Here’s a breakdown of the General Court’s judgment in Case T-238/24, *Bogoljub Karić v Council*:
**1. Essence of the Act**
This judgment concerns the legality of EU sanctions imposed on Mr. Bogoljub Karić, a Serbian businessman and politician, due to his alleged links to the Lukashenko regime in Belarus and Belarus’s involvement in the Russian aggression against Ukraine. The General Court dismisses Mr. Karić’s action, upholding the Council’s decision to maintain his name on the EU’s list of sanctioned individuals. The Court finds that the Council provided sufficient reasons for maintaining the sanctions and did not commit errors of assessment in concluding that Mr. Karić benefits from and supports the Lukashenko regime.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions**
The judgment addresses Mr. Karić’s challenge to Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/769 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/768, which extended restrictive measures against him.
* **Background:** The judgment outlines the history of EU restrictive measures against Belarus, initially focused on human rights and democracy, and later expanded to address Belarus’s role in the Russian aggression against Ukraine. Mr. Karić was initially added to the sanctions list in 2022.
* **Applicant’s Arguments:** Mr. Karić raised two main pleas:
* Infringement of his right to effective judicial protection and the obligation to state reasons.
* Errors of assessment by the Council in concluding that he benefits from or supports the Lukashenko regime.
* **Court’s Analysis:**
* **Statement of Reasons:** The Court found that the Council provided an adequate statement of reasons, clearly identifying the criteria for sanctions (benefitting from or supporting the Lukashenko regime) and the specific reasons for Mr. Karić’s listing.
* **Errors of Assessment:** The Court rejected Mr. Karić’s arguments, finding that the Council had a sufficiently solid factual basis to conclude that he benefits from and supports the Lukashenko regime. This was based on his ties to real estate companies in Belarus (particularly Dana Holdings and Dana Astra), his family’s network of contacts with Lukashenko, and the preferential treatment these companies received from the regime.
* **Dismissal:** The Court dismissed the action and ordered Mr. Karić to pay the costs.
**3. Main Provisions Important for Use**
* **Burden of Proof:** The judgment reiterates that the Council bears the burden of proving that the reasons for imposing sanctions are well-founded.
* **Standard of Review:** The Court emphasizes that it must ensure that the Council’s decision is based on a sufficiently solid factual basis and that it must verify the factual allegations in the statement of reasons.
* **Assessment of Evidence:** The Court assesses evidence not in isolation but in context, considering its specificity, precision, and consistency.
* **Preventive Nature of Sanctions:** The judgment acknowledges the precautionary and provisional nature of restrictive measures, emphasizing the need for the Council to conduct updated assessments to determine whether the measures are still justified.
* **”Benefitting From or Supporting”:** The Court clarifies that the listing criterion of “benefitting from or supporting” the Lukashenko regime is not limited to direct financial or material support but encompasses any form of support.
* **Relevance of Past Events:** The Court confirms that past events can be relevant in justifying the maintenance of sanctions, provided that the grounds for listing remain unchanged and the context has not changed in such a way that the evidence is now out of date.
**:** This case is related to the EU’s restrictive measures against Belarus due to the situation in the country and its involvement in the Russian aggression against Ukraine. This means that the judgment has implications for individuals and entities associated with the Belarusian regime and for the EU’s foreign policy towards Belarus and Ukraine.
