Mugabe ally loses EU sanctions compensation case

77      On that basis, the Panel of Experts included the names of Tremalt and the first applicant in Annex I and Annex II to the report of 8 October 2002 respectively as members of networks contributing, directly or indirectly, to the funding of the conflicts in question and in respect of which a wealth of information and documentary evidence had been gathered. Annex I is entitled ‘Companies on which the Panel recommends the placing of financial restrictions’. Annex II it entitled ‘Persons for whom the Panel recommends a travel ban and financial restrictions’.

78      In the observations which he submitted to the Panel of Experts in January 2003, the first applicant maintained that the confidential tripartite agreement for sharing the profits arising from the exploitation of deposits for which Gécamines enjoyed the concession in the Congo had in fact been signed but that ‘events overtook’ the agreement, which was not therefore ultimately put into effect.

79      After receiving and examining those comments and those submitted by the other parties concerned, the Panel of Experts adopted the report of 15 October 2003. Following discussions with the parties concerned, it divided them into five categories. The first category included the names of persons and entities with which the panel considered that it had found a solution that was in the interest of both the persons and entities concerned and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The names of those persons and entities were to be regarded as having been removed from the lists in the annexes to the report of 8 October 2002. The Panel stressed that that resolution did not invalidate the information obtained previously on the activities of those parties, but simply meant that there were no outstanding issues and that the problems which led to their inclusion in the annexes to that report had been resolved to the panel’s satisfaction and to that of the undertakings and individuals concerned.

80      The second category included persons who had reached a provisional resolution with the Panel of Experts, subject to fulfillment of a number of commitments on corporate governance and the establishment of improved controls and procedures. Compliance with the commitments would be verified after the end of the panel’s mandate. That task was therefore entrusted to the ‘contact point’ of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in the United Kingdom. It that regard, it is apparent from the document prepared by the panel entitled ‘Reaction No 25’ that the first applicant, Tremalt and the Kababankola Mining Company gave five series of undertakings concerning their cooperation with the Congolese authorities, the possible renegotiation of the terms of the joint venture agreement and financial transparency. Unlike the provisions made in respect of the first category (see paragraph 79 above), there is nothing in that part of the report of 15 October 2003 to suggest that the names of the persons and entities in the second category were to be regarded as having been removed from the lists in the annexes to the report of 8 October 2002. As a consequence, the report of 15 October 2003 does not have the effect of removing the name of the first applicant from the list of persons for whom the Panel of Experts proposed restrictive measures and a travel ban.

81      Lastly, the Council and the Commission refer to a series of public sources.

Continued next page

(3553 VIEWS)