Insights

EU court confirms sanctions on Zimbabwean officials

No items found.
April 22, 2015

The CJEU has confirmed the sanctions imposed on a number of Zimbabwean officials, including the Attorney-General, rejecting an application for annulment of their listing.

The Council had imposed sanctions (freezing of funds and ban on entry into or transit through EU territory) on Zimbabwean individuals and corporations in view of the alleged human rights infringements of the country’s government. Mr Tomana (the Attorney-General of Zimbabwe), 109 other individuals and 11 companies applied for annulment of their listing. The reasons for the listings generally ran along the lines of allegedly undermining democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law.

The CJEU held as follows:

  • As to the absence of an adequate legal basis for the listing, the measures were imposed because of alleged conduct which was part of a strategy of intimidation and systematic violation of the fundamental rights of the Zimbabwean people, responsibility for which the Council assigned to the leaders of that country. Moreover, the majority of the applicants occupied positions which characterised them as leaders of Zimbabwe or associates of those leaders. That ground alone justified their listing.
  • As to the infringement of the obligation to state reasons, with respect to the majority of the applicants the reference to the posts which they were occupying when the contested acts were adopted (or which they had occupied in the past) was in itself sufficient to justify their listing. With respect to the others, a reference to specific conduct imputed to them was required, and this had been provided here.
  • As to a manifest error of assessment, it was not correct to state that the measures could be imposed only on individuals or companies whose activities seriously undermined human rights in Zimbabwe. The measures were also directed against “members of the Government of Zimbabwe” and “any natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them”. Such a status was therefore in itself sufficient to justify the listing.

Case T‑190/12 Tomana v Council and Commission, 22 April 2015