# C_2004262EN.01002802.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/28

---

Action brought on 25 June 2004 by Zubeyir Aydar on behalf of Kongra-Gel and 10 others against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-253/04)

(2004/C 262/55)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 June 2004 by Zubeyir Aydar, Fribourg, Switzerland, Haydar Isik, Maisoich, Germany, Kazim Baba, Berlin, Germany, George Aryo, Oldenzaal, Holland, Sait Uzun, Egg/Flaw, Switzerland, Lord Nicholas Rea, London, United Kingdom, Hugo Charlton, London, United Kingdom, Roger Tomkins, Droucha, Cyprus, Mark Thomas, London, United Kingdom, Hugo Van Rompaye, Geel, Belguim and Jean Paul Nunez, Montpellier, France, represented by Mr M. Muller, Mr E. Grieves and Ms C. Vine Barristers and Ms G. Pierce Solicitor.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the part of the Council Decision 2004/306/EC of 2 April 2004 proscribing KONGRA-GEL as an alias of the PKK and Regulation 2508/2001; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the part of the Council Decision 2004/306/EC of 2 April 2004 proscribing KONGRA-GEL as an alias of the PKK and Regulation 2508/2001;

| — | alternatively declare Regulation 2508/2001 illegal in respect of its application to the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively declare Regulation 2508/2001 illegal in respect of its application to the applicants;

| — | to take such further action as the Court may in its wisdom deem appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

—

to take such further action as the Court may in its wisdom deem appropriate;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in the present proceedings;

| — | order the Council to pay damages. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay damages.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants allege that in taking its decision to proscribe KONGRA-GEL as an alias of the PKK, the Council acted in breach of the EC Treaty both in respect of substance and procedure.

The applicants submit that the Council substantively breached the EC Treaty by virtue of the following:

| — | Failure to apply accessible, objective criteria to the correct facts; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to apply accessible, objective criteria to the correct facts;

| — | failure to respect fundamental rights including rights to freedom of expression and association protected under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to respect fundamental rights including rights to freedom of expression and association protected under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

| — | breach of principles of Community law such as proportionality, certainty, equality and the right to a fair hearing; |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of principles of Community law such as proportionality, certainty, equality and the right to a fair hearing;

| — | missuse of power. |
| --- | --- |

—

missuse of power.

Furthermore, the applicants submit that the Council breached the EC Treaty in respect of the procedure in the following ways:

| — | by failing to afford the applicants an opportunity to make representations prior to the proscription and/or to provide the applicants a fair hearing an/or an effective remedy by which to challenge the factual assertions relied upon by the Council, within the meaning of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

by failing to afford the applicants an opportunity to make representations prior to the proscription and/or to provide the applicants a fair hearing an/or an effective remedy by which to challenge the factual assertions relied upon by the Council, within the meaning of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

| — | by failing to provide accurate or adequate reasons as to the legal and factual basis of its decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

by failing to provide accurate or adequate reasons as to the legal and factual basis of its decision.

---