Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber)

6 November 2024 (*)

( Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine - Freezing of funds - Restrictions on entry into the territories of the Member States - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources or to restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States - Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of personal liability - Error of assessment - Proportionality )

In Case T‑520/22,

Bogoljub Karić, residing in Belgrade (Serbia), represented by W. Julié, lawyer,

applicant,

v

Council of the European Union, represented by S. Van Overmeire, acting as Agent, and by B. Maingain and S. Remy, lawyers,

defendant,

THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber),

composed of J. Svenningsen, President, J. Laitenberger and M. Stancu (Rapporteur), Judges,

Registrar: M. Zwozdziak-Carbonne, Administrator,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

further to the hearing on 6 February 2024,

gives the following

Judgment

1        By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Mr Bogoljub Karić, seeks annulment of:

–        Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/881 of 3 June 2022 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 153, p. 77), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/876 of 3 June 2022 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 153, p. 1) (together, ‘the initial acts’); and

–        Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/421 of 24 February 2023 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 61, p. 41), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/419 of 24 February 2023 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 61, p. 20) (together, ‘the maintaining acts’);

in so far as those acts (together, ‘the contested acts’), concern the applicant.

 Background to the dispute and events subsequent to the bringing of the action

2        The applicant is a Serbian businessperson and politician.

3        The present case has been brought in the context of the restrictive measures adopted by the European Union since 2004 in view of the situation in Belarus with regard to democracy, the rule of law and human rights. As is apparent from the recitals of the initial acts, it is more specifically related to the gravity of the situation in Belarus and the continuing violations of human rights and repression of civil society and democratic opposition.

4        On 18 May 2006, the Council of the European Union adopted, pursuant to Articles [75 and 215 TFEU], Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2006 L 134, p. 1) and, on 15 October 2012, pursuant to Article 29 TEU, Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 285, p. 1).

5        The criterion on the basis of which the individual restrictive measures were taken against the applicant (‘the listing criterion at issue’) is laid down in Article 3(1)(b) and Article 4(1)(b) of Decision 2012/642, and in Article 2(5) of Regulation No 765/2006, in the versions thereof in force at the time when the contested acts were adopted.

6        Article 3(1)(b) of Decision 2012/642 provides for the prohibition on entry into, and transit through, the territory of the European Union for persons benefitting from or supporting the regime of President Lukashenko.

7        Article 4(1)(b) of Decision 2012/642 and Article 2(5) of Regulation No 765/2006 – the latter provision referring to the former – provide for the freezing of all funds and economic resources of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies benefitting from or supporting the regime of President Lukashenko, and of legal persons, entities or bodies owned or controlled by them.

8        By the initial acts, the applicant’s name was included on the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the restrictive measures set out in the annex to Decision 2012/642 and in Annex I to Regulation No 765/2006 (together, ‘the lists at issue’).

9        In those acts, the Council justified the inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue by identifying him as a ‘Serbian businessman and politician, associated with the company Dana Holdings’ and giving the following reasons:

‘Bogoljub Karić is a Serbian businessman and politician. Together with his family members, he developed a network of real estate companies in Belarus and has cultivated a network of contacts with the family of [President Lukashenko].

In particular, he has been closely associated with Dana Holdings and its former subsidiary Dana Astra, and he reportedly represented those entities during meetings with [President Lukashenko].

The Minsk World project, which was developed by a company associated with Karić, was described by [President Lukashenko] as “an example of cooperation of the Slavonic world”.

Thanks to those close relationships with [President Lukashenko] and his entourage, companies associated with Karić received preferential treatment from the [regime of President Lukashenko], including tax breaks and plots of land for real estate development.

He is therefore benefitting from and supporting the [regime of President Lukashenko].’

10      By letter of 15 June 2022, the applicant requested that the Council communicate to him all the evidence supporting the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue.

11      On 30 June 2022, the Council sent to the applicant documents WK 5817/2022 INIT, WK 5817/2022 ADD 1, WK 6656/2022 EXT 1 and WK 6656/2022 ADD 1.

12      By letter of 21 December 2022, the Council notified the applicant of its intention to maintain the restrictive measures against him and sent to him additional evidence contained in document WK 17511/2022 INIT. The Council also gave the applicant the opportunity to submit observations by 12 January 2023.

13      By letter of 11 January 2023, the applicant challenged the grounds for maintaining his name on the lists at issue and requested that the Council reconsider its decision.

14      On 24 February 2023, the Council adopted the maintaining acts, by way of which the restrictive measures against the applicant were extended to 28 February 2024. In those acts, the Council justified the extension of those measures by reproducing all of the grounds contained in the initial acts (see paragraph 9 above).

15      By letter of 27 February 2023, the Council informed the applicant of its decision to maintain his name on the lists at issue pursuant to the maintaining acts and replied to the applicant’s letter of 11 January 2023.

 Forms of order sought

16      The applicant claims that the Court should:

–        annul the contested measures, in so far as they concern him;

–        order the Council to pay the costs.

17      The Council contends that the Court should:

–        dismiss the action;

–        order the applicant to pay the costs.

 Law

18      In support of his action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law alleging (i) infringement of the rights of the defence, (ii) ‘manifest errors of assessment’ and (iii) disproportionate interference with his fundamental rights.

 The first plea, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence

19      The first plea on which the applicant relies comprises two parts, the first concerning a failure to state reasons, the second a breach of the principle of personal responsibility.

 The first part of the first plea, alleging failure to state reasons

20      In the first part of the first plea in law, the applicant maintains that, by failing to state sufficiently clearly how the Council arrived at the conclusion that the listing criterion at issue applies to his case, the contested acts are not sufficiently reasoned and therefore infringe the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

21      In that connection, the applicant claims that the listing criterion at issue allows restrictive measures to be taken against a natural person only in the event that that person is personally benefitting from or supporting the regime of President Lukashenko, but that criterion does not allow such measures to be taken against a person on the ground that that person was in some way associated with another person or entity already subject to restrictive measures as, it is argued, is the case in point. However, the applicant takes the view that the Council has failed sufficiently to explain how he is personally benefitting from or supporting the regime of President Lukashenko.

22      Furthermore, the applicant puts forward the argument that, even if it were to be considered that the benefits from or support for that regime may be indirect, through companies with which he is associated, the Council has failed sufficiently to explain in the grounds for listing and maintenance how he personally, if indirectly, benefits from or supports that regime. In particular, in the statement of reasons, the Council has, in the applicant’s submission, specifically identified neither the companies with which the applicant is associated, nor the nature of his association with those companies, nor how the applicant personally benefits from or supports that regime through those companies, in particular the Minsk World project.

23      The Council disputes the applicant’s arguments.

24      It should be recalled that, according to settled case-law, the purpose of the obligation to state the reasons on which an act adversely affecting an individual is based, which is a corollary of the principle of respect for the rights of the defence, is, first, to provide the person concerned with sufficient information to make it possible to ascertain whether the act is well founded or whether it is vitiated by a defect which may permit its legality to be contested before the Courts of the European Union and, second, to enable those Courts to review the legality of that act (see judgment of 16 December 2020, Haswani v Council, T‑521/19, not published, EU:T:2020:608, paragraph 109 and the case-law cited).

25      It should also be recalled that the statement of reasons required by Article 296 TFEU must be appropriate to the act in question and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted that act, in such a way as to enable the person concerned to ascertain the reasons for the act and to enable the competent court to carry out its review (see judgment of 16 December 2020, Haswani v Council, T‑521/19, not published, EU:T:2020:608, paragraph 110 and the case-law cited).

26      The statement of reasons for an act of the Council which imposes a measure freezing funds must identify the actual and specific reasons why the Council considers, in the exercise of its discretion, that that act must be adopted in respect of the person concerned (see judgment of 16 December 2020, Haswani v Council, T‑521/19, not published, EU:T:2020:608, paragraph 111 and the case-law cited).

