

Regulation No 442/2011 was replaced by Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012

concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation

No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1). The applicant’s name appears in line 34 of the table in Annex II to

Regulation No 36/2012 together with the same information and reasons as those set out in the Annex

to Implementing Decision 2011/488.

4

ECLI:EU:T:2014:948

JUDGMENT OF 13. 11. 2014 — CASE T-653/11

JABER v COUNCIL

12

On 24 January 2012, the Council published in the Official Journal the Notice for the attention of the

persons and entities to which restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/782, as implemented

by Council Implementing Decision 2012/37/CFSP, and in Regulation No 36/2012, as implemented by

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 55/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria apply

(OJ 2012 C 19, p. 5).

13

Decision 2011/782 and Regulation No 36/2012 were also implemented or amended, in particular, by

the following acts, which do not mention the applicant’s name in the annexed lists:

— Council Decision 2012/122/CFSP of 27 February 2012 amending Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 54,

p. 14), and Council Regulation (EU) No 168/2012 of 27 February 2012 amending Regulation

No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 54, p. 1);

— Council Implementing Decision 2012/172/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision

2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 103), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 266/2012 of

23 March 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 45);

— Council Decision 2012/206/CFSP of 23 April 2012 amending Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 110,

p. 36);

— Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782

(OJ 2012 L 126, p. 9), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012

implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 3);

— Council Regulation (EU) No 509/2012 of 15 June 2012 amending Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012

L 156, p. 10);

— Council Decision 2012/322/CFSP of 20 June 2012 amending Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 165,

p. 45);

— Council Implementing Decision 2012/335/CFSP of 25 June 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782

(OJ 2012 L 165, p. 80), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 544/2012 of 25 June 2012

implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 20) and Council

Regulation (EU) No 545/2012 of 25 June 2012 amending Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 165,

p. 23);

— Council Decision 2012/420/CFSP of 23 July 2012 amending Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 196,

p. 59), Council Implementing Decision 2012/424/CFSP of 23 July 2012 implementing Decision

2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 196, p. 81), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 673/2012 of

23 July 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 196, p. 8).

Decision 2012/739

14

By Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against

Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21), the restrictive measures in question

were integrated into a single legal instrument. The applicant’s name appears in line 33 of the table in

Annex I to Decision 2012/739 together with the same information and reasons as those set out in the

Annex to Implementing Decision 2011/488.

15

On 30 November 2012, the Council published in the Official Journal the Notice for the attention of the

persons and entities to which restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2012/739 and Regulation

No 36/2012, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1117/2012, concerning

restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria apply (OJ 2012 C 370, p. 6).

ECLI:EU:T:2014:948

5

JUDGMENT OF 13. 11. 2014 — CASE T-653/11

JABER v COUNCIL

16

Council Implementing Decision 2013/185/CFSP of 22 April 2013 implementing Decision 2012/739 (OJ

2013 L 111, p. 77) seeks to update the list of the persons and entities subject to restrictive measures

appearing in Annex I to Decision 2012/739. The applicant’s name appears in line 33 of the table in

Annex I together with the same information and reasons as those set out in the Annex to

Implementing Decision 2011/488.

17

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation

No 36/2012 (OJ 2013 L 111, p. 1) contains the same information and reasons as those set out in the

Annex to Implementing Decision 2011/488.

18

On 23 April 2013, the Council published in the Official Journal the Notice for the attention of the

persons and entities to which restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2012/739, as implemented

by Implementing Decision 2013/185, and in Regulation No 36/2012, as implemented by Implementing

Regulation No 363/2013 apply (OJ 2013 C 115, p. 5).

Decision 2013/255

19

On 31 May 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures

against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14). The applicant’s name appears in line 33 of the table in Annex I

to that decision together with the same information and reasons as those set out in the Annex to

Implementing Decision 2011/488.

20

On 1 June 2013, the Council published in the Official Journal the Notice for the attention of the

persons and entities to which restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2013/255 and Regulation

No 36/2012 apply (OJ 2013 C 155, p. 1).

Procedure and forms of order sought by the parties

21

By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 26 December 2011, the applicant

brought the present action for the annulment of Decision 2011/273, as implemented or amended up

to the date of filing of the application, including all amending or implementing decisions; Regulation

No 442/2011, as implemented or amended up to the date of filing of the application, including all

amending or implementing regulations; and Decision 2011/782, as implemented or amended up to

the date of filing of the application, in so far as those acts concern him.

22

By separate document lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 26 December 2011, the applicant

applied for the case to be decided under an expedited procedure pursuant to Article 76a of the Rules

of Procedure of the General Court.

