Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Individual restrictive measures and actions for damages before the General Court of the European Union

  • Article
  • Published:
ERA Forum Aims and scope

Abstract

Until fairly recently, the Court of Justice of the European Union has not had the opportunity to provide much precision concerning the European Union’s non-contractual liability in the field of individual restrictive measures. However, since the seminal judgment in the Safa Nicu Sepahan case, the relevant case-law seems to be increasing in quantity. The following paper, having as its starting point the case-law of the General Court, constitutes an attempt to identify any specificities in the case-law concerning non-contractual liability in the field of individual restrictive measures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Case C-72/15, Rosneft, EU:C:2017:236, para. 150.

  2. Notably, but not exclusively. See, for example, Case T-692/15, HTTS, EU:T:2017:890, para. 1: the case was brought by a company incorporated under German law.

  3. Case T-47/03, Sison, EU:T:2007:207, para. 233 and the case-law cited: “[…] those three conditions for the incurring of liability are cumulative, failure to meet one of them is sufficient for an action for damages to be dismissed, without it being therefore necessary to examine the other conditions”.

  4. Case T-384/11, Safa Nicu Sepahan, EU:T:2014:986, para. 47 and the case-law cited.

  5. Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Opinion 2/13, Accession of the European Union to the ECHR, EU:C:2014:2475, para. 84.

  6. See, thereupon, Opinion of Advocate General Bot, Case C-658/11, Parliament v Council, EU:C:2014:41, para. 86 et s.

  7. See Andrés Sáenz de Santa María [1].

  8. Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Opinion 2/13, Accession of the European Union to the ECHR, EU:C:2014:2475, para. 89.

  9. Ibid., para. 90.

  10. Ibid., para. 103.

  11. Case C-354/04 P, Gestoras Pro Amnistía, EU:C:2007:115.

  12. Case C-355/04 P, Segi, EU:C:2007:116.

  13. See Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Opinion 2/13, Accession of the European Union to the ECHR, EU:C:2014:2475, para. 94 and Case C-354/04 P, Gestoras Pro Amnistía, para. 45. As the Court specified in the latter ruling (see para. 46), the then Article 35 EU “confer[red] no jurisdiction on the Court of Justice to entertain any action for damages whatsoever”.

  14. Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Opinion 2/13, Accession of the European Union to the ECHR, EU:C:2014:2475, para. 101.

  15. According to Case C-658/11, Parliament v Council, EU:C:2014:2025, para. 70,

    “the final sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) TEU and the first paragraph of Article 275 TFEU introduce a derogation from the rule of the general jurisdiction which Article 19 TEU confers on the Court to ensure that in the interpretation and application of the Treaties the law is observed, and they must, therefore, be interpreted narrowly”.

    Called to interpret Article 218 TFEU, the Court found that the procedure covered by this Article is of general application and therefore applies to all international agreements negotiated and concluded by the EU in all fields of its activity and not only in the CFSP field (see paras. 71 and 72). Thus,

    “it cannot be argued that the scope of the limitation, by way of derogation, on the Court’s jurisdiction envisaged in the final sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) TEU and in Article 275 TFEU goes so far as to preclude the Court from having jurisdiction to interpret and apply a provision such as Article 218 TFEU which does not fall within the CFSP, even though it lays down the procedure on the basis of which an act falling within the CFSP has been adopted” (para. 73).

    See also Case C-263/14, Parliament v Council, EU:C:2016:435 and Poli [11], at 1815.

  16. See Poli [11], at 1800.

  17. On these judgments, see also Andrés Sáenz de Santa María [1], at 878-883.

  18. Case C-439/13 P, Elitaliana, EU:C:2015:753.

  19. Mission established on the basis of Council Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP of 4 February 2008 on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo [2008] OJ L 42, as amended by Council Decision 2011/752/CFSP of 24 November 2011 [2011] OJ L 310, p. 10.

  20. Case C-439/13 P, Elitaliana, EU:C:2015:753, para. 48 and 49.

  21. Case C-455/14 P, H, EU:C:2016:569.

  22. Ibid., para 54.

  23. Ibid., para 55.

  24. Ibid., para 59.

  25. Ibid., para 59.

  26. Case C-72/15, Rosneft, EU:C:2017:236.

  27. Poli [11], spec. 1815.

  28. Respectively OJ L 229, p. 13 and OJ L 246, p. 59, as amended.

  29. Rosneft also brought an action seeking the annulment of those acts before the General Court, see Case T-715/14, Rosneft, EU:T:2018:544 (currently under appeal, Case C-732/18 P).

