Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62014CN0545

    Case C-545/14 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2014 by Aguy Clement Georgias, Trinity Engineering (Private) Ltd, Georgiadis Trucking (Private) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 18 September 2014 in Case T-168/12: Georgias e.a. v Council of the European Union, European Commission

    OJ C 46, 9.2.2015, p. 25–27 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    9.2.2015   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 46/25

    Appeal brought on 27 November 2014 by Aguy Clement Georgias, Trinity Engineering (Private) Ltd, Georgiadis Trucking (Private) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 18 September 2014 in Case T-168/12: Georgias e.a. v Council of the European Union, European Commission

    (Case C-545/14 P)

    (2015/C 046/32)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Appellants: Aguy Clement Georgias, Trinity Engineering (Private) Ltd, Georgiadis Trucking (Private) Ltd (represented by: H. Mercer QC, I. Quirk, Barrister)

    Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The appellants claim that the Court should:

    —

    Set aside the decision of the General Court in whole

    —

    Grant the relief sought by the Appellant in the proceedings before the General Court (save for damages, which are to be assessed by the General Court)

    —

    Alternatively, remit the case to the General Court

    —

    In any event, order the Defendants to pay the Appellants’ costs

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the appeal, the Appellants rely on four pleas in law:

    1.

    First plea in law, that the General Court erred in holding that Regulation 314/2004 (1) entitled the Council to add persons to the Annex thereto simply on the ground that they were a member of the Government of Zimbabwe (paras. 57 and 66 of the General Court’s Judgment):

    —

    Regulation 314/2004 (‘the Regulation’) is to be interpreted in accordance with Common Position 2004/161/CFSP (2) (‘the Common Position’), which it was intended to implement

    —

    The General Court failed to take account of Article 4 of the Common Position which required that the persons named in the Annex were also engaged in activities that seriously undermine democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe

    2.

    Second plea in law, that the General Court erred in its misreading of Article 5(1) of the Common Position, which led to it incorrectly applying the Regulation (para. 57 of the Judgment):

    —

    Contrary to the General Court’s decision, Article 5(1) of the Common Position did not provide that persons in the Annex to the Common Position and the Regulation were either a Member of Government or a person engaged in activities that seriously undermine democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe

    —

    What in fact the Common Position, and hence the Regulation, required was that persons in the Annex fell into both those descriptions

    3.

    Third plea in law, that the General Court erred in interpreting the addition of the words ‘as such’ (added on 25 June 2007) to Senator Georgias’ listing in the Annex to the Regulation (and the Common Position) to be a ‘mere clarification’ that the mere status as a member of government was sufficient for inclusion (para. 58 of the Judgment):

    —

    The correct construction of the words added to Senator Georgia’s listing, as a matter of law, was an acknowledgment of the need to comply with Article 4 of the Common Position in addition to being a member of Government, since the words which followed ‘as such’ were exactly the requirements of Article 4

    —

    The General Court erred in interpreting the addition of those words as a ‘mere clarification’ that the mere status as a member of government was sufficient for inclusion

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, that the General Court erred in holding that, in relation to the plea that there had been a breach of the rights of defence, Senator Georgias had not explained what he would have relied on had he been heard (para. 108 of the Judgment):

    —

    It was clearly stated in the Application that Senator Georgias wrote to the Council (the letter was produced) and was then taken off the list

    —

    Furthermore, the Application made a long a list of points which would plainly have been made to the Council had Senator Georgias been given an opportunity to make them

    —

    In those circumstances, the General Court erred in law in holding that Senator Georgias had not explained what he would have relied on had he been heard

    (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 of 19 February 2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe

    OJ L 55, p. 1.

    (2)  Council Common Position 2004/161/CFSP of 19 February 2004 renewing restrictive measures against Zimbabwe

    OJ L 50, p. 66.

    Top