23

By decision of 29 March 2012, the General Court (Sixth Chamber) rejected the application for an

expedited procedure.

24

On 20 February 2012, the Council lodged its defence at the Registry of the General Court.

25

By document lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 13 February 2012, the applicant requested

leave to amend his heads of claim as regards Council Implementing Decision 2012/37/CFSP of

23 January 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 33), Council Implementing

Regulation (EU) No 55/2012 of 23 January 2012 implementing Article 33(1) of Regulation No 36/2012

(OJ 2012 L 19, p. 6) and Regulation No 36/2012. By letter lodged at the Registry of the General Court

on 16 March 2012, the Council filed its observations on the applicant’s request, claiming, in particular,

that the first two acts covered by the request did not mention him and that the action against

Regulation No 36/2012 was out of time. By decision of 4 April 2012, the General Court granted the

6

ECLI:EU:T:2014:948

JUDGMENT OF 13. 11. 2014 — CASE T-653/11

JABER v COUNCIL

applicant leave to lodge a document amending his heads of claim, but restricted such leave to

Regulation No 36/2012. The applicant lodged the document amending his heads of claim at the

Registry on 15 June 2012. By letter lodged at the Registry on 29 June 2012, the Council filed its

observations on the document amending the heads of claim.

26

By document lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 30 March 2012, the applicant requested

leave to amend his heads of claim as regards Regulation No 168/2012, Decision 2012/122,

Implementing Regulation No 266/2012 and Implementing Decision 2012/172. By letter lodged at the

Registry on 24 April 2014, the Council filed its observations on the applicant’s request, claiming that

the acts covered by the request did not mention him. By decision of 1 June 2012, the General Court

decided not to grant leave to lodge a document amending the heads of claim.

27

By document lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 24 May 2012, the applicant requested

leave to amend his heads of claim as regards Decision 2012/206. The applicant lodged the document

amending his heads of claim at the Registry on 22 June 2012. By letter lodged at the Registry on

3 July 2012, the Council objected to the amendment of the heads of claim in so far as that decision

did not mention the applicant.

28

By document lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 22 June 2012, the applicant requested

leave to amend his heads of claim as regards Implementing Decision 2012/256 and Implementing

Regulation No 410/2012. The applicant lodged the document amending his heads of claim at the

Registry on 23 July 2012. By letter lodged at the Registry on 9 August 2012, the Council objected to

the amendment of the heads of claim in so far as those acts did not mention the applicant.

29

By document lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 31 July 2012, the applicant amended his

heads of claim, also seeking the annulment of Regulation No 509/2012, Decision 2012/322,

Implementing Decision 2012/335, Implementing Regulation No 2012/544, Regulation No 545/2012,

Implementing Regulation No 673/2012, Decision 2012/420 and Implementing Decision 2012/424. By

letter lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 9 August 2012, the Council objected to the

amendment of the heads of claim in so far as those acts did not mention the applicant.

30

By document lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 7 December 2012, the applicant requested

leave to amend his heads of claim as regards Decision 2012/739. The applicant lodged the document

amending his heads of claim at the Registry on 7 January 2013. By letter lodged at the Registry on

21 January 2013, the Council indicated that it had no objections to that amendment of the heads of

claim.

31

By document lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 24 May 2013, the applicant requested

leave to amend his heads of claim as regards Council Decision 2013/109/CFSP of 28 February 2013

amending Decision 2012/739 (OJ 2013 L 58, p. 8), Council Regulation (EU) No 325/2013 of 10 April

2013 amending Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2013 L 102, p. 1), Implementing Decision 2013/185,

Council Decision 2013/186/CFSP of 22 April 2013 amending Decision 2012/739 (OJ 2013 L 111,

p. 101), and Implementing Regulation No 363/2013. By document lodged at the Registry on 24 June

2013, the applicant amended his heads of claim, seeking the annulment of only the last regulation,

Implementing Decision 2013/185 and Decision 2013/255. By letter lodged at the Registry on 17 July

2013, the Council indicated that it had no objections to that amendment of the heads of claim.

32

Following a change in the composition of the Chambers of the General Court, the Judge-Rapporteur

was assigned to the Seventh Chamber, to which the present case was accordingly allocated.

ECLI:EU:T:2014:948

7

JUDGMENT OF 13. 11. 2014 — CASE T-653/11

JABER v COUNCIL

33

Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur, the General Court decided to open the oral

procedure and, by way of measures of organisation of procedure provided for under Article 64 of the

Rules of Procedure, requested the parties to answer certain written questions and to provide certain

documents. The Council complied with that request. By contrast, the applicant’s representative

informed the Court that he would not answer the written questions.

