Case C‑220/14 P

Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz and Others

v

Council of the European Union

‛Appeal — Restrictive measures taken against certain persons in view of the situation in Egypt — Freezing of the funds of persons subject to judicial proceedings for misappropriation of State funds — United Nations Convention against Corruption’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 5 March 2015

1. Acts of the institutions — Choice of legal basis — Decision concerning the adoption of restrictive measures against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Egypt — Freezing of the funds of persons involved in the misappropriation of State funds and of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them — Article 29 TEU — Lawfulness

   (Arts 3(5) TEU, 21 TEU, 23 TEU, 24 TEU and 29 TEU; Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP)

2. Appeal — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

   (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

3. Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Egypt — Freezing of the funds of persons involved in the misappropriation of State funds in Egypt and of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them — Existence of judicial proceedings connected to criminal proceedings for misappropriation of State funds — Sufficient to justify the measures concerned

   (Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP, Art. 1(1))

4. Appeal — Grounds — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility

   (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d))

1.  Review of the legal basis of an act enables the powers of the author of the act to be verified and the procedure for the adoption of that act to be checked as to whether it was vitiated by any irregularity. The choice of legal basis for an EU measure must rest on objective factors amenable to judicial review, including the purpose and content of that measure.

   In view of the broad scope of the aims and objectives of the common foreign and security policy, as expressed in Articles 3(5) TEU and 21 TEU, and specific provisions relating to that policy, in particular Articles 23 TEU and 24 TEU, the General Court did not err in law in ruling that Decision 2011/172 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt could lawfully be adopted on the basis of Article 29 TEU in so far as it forms part of a policy of supporting the new Egyptian authorities, intended to promote both the economic and political stability of Egypt and, in particular, to assist the authorities of that country in their fight against the misappropriation of State funds, and, accordingly, is fully based on the common foreign and security policy and satisfies the objectives referred to in Article 21(2)(b) and (d) TEU.

   (see paras 42, 43, 46)

2.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 77)

3.  The criterion laid down in Article 1(1) of Decision 2011/172, under which all funds and resources of persons or entities having been identified as responsible for misappropriation of Egyptian State funds are to be frozen, must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of judicial proceedings connected to criminal proceedings for misappropriation of State funds may be accepted as a basis for restrictive measures, without there being any need to describe the personal involvement of the person concerned.

   (see para. 84)

4.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 111, 112)

Case C‑220/14 P

Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz and Others

v

Council of the European Union

‛Appeal — Restrictive measures taken against certain persons in view of the situation in Egypt — Freezing of the funds of persons subject to judicial proceedings for misappropriation of State funds — United Nations Convention against Corruption’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 5 March 2015

1. Acts of the institutions — Choice of legal basis — Decision concerning the adoption of restrictive measures against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Egypt — Freezing of the funds of persons involved in the misappropriation of State funds and of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them — Article 29 TEU — Lawfulness

   (Arts 3(5) TEU, 21 TEU, 23 TEU, 24 TEU and 29 TEU; Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP)

2. Appeal — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

   (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

3. Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Egypt — Freezing of the funds of persons involved in the misappropriation of State funds in Egypt and of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them — Existence of judicial proceedings connected to criminal proceedings for misappropriation of State funds — Sufficient to justify the measures concerned

   (Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP, Art. 1(1))

4. Appeal — Grounds — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility

   (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d))

1.  Review of the legal basis of an act enables the powers of the author of the act to be verified and the procedure for the adoption of that act to be checked as to whether it was vitiated by any irregularity. The choice of legal basis for an EU measure must rest on objective factors amenable to judicial review, including the purpose and content of that measure.

   In view of the broad scope of the aims and objectives of the common foreign and security policy, as expressed in Articles 3(5) TEU and 21 TEU, and specific provisions relating to that policy, in particular Articles 23 TEU and 24 TEU, the General Court did not err in law in ruling that Decision 2011/172 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt could lawfully be adopted on the basis of Article 29 TEU in so far as it forms part of a policy of supporting the new Egyptian authorities, intended to promote both the economic and political stability of Egypt and, in particular, to assist the authorities of that country in their fight against the misappropriation of State funds, and, accordingly, is fully based on the common foreign and security policy and satisfies the objectives referred to in Article 21(2)(b) and (d) TEU.

   (see paras 42, 43, 46)

2.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 77)

3.  The criterion laid down in Article 1(1) of Decision 2011/172, under which all funds and resources of persons or entities having been identified as responsible for misappropriation of Egyptian State funds are to be frozen, must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of judicial proceedings connected to criminal proceedings for misappropriation of State funds may be accepted as a basis for restrictive measures, without there being any need to describe the personal involvement of the person concerned.

   (see para. 84)

4.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 111, 112)