EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019CJ0158
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020.
Razan Othman v Council of the European Union.
Appeal – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic – Measures directed against influential businessmen and women engaged in activities in Syria – List of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Inclusion of the appellant’s name – Action for annulment.
Case C-158/19 P.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020.
Razan Othman v Council of the European Union.
Appeal – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic – Measures directed against influential businessmen and women engaged in activities in Syria – List of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Inclusion of the appellant’s name – Action for annulment.
Case C-158/19 P.
Digital reports (Court Reports - general)
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2020:778
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 – Othman v Council
(Case C‑158/19 P) ( 1 )
(Appeal – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic – Measures directed against influential businessmen and women engaged in activities in Syria – List of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Inclusion of the appellant’s name – Action for annulment)
1. |
Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures against Syria – Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies associated with the Syrian regime – Rights of the defence – Notification of inculpatory evidence – Subsequent decision maintaining the name of the applicant on the list of persons covered by those measures – No new grounds – Inculpatory evidence identical to the evidence previously admitted in the initial decision – Infringement of the right to be heard – Absence) (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41; Council Decisions (CFSP) 2016/850, (CFSP) 2017/917 and (CFSP) 2018/778) (see paras 43-47) |
2. |
Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 65-67) |
3. |
Common foreign and security policy – Specific restrictive measures against certain persons and bodies in view of the situation in Syria – Decision 2013/255/CFSP – Assumption that influential businessmen and women engaged in activities in Syria and members of the Assad and Makhlouf support the Syrian regime – Whether permissible – Conditions (Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2015/1836, Arts 27(2)(a) and (b), and 28(2)(a) and (b)) (see paras 78-80) |
4. |
Appeal – Grounds – Plea raised for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170(1)) (see paras 82, 83) |
5. |
Appeal – Grounds – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169) (see para. 85) |
6. |
Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures against Syria – Freezing of the funds of persons, entities or organisations associated with the Syrian regime – Breach of principle of proportionality – Absence (Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2015/1836) (see paras 86, 87) |
7. |
Common foreign and security policy – Specific restrictive measures against certain persons and bodies in view of the situation in Syria – Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Regulation No 36/2012 – Assumption that members of the Assad and Makhlouf families support the Syrian regime – Whether permissible – Conditions – Rebuttable presumption – Evidence to the contrary – Absence (Art. 29 TEU; Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2015/1836, Art. 27(2)(b) and (3) and 28(2)(b) and (3)) (see paras 90-92) |
8. |
Appeal – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 95) |
Operative part
The Court:
1. |
Dismisses the appeal; |
2. |
Orders Mrs Razan Othman to pay the costs. |
( 1 ) OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.