34

At the hearing on 11 June 2014, the parties presented oral arguments and answered the questions put

to them by the Court.

35

The applicant contends that the Court should:

— annul, in so far as they concern him, Decision 2011/273, Regulation No 442/2011, Implementing

Decision 2011/302, Implementing Regulation No 504/2011, Implementing Decision 2011/367,

Implementing Regulation No 611/2011, Implementing Decision 2011/488, Implementing

Regulation No 755/2011, Implementing Decision 2011/515, Implementing Regulation

No 843/2011, Decision 2011/522, Regulation No 878/2011, Decision 2011/628, Regulation

No 950/2011, Decision 2011/684, Regulation No 1011/2011, Decision 2011/735, Implementing

Decision 2011/736, Regulation No 1150/2011, Implementing Regulation No 1151/2011, Decision

2011/782, Implementing Regulation No 1244/2011, Regulation No 36/2012, Decision 2012/206,

Implementing Decision 2012/256, Implementing Regulation No 410/2012, Regulation

No 509/2012, Decision 2012/322, Implementing Decision 2012/335, Implementing Regulation

No 544/2012, Regulation No 545/2012, Decision 2012/420, Implementing Decision 2012/424,

Implementing Regulation No 673/2012, Decision 2012/739, Implementing Decision 2013/185,

Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 and Decision 2013/255;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

36

The Council claims that the Court should:

— declare as inadmissible the amendment of the heads of claim concerning Regulation No 36/2012,

Decision 2012/206, Implementing Regulation No 410/2012, Implementing Decision 2012/256,

Regulation No 509/2012, Decision 2012/322, Implementing Decision 2012/335, Implementing

Regulation No 2012/544, Regulation No 545/2012, Implementing Regulation No 673/2012,

Decision 2012/420 and Implementing Decision 2012/424;

— dismiss the action;

— order the applicant to pay the costs.

Law

Admissibility

37

The Council, without raising a plea under Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure, claims that the

present action is partly inadmissible because it was out of time and because the applicant has no legal

interest in bringing proceedings.

Belated nature of the action

38

Under the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, an action for annulment must be brought within two

months of the publication of the contested act, or of its notification to the applicant, or, in the absence

thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge of the applicant, as the case may be. In

8

ECLI:EU:T:2014:948

JUDGMENT OF 13. 11. 2014 — CASE T-653/11

JABER v COUNCIL

accordance with Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure, where the period for bringing proceedings

against an act adopted by an institution runs from the publication of that act, the period runs from

the end of the 14th day after publication of the act in the Official Journal of the European Union. In

accordance with the provisions of Article 102(2) of those rules, that period must also be extended on

account of distance by a single period of 10 days.

39

Furthermore, as regards restrictive measures, the period for bringing proceedings for the annulment of

an act imposing such measures against a person or entity only starts to run either from the date of the

individual communication of that act to the interested party, if his address is known, or from the

publication of a notice in the Official Journal, if it was impossible to communicate the act directly to

the interested party (Joined Cases C-478/11 P to C-482/11 P Gbagbo and Others v Council [2013]

ECR, paragraphs 59 to 62).

40

Since Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure provides for an additional period of 14 days in order to

initiate proceedings against acts published in the Official Journal, it has to be concluded that this

provision must also apply, by analogy, when the event triggering the period for bringing proceedings

is a notice concerning those acts, a notice which is also published in the Official Journal. The same

reasons which justified the grant of an additional period of 14 days with regard to published acts are

valid as regards published notices, unlike individual communications (Joined Cases T-174/12 and

T-80/13 Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council [2014] ECR, paragraphs 64 and 65).

41

First, it should be noted that the application initiating proceedings was lodged at the Registry of the

General Court on 26 December 2011.

42

In so far as the applicant, in his application, seeks the annulment of Decision 2011/273, as

implemented by Implementing Decision 2011/488, and Regulation No 442/2011, as implemented by

Implementing Regulation No 755/2011, the action was out of time.

43

The Council did not send the applicant an individual notification. However, it reached out to the

persons to which the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/273, as implemented by

Implementing Decision 2011/488, and in Regulation No 442/2011, as implemented by Implementing

Regulation No 755/2011, apply by means of a notice published in the Official Journal on 2 August

2011 (see paragraph 7 above). Therefore, the period for bringing proceedings expired on 26 October

2011, that is to say well before the application was filed.

44

Nevertheless, the applicant complains that the Council failed to notify him individually of Decision

2011/273, as implemented by Implementing Decision 2011/488, and Regulation No 442/2011, as

implemented by Implementing Regulation No 755/2011. In this connection, he submits that the

assertion that the Council did not know his address is at odds with his businessman status, which is

amply demonstrated, and his status as a well-known public figure within the economic elite in Syria.

