Case C‑530/17 P

Mykola Yanovych Azarov

v

Council of the European Union

(Appeal — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds and economic resources — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the appellant’s name — Decision by an authority of a third State — Council’s obligation to verify that that decision was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 19 December 2018

1. European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds of persons involved in the misappropriation of public funds and of natural or legal persons, bodies or organisations associated with them — Ambit of the review

   (Art. 275, second para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364; Council Regulation 2015/357)

2. Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Decision to freeze funds — Adoption or retention on the basis of a national fund-freezing decision of an authority of a third State — Lawfulness — Condition — National decision adopted in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection — Council’s verification obligation — Obligation to state reasons — Scope — Third State that has acceded to the European Convention on Human Rights — Irrelevant

   (Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364; Council Regulation 2015/357)

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 20-22, 38, 39)

2.  The Council is obliged, when adopting restrictive measures, to respect the fundamental rights that form an integral part of the EU legal order, which include, inter alia, respect for the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

   Consequently, the Council must, before acting on the basis of a decision of an authority of a third State, verify whether that decision was adopted in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

   In that regard, the requirement for the Council to verify that the decisions of third States, on which it bases the entry of a person or entity on a list of persons or entities whose assets are to be frozen, have been taken in accordance with those rights is designed to ensure that they are included on that list only on a sufficiently solid factual basis and, thus, to protect the persons or entities concerned.

   Moreover, the Council must refer, if only briefly, in the statement of reasons relating to a decision to include a person or entity on a list of persons or entities whose assets are to be frozen and to subsequent decisions, to the reasons why it considers the decision of the third State on which it intends to rely to have been adopted in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

   Thus it is for the Council, in order to fulfil its obligation to state reasons, to show, in the decision imposing the restrictive measures, that it has verified that the decision of the third State on which those measures are based was taken in accordance with those rights.

   In this connection, the fact that the State concerned is among those States that have acceded to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms cannot render superfluous verification, by the Council, that the decision of a third State on which it bases its restrictive measures has been taken in compliance with fundamental rights and in particular the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

   (see paras 26-30, 36)