  30. Case C-72/15, Rosneft, EU:C:2017:236, para. 66.

  31. Ibid., para. 70.

  32. Ibid., para. 75.

  33. Ibid., para. 78 and the case-law cited.

  34. See Poli [11], spec. 1830-1831.

    See however, thereupon, Case C-123/18 P, HTTS, EU:C:2019:694, para. 40 and the case-law cited. According to the Court, the fact that the action for damages is an autonomous form of action “is without prejudice to the fact that, in order to assess the merits of such an action, the EU judicature is to analyse the legality of the conduct of the EU institution or body giving rise to the damage”.

  35. Poli [11], spec. 1831.

  36. Case T-558/15, Iran Insurance, EU:T:2018:945, para. 54 and 55 and case-law cited. See also Cases T-552/15, Bank Refah Kargaran, EU:T:2018:897, para. 30 and 31, currently under appeal (Case C-134/19 P), and T-559/15, Post Bank Iran, EU:T:2018:948, para. 54 and 55.

  37. Cf. also Eckes [8], spec. 510.

  38. See, for example, Case T-200/14, Ben Ali, EU:T:2016:216, para. 285 and 286.

  39. See Poli [11], spec. 1831.

  40. See, for example, Cases T-55/19, Cham Holding and Bena Properties, EU:T:2019:589, para. 28-32, T-56/19, Syriatel Mobile Telecom, EU:T:2019:591, para. 26-30, T-57/19, Makhlouf, EU:T:2019:592, para. 27-31, T-58/19, Othman, EU:T:2019:593, para. 27-31, T-59/19, Makhlouf, EU:T:2019:590, para. 26-30, T-62/19, Almashreq Investment Fund, EU:T:2019:587, para. 27-31 and T-137/19, Souruh, EU:T:2019:588, para. 26-30.

  41. It must be recalled that the Court has never established such a principle and that it “has hitherto limited itself […] to specifying some of the conditions under which [strict EU liability] could be incurred in the event of the principle of [EU] liability for a lawful act being recognised in [EU] law […]”. See Cases C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P, FIAMM and Others, EU:C:2008:476, para. 168 and 169.

    This state of affairs does not prevent applicants from seeking to base their claims on such a regime of strict liability. See, for example, Case T-607/14, Cham and Bena Properties, EU:T:2015:12, para. 18.

  42. See Case T-9/13, National Iranian Gas Company, EU:T:2015:236, paras. 142 and 143.

  43. It should not be excluded, for instance, that such a delay could be taken into account where the EU institution concerned, when shown new evidence, should have acted more promptly in order to stop the implementation of restrictive measures to a certain individual or entity, unnecessarily aggravating the consequences of the restrictive measures the latter had lawfully suffered thus far.

  44. See also Case T-47/03, Sison, EU:T:2007:207, para. 241.

  45. Case T-168/12, Georgias, EU:T:2014:781, para. 107 and 108.

  46. See Case C-545/14 P, Georgias, EU:C:2015:791, para. 49 to 55.

  47. See, for example, Case T-552/15, Bank Refah Kargaran, EU:T:2018:897, para. 43 and case-law cited.

  48. The Advocate General seems to trace the General Court’s case-law back to the judgment in Sison (Case T-47/03, EU:T:2007:207), para. 238. See Opinion of Advocate General Pitruzzella in Case C-123/18 P, HTTS, EU:C:2019:173, para. 50 and footnote 58.

  49. Opinion of Advocate General Pitruzzella in Case C-123/18 P, HTTS, EU:C:2019:173, para. 50 and footnote 58.

  50. Case C-123/18 P, HTTS, EU:C:2019:694.

  51. Ibid., para. 103. The judgment cited by the Court (Case C-76/01 P, Eurocoton, EU:C:2003:511, para. 98 and 99) concerned an action for the annulment of an anti-dumping regulation. After recalling its own consistent case-law regarding inadequacy in the statement of reasons for legislative measures, the Court indicated that, “although proceedings in respect of anti-dumping duties are similar in several aspects to an administrative procedure”, the relevant case-law applied also in the field of anti-dumping duties.