He also claims that the period for bringing proceedings only starts to run after the review procedure

before the Council, a procedure which, in the present case, was only completed on 5 January 2012,

when the Council replied for the first time to the applicant’s request for a review.

45

So far as concerns the applicant’s argument that the decisions ought to have been notified to him

individually as his address was known, it should be observed at the outset that Article 5(2) of Decision

2011/273 states that the Council shall communicate its decision, including the grounds for inclusion

on the list of persons or entities subject to the restrictive measures, to the person or entity concerned,

either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person or

entity with an opportunity to submit observations.

ECLI:EU:T:2014:948

9

JUDGMENT OF 13. 11. 2014 — CASE T-653/11

JABER v COUNCIL

46

Furthermore, it should be recalled that, in accordance with the case-law, the Council is not free to

choose arbitrarily the method of communicating its decisions to the interested parties. It is apparent

from paragraph 61 of Gbagbo and Others v Council, that the Court of Justice allowed the indirect

communication of acts subject to an action for annulment through the publication of a notice in the

Official Journal only where it was impossible for the Council to undertake notification.

47

In the present case, the Council cannot be criticised for failing to send an individual notification to the

applicant. The EU institutions do not have unlimited resources in Syria to search for the private

addresses of all natural persons affected by the restrictive measures system, especially when there is

public unrest. Moreover, the Council’s practice of sending notifications to natural persons only at their

private, and not professional, address is justified given that, otherwise, the notification might be opened

and read by third parties unconnected with the interested party, when restrictive measures are a

sensitive issue. Accordingly, in the circumstances of the present case, the Council had no other option

than to communicate the inclusion of the applicant’s name on the list of persons subject to restrictive

measures through the publication of a notice in the Official Journal.

48

The applicant’s claim that the period for bringing proceedings only starts to run after the review

procedure before the Council must be rejected. In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, under

the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the period for bringing proceedings against acts adopted by

the EU institutions is two months from the publication of the contested act, or of its notification to the

applicant, or, in the absence thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge of the applicant.

The possibility of referring a case to the Council in the context of a review procedure is not,

therefore, capable of derogating from such a rule. It is appropriate to recall that, according to settled

case-law, no derogation from the application of procedural time-limits may be made save where the

circumstances are exceptional, in the sense of being unforeseeable or amounting to force majeure, in

accordance with the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, since the

strict application of those rules serves the requirements of legal certainty and the need to avoid any

discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice (see, to that effect, Case 42/85

Cockerill-Sambre v Commission [1985] ECR 3749, paragraph 10; order in Case C-59/91 France v

Commission [1992] ECR I-525, paragraph 8; and order in Case C-239/97 Ireland v Commission [1998]

ECR I-2655, paragraph 7).

49

In so far as the applicant, in his application, seeks the annulment of Decision 2011/782, the action was

brought within the time-limits laid down in the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, read in

conjunction with Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Since the Council reached out to the

persons and entities targeted by that decision through a notice published in the Official Journal on

2 December 2011 (see paragraph 10 above), and the application was filed on 26 December 2011, the

action was brought in good time as regards that decision. Therefore, it is not necessary to take into

account other factors such as the date of publication in the Official Journal or the date of individual

notification to the applicant.

50

Accordingly, the application cannot be considered to have been filed in good time as regards the action

for annulment of Decision 2011/273, as implemented by Implementing Decision 2011/488, and

Regulation No 442/2011, as implemented by Implementing Regulation No 755/2011. By contrast, the

application can indeed be considered to have been filed in good time as regards Decision 2011/782.

51

Second, it must be stated that the requests for leave to amend the heads of claim were filed in good

time in accordance with the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU (see, to that effect, Case T-110/12

Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction v Council [2013] ECR, paragraphs 16 and 17). Indeed,

each of those requests was filed during the two months following the date of adoption of the act (see

paragraphs 25 to 31 above). Therefore, it is not necessary to take into account other factors such as

the date of publication in the Official Journal or the date of individual notification to the applicant.

10

ECLI:EU:T:2014:948

JUDGMENT OF 13. 11. 2014 — CASE T-653/11

JABER v COUNCIL

52

In the light of the foregoing, all of the requests for leave to amend the heads of claim must be regarded

as admissible ratione temporis.

Legal interest in bringing proceedings

53

Under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, ‘[a]ny natural or legal person may, under the

conditions laid down in the first and second paragraphs, institute proceedings against an act

addressed to that person or which is of direct and individual concern to them, and against a

regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures’.

