# C_2011072EN.01000902.xml

| 5.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/9

---

Appeal brought on 16 December 2010 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2010 in Case T-85/09: Yassin Abdullah Kadi v European Commission

(Case C-593/10 P)

2011/C 72/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop, E. Finnegan and R. Szostak, Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Yassin Abdullah Kadi, European Commission, French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court in case T-85/09; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court in case T-85/09;

| — | Dismiss the respondent's application for the annulment of Commission Regulation 1190/2008 (1) in so far as it concerns him, as unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Dismiss the respondent's application for the annulment of Commission Regulation 1190/2008 (1) in so far as it concerns him, as unfounded;

1

| — | Order the respondent to bear the costs of proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the respondent to bear the costs of proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this Appeal the Council seeks to challenge several determinations of the General Court. The Council argues that:

| — | The General Court erred in law in considering that the Contested Regulation did not benefit from an immunity of jurisdiction; |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in law in considering that the Contested Regulation did not benefit from an immunity of jurisdiction;

In the alternative, the Council argues that:

| — | The General Court misconstrued and misapplied the case-law of the Court of Justice in considering that the review to be carried out should be ‘full and rigorous’ and in requiring the transmission of underlying evidence to the designated person or entity as well as to the Union judicature in order to ensure respect for that person or entity's rights of defence; and |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court misconstrued and misapplied the case-law of the Court of Justice in considering that the review to be carried out should be ‘full and rigorous’ and in requiring the transmission of underlying evidence to the designated person or entity as well as to the Union judicature in order to ensure respect for that person or entity's rights of defence; and

full and rigorous

| — | The General Court erred in law in failing to give due regard to the creation by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1904(2009) of the Office of the Ombudsperson. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in law in failing to give due regard to the creation by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1904(2009) of the Office of the Ombudsperson.

---

(1)  OJ L 322, p. 25

1

---