Case C-110/12 P(R): Presidents of the Union Courts reject ‘right to life’ claim for interim relief

24/07/12

The President of the Court of Justice on 19 July 2012 rejected an appeal against the decision of the President of the General Court in Case T-579/11 R to refuse to grant interim measures suspending the EU Council's decision to designate the Appellant as a supporter of the Assad regime. The Appellant categorically denies that he supports the regime. The Appellant applied for interim measures on the basis that the suspension of his designation and the publication of that suspension were needed urgently so as to prevent fatal violence to him and his family. The Appellant put forward evidence by way of a statement accompanied by police reports detailing various attempts on his life and the lives of his family, which began after the Appellant's designation was covered around the clock on Arab television. No opposing evidence was put forward by the Council.

The President of the General Court found that the Appellant had a strong prima facie case for annulment of the contested measures, but refused the application for interim measures, holding that the Appellant had not established the requisite urgency. He held that the Appellant had not met the standard of proof by adducing sufficient ‘hard evidence' linking the attacks to his designation. The President also noted that even the annulment of the contested measures at the conclusion of the main proceedings would not have the immediate and automatic effect of removing the Appellant's name from the list of designated individuals, because of the effect of Article 60(2) of the Statue of the Court of Justice.

The Appellant appealed to the President of the Court of Justice arguing inter alia that the President of the General Court had erred in holding that a strong prima facie case was not of itself sufficient for the grant of interim measures, had applied the wrong standard of proof, and had erred in his construction of Article 60(2) of the Statute of the Court. The President of the Court of Justice rejected the appeal, affirming the orthodox position that the requirements for interim relief are cumulative and that the strength of the substantive case is not of itself sufficient in the absence of urgency; he also refused to disturb the President's assessment of the evidence. The President of the Court of Justice did however remark obiter that there might be merit in the Appellant's argument that Article 60(2) of the Statute of the Court does not apply to generally applicable measures which impose restrictive measures on individuals. If this is accepted, this would mean that the designations of successful applicants before the General Court will be annulled immediately with the result that they immediately regain access to their frozen funds, with such annulment not awaiting the outcome of any appeal to the Court of Justice.

The judgment is here.