# C_2011046EN.01000202.xml

| 12.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/2

---

Appeal brought on 22 November 2010 by Stichting Al-Aqsa against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 9 September 2010 in Case T-348/07 Al-Aqsa v Council of the European Union

(Case C-539/10 P)

2011/C 46/03

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Stichting Al-Aqsa (represented by: A.M. van Eik and M.J.G. Uiterwaal, advocaten)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment delivered by the General Court on 9 September 2010 in Case T-348/07 in so far as the appellant puts forward grounds of appeal and arguments directed against the grounds of that judgment, and give a new ruling upholding the claims put forward at first instance on improved grounds as compared with those on which the judgment under appeal is based; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment delivered by the General Court on 9 September 2010 in Case T-348/07 in so far as the appellant puts forward grounds of appeal and arguments directed against the grounds of that judgment, and give a new ruling upholding the claims put forward at first instance on improved grounds as compared with those on which the judgment under appeal is based;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | In its judgment of 9 September 2010 (in Case T-348/07), the General Court found that, since the Sanctieregeling (Sanctieregeling terrorisme 2003) [Regulation on sanctions for the suppression of terrorism (‘the Sanctieregeling’)] on the basis of which the appellant had been included in the list had been repealed, an order of the court hearing an application for interim measures did not provide an adequate basis for continuing to include the appellant in the list. The appellant (hereinafter also referred to as ‘Al-Aqsa’) shares those views of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In its judgment of 9 September 2010 (in Case T-348/07), the General Court found that, since the Sanctieregeling (Sanctieregeling terrorisme 2003) [Regulation on sanctions for the suppression of terrorism (‘the Sanctieregeling’)] on the basis of which the appellant had been included in the list had been repealed, an order of the court hearing an application for interim measures did not provide an adequate basis for continuing to include the appellant in the list. The appellant (hereinafter also referred to as ‘Al-Aqsa’) shares those views of the General Court.

| 2. | However, the General Court included certain grounds in its judgment on the basis of which certain pleas put forward by Al-Aqsa were rejected as unfounded. Thus, the General Court held that the Sanctieregeling, in conjunction with the order of the court hearing the application for interim measures, can be regarded as a decision of a competent national authority meeting the definition contained in Article 1(4) of the CP (Common Position 2001/931). Further, the General Court found that ‘knowledge’ within the meaning of Article 1(3)(k) of the CP, and as required by Article 1(4) of Regulation No 2580/2001, (1) can be established in regard to Al-Aqsa. |
| --- | --- |

2.

However, the General Court included certain grounds in its judgment on the basis of which certain pleas put forward by Al-Aqsa were rejected as unfounded. Thus, the General Court held that the Sanctieregeling, in conjunction with the order of the court hearing the application for interim measures, can be regarded as a decision of a competent national authority meeting the definition contained in Article 1(4) of the CP (Common Position 2001/931). Further, the General Court found that ‘knowledge’ within the meaning of Article 1(3)(k) of the CP, and as required by Article 1(4) of Regulation No 2580/2001, (1) can be established in regard to Al-Aqsa.

1

| 3. | The appellant takes issue with those grounds and has therefore brought this appeal. Before setting out its grounds of appeal, the appellant addresses the admissibility of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The appellant takes issue with those grounds and has therefore brought this appeal. Before setting out its grounds of appeal, the appellant addresses the admissibility of the appeal.

| 4. | The appellant’s grounds of appeal can be summarised as follows. First, the General Court exceeded its powers of review by itself determining the evidence that was to be regarded as a decision within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the CP (first ground of appeal). |
| --- | --- |

4.

The appellant’s grounds of appeal can be summarised as follows. First, the General Court exceeded its powers of review by itself determining the evidence that was to be regarded as a decision within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the CP (first ground of appeal).

| 5. | Further, the General Court erred in deciding that the Sanctieregeling — whether or not in conjunction with the order of the court hearing the application for interim measures — can be regarded as a decision within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the CP (second ground of appeal). |
| --- | --- |

5.

Further, the General Court erred in deciding that the Sanctieregeling — whether or not in conjunction with the order of the court hearing the application for interim measures — can be regarded as a decision within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the CP (second ground of appeal).

| 6. | Finally, the General Court exceeded its powers by itself interpreting the order, or in any event it made a manifest error of assessment in interpreting the order (third ground of appeal). |
| --- | --- |

6.

Finally, the General Court exceeded its powers by itself interpreting the order, or in any event it made a manifest error of assessment in interpreting the order (third ground of appeal).

| 7. | Consequently, Al-Aqsa’s application should be granted and the contested decisions should be annulled on improved grounds as compared with those on which the judgment under appeal is based. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Consequently, Al-Aqsa’s application should be granted and the contested decisions should be annulled on improved grounds as compared with those on which the judgment under appeal is based.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70).

1

---