  52. Case C-45/15 P, Safa Nicu Sepahan, EU:C:2017:402, para. 29.

    On the question whether the rules governing restrictive measures “confer rights to individuals”, see, for example, Case T-328/14, Jannatian, EU:T:2016:86, para. 49 and 50 and case-law cited: “(…) the provisions which set forth exhaustively the conditions in which restrictions such as those at issue in the present case are permitted are (…) essentially intended to protect the interests of the individuals concerned, by limiting the cases of application, extent or degree of the restrictive measures that may lawfully be imposed on those individuals (…) Such provisions thus ensure that the individual interests of the persons and entities liable to be concerned are protected and are, therefore, to be considered to be rules of law intended to confer rights on individuals. If the substantive conditions in question are not satisfied, the person or entity concerned is entitled not to have the measures in question imposed on them. Such a right necessarily implies that the person or entity on which restrictive measures are imposed in circumstances not provided for by the provisions in question may seek compensation for the harmful consequences of these measures, if it should prove that their imposition was founded on a sufficiently serious breach of the substantive rules applied by the Council (…)”.

    See also, more recently, Cases T-558/15, Iran Insurance, EU:T:2018:945, para. 107 and 108 and T-559/15, Post Bank Iran, EU:T:2018:948, para. 98 and 99.

  53. See Case T-692/15, HTTS, EU:T:2017:890, para. 48 and Opinion of Advocate General Pitruzzella in Case C-123/18 P, HTTS, EU:C:2019:173, para. 33.

  54. Case C-45/15 P, Safa Nicu Sepahan, EU:C:2017:402, para. 30 and case-law cited.

  55. Ibid., para. 33.

  56. The possible confidential nature of such information or evidence was not taken into account by the Court, as the Council had not relied on such confidential information or evidence during the proceedings before the General Court, see Case C-45/15 P, Safa Nicu Sepahan, EU:C:2017:402, para. 41.

  57. Ibid., para. 40.

  58. Opinion of Advocate General Pitruzzella in Case C-123/18 P, HTTS, EU:C:2019:173, para. 23 and 24.

  59. Case T-692/15, HTTS, EU:T:2017:890, para. 49.

  60. Opinion of Advocate General Pitruzzella in Case C-123/18 P, HTTS, EU:C:2019:173, para. 25.

  61. Case T-692/15, HTTS, EU:T:2017:890, para. 45 and 46.

  62. Ibid., para. 47.

  63. See Case C-352/98 P, Bergaderm and Goupil, EU:C:2000:361.

  64. Case T-341/07, Sison, EU:T:2011:687, para. 34 and the case-law cited.

  65. See Case T-328/14, Jannatian, EU:T:2016:86, para. 46, citing Sison:

    “(…) it is for the Court, having first determined whether the institution concerned enjoyed any discretion, to take into consideration the complexity of the situation to be regulated, any difficulties in applying or interpreting the legislation, the clarity and precision of the rule infringed, and whether the error made was inexcusable or intentional”.

  66. See, for example, Case T-433/15, Bank Saderat, EU:T:2019:374, para. 51.

  67. Case C-123/18 P, HTTS, EU:C:2019:694, para. 43.

  68. Ibid., para. 45.

  69. Ibid., para. 52 and 53.

  70. Cases T-558/15, Iran Insurance, EU:T:2018:945, para. 120 and T-559/15, Post Bank Iran, EU:T:2018:948, para. 113 and the case-law cited.

  71. Case C-239/12 P, Abdulrahim, EU:C:2013:331, para. 72 and case-law cited. It is important to recall that, in this case, the applicant requested the Court to set aside an order of the General Court (Case T-127/09) by which the latter had held, in particular, that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the action which the applicant had brought seeking annulment of an act imposing restrictive measures against him, as his name had been, in the meantime, removed from the list at issue. The applicant had not formulated any claim for damages. See also Messina [10], spec. 643 et seq.

  72. Case C-45/15 P, Safa Nicu Sepahan, EU:C:2017:402, para. 48.

  73. Case T-384/11, Safa Nicu Sepahan, EU:T:2014:986, para. 89.

  74. Ibid., para. 88.

  75. Ibid., para. 91.

  76. Cases T-558/15, Iran Insurance, EU:T:2018:945, para. 134 and T-559/15, Post Bank Iran, EU:T:2018:948, para. 121. See also, in this respect, Case T-328/14, Jannatian, EU:T:2016:86, para. 64.

  77. See Case T-558/15, Iran Insurance, EU:T:2018:945, para. 153-155 and the case-law cited.

  78. See Cases C-605/13 P, Anbouba, EU:C:2015:248, para. 46 and C-123/18, HTTS, EU:C:2019:694, para. 34. The Court is referring to the obstacles encountered by the Council in terms of availability of information in the field of restrictive measures; however, the same difficulties could arise for individuals or private entities.

