European General Court Rejects Challenges to Restrictions on Belarus Wood, Iron and Steel Sectors
The European General Court in a pair of decisions on March 6 rejected challenges to the EU's restrictions on wood and iron and steel products from Belarus. The court, in virtually identical opinions, rejected a trio of claims from Belarusian wood company AAT Mostovdrev and iron and steel company AAT Byelorussian Steel Works challenging the European Council's reasons for imposing the restrictions and infringement of the right to "effective judicial protection," alleged failure to observe the "principle of equal treatment," and imposition of measures disproportionately affecting the wood and iron and steel industries.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
First addressing the companies' claims on their right to judicial protection, the court rejected them as inadmissible since they were "not substantiated by any argument whatsoever." Turning to the second part of this claim, which attacked the council for not forwarding sufficient reasons for the restrictions, the court said the sectoral sanctions were adequately backed.
The objective of the restrictions was to "put pressure on the Republic of Belarus to refrain from any involvement in the aggression against Ukraine and to incentivise it to abide by its international obligations," the court noted. This justification is supported, and there is no evidence showing that the objective of the restrictions was the removal of the Belarusian regime, as claimed by the companies, the court said.
In addition, the "Council was not required to provide a specific statement of reasons regarding the choice of the wood products sector," one opinion said. "Due to the "political context prevailing at the date of adoption of the restrictive measures," the council's choice to adopt restrictions can be readily "understood in light of the declared objective" and to "abide by its international obligations," it said. The court found the same to be true of the iron and steel sectors.
In their second claim, the companies said the council failed to apply equal treatment to the wood and iron and steel sectors compared with other sectors. The court found in both cases that the companies failed to refer to any other sector that might be in a comparable situation, adding that "it does not appear that the Council exceeded its broad discretion having regard to the general objective which it intends to achieve or that it failed to observe the principle of equal treatment."
Lastly, regarding the disproportionality of the measures, the court found that "given that the restrictive measures provided for in the contested provision do not individually target the applicant, but relate generally to the wood products sector, it is not necessary for a link between the applicant and the events in Ukraine or the Belarusian regime to be established."