27      However, the requirement that reasons be given must be assessed according to the circumstances of the case, and in particular the content of the act in question, the nature of the reasons relied on and the interest which addressees will have in obtaining explanations. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 296 TFEU must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question. In particular, the reasons given for an act adversely affecting a person are sufficient if that act was adopted in a context which was known to that person and which enables him or her to understand the scope of the act concerning him or her (see judgment of 16 December 2020, Haswani v Council, T‑521/19, not published, EU:T:2020:608, paragraphs 112 to 114 and the case-law cited).

28      It follows that, in order to determine whether the contested acts satisfy the obligation to state reasons, it is necessary to ascertain whether, in the grounds stated in those acts, the Council set out, in a manner that is comprehensible and sufficiently precise, the reasons that led it to conclude that the inclusion, then the maintenance, of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue were justified in the light of the applicable legal criteria.

29      First of all, it must be held that the background to the restrictive measures taken against the applicant was known to him. Suffice it to note in that regard that, in the application, the applicant himself refers to Decision 2012/642 and Regulation No 765/2006, as well as the political context in Belarus which gave rise, first, to the sanctions in respect of the political leadership of Belarus and public officials responsible for repression and violations of human rights and, second, to the extension of the restrictive measures to other classes of persons and entities, including those who benefit from or support the regime of President Lukashenko.

30      Next, as to the reasons why restrictive measures specifically apply to the applicant, it should be observed that it is apparent clearly and unequivocally from the statement of reasons for the contested acts, as recalled in paragraph 9 above, that the general listing criterion applied to the applicant’s case is that set out in paragraphs 5 to 7 above. The contested acts in fact explicitly state that the applicant’s name was included, and subsequently maintained, on the lists at issue on account of the fact that he was regarded as a person benefitting from and supporting the regime of President Lukashenko.

31      Furthermore, it should be noted that the statement of reasons for the contested acts provide the specific and actual reasons for the inclusion and subsequent maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, and in particular the reasons why it has been found that the applicant benefitted from and supported the regime of President Lukashenko. Such a statement enables the applicant sufficiently to understand that his name was included and, subsequently, maintained on the lists at issue, not on the ground that the companies with which he was associated were already included on the lists at issue, but rather on account of his own conduct and activities as a businessperson in Belarus, in particular in the real estate sector, and of his contacts with the family of President Lukashenko. Thus, it is claimed that the applicant has, together with his family members, developed a network of real estate companies in Belarus and has cultivated a network of contacts with President Lukashenko, allowing companies with which the applicant is associated to receive preferential treatment from the regime of President Lukashenko, including tax breaks and plots of land for real estate development. It is stated to that effect that the applicant is closely associated with Dana Holdings and its former subsidiary Dana Astra, that he represented those companies during meetings with President Lukashenko, and that the Minsk World project, in which those companies are involved, was described by President Lukashenko as ‘an example of cooperation of the Slavonic world’.

32      It must therefore be observed that the findings set out in the statement of reasons on which the Council relies vis-à-vis the applicant are designed to describe the latter’s actual situation and are consequently sufficient (see judgment of 2 December 2020, Kalai v Council, T‑178/19, not published, EU:T:2020:580, paragraph 64 and the case-law cited). Furthermore, it is apparent from the applicant’s line of argument, set out in the application, that the statement of reasons given by the Council was clearly sufficient to enable him to bring the present action and put forward arguments to refute the substance of each ground for inclusion and maintenance, and to enable the EU judicature to conduct its review of the lawfulness of the contested acts. In particular, it is apparent from the line of argument put forward in the context of the second plea in law that the applicant was placed in a position to challenge the truth of the facts set out in the contested acts, first of all, by denying his connection to the entities to which the grounds of those acts refer and by disputing the claim that he has close relationships with President Lukashenko and his entourage; next, by refuting the claims relating to the preferential treatment that the entities referred to in the grounds of the contested acts received from the regime of President Lukashenko; and, finally, by stating that, in any event, the facts alleged by the Council all belonged to the past.

33      Since the reading of the statement of reasons for the restrictive measures taken against him by way of the contested acts enabled the applicant to understand why his name had been included, then maintained, on the lists at issue, and that the Court is able to conduct its review of the merits of that statement of reasons, it must be found that the Council discharged its obligation under Article 296 TFEU.

34      That finding is not called into question by the other arguments put forward by the applicant.

35      In the first place, in so far as concerns the applicant’s argument that, in the statement of reasons for the contested acts, the Council failed to provide sufficient information as to the identity of the companies with which he is allegedly associated or as to the nature of the ties between the applicant and those companies, it should be observed, first of all, that in the grounds of the contested acts, the applicant is specifically identified as a businessperson associated with Dana Holdings and its former subsidiary Dana Astra. Furthermore, an overall reading of the grounds for inclusion and maintenance, as recalled in paragraph 9 above, together with the items of evidence provided by the Council seeking to substantiate those grounds, allows it to be understood, without difficulty, that the companies referred to as those with which the applicant is associated are, inter alia, Dana Holdings and its former subsidiary Dana Astra, both of which are repeatedly referred to by name. Finally, and in any event, even if the grounds for including and maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists at issue were to be understood as meaning that the network of real estate companies in Belarus which the applicant, it is claimed, developed with his family members and with which he is associated is not confined to Dana Holdings and Dana Astra, the fact that those grounds do not contain an exhaustive list of the companies with which the applicant is associated is not sufficient to support the finding that the contested acts are vitiated by an inadequate statement of reasons such as to lead to the annulment of those acts, since the elements relating to Dana Holdings and Dana Astra and the applicant’s close association with those companies have been put forward in a sufficiently specific and precise manner in the statement of reasons for the contested acts (see, by analogy, judgment of 22 June 2022, Haswani v Council, T‑479/21, not published, EU:T:2022:383, paragraph 73 and the case-law cited).

36      As regards, next, the nature of the ties between the applicant and those companies, it should be noted that the Council states, in the grounds of the contested acts, that the applicant is ‘closely associated with Dana Holdings and its former subsidiary Dana Astra’. Admittedly, the Council does not set out in detail the nature of the applicant’s association with those companies. However, as has been stated in paragraph 27 above, according to the case-law, it is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law or to provide a detailed answer to the considerations set out by the person concerned when consulted prior to the adoption of that act. In any event, it is clear from an overall reading of the grounds for inclusion and maintenance that the Council claims that the applicant is associated with Dana Holdings and its former subsidiary, Dana Astra, in a way that goes beyond a mere family relationship with the directors of those entities. In that connection, it must be recalled that the concept of ‘association’ is often employed in the acts of the Council relating to restrictive measures, and that it has been recognised in the case-law that such a concept makes it possible to target natural or legal persons who are, generally, linked by common interests (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 March 2023, Prigozhina v Council, T‑212/22, not published, EU:T:2023:104, paragraph 93 and the case-law cited).

37      In the second place, in so far as concerns the applicant’s argument that the Council failed to explain how the pursuit of the Minsk World project by the companies with which he is allegedly associated demonstrates support for President Lukashenko, it should be noted that the grounds for including and maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, as have been recalled in paragraph 9 above, refer to statements made by President Lukashenko himself and describing that project as ‘an example of cooperation of the Slavonic world’, which enabled the applicant to understand that the Council’s intention was to highlight the importance of that project to the regime of President Lukashenko and, consequently, the latter’s support for the development of that project.

38      In the light of the foregoing considerations, it must be concluded that the contested acts state to the requisite legal standard the matters of fact and law on which, according to the Council, those acts are based.

