Mugabe ally loses EU sanctions compensation case

43      In the present case, first, it should be noted that the names of the first three applicants and that of Breco International were included on the list of persons referred to in Article 6 of Regulation No 314/2004 against a background of serious general violations of human rights in Zimbabwe and the blocking of the implementation of the global political agreement signed on 15 September 2008 by the party in power and the opposition. That situation was described in a series of CFSP instruments, such as in recital 1 of Common Position 2002/145, recital 2 of Common Position 2003/115/CFSP of 18 February 2003 amending and extending Common Position 2002/145 (OJ 2003 L 46, p. 30), recital 6 of Common Position 2004/161, recital 3 of Common Position 2009/68 and recital 3 of Decision 2010/92. Recitals 1 and 2 of Regulation No 314/2004 also refer to Common Position 2002/145 and to the serious threat to human rights in Zimbabwe, while recital 2 of Regulation No 77/2009 refers to the adoption, on the same day, of Common Position 2009/68. The first applicant, a well-known businessman in that country according to his own statement, who lives in Harare, does not claim that he was unaware of that background.

44      Second, with regard to the initial inclusion of the first applicant on the list in Annex III to Regulation No 314/2004, Regulation No 77/2009 states that he is a ‘businessman with strong ties to the Government of Zimbabwe’ and that he ‘has provided, including through his companies, financial and other support to the regime (see also items 1 [to 9], 12, 14, 20, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31 and 32 in part II)’. It is possible to understand from those reasons that the first applicant is regarded as having strong ties and, therefore, as being ‘associated with’ (see paragraphs 35 to 37 above) that government because he has provided financial support to the regime, including through his companies. The reference to ‘items 1 [to 9], 12, 14, 20, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31 and 32 in part II)’of Annex III relates to 18 companies. In view of that content, it must be concluded that the reasons underlying the inclusion of the first applicant on the lists of persons referred to in Article 6 of Regulation No 314/2004 enable him — as the reasons relate to his personal conduct — to assess whether the listing was justified and to challenge it before the EU judicature, which, in turn, is able to exercise the powers of review conferred on it. The same applies to the legal persons concerned, which are included on that list because they are owned by the first applicant and constitute, according to the reason given, the instruments through which the first applicant provides support to the Zimbabwean regime.

45      As a consequence, the information provided by the Council and the Commission in Regulation No 77/2009 was sufficient for it to be possible to be apprised of the factors which led to the freezing of the funds of the first three applicants and Breco International. The statement of reasons necessary was therefore provided at the same time as the adoption of the decision freezing the funds, which, in view of the surprise effect required of a measure freezing funds (judgment of 15 November 2012 in Council v Bamba, C‑417/11 P, EU:C:2012:718, paragraph 74), fulfills the requirements relating to the communication of the grounds for such a measure.

Continued next page

(2976 VIEWS)