# C_2019131EN.01003001.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/30

---

Appeal brought on 14 February 2019 by Hamas against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 December 2018 in Case T-400/10 RENV, Hamas v Council

(Case C-122/19 P)

(2019/C 131/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Hamas (represented by: L. Glock, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, French Republic, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of 14 December 2018, Hamas v Council, T-400/10 RENV, in so far as it dismisses the application to annul the following measures:






  — | Council Decision 2011/430/CFSP of 18 July 2011 (OJ 2011 L 188, p. 47), updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, Council Decisions 2011/872/CFSP of 22 December 2011 (OJ 2011 L 343, p. 54), 2012/333/CFSP of 25 June 2012 (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 72), 2012/765/CFSP of 10 December 2012 (OJ 2012 L 337, p. 50), 2013/395/CFSP of 25 July 2013 (OJ 2013 L 201, p. 57), 2014/72/CFSP of 10 February 2014 (OJ 2014 L 40, p. 56) and 2014/483/CFSP of 22 July 2014 (OJ 2014 L 217, p. 35) updating and, where appropriate, amending, the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing, respectively, Decisions 2011/430, 2011/872, 2012/333, 2012/765, 2013/395 and 2014/72,
  and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of 14 December 2018, Hamas v Council, T-400/10 RENV, in so far as it dismisses the application to annul the following measures:

—

Council Decision 2011/430/CFSP of 18 July 2011 (OJ 2011 L 188, p. 47), updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, Council Decisions 2011/872/CFSP of 22 December 2011 (OJ 2011 L 343, p. 54), 2012/333/CFSP of 25 June 2012 (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 72), 2012/765/CFSP of 10 December 2012 (OJ 2012 L 337, p. 50), 2013/395/CFSP of 25 July 2013 (OJ 2013 L 201, p. 57), 2014/72/CFSP of 10 February 2014 (OJ 2014 L 40, p. 56) and 2014/483/CFSP of 22 July 2014 (OJ 2014 L 217, p. 35) updating and, where appropriate, amending, the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing, respectively, Decisions 2011/430, 2011/872, 2012/333, 2012/765, 2013/395 and 2014/72,

and

| — | Council Implementing Regulations (EU) No 687/2011 of 18 July 2011 (OJ 2011 L 188, p. 2), No 1375/2011 of 22 December 2011 (OJ 2011 L 343, p. 10), No 542/2012 of 25 June 2012 (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 12), No 1169/2012 of 10 December 2012 (OJ 2012 L 337, p. 2), No 714/2013 of 25 July 2013 (OJ 2013 L 201, p. 10), No 125/2014 of 10 February 2014 (OJ 2014 L 40, p. 9) and No 790/2014 of 22 July 2014 (OJ 2014 L 217, p. 1), implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing, respectively, Implementing Regulations (EU) No 83/2011, 687/2011, 1375/2011, 542/2012, 1169/2012, 714/2013 and 125/2014,
  in so far as those measures concern Hamas, including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem. |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Implementing Regulations (EU) No 687/2011 of 18 July 2011 (OJ 2011 L 188, p. 2), No 1375/2011 of 22 December 2011 (OJ 2011 L 343, p. 10), No 542/2012 of 25 June 2012 (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 12), No 1169/2012 of 10 December 2012 (OJ 2012 L 337, p. 2), No 714/2013 of 25 July 2013 (OJ 2013 L 201, p. 10), No 125/2014 of 10 February 2014 (OJ 2014 L 40, p. 9) and No 790/2014 of 22 July 2014 (OJ 2014 L 217, p. 1), implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing, respectively, Implementing Regulations (EU) No 83/2011, 687/2011, 1375/2011, 542/2012, 1169/2012, 714/2013 and 125/2014,

in so far as those measures concern Hamas, including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem.