54

According to settled case-law, the admissibility of an action for annulment brought by a natural or

legal person is conditional upon that person proving that he has a vested and present interest in the

annulment of the contested act (Case C-174/99 P Parliament v Richard [2000] ECR I-6189,

paragraph 33, and Case T-310/00 MCI v Commission [2004] ECR II-3253, paragraph 44).

55

The legal interest in bringing proceedings must continue until the final decision, which presupposes

that the action must be capable, having regard to its purpose and if it is successful, of procuring an

advantage for the party bringing it (Case C-362/05 P Wunenburger v Commission [2007] ECR I-4333,

paragraph 42, and order of 7 December 2011 in Case T-255/11 Fellah v Council, not published in the

ECR, paragraph 12).

56

That advantage may relate to the material interests, morale or future prospects of the interested party

(see, to that effect, Case 35/72 Kley v Commission [1973] ECR 679, paragraph 4, and Joined Cases

T-78/96 and T-170/96 W v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-239 and II-745, paragraph 47).

57

In the present case, the Council submits that the action is inadmissible in respect of the acts which do

not mention the applicant, who therefore has no legal interest in bringing proceedings. Likewise, it

argues that the action for annulment concerning Decision 2011/273 is inadmissible for want of a legal

interest in bringing proceedings since that act was repealed and replaced by Decision 2011/782.

– Acts which do not mention the applicant

58

First, as regards the acts in respect of which the applicant does not have any legal interest in bringing

proceedings on the ground that they do not mention his name, it must be stated that of all the

contested acts covered by the application initiating proceedings, only Decision 2011/782, which

repeals Decision 2011/273, expressly refers to the applicant in its Annexes. Consequently, when the

application was filed, the applicant had a legal interest in asking the Court to annul that act as such

annulment is capable of causing the applicant’s name to be removed from the lists of persons and

entities subject to the restrictive measures taken against Syria.

59

Second, as regards the contested acts covered by the documents amending the heads of claim, the

applicant seeks the annulment of several acts adopted by the Council which implement or amend

both Decision 2011/782 and Regulation No 36/2012, as well as Decisions 2012/739 and 2013/255.

60

In that connection, it must be stated that only Regulation No 36/2012, as implemented by

Implementing Regulation No 363/2013, Decision 2012/739, as implemented by Implementing Decision

2013/185, and Decision 2013/255 expressly refer to the applicant. In the case of those acts, either the

applicant’s name is included on the lists relating to the restrictive measures annexed to the basic acts,

or the references to those listings are replaced. Accordingly, it must be held that the applicant retains a

legal interest in bringing proceedings in respect of said acts since their annulment would result in the

removal of his name from the lists in question. By contrast, the same is not true of the other acts

covered by the documents amending the heads of claim, which contain no reference to the applicant.

ECLI:EU:T:2014:948

11

JUDGMENT OF 13. 11. 2014 — CASE T-653/11

JABER v COUNCIL

61

Consequently, in the light of the findings set out in paragraphs 50, 52, 58 and 60 above, the action

must be rejected as inadmissible in so far as it concerns the following acts:

— Decision 2011/273, as implemented or amended by Implementing Decisions 2011/302, 2011/367,

2011/515 and 2011/736 and Decisions 2011/522, 2011/628, 2011/684 and 2011/735;

— Regulation No 442/2011, as implemented or amended by Implementing Regulations Nos 504/2011,

611/2011, 843/2011, 1151/2011 and 1244/2011 and Regulations Nos 878/2011, 950/2011,

1011/2011 and 1150/2011;

— Implementing Decisions 2012/256, 2012/335 and 2012/424 as well as Decisions 2012/206, 2012/322

and 2012/420 implementing or amending Decision 2011/782;

— Implementing Regulations Nos 410/2012, 2012/544 and 673/2012 as well as Regulations

Nos 509/2012, 545/2012 and 325/2013 implementing or amending Regulation No 36/2012.

– Repealed and replaced acts

62

As regards the acts in respect of which the applicant has no legal interest in bringing proceedings on

the ground that they are no longer in force, it should be noted, as the Council does, that Decision

2011/782 was repealed and replaced by Decision 2012/739 and that the latter only applied until

1 June 2013, in accordance with Article 31(1) thereof.

63

Therefore, Decisions 2011/782 and 2012/739 ceased to produce legal effects as from their respective

dates of repeal and expiry.

64

According to settled case-law, in an action for annulment, the applicant may retain an interest in the

annulment of an act which is repealed in the course of proceedings if the annulment of that act is still

capable, if successful, of having legal consequences (see order of 14 January 2013 in Case T-497/10

Divandari v Council, not published in the ECR, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited).