 The second part of the first plea, alleging breach of the principle of personal responsibility

39      By the second part of his first plea in law, the applicant alleges, in essence, that the contested acts were not adopted on the basis of his personal conduct but rather on the basis of allegations relating to the conduct of third-party entities, which he neither owns nor directs, thereby breaching the principle of personal responsibility and the right to a fair trial, as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

40      In the reply, the applicant states that the infringement of his rights of defence stems from the fact that he is prevented from contesting the grounds for including his name on the lists at issue, since the statement of reasons does not contain any allegation relating to his personal conduct.

41      The Council disputes the applicant’s arguments.

42      In that connection, it should be noted that the applicant’s line of argument relating to the infringement of his rights of defence and the principle of personal responsibility rests, in essence, on the premiss that the restrictive measures taken against him were adopted on the basis of allegations relating to the conduct of third-party entities which he neither owns nor directs.

43      However, that premiss is incorrect.

44      In fact, as has been stated in paragraph 31 above, it is clear from the grounds of the contested acts that, in deciding to include, then maintain, the applicant’s name on the lists at issue and regard him as a person benefitting from and supporting the regime of President Lukashenko, the Council did not rely on the fact that the companies with which he is associated are included on the same lists on the basis of the listing criterion at issue. On the contrary, the Council relied on the applicant’s own conduct and activity, as a businessperson active in Belarus, in particular in the real estate sector. More specifically, the Council claims that the applicant has, together with his family members, developed a network of real estate companies in Belarus, including the companies Dana Holdings and its subsidiary Dana Astra, and that he has represented those companies during meetings with President Lukashenko, and allowed those companies, on account of his close relationships with the latter and his entourage, to receive preferential treatment from the regime of President Lukashenko, including tax breaks and plots of land for real estate development, including Minsk World.

45      The second part of the first plea, which is based on an incorrect premiss, must therefore be rejected, as must the entirety of that plea in law.

 The second plea, alleging ‘manifest errors of assessment’

46      In his second plea in law, the applicant claims, in essence, that the grounds referred to in the contested acts, in so far as they concern him, are vitiated by ‘manifest errors of assessment’ and therefore cannot justify the inclusion and maintenance of his name on the lists at issue.

47      In the first place, the applicant disputes the assessment that he is closely associated with Dana Holdings and its former subsidiary Dana Astra. First, he maintains that he neither owns, co-owns nor manages either of the two entities referred to in the grounds of the contested acts. Dana Holdings and its subsidiaries were co-owned and managed by his children until the end of 2020. Moreover, at the end of 2020, those companies were sold, their present owner being a company established in the United Arab Emirates. Second, the applicant claims that he has played no role in the Minsk World project developed by Dana Holdings, or any other real estate development project referred to in the press articles contained in the evidence files produced by the Council. Third, there is some confusion in the press articles contained in the evidence files as to the ownership and control structures of the business ventures associated with various members of the applicant’s family. According to the applicant, BK Group does not refer to any legal person but is a mere abbreviation of the word combination ‘Braća Karić’ – which, in Serbian, means the ‘Karić Brothers’ – used by the media and also by members of the Karić family to refer to any business ventures pursued by any member of the Karić family. Fourth, the fact that he has publicly promoted and supported the endeavours of his family and that there is a filial link between him and the owners or managers of the entities referred to in the grounds for the contested acts is not sufficient to conclude that the listing criterion in question was satisfied in his case.

48      In the second place, the applicant claims that the evidence produced by the Council does not demonstrate that he benefits from the regime of President Lukashenko. First, the Council cannot rely on mere business success in Belarus in order to establish a benefit from the regime of President Lukashenko. Second, the allegations made in the press articles contained in the evidence files concerning preferential treatment given to companies with which the applicant is associated are not established, any more than the fact that the applicant personally benefitted from those advantages. Third, the assessment that the applicant has close relationships with President Lukashenko and his entourage is incorrect since (i) the applicant was not present at the meeting with him in the Serbian resort of Kopaonik in 2009, to which several items of evidence produced by the Council refer, and (ii) he did not attend the meeting of 22 June 2015 with President Lukashenko as a representative of Dana Holdings or Dana Astra, a meeting to which several items of evidence submitted by the Council also refer.

49      In the third place, the applicant claims that the items of evidence produced by the Council do not demonstrate that he supports the regime of President Lukashenko. First, those items of evidence fail to identify any payment, financial benefit or any other form of support on his part for that regime. Second, the only specific assertion of the applicant’s support for that regime is an allegation that Dana Astra gave employees a day off to take part in rallies in support of President Lukashenko after the August 2020 election. That allegation is false, it is submitted, and even if it were true, there is no suggestion in the evidence that the applicant had any personal involvement in Dana Astra’s response to the August 2020 election. Third, even if it were to be found that the applicant has had an association with any company which has on occasion been praised by President Lukashenko for its commercial success, that association cannot amount to support for President Lukashenko’s regime on the part of the applicant.

50      In the fourth and final place, the applicant claims that, in any event, the evidence produced by the Council fails to substantiate any temporally relevant conduct justifying the adoption of the contested acts, since the conduct relied on by the Council is all historic. The applicant stresses that the evidence produced by the Council is outdated, since several items thereof have recently reported a breakdown in the relations between the companies said to be associated with the applicant and the Belarusian regime, including President Lukashenko, on account of their inability to carry on their activities following the restrictive measures adopted against them.

51      The Council disputes those arguments.

 Preliminary observations

52      As a preliminary point, it should be noted that the second plea in law must be regarded as alleging an error of assessment and not a manifest error of assessment. Whilst it is true that the Council has a degree of discretion to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the legal criteria on which the restrictive measures at issue are based are met, the Courts of the European Union must ensure the review, in principle the full review, of the lawfulness of all European Union acts (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 November 2023, OT v Council, T‑193/22, EU:T:2023:716, paragraph 121 and the case-law cited).

53      Next, it should be recalled that the effectiveness of the judicial review guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights requires, in particular, that the Courts of the European Union ensure that the decision by which restrictive measures were adopted or maintained, which has an individual scope for the person or entity concerned, rests on a sufficiently sound factual basis. That entails a verification of the factual allegations in the summary of reasons underpinning that decision, with the consequence that judicial review cannot be restricted to an assessment of the cogency in the abstract of the reasons relied on, but must concern whether those reasons, or, at the very least, one of those reasons, deemed sufficient in itself to support that decision, is substantiated (judgment of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 119).

54      That assessment must be carried out by examining the evidence and information not in isolation but in its context. The Council in fact discharges the burden of proof borne by it if it presents to the Courts of the European Union a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence to establish that there is a sufficient link between the person or entity subject to a measure freezing funds and the regime or, in general, the situations being combated (see judgment of 20 July 2017, Badica and Kardiam v Council, T‑619/15, EU:T:2017:532, paragraph 99 and the case-law cited).

55      It is the task of the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the reasons relied on against the person or entity concerned are well founded, and not the task of that person or entity to adduce evidence of the negative, that those reasons are not well founded. It is however necessary that the information or evidence produced should support the reasons relied on against the person or entity concerned (judgments of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraphs 121 and 122, and of 3 July 2014, National Iranian Tanker Company v Council, T‑565/12, EU:T:2014:608, paragraph 57).

56      It is in the light of those principles that it must be ascertained whether the Council erred in its assessment by finding that, in the present case, there was a sufficiently sound factual basis capable of justifying the inclusion, and then the maintenance, of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, on the ground that he is benefitting from and supporting the regime of President Lukashenko.

