Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2021:817
Date: 2021-11-24
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: External relations;Common foreign and security policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Denmark

Action brought on 14 March 2019 – LTTE v Council (Case T-160/19) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (Herning, Denmark) (represented by: A. van Eik and T. Buruma, lawyers) Defendant: Council of the European Union Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/251 insofar as it concerns the applicant. In the alternative, the applicant submits that a lesser measure than continued placement on the EU List of Terrorist Organizations is warranted in this case. The applicant additionally seeks an award of costs interest to be paid with interest by the Council and which will be specified at a later stage. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant since the latter cannot be qualified as a terrorist organization as defined in Article 1(3) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. 2 Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant since no decision by a competent authority, as required by Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, has been taken. Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant since the Council has not conducted any proper review as required by Article 1(6) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant as it does not comply with the requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant as it does not comply with the obligation to state reasons in conformity with Article 296 TFEU. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant since it infringes upon the applicant’s rights of defence and its right to effective judicial protection. ____________ 1 Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 of 8 January 2019 amending and 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, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2018/1084 (OJ L 6, 9.1.2019, p. 6). 2 Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 93).