Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2007] All ER (D) 161 (Jul)
Court: Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber)
Judge:

Judges Pirrung (President), Forwood and Papasavvas

Judgment Dates: 11 July 2007

Catchwords

European Community - Community foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities in order to combat terrorism - Freezing of funds - Application for annulment - Whether rights of defence applicable to decision to include party on list of persons and entities whose funds were to be frozen - Extent of duty to give reasons - Whether failure to give reasons - Council Regulation (EC) 2580/2001.

The Case

European Community Community foreign and security policy. The safeguarding of the rights of the defence was, in principle, fully applicable in the context of the adoption of a decision to freeze funds under Council Regulation (EC) 2580-2001 (on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism). Such safeguarding comprised, in principle, two main parts: (a) the party concerned should be informed of the evidence adduced against it to justify the proposed administrative sanction; and (b) he should be afforded the opportunity effectively to make known his view on that evidence. The observance of the rights of the defence did not require either that the evidence adduced against the party concerned should be notified to it prior to the adoption of an initial measure to freeze funds, or that that party should automatically be heard after the event in such a context. A statement of reasons for a subsequent decision to freeze funds should, subject to the same reservations, state the actual and specific reasons why the Council considered, following re-examination, that the freezing of the funds of the party concerned remained justified.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.