Mugabe ally loses EU sanctions compensation case

91      There is therefore nothing to suggest that the events examined in paragraph 88 above, which, for the reasons given, appear to be but one episode in the first applicant’s long-term relationship with the Zimbabwean regime, led to a definitive breaking off of the relationship in question. As submitted by the institutions concerned, that type of information is especially important in view of the fact that the first applicant still has considerable landholdings in the vicinity of Harare, notwithstanding the confiscation campaign, which, according to the first applicant, was conducted by the Zimbabwean Government for many years against the members of the Commercial Farmers’ Union of Zimbabwe.

92      Accordingly, it is also clear that the fact, relied on by the applicants, that a number of officials of the United Kingdom Government have on various occasions expressed a certain scepticism as to the reliability of the evidence adduced against the applicants can have no bearing on the conclusions set out above as regards the adequacy of the evidence for the purpose of the inclusion and maintenance of the first three applicants and Breco International on the list of persons referred to in Article 6 of Regulation No 314/2004.

93      The same applies as regards the applicants’ argument that a number of items of information available to the public relied on by the Council were downloaded after the inclusion of the first three applicants and Breco International on the list of persons referred to in Article 6 of Regulation No 314/2004. As those items were dated prior to that inclusion, the fact that the relevant copies were printed in 2014 in order for them to be produced in the present proceedings is immaterial from a legal standpoint.

94      In the light of the evidence described in paragraphs 73 to 83 above and in view of the importance of what was at stake (see paragraph 72 above), it must be concluded that the Council and the Commission did not err in including the first applicant on the list of persons referred to in Article 6 of Regulation No 314/2004 on the ground that he was a ‘businessman with strong ties to the Government of Zimbabwe’ and that he ‘[had] 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)’. Furthermore, for the reasons set out in paragraph 37 above, the inclusion of the second and third applicants and Breco International on that list is similarly not unlawful.

 The alleged breach of the applicants’ right to property

95      The applicants submit that, given the allegedly unlawful acts relied on in the complaints examined above, their right to property was undermined to a disproportionate degree, thus giving rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the European Union.

96      It is sufficient to note in that regard, as is clear from the foregoing analysis, that the inclusion of the first three applicants on the list of persons referred to in Article 6 of Regulation No 314/2004 is not unlawful. As a consequence, in view of the fact that, as explained in paragraph 26 above, a system of restrictive measures such as the system in question constitutes a limitation that satisfies the criteria laid down in Article 52(1) of the Charter, no breach of the applicants’ right to property has been established.

Continued next page

(2966 VIEWS)