65

The question whether an applicant retains his interest in bringing proceedings must be assessed in the

light of the specific circumstances, taking account, in particular, of the consequences of the alleged

unlawfulness and of the nature of the damage claimed to have been sustained (Case C-183/12 P

Ayadi v Commission [2013] ECR, paragraph 63).

66

It is for the applicant to prove that he has a legal interest in bringing proceedings against the repealed

acts (order of 15 May 2013 in Case T-413/12 Post Invest Europe v Commission, not published in the

ECR, paragraph 22).

67

In the present case, it is not apparent from either the documents before the Court or the answers

provided by the applicant on this point at the hearing that the annulment of the contested acts which

are no longer in force could procure an advantage for him. In particular, it should be pointed out that,

in his reply, the applicant failed to address the arguments of the Commission put forward in its

defence to the effect that he no longer had a legal interest in bringing proceedings against the repealed

acts. Against that background, the applicant has not proven that he has a legal interest in bringing

proceedings in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 66 above (see, to that effect, Joined

Cases T-128/12 and T-182/12 HTTS v Council [2013] ECR, paragraphs 34 and 35, and Joined Cases

T-42/12 and T-181/12 Bateni v Council [2013] ECR, paragraphs 31 and 32).

68

It follows that the applicant has not made clear his legal interest in bringing proceedings in respect of

Decisions 2011/782, 2012/739 and 2013/185. The Court therefore takes the view that there is no need

to adjudicate on the present action in so far as it concerns these acts.

12

ECLI:EU:T:2014:948

JUDGMENT OF 13. 11. 2014 — CASE T-653/11

JABER v COUNCIL

Conclusion on admissibility

69

In the light of the assessments made in paragraphs 37 to 68 above, this action is admissible only in

respect of Regulation No 36/2012, Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 and Decision 2013/255, in

so far as these acts concern the applicant (the ‘contested acts’).

Substance

70

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law. The first plea alleges infringement of

the rights of the defence, of the obligation to state reasons, of the right to be heard and of the right to

effective judicial protection. The second plea alleges infringement of the right to property and the

freedom to pursue an economic activity.

71

By his first plea in law, the applicant complains that the Council infringed his rights of defence, the

obligation to state reasons, his right to be heard and his right to effective judicial protection. He

points out that, according to the case-law, fundamental rights form an integral part of the general

principles of EU law, so that respect for such rights is a condition of the lawfulness of the acts

adopted by the European Union.

72

The applicant essentially puts forward three complaints.

73

First, the applicant complains that the Council did not send him a formal notification enabling him to

ascertain the reasons for the inclusion of his name on the lists of persons subject to the restrictive

measures provided for in the contested acts. He states that the right to effective judicial protection

means, in particular, that the Council is required to communicate to the person or entity affected by

the restrictive measures the reasons for the inclusion of their name on those lists. He also points out

that the Council did not reply to his questions and confined itself to confirming the continued

inclusion of his name on the lists.

74

Second, the applicant contends that, in the present case, the Council simply set out vague and general

considerations to justify the inclusion of his name on the lists in question. He recalls that, according to

the case-law, since the persons and entities subject to restrictive measures have no right to a prior

hearing, observance of the obligation to state reasons is particularly important. That statement of

reasons must cover not only the applicable legal bases of the act concerned, but also the actual and

specific reasons why the Council considers, in the exercise of its discretion, that the persons or

entities concerned have to be subject to restrictive measures. Lastly, the applicant claims that the

inadequate statement of reasons for the European Union acts cannot be compensated for by

explanations given in proceedings before the European Union Courts.

75

Third, the applicant disagrees with the reasons for the inclusion of his name on the lists in question

and submits that the Council failed to discharge its burden of proof in that regard.

76

The Council disputes the applicant’s arguments.

77

The Court considers it appropriate to examine the third complaint first.

78

In support of the third complaint, the applicant argues that the Council did not demonstrate to the

requisite legal standard why his name should be included on the lists in question. He claims that no

evidence was adduced proving his association with Maher Al-Assad and the Shabiha militia. He points

out that the burden of proof falls on the Council and that it cannot rely on presumptions.

ECLI:EU:T:2014:948

13

JUDGMENT OF 13. 11. 2014 — CASE T-653/11

JABER v COUNCIL

79

From the outset, the Council recalls that, in the field of restrictive measures, the Court is only required

to exercise a limited review of the lawfulness of decisions adopted by the EU institutions. Next, it

submits that the inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists in question is justified in so far as the

applicant is one of the persons associated with the regime who contribute to human rights violations.

