Summaries of judgments made in collaboration with the Portuguese judges and référendaire of the Normal Court docket (Maria José Costeira, Ricardo Silva Passos and Esperança Mealha)
Judgment of the Normal Court docket (First Chamber, Prolonged Composition), 10 April 2024, Case T-301/22, Petr Aven v Council of the European Union
Widespread international and safety coverage – Restrictive measures taken in view of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – Checklist of individuals, entities and our bodies coated by the freezing of funds and financial assets – Inclusion and upkeep of the applicant’s title on the lists – Idea of ‘assist for actions or insurance policies’ – Article 2(1)(a) of Resolution 2014/145/CFSP – Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 – Ideas of ‘materials or monetary assist for Russian decision-makers’ and ‘profit’ from these decision-makers – Article 2(1)(d) of Resolution 2014/145 – Article 3(1)(d) of Regulation No 269/2014 – Error of evaluation
Info
The Council of the European Union (‘the Council’) adopted, following the army aggression carried out by the Russian Federation (‘Russia’) towards Ukraine on 24 February 2022, a number of measures by which it added the applicant’s title to the lists of individuals, entities and our bodies supporting actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (“the lists at difficulty”), adopted by the Council since 2014.
On 28 February 2022, the Council imposed on the applicant, Mr. Petr Aven, an oligarch of Russian and Latvian nationality, the freezing of his banking funds and property, in accordance with Article 2(1) and (2) of Resolution 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014[1].
The Council took such actions on the bottom that he’s a significant shareholder of the Russian conglomerate ‘Alfa Group’, certainly one of Russia’s foremost banks. As such, the applicant is likely one of the most influential individuals in Russia and has hyperlinks with the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, supporting the Russian regime. In keeping with the Council, the Russian President rewarded the Alfa Group for its loyalty to the Russian authorities by selling the group’s funding plans overseas.
The applicant introduced an motion for annulment underneath article 263 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) towards the acts adopted by the Council, which the Normal Court docket (“GC”) upheld. In his motion, the applicant raises two pleas a primary plea of legislation regarding an error of evaluation by the Council, in together with and sustaining the applicant’s title on the lists at difficulty, and a second plea alleging an infringement of the duty by the Council to overview the applicant’s scenario periodically and the responsibility to state causes.
Resolution
In its first plea, the applicant contests the validity of getting his title included and maintained on the lists at difficulty primarily based on two standards. Firstly, he questions the compliance with the criterion laid out in Article 2(1) (a) of Resolution 2014/145, known as ‘criterion (a)’[2]. Secondly, he raises considerations concerning adherence to the criterion outlined in Article 2(1) (d) of the identical choice, known as ‘criterion (d)’[3]. He alleges that the Council didn’t gather proof that’s sufficiently particular, exact, and compelling to justify his inclusion and retention on the lists at difficulty.
The Council sought to introduce new causes to justify the inclusion of the applicant’s title on the lists at difficulty. In keeping with the Council, the applicant as the bulk shareholder of ‘Alfa Financial institution’, one of many largest personal banks in Russia, acts as a supply of considerable income for the Russian authorities.
The Normal Court docket rejected the arguments put ahead by the Council and dominated that in accordance with established case legislation, the legality of contested actions have to be assessed solely primarily based on the factual and authorized parts upon which they have been initially adopted. Consequently, the GC is precluded from substituting the grounds underlying these measures[4].
Secondly, regarding the deserves of together with and retaining the applicant’s title primarily based on standards (a) and (d), the Normal Court docket emphasizes the significance of making certain an efficient judicial overview as assured by Article 47 of the Constitution of Elementary Rights of the European Union. This entails verifying that the choice to impose or preserve restrictive measures, which straight impacts the person or entity involved, is grounded on a sufficiently sturdy factual foundation. Consequently, the GC should scrutinize the allegations outlined within the abstract of causes behind that call. Judicial overview can’t be restricted to an evaluation of the cogency within the summary of the explanations relied on however should confirm whether or not these causes, or no less than certainly one of them, thought of individually, is satisfactorily substantiated[5].
Moreover, the Normal Court docket recollects that criterion (a) is linked to the endorsement of actions or insurance policies that undermine or pose a menace to the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine, or to the steadiness or safety inside Ukraine. This criterion necessitates establishing a direct or oblique causal hyperlink between the actions or actions of the person or entity underneath scrutiny and the scenario in Ukraine that prompted the adoption of the restrictive measures in query[6].
Concerning criterion (d), it particularly targets pure and authorized individuals, entities, or our bodies that, though not inherently related to, or beneficiaries of, the annexation of Crimea or the destabilization of Ukraine, supply materials or monetary assist to, or derive advantages from, Russian decision-makers chargeable for such actions.
