Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2011:786
Date: 2011-11-29
Language of the case: English
Subject matter: External relations;Common foreign and security policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful;Appeal - successful

summary of the General Court’s case‑law on this subject, see paragraph 139 et seq. of that judgment. 74 – .Kadi, paragraph 326. 75 – Case C‑550/09 E and F [2010] ECR I‑6213, paragraph 57. 76 – See points 254 and 255 of the Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Case C‑27/09 P France v People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran. 77 – By the Commission’s own admission: see paragraph 41 of the Commission’s response. 78 – See, from an extensive line of case-law, Case C‑266/05 P Sison v Council [2007] ECR I‑1233, paragraph 95 and the case‑law cited, and Joined Cases C‑514/07 P, C‑528/07 P and C‑532/07 P Sweden and Others v API and Commission [2010] ECR I‑8533, paragraph 126 and the case‑law cited. 79 – In this connection, the appellant mentions document 7697/07 dated 3 April 2007, to which the Council itself refers in its response before the General Court. 80 – .Organisation des Modjahedines du people d’Iran v Council, and Melli Bank v Council. 81 – Paragraph 94 of the judgment under appeal and the case‑law cited. 82 – Case 294/81 Control Data Belgium v Commission [1983] ECR 911, paragraph 14. 83 – Paragraph 99 et seq. of the judgment under appeal. 84 – Paragraph 103 et seq. of the judgment under appeal. 85 – See, by analogy, Bank Melli Iran v Council, paragraph 87. 86 – See paragraph 104 of the judgment under appeal. 87 – The adoption of Regulation No 353/2008, which includes a reference to other persons associated with the regime (see point 13 of this Opinion), did not improve the appellant’s situation in this regard. 88 – See in particular recital 4 in the preamble to Common Position 2006/318. 89 – Paragraph 107 of the judgment under appeal. 90 – Paragraph 106 of the judgment under appeal. 91 – See paragraph 157 of the judgment under appeal. 92 – Paragraph 160 of the judgment under appeal and the case‑law cited. 93 – Paragraph 165 of the judgment under appeal and Article 13 of the contested regulation. 94 – European Court of Human Rights, Bäck v. Finland, no. 37598/97, § 56, ECHR 2004-VII, and the case‑law cited; Kadi, paragraph 368. 95 – Paragraph 170 of the judgment under appeal. 96 – See point 103 of this Opinion. 97 – Cited above (point 14 of this Opinion). 98 – .Kadi, paragraph 369.