It points out that the freezing of funds measure was imposed on the applicant on the basis of

information supplied by a Member State, classified as ‘EU Confidential’. It also refers to information

from ‘open’ sources. The Council considers that, although the applicant contests the accuracy of the

statement of reasons, he did not adduce any evidence to demonstrate such inaccuracy.

80

According to the case-law, the effectiveness of the judicial review guaranteed by Article 47 of the

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union requires, in particular, that as part of the

review of the lawfulness of the grounds which are the basis of the decision to list or to maintain the

listing of a given person on the lists of persons subject to sanctions, the Courts of the European

Union are to ensure that that decision is taken on a sufficiently solid factual basis. That entails a

verification of the factual allegations 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 Joined Cases

C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P Commission and Others v Kadi [2013] ECR, ‘Kadi II’,

paragraph 119).

81

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 by the authority in question 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 (Kadi II, paragraphs 121 to 123).

82

In the present case, it must be stated, first of all, that the only evidence adduced by the Council to

justify the inclusion of the applicant’s name on the list in question comprises extracts from a

document dated 25 July 2011 bearing the reference ‘Coreu CFSP/0317/11’ (Council document

5044/12). That document contains the same brief statement of reasons as the contested acts, namely,

inter alia, that the applicant was associated with Maher Al-Assad in the context of the Shabiha militia

and directly participated in the repression by supporting the Shabiha militia. The Council does not,

therefore, adduce any other evidence capable of supporting, or even suggesting, the existence of a link

between the applicant and Maher Al-Assad.

83

Secondly, the Council produced — as annexes to its pleadings — articles published on various websites

relating to the Shabiha militia in order to demonstrate the links between the applicant and that militia,

in particular, the Wikipedia website, the official website of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saada

Syria Forums website. Irrespective of whether this information is reliable and was actually taken into

account by the Council when the contested acts were adopted, the fact remains that only two of these

items briefly refer to the applicant’s name and none of them provide sufficiently substantiated

information about the applicant and his involvement in the Shabiha militia.

84

In answer to a question put by the Court during the hearing, the Council was unable to adduce any

additional evidence capable of substantiating the links between the applicant and, of the one part,

Maher-Al-Assad and, of the other part, the Shabiha militia.

85

Consequently, the evidence provided by the Council does not contain any indicia capable of supporting

its claims that the applicant has links with Maher Al-Assad in the context of the Shabiha militia and is

directly involved in the repression and violence against the civilian population and in the coordination

of the groups forming part of that militia.

14

ECLI:EU:T:2014:948

JUDGMENT OF 13. 11. 2014 — CASE T-653/11

JABER v COUNCIL

86

It follows that the Council has not discharged its burden of proof under Article 47 of the Charter of

Fundamental Rights, as interpreted by the Court of Justice in Kadi II.

87

Therefore, it is appropriate to uphold the third complaint relied on by the applicant in support of his

first plea in law and annul the contested acts in so far as they concern the applicant, without there

being any need to examine the other pleas put forward in support of this action.

The temporal effects of the annulment of the contested acts

88

Under the second paragraph of Article 264 TFEU, the Court may, if it considers this necessary, state

which of the effects of the act which it has declared void shall be considered as definitive. The

case-law shows that this provision enables the European Union Courts to decide the date when its

annulling judgments are to take effect (see Case T-58/12 Nabipour and Others v Council [2013] ECR,

paragraphs 250 and 251 and the case-law cited).

89

In the present case, the Court considers, for the reasons set out below, that it is necessary to maintain

the temporal effects of the contested acts until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal

laid down in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court or, if an appeal has been

brought within that period, until the dismissal of the appeal.

90

It should be remembered that the European Union adopted restrictive measures against Syria because

of the repression of the civilian population in that country and that those measures thus pursue

humanitarian and pacific objectives.

91

Therefore, the applicant’s interest in ensuring that the present annulling judgment should take effect

immediately must be weighed against the public interest objective pursued by the European Union’s

policy in relation to restrictive measures against Syria. The adjustment of the temporal effects of the

annulment of a restrictive measure may thus be justified by the need to ensure the effectiveness of the

restrictive measures and, in short, by overriding considerations to do with the conduct of the

international relations of the European Union and its Member States.

92

The annulment with immediate effect of the contested acts in so far as they concern the applicant

would enable the applicant to transfer all or part of his assets outside the European Union, without

the Council being able, where appropriate, to apply in good time Article 266 TFEU with a view to

correcting the irregularities identified in this judgment, and consequently the effectiveness of any

freezing of assets in relation to the applicant which might, in the future, be decided on by the Council

might be seriously and irreversibly prejudiced.