Lastly, the GC analyses the a number of rationales put forth by the Council and asserts that merely being a shareholder of the “Alfa Group” doesn’t result in the conclusion that the applicant endorsed or profited from actions or insurance policies detrimental to the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine, as outlined in criterion (a). Equally, it doesn’t point out that the applicant supplied materials or monetary assist to, or gained advantages from, Russian decision-makers accountable for the annexation of Crimea or the destabilization of Ukraine, as stipulated in criterion (d).
The Normal Court docket thus determines that not one of the causes offered by the Council has been substantiated to the mandatory authorized normal, rendering the inclusion of the applicant’s title on the lists at difficulty unjustified. Moreover, regarding the upkeep of the restrictive measures, the Council has failed to supply any extra proof past what was initially relied upon to incorporate the applicant’s title on the lists at difficulty.
The GC upheld the primary plea in legislation, concluding that there had been an error of evaluation on the a part of the Council concerning the inclusion and upkeep of the applicant’s title on the lists at difficulty with out it being essential to assess the opposite arguments and pleas put ahead by the applicant. Specifically, the alleged breach of the responsibility to periodically overview the acts adopted and the responsibility to state causes.
Judgment of the Normal Court docket (Third Chamber), 17 April 2024, Case T-255/23, Escobar / EUIPO (Pablo Escobar)
EU commerce mark – Software for the EU phrase mark Pablo Escobar – Absolute floor for refusal – Commerce mark opposite to public coverage and to accepted ideas of morality – Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Presumption of innocence
Info
On 30 September 2021, Escobar Inc., established in Puerto Rico (United States), filed an software with the European Union Mental Property Workplace (EUIPO) for registration of the phrase signal Pablo Escobar as an EU commerce mark for a variety of products and companies.
The Colombian nationwide named Pablo Escobar, who was born on 1 December 1949 and died on 2 December 1993, is presumed to be a drug lord and a narco-terrorist who based and was the only chief of the Medellín cartel (Colombia).
EUIPO rejected the applying for registration on the bottom that the mark was opposite to public coverage and to accepted ideas of morality. It relied on the notion of the Spanish public, as it’s the most accustomed to Pablo Escobar as a result of hyperlinks between Spain and Colombia.
Escobar Inc. introduced an motion towards that call earlier than the Normal Court docket of the European Union. The Court docket upholds the refusal to register the commerce mark Pablo Escobar.
Resolution
The Court docket resolve that the title Pablo Escobar will not be registered as an EU commerce mark as the general public would affiliate it with drug trafficking and narco-terrorism.
In keeping with the Court docket, EUIPO may rely, in its evaluation, on the notion of cheap Spaniards, with common sensitivity and tolerance thresholds and who share the indivisible and common values on which the European Union is based (human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity, and the ideas of democracy and the rule of legislation and the suitable to life and bodily integrity).
EUIPO accurately discovered that these individuals would affiliate the title of Pablo Escobar with drug trafficking and narco-terrorism and with the crimes and struggling ensuing therefrom, relatively than along with his attainable good deeds in favour of the poor in Colombia.
For the Court docket, the commerce mark would due to this fact be perceived as operating counter to the elemental values and ethical requirements prevailing inside Spanish society.
The Court docket provides that Pablo Escobar’s basic proper to the presumption of innocence has not been infringed as a result of, despite the fact that he was by no means criminally convicted,, he’s publicly perceived in Spain as an emblem of organised crime chargeable for quite a few crimes.
[1] Council Resolution 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 regarding restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 78, p. 16)
[2] In keeping with Article 2(1)(a) of Resolution 2014/145: “1. All funds and financial assets belonging to, or owned, held or managed by: (a) pure individuals chargeable for, supporting or implementing actions or insurance policies which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, or stability or safety in Ukraine, or which impede the work of worldwide organisations in Ukraine;”
[3] In keeping with Article 2(1)(d) of Resolution 2014/145 supplies: : “1. All funds and financial assets belonging to, or owned, held or managed by: (d) pure or authorized individuals, entities or our bodies supporting, materially or financially, or benefitting from Russian decision-makers chargeable for the annexation of Crimea or the destabilisation of Ukraine;”
[4] Judgement of 12 November 2013, North Drilling v. Council, T 552/12, not revealed, EU:T:2013:590, p. 25.
[5] Judgement of 18 July 2013, Fee v. Kadi, C-584/10 P, C 593/10 P e C 595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, p. 119.
[6] Judgement of 30 November 2016, Rotenberg v. Council, T- 720/14, EU:T:2016:689, p. 74.