 The assessments that the applicant, along with his family members, developed a network of real estate companies in Belarus and, in particular, is closely associated with Dana Holdings and its former subsidiary Dana Astra, and represented those companies at meetings with President Lukashenko

57      As a preliminary point, it should be observed that, in his written pleadings, the applicant does not dispute the fact that his family members were involved in a number of companies engaged in real estate development projects in Belarus. He accepts that Dana Holdings and its subsidiaries, including Dana Astra, were owned by his family members – specifically, his children – and that those entities developed a number of real estate projects in Belarus, including Minsk World. By contrast, he denies any personal involvement in the management or ownership of those companies, and claims that the only connection between himself and those companies is the parent-child relationship with the owners of Dana Holdings and its subsidiaries. Furthermore, the applicant stresses that, at the end of 2020, Dana Holdings, together with its former subsidiary, Dana Astra, was sold, the current owner thereof being a company established in the United Arab Emirates.

58      In that connection, it is clear from the outset that, while it is true that, from a formal point of view, the applicant’s four children were referred to as being, until the end of 2020, the owners of Dana Holdings and its subsidiaries, including Dana Astra, it is apparent from various items of evidence produced by the Council that the ties existing between the applicant, Dana Holdings and its subsidiaries, including Dana Astra, do not consist merely of a parent-child relationship with the persons involved in the management of those entities, but that the applicant is connected to those entities by common economic interests.

59      Indeed, first, it should be observed that a number of items of evidence contained in documents WK 5817/2022 INIT and WK 5817/2022 ADD 1 show that Dana Holdings and its subsidiaries, including Dana Astra, are part of a larger entity, BK Group, the founder, co-owner and director of which is the applicant.

60      Thus, the article of 23 June 2015 published on the website ‘m.nashaniva.com’, the article of 13 May 2019 published on the website ‘belruspartisan.by’ and the article of 6 November 2020 drawn from the website ‘balkanist.ru’, produced as Exhibits Nos 1, 3 and 4 in document WK 5817/2022 INIT, identify the applicant not only as the founder, but also as the co-owner and director of BK Group Similarly, in the article of 13 January 2017, published on the website ‘europaproperty.com’ and produced as Exhibit No 4 in the document WK 5817/2022 ADD 1, the applicant is presented as Chairman of the Board of BK Group, which is described, in turn, as an international company encompassing all of the Karić family’s undertakings and also as one of the largest construction companies in Europe. As to Dana Holdings, that company is referred to in that article as being part of BK Group and described as the entity responsible for developing the Minsk World project in Minsk (Belarus), which is presented as one of the largest construction projects in the world, valued at several billion United States dollars (USD). The same article refers, moreover, to a statement made by the applicant, which he does not dispute, in which he himself presents Dana Holdings as part of BK Group.

61      As regards the applicant’s claim that BK Group is not a legal person, but a mere abbreviation of the word combination ‘Braća Karić’ – which, in Serbian, means the ‘Karić Brothers’ – used by the media, and also by members of the Karić family, to refer to any business ventures pursued by any member of the Karić family, it must be observed that that claim is contradicted by a number of items of evidence produced by the Council, such as those cited in the preceding paragraph.

62      It is in fact clear from that evidence that the applicant himself and his brother expressly stated that BK Group is a company the founder of which is the applicant. Thus, the article of 6 November 2020 published on the website ‘balkanist.ru’ and produced as Exhibit No 4 in the document WK 5817/2022 INIT quotes a public statement, made by the applicant’s brother, in which he expressly indicates that BK Group is a company the founder of which is the applicant. That statement was made in January 2020 by the applicant’s brother, at the reception held on behalf of BK Group, on the occasion of an award bestowed on Dana Holdings, which is part of BK Group, at the 50th anniversary of the World Economic Forum in Davos (Switzerland). Similarly, in the article of 13 January 2017, published on the website ‘europaproperty.com’ and produced as Exhibit No 4 in the document WK 5817/2022 ADD 1, the presentation of the applicant and BK Group, along with the latter group’s activities, refers, on the occasion of the applicant being named ‘Man of the Year’ in 2016, to a statement made by the applicant himself in which he not only makes reference to BK Group, but also associates himself with the activities of that entity.

63      Furthermore, it must be emphasised that the applicant is presented as the co-owner of BK Group and also as being closely associated, in that capacity, with the entity developing the Minsk World project, by a number of media outlets, including official sources linked to President Lukashenko. A press release dated 22 June 2015, published on the official website of the President of Belarus, ‘president.gov.by’, and produced as Exhibit No 2 in document WK 5817/2022 INIT, gives an account of a meeting between, on the one hand, President Lukashenko and, on the other hand, the applicant and his brother, concerning the development of the Minsk World project. In that press release, the applicant is presented as the co-owner of BK Group.

64      Finally and in any event, even if BK Group were not to be a legal entity per se, but merely a word combination used to refer as a whole to the companies with which the members of the Karić family are associated and through which they pursue their activities, it should be noted that that fact cannot call into question the existence of common economic interests, linking the applicant to a number of real estate companies that are owned by the Karić family, active in the real estate sector in Belarus, and include Dana Holdings and Dana Astra. On the contrary, the use of such a word combination, be it by the media or by the applicant himself and his family members, specifically shows there to be common economic interests between the applicant and those companies, which interests are established and publicly known.

65      Second, it should be noted that the applicant has publicly and repeatedly conducted himself like the director or, at the very least, the representative of the companies involved in the Minsk World project, in particular Dana Holdings and its subsidiaries, both in discussions with President Lukashenko and in the press and on his own social media channels.

66      In that connection, first of all, it should be pointed out that the applicant conducted himself like the director or, in any event, the representative of the companies involved in the Minsk World project, in discussions with President Lukashenko himself. It is therefore clear from the press release referred to in paragraph 63 above that, on 22 June 2015, the applicant, accompanied by his brother, met President Lukashenko to discuss the development of the Minsk World project. On that occasion, President Lukashenko stressed, further, that that project was of particular importance to Belarus. Such conduct, in a context where, moreover, President Lukashenko stated that ‘the Belarusian side will do its utmost to lift all brakes and use additional reserves if necessary’ in order to implement the Minsk World project, shows unequivocally that the existing links with the companies involved in the Minsk World project – namely Dana Holdings and its subsidiaries, including Dana Astra – are not confined to a mere parent-child relationship between the applicant and the individuals involved in the management of those entities. That conduct shows, on the contrary, involvement on the part of the applicant as regards, inter alia, the development and conduct of the Minsk World project and demonstrates that he did not confine himself, as he claims, to mere public support for the efforts of his family members – his children, in fact – who, moreover, were neither in attendance nor referred to during that meeting with President Lukashenko.

67      Next, it is clear that, in his statements to the press, the applicant similarly behaved as though he were the director of Dana Holdings and its subsidiaries or, in any event, as a person authorised to represent those entities. In the context of a video investigation into the activities of Dana Holdings and the preferential treatment that it allegedly received from the regime of President Lukashenko in Belarus, published on 12 September 2019 on the website of Belsat – an independent Belarusian television station – and produced as Exhibit No 7 in document WK 5817/2022 INIT, the applicant is portrayed as one of the co-owners of Dana Holdings, and answers questions from journalists on behalf of that company without stating, at any point, that that company is in fact owned by his children.

68      Finally, in a number of publications on his Instagram account, reproduced in an article dated 1 November 2019 published on the website ‘the-village.me’, produced as Exhibit No 6 in document WK 5817/2022 INIT, the applicant showed himself in front of the Minsk World real estate development project, and associated himself with that project through the use of possessive pronouns and adjectives such as ‘we’, ‘our buildings’ and even ‘our company’.

69      As to the applicant’s claim that, at the end of 2020, Dana Holdings and its former subsidiary, Dana Astra, were sold, their current owner being a company established in the United Arab Emirates, it should be stated that, in spite of the alleged change of ownership that took place in December 2020, the Council had available to it, at the time when the initial acts and the maintaining acts were adopted, a number of items of evidence demonstrating that common economic interests continued to exist between, on the one hand, the applicant and a number of his family members and, on the other hand, Dana Holdings and its former subsidiary Dana Astra.

