# C_2006294EN.01003201.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/32

---

Appeal brought on 27 September 2006 by Chafiq Ayadi against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2006 in Case T-253/02: Chafiq Ayadi v Council of the European Union

(Case C-403/06 P)

(2006/C 294/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Chafiq Ayadi (represented by: H. Miller, Solicitor and S. Cox, Barrister)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Commission of the European Communities

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should order that:

| — | the decision of the Court of First Instance is set aside, in whole; |
| --- | --- |

—

the decision of the Court of First Instance is set aside, in whole;

| — | it is declared that Articles 2 and 4 and Annex 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 (1) are invalid insofar as they are of direct and individual concern to the Appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

it is declared that Articles 2 and 4 and Annex 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 (1) are invalid insofar as they are of direct and individual concern to the Appellant;

1

| — | the Council pay the Appellant's costs of this appeal and of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Council pay the Appellant's costs of this appeal and of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law in:

| a) | failing to hold that Article 308 EC, in conjunction with Articles 60 EC and 301 EC, did not confer power on the Council to make the impugned provisions; |
| --- | --- |

a)

failing to hold that Article 308 EC, in conjunction with Articles 60 EC and 301 EC, did not confer power on the Council to make the impugned provisions;

| b) | failing to hold that the making of the impugned powers infringed the fundamental principle of subsidiarity and/or Article 5 EC second paragraph; |
| --- | --- |

b)

failing to hold that the making of the impugned powers infringed the fundamental principle of subsidiarity and/or Article 5 EC second paragraph;

| c) | failing to hold that an essential procedureal requirement has been infringed in the making of the impugned provisions, namely the requirement that the Council state adequate reasons why the measures considered necessary cannot be determined by individual Member States. |
| --- | --- |

c)

failing to hold that an essential procedureal requirement has been infringed in the making of the impugned provisions, namely the requirement that the Council state adequate reasons why the measures considered necessary cannot be determined by individual Member States.

| d) | holding that decisions of the Security Council of the United Nations ('UNSC') which call upon Member States of the United Nations are binding on the Member States and/or upon the Community; |
| --- | --- |

d)

holding that decisions of the Security Council of the United Nations ('UNSC') which call upon Member States of the United Nations are binding on the Member States and/or upon the Community;

| e) | holding that the Community courts can only annul a Community measure implementing a UNSC decision by reference to the standard of ius cogens and in failing to hold that it can annul such a measure in order to protect human rights recognised in the legal order of the United Nations; |
| --- | --- |

e)

holding that the Community courts can only annul a Community measure implementing a UNSC decision by reference to the standard of ius cogens and in failing to hold that it can annul such a measure in order to protect human rights recognised in the legal order of the United Nations;

ius cogens

| f) | failing to hold that the impugned parts of Regulation 881/2002 infringe the Appellant's human rights. |
| --- | --- |

f)

failing to hold that the impugned parts of Regulation 881/2002 infringe the Appellant's human rights.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan

1

OJ L 139, p. 9

---