Judgment of the General Court Seventh Chamber of 27 April 2022, Ilunga Luyoyo v Council, T-108/21

• Date: 27 April 2022
• Year: 2022

62

9. COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY: RESTRICTIVE

MEASURES

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 April 2022, Ilunga Luyoyo v

Council, T-108/21

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in the

Democratic Repu blic of the Congo – Free zing of funds – Restriction on admission to the territory of the

Member States – Retention of the applicant’s name o n the lists of persons covered – Proo f that inclusion

and retention on the lists is well founded – Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led

to the adoption of the restrictive measures

In response to the deteriorating security situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and

the worsening of the political situation in that country at the end of 2016, the Council had adopted, on

12 December 2016, Decision 2016/2231 and Regulation 2016/2230,

119

which provide, inter alia, for

the freezing of funds and economic resources belonging to persons involved in acts undermining the

rule of law in the DRC or constituting serious human rights violations.

The applicant’s name, Mr Ilunga Luyoyo, was initially included on the lists of persons covered by those

restrictive measures in 2016. By Decision 2020/2033 and Regulation 2020/2021,

120

the Council

maintained that listing,

121

on the grounds that, as the commander of an anti-riot unit (the LNI) until

2017 and the commander of a unit responsible for the protection of institutions and high-ranking

officials (the UPIHP) until December 2019, the applicant bore responsibility for human rights

violations committed by the Congolese National Police (PNC), which had made disproportionate use

of force and violent repression in September 2016 in Kinshasa. The Council had added that Mr Ilunga

Luyoyo had retained his rank of General and remained active on the public scene in the DRC.

Mr Ilunga Luyoyo claimed that the Council had committed a manifest error of assessment, given that

he had not held a position within the PNC since 2019 and that he no longer carried out any specific

public duties. He maintained, inter alia, that his former positions could not justify the decision to

maintain his name on the lists in question.

The General Court upholds the action for annulment brought by Mr Ilunga Luyoyo, since the Council

was unable to establish that the maintenance of the restrictive measures against him was justified, in

particular in the light of changes in his personal situation since the initial inclusion of his name on the

lists at issue.

Findings of the Court

The Court points out, first of all, that the EU judicature must ensure that a decision imposing

restrictive measures is taken on a sufficiently solid factual basis. To that end, in so far as it is for the

competent EU au thority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the reasons relied on against the

119

Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 o f 12 December 2016 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the

Democratic Rep ublic of the Congo (OJ 2016 L 336I, p. 7) and Council Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 of 12 December 2016 amending Council

Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain s pecific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms

embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2016 L 336I, p. 1)

120

Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 o f 10 December 2020 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the

Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 30) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020

implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing c ertain specific restrictive me asures directed against p ersons acting in

violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 5); ‘the contested acts’.

121

As had already been the case on three occasion s. See, in that regard, judgment of 12 February 2020, Ilunga Luyoyo v Council (T-166/18, not

published, EU:T:2020 :50); judgment of 3 February 2021, Ilunga Luyoyo v Council (T-124/19, no t published, EU:T:2021:63); and judgment of

15 September 2021, Ilunga Luyoyo v Council (T-101/20, not published, EU:T:2021:575).