Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/2226

22.4.2025

(Case T-101/25)

(C/2025/2226)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Alain Goetz (represented by: S. Bekaert, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/2768 of 8 December 2023 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ L 2023/2768) to the extent that that decision maintains Alain Goetz on the list in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP (1);

—annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2771 of 8 December 2023 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ L 2023/2771) to the extent that that implementing regulation maintains Alain Goetz on the list in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 (2);

—declare that the annulments of the abovementioned measures are to take effect immediately after the judgment, irrespective of any legal remedy;

—order the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

With the exception of the provision on international arbitration, the entire factual consideration is written in the past tense. The Council judges the applicant on alleged past conduct, and not on present conduct and activities. This is contrary to the conservatory and provisional nature of the restrictive measures. On this basis, the Council can no longer draw the same conclusions as it did in the previous decisions maintaining restrictive measures.

Only where the Council refers to the claim for damages brought by the applicant against the Rwandan authorities before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (‘ICSID’), under the auspices of the World Bank Group, does the Council speak in the present tense. With such a ground for maintaining the restrictive measures, the Council is acting contrary to international law. The Council also does not show how a claim for damages by the applicant before ICSID against the Rwandan authorities would justify maintaining restrictive measures, and in which manner this would contribute to the objectives of Decision 2010/788.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 14 pleas in law.

1.First plea in law: the contested measures are, where they link the restrictive measures to the proceedings before ICSID:

—contrary to international law, and to Article 21(1), first subparagraph, TEU;

—contrary to the right of access to justice.

2.Second plea in law: the reasoning referring to the proceedings pending before ICSID is unlawful and therefore defective. In addition, Decision 2010/788 and Regulation No 1183/2005 do not provide the Council with a legal basis to impose sanctions on that basis.

3.Third plea in law: the reasoning referring to the proceedings pending before ICSID is ineffective and undermines the requirement that sanctions must be temporary.

4.Fourth plea in law: the Council is not impartial or, at the very least, an appearance of partiality is created.

5.Fifth plea in law: the reasoning is insufficient, and the contested measures are based on an incorrect assessment.

6.Sixth plea in law: the sanctions are imposed as a punishment, not in order to bring about a change in the applicant’s activities.

7.Seventh plea in law: the Council prevents the applicant and the Court of Justice from investigating whether the contested measures and the decisions and regulations on which those measures are based were taken in compliance with essential procedural requirements, with the required quorum and number of votes laid down in Article 24(1) TEU, Article 239 TFEU and the Council’s Rules of Procedure (3).

8.Eighth plea in law: the Council infringes Article 31(1) TEU, which prohibits the Council from exercising legislative functions in the context of the common foreign and security policy.

9.Ninth plea in law: the contested measures breach the scope of Article 29 TEU.

10.Tenth plea in law: the restrictions imposed on the Council concerning the freezing of assets are subject to Article 75 TFEU. The contested measures do not fulfil the conditions and limitations of Article 75 TFEU.

11.Eleventh plea in law: the interpretation whereby measures freezing the applicant’s assets do not have to fulfil the conditions and limitations of Article 75 TFEU infringe the principle of equality.

12.Twelfth plea in law: Article 3(2)(g) of Decision 2010/788 and Article 2b(1)(g) of Regulation No 1183/2005, on which the contested measures are based, are worded too broadly.

13.Thirteenth plea in law: the contested measures violate the right to property, and infringe the principle of proportionality and effectiveness.

14.Fourteenth plea in law: the contested measures infringe the freedom of movement and violate the right of residence and establishment provided for in Article 45(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 20 and 21 TFEU, and infringe the principle of proportionality and effectiveness.

(1) Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP of 20 December 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo and repealing Common Position 2008/369/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 336, p. 30), as amended.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2005 L 193, p. 1), as amended.

(3) Council Decision of 1 December 2009 adopting the Council's Rules of Procedure (OJ 2009 L 325, p. 35) and Council Decision of 9 December 2014 amending the Council's Rules of Procedure (OJ 2014 L 358, p. 25).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2226/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—