| — | Give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal;

| — | Order the Council to bear all the costs in Cases T-400/10, T-400/10 RENV, C-79/15 P and in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to bear all the costs in Cases T-400/10, T-400/10 RENV, C-79/15 P and in the present case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles governing the shifting of the burden of proof as to the accuracy of the facts:






  — | The General Court infringed the principles on the shifting of the burden of proof as laid down in the judgment Council v Hamas, C-79/15 P, and placed an extremely difficult, indeed impossible, burden of proof on Hamas; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles governing the shifting of the burden of proof as to the accuracy of the facts:

—

The General Court infringed the principles on the shifting of the burden of proof as laid down in the judgment Council v Hamas, C-79/15 P, and placed an extremely difficult, indeed impossible, burden of proof on Hamas;

| — | In the alternative, the General Court infringed the principles on the shifting of the burden of proof in holding that Hamas had not made a specific and detailed challenge to the facts established by the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, the General Court infringed the principles on the shifting of the burden of proof in holding that Hamas had not made a specific and detailed challenge to the facts established by the Council;

| — | The General Court failed to fulfil its obligation to respond, to the requisite legal standard, to all the arguments raised by the appellant concerning the possibility of attributing terrorist acts to it. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court failed to fulfil its obligation to respond, to the requisite legal standard, to all the arguments raised by the appellant concerning the possibility of attributing terrorist acts to it.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial review:






  — | The General Court deprived the appellant of the right to effective judicial review by failing to find that the Council had not demonstrated the accuracy of the facts set out in its statements of reasons; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial review:

—

The General Court deprived the appellant of the right to effective judicial review by failing to find that the Council had not demonstrated the accuracy of the facts set out in its statements of reasons;

| — | The General Court persisted in the infringement of the right to effective judicial review, despite the fact that a measure of organisation of procedure had confirmed that the contested measures were not taken on a sufficiently solid factual basis; |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court persisted in the infringement of the right to effective judicial review, despite the fact that a measure of organisation of procedure had confirmed that the contested measures were not taken on a sufficiently solid factual basis;

| — | The General Court rejected the plea alleging an error on the part of the Council as to the accuracy of the facts resulting from unbalanced proceedings, to the detriment of the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court rejected the plea alleging an error on the part of the Council as to the accuracy of the facts resulting from unbalanced proceedings, to the detriment of the appellant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court infringed Article 1(4) of the Common Position by holding that the United Kingdom decision on which the Council relied was a conviction:






  — | The classification as a conviction proposed by the General Court does not comply with the criteria laid down in Common Position 2001/931 and deprives the requirement to give reasons of any substance; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court infringed Article 1(4) of the Common Position by holding that the United Kingdom decision on which the Council relied was a conviction:

—

The classification as a conviction proposed by the General Court does not comply with the criteria laid down in Common Position 2001/931 and deprives the requirement to give reasons of any substance;

| — | On the basis of that incorrect classification, the General Court also made impossible the judicial review of the classification of facts taken from the national decisions. |
| --- | --- |

—

On the basis of that incorrect classification, the General Court also made impossible the judicial review of the classification of facts taken from the national decisions.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: the General Court was not entitled to reject the plea that the Council had not taken sufficient account of the development of the situation owing to the passage of time other than at the price of infringement of the second paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an unlawful substitution of grounds and on the basis of an incorrect assumption. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: the General Court was not entitled to reject the plea that the Council had not taken sufficient account of the development of the situation owing to the passage of time other than at the price of infringement of the second paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an unlawful substitution of grounds and on the basis of an incorrect assumption.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law: the General Court erred in law in the interpretation of Article 296 TFEU in holding that the facts established independently by the Council and their classification are set out with sufficient precision and detail in the grounds to be challenged by the appellant and reviewed by the court. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law: the General Court erred in law in the interpretation of Article 296 TFEU in holding that the facts established independently by the Council and their classification are set out with sufficient precision and detail in the grounds to be challenged by the appellant and reviewed by the court.

---