70      In fact, first of all, when the initial acts were adopted, the Council had available, inter alia, the article dated 6 October 2021, published on the website ‘republika.rs’ of the Serbian online newspaper Telegraf and produced as Exhibit No 2 in document WK 5817/2022 ADD 1, which refers to a statement made by the applicant’s wife, in which she indicated, in response to the allegations made in the Belarusian press that the owners of Dana Holdings had had to flee Belarus, that ‘her husband’s companies [were operating] without any problems’ and sent a video showing that construction works were ongoing.

71      Moreover, the article published on 7 December 2021 on the website ‘nashaniva.com’ – an independent Belarusian news portal – produced as Exhibit No 10 in document WK 5817/2022 INIT, recounts a meeting that took place that same day between the applicant’s brother and President Lukashenko on the effects of the sanctions adopted in 2021 by the United States of America against Dana Holdings. It is apparent from that article that the applicant’s brother attended that meeting on 7 December 2021 – that is, a year after the change of ownership referred to in paragraph 69 above – as the co-owner of Dana Holdings. That article also identifies the applicant and other members of the Karić family as being, as at the same date, the other co-owners of Dana Holdings.

72      Furthermore, the article dated 25 May 2021, published on the website ‘occrp.org’, belonging, as the Council indicates, to the global network of investigative journalists ‘Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project’ (OCCRP), and headed ‘Lukashenko doles out prime Belarus real estate to Serbian cronies’, produced as Exhibit No 5 in document WK 5817/2022 INIT, reports that, in December 2020, ownership of three subsidiaries of Dana Holdings, all active in the construction sector in Belarus, was transferred to a company registered in the United Arab Emirates, the owner and director of which is presented as a close friend of the Karić family and a former executive director of Dana Holdings.

73      Next, when it adopted the maintaining acts, the Council also had additional evidence, contained in document WK 17511/2022 INIT, showing that, even as at that date and despite the alleged change of ownership of Dana Holdings and its subsidiaries, including Dana Astra, that took place in December 2020, common economic interests continued to exist between, on the one hand, the applicant and, on the other hand, Dana Holdings and its former subsidiary Dana Astra.

74      An article dated 11 October 2022 from the ‘Belarusian Investigative Center’, produced as Exhibit No 1 in document WK 17511/2022 INIT, explains that, in order to safeguard their assets, the members of the Karić family replaced the applicant’s children, then the owners of Dana Holdings, with a close friend of the family, presented by the applicant himself as follows: ‘We were born on the same street, [he] and I! We went from house to house, we grew up together and regardless of everything, the good and bad side of our politicians, we are still friends today and we still work together. We ate from the same plate in his house and mine.’ That statement made by the applicant, and published on a social media account belonging to the applicant, is quoted in that article, which also contains a hyperlink to that social media account. In the same article, it is stated, while providing supporting documents, that several offshore companies registered in Cyprus and owned by Dana Holdings were sold in December 2020 to a company registered in the United Arab Emirates, the owner and director of which is presented as a person who is a close friend of the Karić family. A photograph showing that director in the company of several members of the Karić family, including one of the applicant’s daughters, published on social media, is reproduced in that article.

75      Furthermore, it is apparent from the statement made by the applicant’s son, on 9 May 2023, produced by the applicant in annex to his statement of modification and which can be relied on against him to support the merits of the grounds underpinning the restrictive measures taken against him (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 February 2020, Ilunga Luyoyo v Council, T‑166/18, not published, EU:T:2020:50, paragraph 124 and the case-law cited) that, in spite of the alleged change of ownership of Dana Holdings, the applicant’s son remains the ultimate beneficiary of that company.

76      These elements constitute a sufficiently solid demonstration that, when the maintaining acts were adopted, common interests linking the applicant to Dana Holdings and to its former subsidiary Dana Astra continued to exist since the alleged changes in the ownership structure of Dana Holdings and its subsidiaries did not alter the control that the members of the Karić family – and, in particular, the applicant – exercised over those entities.

77      In that connection, it must be noted, in the first place, that the public statements and actions of a number of the applicant’s family members – including his wife, his brother and his son – such as those referred to in paragraphs 70, 71 and 75 above, all coincide on the fact that the applicant has remained closely associated with Dana Holdings and its subsidiaries following the alleged change of ownership of those entities in December 2020.

78      In the second place, it is clear that the information contained in the other items of evidence, referred to in paragraphs 72 and 74 above, is neither vague nor general but is, on the contrary, specific, precise and consistent, as well as being confirmed by the applicant himself and members of his immediate family.

79      Admittedly, it should be observed that the items of evidence produced by the Council do not show that the applicant was the shareholder or officially the director of Dana Holdings or of its subsidiaries, including Dana Astra, either when the initial acts were adopted or when the maintaining acts were adopted.

80      However, in that regard, first, it should be noted that, in the grounds of the contested acts, it is not claimed that the applicant is the official owner or director of Dana Holdings or of its former subsidiary Dana Astra. It is clear from the grounds of the contested acts, recalled in paragraph 9 above, that the applicant’s name was instead included then maintained on the lists at issue on account of his status as a businessperson in Belarus and his activities in the real estate sector, as well as his contacts with the family of President Lukashenko, which allowed companies with which he is closely associated, in particular Dana Holdings and Dana Astra, to receive preferential treatment from the regime of President Lukashenko.

81      Second, proof of the merits of the grounds for listing and maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists at issue is assessed in the light of the context of the restrictive measures. Thus, in a context that does not facilitate access to evidence and objective information, it is sufficient to produce a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 21 April 2015, Anbouba v Council, C‑630/13 P, EU:C:2015:247, paragraphs 51 to 53).

82      In that connection, difficulty in obtaining more specific evidence in a country such as Belarus which is characterised by a regime of an authoritarian nature must be taken into consideration. Furthermore, it should be noted that, in the absence of investigative powers in third countries, the assessment of the EU authorities must rely on publicly available sources of information, reports, articles in the press, intelligence reports or other similar sources of information (judgment of 14 March 2018, Kim and Others v Council and Commission, T‑533/15 and T‑264/16, EU:T:2018:138, paragraph 107; see also judgment of 1 June 2022, Prigozhin v Council, T‑723/20, not published, EU:T:2022:317, paragraph 59 and the case-law cited). Thus, according to the case-law, press articles may be used in order to corroborate the existence of certain facts if they are sufficiently specific, precise and consistent as regards the facts described (see judgments of 25 January 2017, Almaz-Antey Air and Space Defence v Council, T‑255/15, not published, EU:T:2017:25, paragraph 147 and the case-law cited, and of 14 March 2018, Kim and Others v Council and Commission, T‑533/15 and T‑264/16, EU:T:2018:138, paragraph 108 and the case-law cited). In that regard, it would be excessive and disproportionate to require the Council itself to investigate on the ground the accuracy of facts which are relayed by numerous media (judgment of 25 January 2017, Almaz-Antey Air and Space Defence v Council, T‑255/15, not published, EU:T:2017:25, paragraph 148).

83      In those circumstances, in the light of the context and in accordance with the case-law recalled in paragraphs 52 to 55 above, the items contained in the Council’s evidence files constitute a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence of the common economic interests linking the applicant with Dana Holdings and its subsidiaries, including Dana Astra, at the time when the contested acts were adopted, making it possible to regard the applicant as being closely associated with those entities.

84      It follows from the foregoing that the Council did not err in its assessment by considering, at the time when the contested acts were adopted, that the applicant has, together with his family members, developed a network of real estate companies in Belarus and, in particular, that he is closely associated with Dana Holdings and its former subsidiary Dana Astra, and that he has repeatedly represented those companies, including during meetings with President Lukashenko.

