69 It is apparent from the above that the first applicant’s association with the Zimbabwean Government is capable of justifying his inclusion on the list of persons to whom Article 6 of Regulation No 314/2004 applies without the Council or the Commission also being required to show that he was involved in activities that seriously undermine democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe.
70 As regards the applicants’ argument calling into question the assessment of the institutions concerned as to the first applicant’s association with the Zimbabwean Government, it should be noted, first of all, that the effectiveness of the judicial review guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter requires that, as part of the review of the lawfulness of the grounds which are the basis of the decision to include a person’s name on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures, the Courts of the European Union are to ensure that that decision, which affects that person individually, has been taken on a sufficiently solid factual basis. That entails, in this instance, a verification of the factual allegations in the summary of reasons underpinning Regulations No 77/2009, No 173/2010 and No 174/2011, in order to review whether those reasons, or, at the very least, one of those reasons, deemed sufficient in itself to support those regulations, are substantiated (see, to this effect, judgment of 21 April 2015 in Anbouba v Council, C‑630/13 P, EU:C:2015:247, paragraph 46).
71 Furthermore, in line with the action taken by the European Union at international level to promote democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the other principles referred to in Article 11 EU and Article 21 TEU, the restrictive measures at issue in the present case are intended to step up the political pressure on a foreign regime whose actions seriously undermine those principles by constantly threatening the survival of certain sections of the population. The freezing of the funds or other economic resources of any person, entity or body that is ‘associated’ with such a regime in the sense that that person, entity or body has a special relationship with the regime that contributes to its survival constitutes, according to Article 5 of Common Position 2004/161, Article 5 of Decision 2011/101 and Article 6 of Regulation No 314/2014, such a measure.
72 Accordingly, in carrying out the assessment of the importance of what was at stake, account may be taken of the context of the measures at issue in the present case, of the fact that there was an urgent need to adopt such measures intended to put pressure on the Zimbabwean regime in order for it to stop the policy of violence and large-scale intimidation directed against the population of that country, and of the difficulty in obtaining more specific evidence in a State in such a situation with an authoritarian regime. In such a context, the institutions concerned discharge the burden of proof borne by them if they present to the Courts of the European Union a set of indicia sufficiently specific, precise and consistent to establish that there is a sufficient link between the person subject to a measure freezing his funds and the regime being combated (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 April 2015 in Anbouba v Council, C‑630/13 P, EU:C:2015:247, paragraphs 47 and 53).
73 In the present case, first, the Council and the Commission contend that the first applicant is a businessman of considerable standing who has, of his own admission, continuously had a direct relationship with the regime in power in Zimbabwe. That relationship took the form of the first applicant’s involvement in sensitive political issues of major importance, such as the negotiations in connection with the agricultural land redistribution policy. According to a press report of 24 May 2002, the first applicant had connections that gave him privileged access to politicians, which justified his involvement as intermediary between the Zimbabwean Government and the Commercial Farmers’ Union of Zimbabwe, whose members were the target of the government’s land confiscation policy. Those connections are also apparent from the provision by the first applicant of services of a more personal nature, such as the provision of air transport to members of that government or their family members. The first applicant confirmed those facts in the appeal which he lodged with the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) of the United States Treasury.
Continued next page
(2965 VIEWS)