93

As regards the application of Article 266 TFEU in this case, it must be observed that the annulment by

this judgment of the inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists in question stems from the fact that

the reasons stated for that listing are not supported by sufficient evidence (see paragraphs 82 to 86

above). Although it is for the Council to decide on what measures to adopt to comply with this

judgment, a further listing of the applicant cannot automatically be ruled out. In the course of a further

review, the Council has the possibility of again listing the applicant on the basis of reasons which are

supported to the requisite legal standard.

94

It follows that the effects of the annulled decisions and regulations must be maintained as regards the

applicant, until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal or, if an appeal is brought within

that period, until the dismissal of the appeal.

ECLI:EU:T:2014:948

15

JUDGMENT OF 13. 11. 2014 — CASE T-653/11

JABER v COUNCIL

Costs

95

Under the first subparagraph of Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be

ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. However,

pursuant to Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure, where each party succeeds on some and fails on

other heads, the Court may order that the costs be shared or that each party is to bear its own costs.

96

In this case, since the parties have succeeded on some and failed on other heads, a decision that the

Council will bear its own costs and one third of the applicant’s costs will constitute a fair application

of that provision.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)

hereby:

1.

Dismisses the action as being inadmissible, because out of time, in so far as it seeks the

annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2011/488/CFSP of 1 August 2011

implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, and

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 755/2011 of 1 August 2011 implementing

Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in

Syria;

2.

Dismisses the action as being inadmissible in so far as it seeks the annulment of Council

Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria,

Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in

view of the situation in Syria, Council Implementing Decision 2011/302/CFSP of 23 May

2011 implementing Decision 2011/273, Council Implementing Decision 2011/367/CFSP of

23 June 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273, Council Implementing Regulation (EU)

No 504/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011, Council Implementing

Regulation (EU) No 611/2011 of 23 June 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011,

Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision

2011/273, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 of 23 August 2011

implementing Regulation No 442/2011, Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September

2011 amending Decision 2011/273, Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September

2011 amending Regulation No 442/2011, Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September

2011 amending Decision 2011/273, Council Regulation (EU) No 950/2011 of 23 September

2011 amending Regulation No 442/2011, Council Decision 2011/684/CFSP of 13 October

2011 amending Decision 2011/273, Council Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October

2011 amending Regulation No 442/2011, Council Decision 2011/735/CFSP of 14 November

2011 amending Decision 2011/273, Council Implementing Decision 2011/736/CFSP of

14 November 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273, Council Regulation (EU)

No 1150/2011 of 14 November 2011 amending Regulation No 442/2011, Council

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2011 of 14 November 2011 implementing

Regulation No 442/2011, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1244/2011 of

1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011, Council Decision 2012/206/CFSP

of 23 April 2012 amending Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against

Syria, Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing

Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of

Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in

Syria, Council Regulation (EU) No 509/2012 of 15 June 2012 amending Regulation (EU)

No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council

16

ECLI:EU:T:2014:948

JUDGMENT OF 13. 11. 2014 — CASE T-653/11

JABER v COUNCIL

Decision 2012/322/CFSP of 20 June 2012 amending Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning

restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Decision 2012/335/CFSP of

25 June 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against

Syria, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 544/2012 of 25 June 2012 implementing

Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the

situation in Syria, Council Regulation (EU) No 545/2012 of 25 June 2012 amending

Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in

Syria, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 673/2012 of 23 July 2012 implementing

Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the

situation in Syria, Council Decision 2012/420/CFSP of 23 July 2012 amending Decision

2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, and Council Implementing

Decision 2012/424/CFSP of 23 July 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning

restrictive measures against Syria, since those acts do not concern Aiman Jaber;

3.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it seeks the annulment

of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures

against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273, Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of

29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision

2011/782, and Council Implementing Decision 2013/185/CFSP of 22 April 2013

implementing Decision 2012/739, since those acts have been repealed and replaced;

4.

Annuls, in so far as the following acts concern Mr Jaber:

— Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures

in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation No 442/2011;

— Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing

Regulation No 36/2012;

— Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against

Syria;

5.

Orders the effects of the annulled decisions and regulations to be maintained with respect to

Mr Jaber, until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal or, if an appeal is

brought within that period, until any dismissal of that appeal;

6.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the

costs incurred by Mr Jaber;

7.

Orders Mr Jaber to bear two thirds of his own costs.

Van der Woude

Wiszniewska-Białecka

Ulloa Rubio

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 13 November 2014.

[Signatures]

ECLI:EU:T:2014:948

17

حكم من المحكمة العامة الأوروبية في دعوى أيمن جابر ضد إدراجه في عقوبات سورية.