 The assessment that the applicant has, with his family members, cultivated a network of contacts with President Lukashenko and his entourage

85      In so far as concerns his relationship with President Lukashenko, it should be observed that, contrary to what is claimed by the applicant, the items of evidence produced by the Council demonstrate that there are close ties between, on the one hand, the applicant and his family members, in particular his brother; and, on the other hand, President Lukashenko.

86      It is in fact apparent from three journalistic investigations, published in March, May and June 2021, relating to the leading businesspersons operating in Belarus and their ties with the regime of President Lukashenko, produced by the Council as Exhibits Nos 5, 9 and 15 in document WK 5817/2022 INIT, that, since the mid-2000s, members of the Karić family, particularly the applicant and his brother, have forged links with President Lukashenko after their political rivals in Serbia began investigating their businesses in that country, and those links have become closer and contact more frequent.

87      The content of those journalistic investigations is, moreover, corroborated by other items of evidence.

88      First of all, as has been stated in paragraphs 63 and 66 above, on 22 June 2015, the applicant and his brother attended a meeting with President Lukashenko on the subject of the development of Minsk World project. At that meeting, President Lukashenko not only praised the activities of the company BK Group in Belarus – which company was, in his eyes, run by the applicant – but also publicly stated that ‘the Belarusian side will do its utmost to lift all the brakes and use additional reserves if necessary’ in order to implement the Minsk World project.

89      While the applicant maintains that he attended that meeting as a member of an official delegation of Serbian businesspersons and politicians, it should be observed, as the Council does, that such a claim is contradicted by the very content of the press release published on the official website of the President of Belarus, ‘president.gov.by’, and produced as Exhibit No 2 in document WK 5817/2022 INIT, in which it is stated that the applicant attended that meeting as the co-owner and director of BK Group, itself presented as the entity developing that project.

90      Next, it is apparent from the article dated 25 May 2021, published on the website ‘occrp.org’ and referred to in paragraph 72 above, that in 2019, at a press conference held following his meeting with the President of the Republic of Serbia, at which the applicant’s brother was also in attendance, President Lukashenko recalled having welcomed the Karić brothers to Belarus after they fled charges in Serbia, and he praised the success of Dana Astra, stating that it was ‘one of the most successful and one of the richest companies on the planet, which is creating miracles in construction’.

91      Finally, as is clear from paragraph 71 above, in December 2021 the applicant’s brother had a meeting with President Lukashenko to discuss the effects of the sanctions adopted by the United States of America against Dana Holdings. On that occasion, the applicant’s brother stated, inter alia, that ‘President Lukashenko [has] created ideal conditions for business, but today one has to work not directly, but through different countries’.

92      Consequently, the Council did not err in its assessment by considering that the applicant has, along with his family members, cultivated a network of contacts with President Lukashenko.

 The assessment that companies with which the applicant is associated received preferential treatment from the regime of President Lukashenko, including tax breaks and plots of land for real estate development

93      As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that, as has been stated in paragraph 35 above, the companies referred to in the statement of reasons for the contested acts and with which the applicant is associated are, in particular, Dana Holdings and its former subsidiary, Dana Astra.

94      As regards the preferential treatment received by Dana Holdings and Dana Astra from the regime of President Lukashenko, it should be noted that while the applicant acknowledges that those companies developed a number of real estate  projects in Belarus, including the Minsk World project, he nonetheless takes the view that, in the context of those projects, those entities did not receive any preferential treatment from the regime of President Lukashenko.

95      However, in that connection, it is clear from a number of items of evidence produced by the Council that the development of the Minsk World project, on account of its scale and its influence on the Belarusian economy, is of crucial importance to the regime of President Lukashenko and is especially revealing of the favours received by the entities Dana Holdings and its former subsidiary Dana Astra from that regime.

96      First, it is apparent from the article published on 13 January 2017 on the website ‘europaproperty.com’, produced as Exhibit No 4 in document WK 5817/2002 ADD 1, and from the journalistic investigation published on 2 June 2021 on the website of Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty and produced as Exhibit No 15 in document WK 5817/2022 INIT, that the Minsk World project is a very large real estate development project since it is a multifunctional centre intended to house administrative, commercial, sociocultural, sports and residential infrastructure, of a surface area of approximately 300 hectares developed by Dana Holdings on plots of land owned by the Belarusian State that are located in the centre of Minsk, on the basis of a public-private partnership between Dana Holdings and the Belarusian Government. Those articles state that the development of the Minsk World project was to involve significant investment of several billion United States dollars and that it is one of the biggest real estate development projects in Europe.

97      Second, several items of evidence attest to the importance of the Minsk World project for the regime of President Lukashenko.

98      First of all, the article published on 13 January 2017 on the website of the organisation Europa Property states that the Minsk World project is strategic for Belarus as it will place the country in the leading regional position, similar to Singapore (Singapore), Dubai (United Arab Emirates) and Hong Kong (China).

99      Next, it is apparent from various statements made by President Lukashenko himself that he has repeatedly stressed the importance of the Minsk World project for the Belarusian economy, together with the support provided by the regime to the companies associated with the applicant and involved in the development of the Minsk World project.

100    The press release published on the official website of the President of Belarus, ‘president.gov.by’, and referred to in paragraph 63 above, shows that at his meeting on 22 June 2015 with the applicant and his brother, President Lukashenko himself described that project as ‘an example of cooperation of the Slavonic world’ and stated that it could not be allowed to fail. At the same meeting, President Lukashenko also stated that ‘the Belarusian side will do its utmost to lift all the brakes and use additional reserves if necessary’ for the implementation of the Minsk World project.

101    Similarly, in 2019, at a press conference held following his meeting with the President of the Republic of Serbia, President Lukashenko recalled having welcomed the Karić brothers to Belarus after they fled charges in Serbia, and he praised the success of Dana Astra, stating that it was one of the most successful and probably one of the richest companies in the world, capable of creating miracles.

102    In the light of the content of those statements made by President Lukashenko himself, it must be held that, contrary to what the applicant claims, those statements demonstrate the support which the companies Dana Holdings and Dana Astra, owned by BK Group, received from the regime. Those statements not only praise the activities of those companies – in particular the development of the Minsk World project – but also attest, in completely unambiguous terms, to the commitment given by President Lukashenko on behalf of the Belarusian public authorities to facilitate the development of that project, which is being undertaken, as has been stated in paragraph 96 above, within the framework of a public-private partnership between the Belarusian State and the companies with which the applicant is associated.

103    Third, it must be stated that, in order to facilitate the development of the Minsk World project, Dana Astra obtained advantages and privileges from the regime. It is thus apparent from the article dated 25 May 2021, cited in paragraph 72 above, namely a journalistic investigation of the links between members of the Karić family and the regime of President Lukashenko, that in 2014, by decree of President Lukashenko, Dana Astra received 300 hectares of a value of approximately USD 800 million, unprecedented tax breaks and the use of the resources of the city of Minsk for the infrastructure of the Minsk World project.

104    The applicant nonetheless takes the view that such advantages received in the context of the development of the Minsk World project do not demonstrate any preferential treatment on the part of the regime of President Lukashenko since these are in line with Belarusian legislation.

105    In that connection, it is clear that the preferential treatment received from the regime of President Lukashenko by the entities developing the Minsk World project was confirmed by the judgment of 28 June 2023, Dana Astra v Council (T‑239/21, not published, EU:T:2023:364). In fact, in that judgment, the Court found that it had been shown that the development rights for plots of land – property of the State – which Dana Astra obtained, and the development of the Minsk World centre, resulted from favours from the regime of President Lukashenko. In particular, the Court recalled that, in a country such as Belarus, the development of a project of the magnitude of the Minsk World project is not possible without the endorsement of the regime of President Lukashenko. The Court ultimately found that the Council did not err in its assessment when it found that Dana Astra benefits from and supports the regime of President Lukashenko since it is one of the main real estate developers and constructors in Belarus which is still developing the Minsk World project on plots of land for which it has received development rights.