  79. Concerning the possible exclusion of confidential evidence in the field of restrictive measures, cf. Fartunova [9], at 129.

  80. See Article 38, paras 2 and 3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court and Article 46, paras 2 and 3 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. Cf., for example, Cases T-516/13, CW, EU:T:2016:377, para. 152-153 and T-558/15, Iran Insurance, EU:T:2018:945, para. 173.

  81. See, for example, Case T-558/15, Iran Insurance, EU:T:2018:945, para. 158 and 184.

  82. For example, ibid., para. 160.

  83. See Case C-45/15 P, Safa Nicu Sepahan, EU:C:2017:402, para. 62.

  84. Case T-168/12, Georgias, EU:T:2014:781, para. 43-46. As the General Court indicated, there was no provision in the Regulation in question prohibiting the applicant’s entry into the United Kingdom, or his transit through United Kingdom territory (para. 45). Moreover, “even if it [was] the freezing of the […] applicant’s assets which led the United Kingdom authorities to adopt the decision to refuse him leave to enter the United Kingdom, the alleged damage suffered by him as result of that refusal [was] not a sufficiently direct consequence of the asset-freezing in question […]” (para. 43). See also Messina [10], spec. 641 and 642.

  85. See Council Regulation 101/2011 of 4 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia [2011] OJ L 31, Articles 4 and 5 and Council Regulation n° 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt [2011] OJ L 76, Articles 4 and 5.

  86. Cf. Case C-314/13, Peftiev, EU:C:2014:1645, para. 24 and 29.

  87. Case T-516/13, CW v Council, EU:T:2016:377, para. 243, 256 to 258, 263 and 265.

References

  1. de Santa María, P.A.S.: Mejorando la lex imperfecta: tutela judicial efectiva y cuestión prejudicial en la PESC (a propósito del asunto Rosneft). Rev. Derecho Comunitario Eur. 58, 871–903 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Beaucillon, C.: Opening up the horizon: the ECJ’s new take on country sanctions. Common Mark. Law Rev. 55, 387–416 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bertrand, B.: La particularité du contrôle juridictionnel des mesures restrictives: Les “considérations impérieuses touchant à la sûreté ou à la conduite des relations internationales de l’Union et de ses États membres”. RTD Eur. 2015, 555 et seq.

  4. Bosse-Platière, I.: Le juge de l’Union, artisan de la cohérence du système de contrôle juridictionnel au sein de l’Union européenne. RTD. Eur. 2017, 555 et sq.

  5. Daniel, E.: Mesures restrictives (Iran), Europe comm. 3 (2015)

  6. Daniel, E.: Mesures restrictives (Iran). Europe comm. 45 (2018)

  7. Di Masi, L., Gambardella, M., Rovetta, D.: An overview of EU sanctions case law. Glob. Trade Cust. J. 10(7&8), 250–257 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Eckes, C.: Common foreign and security policy: the consequences of the Court’s extended jurisdiction. Eur. Law J. 22(4), 492–518 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fartunova, M.: Confirmation des obligations pesant sur le Conseil lorsqu’il adopte des mesures restrictives dans le cadre de la lutte contre la prolifération nucléaire. Rev. Aff. Eur. 1, 121–130 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Messina, M.: The European Union’s non-contractual liability following country and counterterrorism sanctions: Is there anything to learn from the Safa Nicu Sepahan case? Maastricht J. Eur. Comp. Law 25(5), 631–648 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Poli, S.: The common foreign security policy after rosneft: still imperfect but gradually subject to the rule of law. Common Mark. Law Rev. 54, 1799–1834 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rovetta, D., Beretta, L.C.: EU economic sanctions law against Russia after the ‘Rosneft’ judgment by the grand chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union: get me a lawyer! Glob. Trade Cust. J. 12(6), 240–246 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Simon, D.: Compétence de la Cour de Justice. Europe (5), comm. 169 (2017)

  14. Simon, D.: Mesures restrictives (Iran), Europe (7), comm. 249 (2017)

  15. Takis, A.: Notes on Case C-72/15, Rosneft, Armenopoulos (5), 871–872 (2017)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. General Court of the European Union, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Stella Thanou

Authors
  1. Stella Thanou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stella Thanou.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Any opinion expressed in this paper is personal and does not reflect the opinion of the General Court.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thanou, S. Individual restrictive measures and actions for damages before the General Court of the European Union. ERA Forum 20, 599–614 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00592-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00592-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation