Brussels, 03/07/2014 (Agence Europe) - In two separate rulings returned on Thursday 3 July, the General Court of the EU annulled restrictive measures imposed by the Council of the EU, firstly on a former Syrian minister (case T-203/12) and, secondly, on an Iranian university (case T-181/13), on the grounds that manifest errors of assessment had been committed and that evidence of culpability had not been brought.
Former Syrian Minister for the Economy Mohamad Nedal Alchaar was put on the list of individuals subject to EU sanctions (visa ban and freezing of assets) in 2011. When he stepped down from the Syrian government in June 2012, he was kept on the list, on the grounds that he had maintained close links with the regime responsible for the repression of the civilian population.
The General Court agrees that the Council may impose sanctions on a minister without having to provide proof of his individual liability as, simply due to the position held, he can be considered jointly and severally responsible for the crimes imputed to the government. However, once the person in question is no longer a minister and claims not to maintain links with the regime, the onus is on the Council to prove the opposite. The Council failed to do so, basing its decision solely on Mr Alchaar's former ministerial status. The judges also criticised the Council for failing carefully and impartially to examine the evidence submitted to it, including affidavits stating, amongst other things, that he had always opposed the repression, had never been involved in it and had never been a member of the Baath party in Syria.
In the second case, this time involving the Sharif University of Technology (SUT), the General Court observed similar errors committed by the Council in its decision to freeze the assets of this university in the EU. The Council put forward no tangible evidence, refusing, amongst other things, to divulge confidential information, working solely on the basis that the institution is directly involved in the Iranian nuclear programme. However, in view of the seriousness of the accusation, the General Court decided to limit the effects of its verdict to two months, to give the Council time to review its position and its evidence before the SUT is able to access its funds. (JK)