60 First, it is clear from the foregoing that the first three applicants and Breco International were given access, through the FCO, to a body of data, comprising the main evidence and information that served as the basis for their inclusion on the list of persons referred to in Article 6 of Regulation No 314/2004. On the one hand, the applicants repeatedly claim, in paragraphs 52.3 and 55 of the application, that the name of the first three applicants and Breco International was included on the lists in question at the initiative of the United Kingdom and that it is unlikely that the Council or the Commission have in their possession any evidence other than that provided to them by the FCO. On the other hand, the Council states that the evidence obtained by the applicants from the FCO comprises the bulk of the evidence taken into account.
61 Second, it is apparent that, after being given access to that evidence, the first three applicants and Breco International established and maintained regular contact with the Council concerning the substantive issues relating to the inclusion and maintenance of their names on the list of persons referred to in Article 6 of Regulation No 314/2004.
62 In the light of the above considerations, it is clear that the fact that the Commission did not disclose to the first three applicants the evidence relied on for the inclusion of their names on the list of persons referred to in Article 6 of Regulation No 314/2004 did not have the effect of infringing their rights of defence. Indeed, that did not prevent them from putting their case, after being apprised of a body of evidence which they themselves regard as comprising the bulk of the information used by the institutions concerned as the basis for a statement of reasons which, moreover, did not change throughout the period of their inclusion on the lists in question. Furthermore, in view of the considerations set out in paragraph 20 above, from which it is apparent that the fourth applicant was not included on the lists in question, there can have been no infringement of that applicant’s rights of defence.
The alleged errors in the assessment of the facts
63 According to the applicants, the institutions concerned did not refer to precise and serious information or evidence relating to activities seriously undermining democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe, as required for the purpose of inclusion in the list of persons to whom Article 6 of Regulation No 314/2004 applies. The contention that there is insufficient evidence capable of justifying such a listing is borne out, according to the applicants, by a series of documents relating to the first applicant which were exchanged by certain United Kingdom officials. According to the applicants, the majority of the evidence relied on by the Council in the present proceedings was not taken into account by the Council or the Commission at the time when the first three applicants and Breco International were included on the lists at issue. With regard, in particular, to the reports of 8 October 2002 and 15 October 2003 referred to by the Commission, the applicants contend that they do not concern the first applicant’s relationship with the Zimbabwean Government in 2009 and that it is apparent from the report of 15 October 2003 that all the matters raised had in the meantime been resolved, the first applicant having, moreover, ended his involvement in investment in the exploitation of minerals in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in response to pressure put on him by the Zimbabwean Government. The imposition of restrictive measures on the first applicant by the United States authorities cannot justify the adoption of the restrictive measures at issue. On the other hand, it is public knowledge that the first applicant was in fact in dispute with that government following the part he played in the delivery of a letter proposing that President Mugabe retire and a Government of National Unity be formed. Following those events, the Zimbabwean Government prosecuted and jailed the first applicant in 2006 and even withdrew his Zimbabwean nationality on the ground that he also possessed South African nationality. The status of the first applicant’s immovable property was also very uncertain as a result of action taken against him by that government.
Continued next page
(2965 VIEWS)
