(AGENPARL) - Roma, 15 Febbraio 2023(AGENPARL) – mer 15 febbraio 2023 Dear All,
Please find attached press release in respect of Case T-536/21:
The General Court confirms the restrictive measures adopted against a State-owned enterprise managing the airspace in Belarus
The State-owned enterprise Belaeronavigatsia could not reasonably have been unaware that its activities carried out in order to divert flight FR4978 to Minsk contributed to the repression of civil society and democratic opposition in Belarus
Kind regards,
Georgios Georgopoulos
Trainee
Press and Information Unit
Communication Department
[cid:image002.jpg@01D5E282.B6DDC230]
Rue du Fort Niedergrünewald
L-2925 Luxembourg
[curia.europa.eu](https://www.curia.europa.eu/)
Testo Allegato:
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
PRESS RELEASE No 27
/23
Luxembourg, 15
February 2023
Judgment
of the General Court in Case T
–
536/21 | Belaeronavigatsia
v
Co
unc
il
The General Court confirms the restrictive measures adopted against a
State
–
owned enterprise
manag
ing the airspace in Belarus
The State
–
owned enterprise
Belaeronavigatsia could not reasonably
have been
unaware that its activities
carried out in order to di
democratic opposition in Belarus
Since 2004, restrictive measures have been adopted by the European Union in view of the situation in Belarus
with
regard
to
democracy, the rule
of law and human rights. Accordingly, in May 2006, the Council of the European Union
adopted Regulation (EC) No
765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain
officials of Belarus,
1
and then, in October 2012, Decision 20
12/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against
Belarus.
2
Those measures provide for
,
inter alia, the freezing of funds and economic
resources
belonging to
democratic opposition, or whose activities otherwise seriously undermine democracy or the rule of law in Belarus.
3
In the l
ight of the intensification of the persistent violation of human rights and the repression of opponents of the
regime following the Presidential elections of 9
August 2020, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2021/1001 and
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021
/999
4
concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, and then renewed
those measures
by Decision (CFSP) 2022/307 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/300 concerning the same
subject matter
5
(â??the contested
actsâ??
).
The applicant, Belaeronavigatsi
a, is a Belarusian State
–
owned enterprise
responsible for regulating air
space and
providing air traffic assistance in Belarus. By the contested
acts
, it had its name included and then maintained on
es on the ground that it bore responsibility for diverting
flight FR4978 to Minsk airport without valid justification on 23
May 2021. That diversion was motivated by political
considerations,
namely
Pratasevich and Sofia Sapega,
1
Council Regulation (EC) No
765/2006 of 18
May 2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus
(OJ 2006 L
134 p.
1).
2
Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15
October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L
285, p.
1).
3
Point (a) of Article
4(1) of Decision 2012/642 and Article
2(4) of Regulation No
765/2006, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No
1014/2012 of
6
November 2012 (OJ 2012 L
307, p.
1). The criterion thus set out is referred to as â??the general criterion at
issueâ??.
4
Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1001 of 21
June 2021 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in
Belarus (OJ 2021 L
I 219, p.
67), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/999 of 21
June 2021 impl
ementing Article
8a(1) of Regulation (EC)
No
765/2006 concerning restrictive measures i
n respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L
I
219
, p.
55).
5
Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/307 of 24
February 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in
view of the situation in
Belarus (OJ 2022 L
46, p.
97), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/300 of 24
February 2022 implementing Article
8a of Regulation (EC)
No
765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 202
2 L
46, p.
3).
Communications Directorate
Press and Information
Unit
curia.europa.eu
who were passengers
on
that flight.
The applicant brought an action for annulment of those measure
s
. It criticised the Council for having made an error
of assessment and
alleg
ed
,
as regards
the measures adopted against it, a
failure to have regard to the principle of
concept
of â??person
responsible for the repressionâ?? in
the context of
the restrictive measures adopted in view of the situa
tion in Belarus,
dismisse
s
the action, taking the view that the adoption and maintenance of the restrictive measures against the
applicant was justified.
Assessment of the General Court
As regards the first plea in law, alleging an error of assessment, according to which the Council
wrongly considered
objective criterion, l
inked to the activities of persons
the restrictive measures, which did not require it
to
be established that the person or entity
the restrictive measures had intended to partic
ipate in the
act
of
repression
committed
, the General C
ourt f
inds
that the terms â??responsible for the repressionâ?? used in Decision
2012/642
6
and Regulation No
765/2006
7
are not defined in those measures. The meaning and scope of those terms
must
therefore
be
established according to their usual meaning in ev
eryday language
,
taking into account the
context in which they occur and the purposes of the rules at issue.