106    In the light of all of the foregoing, it must therefore be found that the Council did not err in its assessment by considering, in the contested acts, that the company Dana Holdings and its former subsidiary Dana Astra, with which the applicant is closely associated, received preferential treatment from the regime of President Lukashenko with the aim, inter alia, of facilitating the development of the Minsk World project.

 Whether the facts established by the Council demonstrate that the applicant benefits from and supports the regime of President Lukashenko

107    It follows from paragraphs 84, 92 and 106 above that the Council did not err in its assessment by finding that (i) the applicant is a businessperson who, together with his family members, developed a network of real estate companies in Belarus and, in particular, that he is closely associated with Dana Holdings and its former subsidiary Dana Astra and represented those companies during meetings with President Lukashenko; (ii) the applicant, together with his family members, cultivated a network of contacts with President Lukashenko and his entourage; and (iii) the companies Dana Holdings and Dana Astra, with which the applicant is closely associated, received preferential treatment from the regime of President Lukashenko, benefitting, inter alia, from tax breaks and plots of land for real estate development, in particular in the context of the development of the Minsk World project.

108    The applicant nonetheless takes the view that those factors do not demonstrate that he benefits from or supports the regime of President Lukashenko.

109    According to the applicant, the benefits allegedly received by Dana Holdings and its former subsidiary Dana Astra from, and the support allegedly given to, the regime of President Lukashenko cannot be regarded as the result of his relationship with President Lukashenko and, in any event, even if that were the case, he cannot be regarded as a person who personally benefits from or personally supports the regime of President Lukashenko, since he has never been the owner or director of Dana Holdings or its subsidiaries, including Dana Astra.

110    In that regard, it should be accepted that, admittedly, as has been recalled in paragraph 79 above, the items of evidence produced by the Council do not show that the applicant was the shareholder or officially the director of Dana Holdings or of its subsidiaries, including Dana Astra, at the time when the contested acts were adopted.

111    However, it should also be noted, first, that, in the grounds of the contested acts, it is not claimed that the applicant is the official owner or director of Dana Holdings or of its former subsidiary Dana Astra. It is clear from those grounds that the applicant’s name was included then maintained on the lists at issue on account of his status as a businessperson in Belarus and his activities in the real estate sector, as well as his contacts with the family of President Lukashenko, which allowed companies with which he is closely associated, in particular Dana Holdings and Dana Astra, to receive preferential treatment from the regime of President Lukashenko (see paragraph 80 above).

112    Second, as has been stated in paragraph 83 above, the exhibits contained in the Council’s evidence files constitute a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence allowing it to be found that, at the time when the contested acts were adopted, and in spite of the fact that the applicant was neither the official owner nor the director of Dana Holdings and Dana Astra, he was closely associated with those companies on account of common economic interests linking the applicant thereto.

113    Third, and contrary to what is claimed by the applicant, a number of items of evidence demonstrate, to the requisite legal standard, that the close relationships that the applicant and his brother formed, from the mid-2000s onwards, with President Lukashenko have been decisive for the position of the companies owned by members of the Karić family, which companies are active in the real estate sector in Belarus, and in particular for Dana Holdings and its former subsidiary Dana Astra, which were tasked with the development of the Minsk World project, the importance of which for the Belarusian economy was publicly highlighted by President Lukashenko himself.

114    It is in fact apparent from a number of the items of evidence produced by the Council that it is the applicant and his brother who have always had a privileged relationship with President Lukashenko, in particular with regard to the Minsk World project developed by Dana Holdings and its former subsidiary Dana Astra – the importance of which project has been stressed by the President himself – and not the official owners and directors of those entities. Furthermore the applicant has publicly and repeatedly conducted himself like the director or, at the very least, the representative authorised to assume commitments on behalf of the real estate companies owned by the Karić family in Belarus, including Dana Holdings and its subsidiaries, in both the discussions with President Lukashenko himself and in the press or on his own social media channels.

115    All of those factors constitute a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence allowing it to be found that it is on account of the close relationships between, on the one hand, the applicant and his family members, in particular his brother and, on the other hand, President Lukashenko, that the company Dana Holdings and its subsidiaries, including Dana Astra, received preferential treatment from the regime of President Lukashenko, in particular in the context of the development of the Minsk World project.

116    Furthermore, it must be pointed out that it is clear from recital 6 of Decision 2012/642 that the Council considered that, given the gravity of the situation in Belarus, the restrictive measures imposed on that country should be extended to persons supporting the regime of President Lukashenko, ‘in particular persons providing financial or material support to the regime’. It follows that the concept of ‘support to the regime’ in terms of the criterion at issue does not encompass only financial or material support to the regime of President Lukashenko, but that it refers to any form of support to that regime (judgment of 28 June 2023, Dana Astra v Council, T‑239/21, not published, EU:T:2023:364, paragraph 76).

117    In the judgment of 28 June 2023, Dana Astra v Council (T‑239/21, not published, EU:T:2023:364), the Court held, in paragraph 77, that having regard to the size and prestigious nature of the Minsk World project for the regime, confirmed by the public statements made by President Lukashenko himself, and the particular importance of that project to the Belarus economy, those factors demonstrate support to the regime of President Lukashenko.

118    In the present case, taking into consideration (i) the applicant’s involvement as a businessperson both in establishing and maintaining a close relationship with President Lukashenko and in conducting the Minsk World project, and (ii) the common economic interests between the applicant and the entities referred to in the contested acts, the applicant can be regarded as a person who is benefitting from and supporting the regime of President Lukashenko.

 The relevance of the facts on which the contested acts are based

119    The applicant submits, finally, that, in any event, the evidence produced by the Council fails to substantiate any temporally relevant conduct justifying the adoption of the contested acts. In that regard, the applicant states, first, that the conduct on which the Council relies is all historic and, second, that several sources on which the Council relies have recently reported a breakdown in the relations between the companies said to be associated with the applicant and the Belarusian government, including President Lukashenko, owing to their inability to carry on their activities following the restrictive measures adopted against them.

120    As regards, in the first place, the argument that the items of evidence produced by the Council fail to substantiate the existence of any temporally relevant conduct justifying the adoption of the contested acts, it should be stated that the reference, in the grounds of the contested acts, to facts that occurred before the adoption of those acts, does not necessary mean that the restrictive measures taken against the applicant by those acts are outdated. Indeed, in order to establish that the applicant is benefitting from or supporting the regime of President Lukashenko, such reference cannot, as a matter of principle, be deemed to be of no relevance solely because certain conduct dates from the more or less remote past (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 February 2020, Boshab v Council, T‑171/18, not published, EU:T:2020:55, paragraph 84 and the case-law cited).

121    That interpretation is supported by Article 8 of Decision 2012/642, under which that decision is to be kept under constant review and is to be renewed or amended, as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met, and by Article 8a(4) of Regulation No 765/2006, pursuant to which the list in Annex I to that regulation is to be reviewed at regular intervals and at least every 12 months. If those provisions are not to be rendered redundant, they must be considered to allow the continued inclusion on the lists at issue of the names of persons and entities not having committed any act which shows that they benefit from or support the regime of President Lukashenko during the period preceding the review, if that continued inclusion is still justified in the light of all the relevant circumstances and, in particular, of the fact that the objectives pursued by the restrictive measures have not been achieved (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 February 2020, Boshab v Council, T‑171/18, not published, EU:T:2020:55, paragraph 85 and the case-law cited).