In
that
respect, the General Court notes, first, that the terms â??responsible forâ?? refer to the person whose acts and/or
activities have produced a
reasonably be unaware. Secondly, it follows from the context in which those terms are used, and in particular from
the use of the wording â??persons, entities or bodies r
esponsible for
â?¦ the repression of civil society and democratic
opposition, or whose activities otherwise seriously undermine democracy or the rule of law in Belarusâ??,
8
that the
vities seriously undermine democracy or
the rule of law in Belarus. The term â??otherwiseâ?? demonstrates, in addition, that the repression of civil society and
democratic opposition is regarded as a type of activity seriously undermining democracy or the rule
of law in
Belarus. The use of the term â??activitiesâ?? is, moreover, an indication of the Councilâ??s intent to target persons, entities
or bodies whose activities
contribute to
seriously undermin
ing
democracy or the rule of law in Belarus, irrespective
of whe
ther or not there is an intentional element in that regard.
Thirdly, as regards the objectives pursued by Decision 2012/642 and by Regulation
No
765/2006, the General Court
recalls that, according to the
TEU
,
9
the consolidation of and support for democracy, the rule of law, human rights
and the principles of international law on the international scene are
among
the objectives of the European Union in
the framework of the common foreign and security policy (CFS
P). In the present case, the restrictive measures
against Belarus were adopted on account of the continued lack of respect for human rights, democracy and rule of
law in that country.
Those measures are intended to put pressure on the regime of President L
ukashenko to put an
.
Those measures are
therefore
not inappropriate
with respect to
the objective pursued,
including
where no intentional element could be
identifi
. Thus, according to the General Court,
persons, entities or bodies whose acts and/or activities contribute to that repression
are responsible for the
democratic opposition
, irrespective of their intent,
if
they
are aware
or cannot
reasonably be unaware of the consequences of their acts and/or activities.
In the present case, it is sufficient
that
the Councilâ??s file include
s
specific, precise and
consistent to establish that the acts alleged against the applicant in connection with the diversion of flight FR4978
6
Point (a) of Article
4(1).
7
Article
2(4).
8
Point (a) of Article
4(1) of Decision 2012/642 and Article
2(4) of Regulation No
765/2006.
9
Article 21(2)(b) TEU.
Communications Directorate
Press and Information
Unit
curia.europa.eu
Stay Connected
!
e
or could not reasonably have been unaware of th
e
consequence
s
of its actions. The fact that the applicant is a legal
person governed by public law responsible for regulating airspace and providing air traffic assistance in Belarus
has
,
in
that
respect
, n
o implications as regards the burden of proof borne by the Council or as regards the scope of
judicial review carried out by the General Court. According to the General Court, the applicant could not reasonably
have been unaware,
having regard to
the political context in Belarus at the material time, that its activities carried
Consequentl
y
, the Council did not make an error of assessment in finding
and democratic opposition in Belarus.
Lastly, the General Court makes clear that
that
imply
that
democratic opposition is cover
ed by that criterion irrespective of its substantive classification. The objective nature
thereof
10
and Regulation No
765/2006,
11
which refer only to acts and/or activities
that
may be cla
ssified as acts of repression, excluding acts which, by their
As regards the second plea in law, based on an alleged failure to have regard to the princip
le of proportionality, the
General Court reject
s
NOTE:
An action for annulment seeks the annulment of acts of the institutions of the European Union that are
contrary to European Union law. T
he Member States, the European institutions and individuals may, under certain
conditions, bring an action for annulment before the Court of Justice or the General Court. If the action is well
founded, the act is annulled. The institution concerned must fi
ll any legal vacuum created by the annulment of the
act.
NOTE:
An appeal, limited to points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against the decision of
the General Court within two months and ten days of notification of the decision.
Un
official document for media use, not binding on the General Court.
The
full text
of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.
Press contact: Jacques René
Zammit
â??
(+352) 4303 3355
Pictures of the delivery of the judgment are available from
‘Europe by Satellite
‘
â??
(+32) 2 2964106
10
Point (a) of Article 4(1).
11
Article 2(4)
.