122    In the present case, it must be held that while, admittedly, the Council took into consideration factual elements that date back to the mid-2000s when the relationship between, on the one hand, the applicant and his brother, and, on the other hand, President Lukashenko, began, those factual elements from the past are part of a timeline and a continuity of facts showing that the applicant is closely associated with Dana Holdings and Dana Astra, and that he benefitted from and supported the regime of President Lukashenko during the periods preceding the adoption of the contested acts, and that the Council relied on those factual elements as a whole in order to justify including, then maintaining, the applicant’s name on the lists at issue.

123    In so far as concerns, in the second place, the applicant’s argument that the restrictive measures taken against Dana Holdings and Dana Astra led to those companies being unable to carry on their activities and the breakdown in relations with the regime of President Lukashenko on account of that inability, suffice it to state that that claim is contradicted by the statements made by a member of the applicant’s family. As has been stated in paragraph 70 above, in October 2021 – that is to say, subsequent to the adoption of the initial restrictive measures against Dana Holdings and Dana Astra – in response to allegations that the owners of Dana Holdings had had to flee Belarus, the applicant’s wife stated that her husband’s companies were operating there without any problems and sent a 58-second video to journalists from the Serbian online newspaper Telegraf showing construction works, diggers and cranes.

124    Furthermore, when the maintaining acts were adopted, the Council had additional evidence showing that, as at that date, Dana Holdings was pursuing its activities in Belarus. It is thus apparent from the website of the exhibition Moscow’s Premier International Real Estate Show (MPIRES) – to which the Council referred, by means of a URL link, in its defence – that Dana Holdings had announced that it would be amongst the participants in that exhibition, which was to be held in Moscow (Russia) in October and November 2023. On that website, Dana Holdings is presented, inter alia, as a company developing a number of real estate projects in Belarus, including the Minsk World project, which is ongoing.

125    In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the second plea, alleging errors of assessment, must therefore be rejected.

 The third plea, alleging disproportionate interference with the applicant’s fundamental rights

126    By his third plea in law, the applicant claims that the contested acts infringe the principle of proportionality and involve disproportionate interference with his fundamental rights.

127    In that connection, the applicant recalls that he was included on the lists at issue for conduct allegedly carried out through or by corporate entities with which he is said to be associated, primarily Dana Holdings and Dana Astra. Those entities have themselves, it is argued, been included on the lists at issue, pursuant to Article 4(1)(b) of Decision 2012/642, and it is apparent from the Council’s evidence that the freezing of the assets of Dana Holdings and Dana Astra has effectively led to the cessation of their operations in Belarus, thereby removing any potential benefit from or support provided to the regime of President Lukashenko. Moreover, the company Dana Astra has been included on a list of legal persons considered hostile to the regime of President Lukashenko and subject to restrictions on the disposal of its shares. According to the applicant, those acts, in so far as they are directed at him personally, therefore constitute a disproportionate interference with his fundamental rights and are redundant since the objective pursued by those acts has already been achieved by other measures.

128    The Council disputes the applicant’s arguments.

129    It should be recalled, first of all, that while respect for fundamental rights is a condition for the lawfulness of EU acts, it follows from settled case-law that, by adopting acts coming within the common foreign and security policy (CFSP), the Council may, in principle, limit the right of third-country nationals to freedom of movement and residence within the European Union, and impose restrictive economic or financial measures. However, it is appropriate to ascertain whether the Council acted in accordance with the principle of proportionality (see, to that effect, judgment of 24 May 2023, Lyubetskaya v Council, T‑556/21, not published, EU:T:2023:283, paragraph 75 and the case-law cited).

130    The principle of proportionality is one of the general principles of EU law and requires that measures implemented through EU law be appropriate to attaining the legitimate objectives pursued by the legislation at issue and not go beyond what is necessary to achieve them (see judgment of 13 March 2012, Melli Bank v Council, C‑380/09 P, EU:C:2012:137, paragraph 52 and the case-law cited).

131    In the present case, it must be held that, contrary to what the applicant claims, there is a reasonable relationship between the restrictive measures taken again him and the objective pursued thereby.

132    First, it should be observed that, by way of the restrictive measures adopted, inter alia, pursuant to the listing criterion at issue, the Council seeks to put pressure on the regime of President Lukashenko to put an end to its policies and activities the result of which is the continued lack of respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Belarus, which chimes with the objectives of the CFSP, in particular those referred to in Article 21(2)(b) TEU.

133    In that context, the adoption, by the Council, of restrictive measures against the applicant – who is identified as a person benefitting from or supporting the regime of President Lukashenko on account of his activities as a businessperson in Belarus and of his close relationship with President Lukashenko – cannot be regarded as a disproportionate restriction in the light of the objective pursued by those restrictive measures, pursuant to the listing criterion at issue.

134    Second, the measures at issue are temporary and reversible.

135    First of all, in accordance with Article 8 of Decision 2012/642 and Article 8a(4) of Regulation No 765/2006, the maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue is to be kept under constant review in order to determine whether the maintenance of the applicant’s designation is compatible with the listing criterion at issue.

136    Next, Article 5 of Decision 2012/642 and Article 3 of Regulation No 765/2006 provide for the possibility of (i) authorising the use of frozen funds in order to meet basic needs or to meet certain commitments, and (ii) granting specific authorisations permitting the release of funds, other financial assets or other economic resources.

137    It follows that the restrictive measures taken by the contested acts against the applicant comply with the principle of proportionality.

138    That finding cannot be called into question by the applicant’s line of argument that, in essence, the objective pursued by the contested acts has already been achieved by other measures, since (i) the entities with which he is associated have themselves been included on the lists at issue, pursuant to Article 4(1)(b) of Decision 2012/642 and that the freezing of the assets of those entities has effectively led to the cessation of their operations in Belarus, thus negating any potential benefit from or support provided to the regime of President Lukashenko, and (ii) the company Dana Astra has been included on the list of legal persons considered hostile to the regime of President Lukashenko and subject to restrictions on the disposal of its shares.

139    In the first place, it should be recalled that, contrary to the applicant’s claims, it is apparent from the items of evidence produced by the Council, referred to in paragraphs 123 and 124 above, that the freezing of the funds and financial assets of the companies Dana Holdings and Dana Astra by the Council has not led to the cessation of the operations of those companies in Belarus.

140    In the second place, the fact that Dana Astra might have been placed on the list of legal persons considered hostile to the regime of President Lukashenko by that regime from 1 July 2022 onwards cannot be regarded as relevant in so far as concerns the initial acts, since it clearly refers to a purported change in situation which occurred after the adoption of the contested acts. The legality of an EU act must be assessed on the basis of the facts and the law as they stood at the time when the act was adopted (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 April 2021, Al-Tarazi v Council, T‑260/19, not published, EU:T:2021:187, paragraph 69 and the case-law cited).

141    That fact is also not such as to affect the legality of the maintaining acts since the applicant confines himself to referring to the inclusion of Dana Astra on the list of Belarusian legal entities the shareholders of which are foreign legal or natural persons from foreign States regarded as committing hostile acts against Belarus, and who are prohibited from transferring their shares or units in authorised funds, without producing the slightest proof of the actual and harmful consequences of such a listing on the activity of that entity in Belarus.

142    As has been stated in paragraph 124 above, when the maintaining acts were adopted, the Council had an item of evidence showing that, as at that date, Dana Holdings was pursuing its activities in Belarus, including the development of the Minsk World project.

143    In the light of all of the foregoing, the third plea in law must be rejected and, accordingly, the action dismissed in its entirety.

 Costs

144    Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.

145    In the present case, since the applicant has been unsuccessful, he must be ordered to pay the costs in accordance with the form of order sought by the Council.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber)

hereby:

1.      Dismisses the action;

2.      Orders Mr Bogoljub Karić to pay the costs.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 6 November 2024.

*      Language of the case: English.

© European Union
The source of this judgment is the Europa web site. The information on this site is subject to a information found here: Important legal notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.