Case T-306/01: Action brought on 10 December 2001 by Abdirisak Aden and Others against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-02-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Afghanistan, European Commission, Somalia, Sweden, action for annulment (EU), economic sanctions, refugee

16.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 44/27

On 1 December 1999, the applicant informed the Commission
of those facts, requesting it to order the Spanish Government
not to implement the decision relating to the Solucio´ n Sur
Alternativa B (Southern Solution, Option B) route and to opt
for the ‘Northern Alternative’, and to warn it that, if it failed to
comply, the Community assistance received was to be returned
(Complaint No 1999/5330). As a result of that complaint, the
Commission invited the Spanish Government to make its
views known and, after examining the reply — to which the
applicant has not had access, despite repeatedly requesting it
— the Commission decided to take no action on the case.

The applicant claims that, contrary to the view taken by the
Commission, the Spanish Government’s measures amount to
an infringement of Community law, namely of:

— Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the

conservation of wild birds (2);

— Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
flora (3); and

— legislation on the use of Community funding, in particular
Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994
establishing a Cohesion Fund (4).

The applicant is of the view that, in the face of such flagrant
infringement of Community law by the Spanish authorities as
pointed out in its complaint, the Commission should have
taken steps to defend Community law and that its decision not
to take action must accordingly be annulled.

(1) OJ 1998 C 153, p. 172.
(2) OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1.
(3) OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.
(4) OJ 1994 L 130, p. 1.

Action brought on 10 December 2001 by Abdirisak Aden
and Others against the Council of the European Union
and the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-306/01)

(2002/C 44/47)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

An action against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of
the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
10 December 2001 by Abdirisak Aden and Others represented
by Leif Silbersky and Thomas Olsson.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2199/2001 of

12 November 2001 (1);

— annul Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 of 6 March
2001 (2), or in the alternative declare that Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 467/2001 of 6 March 2001 is not
applicable;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings

in an amount to be specified later.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Three of the applicants are Swedish citizens of Somali origin
and the fourth is a non-profitmaking association registered
under Swedish law, which inter alia provides support for
refugees and has assisted with financial transactions between
residents of Sweden and residents of Somalia.

On 15 October 1999 the United Nations Security Council
adopted UNSCR Resolution 1267 (1999), calling for inter alia
sanctions against the Taliban, which were extended by UNSCR
Resolution 1333 (2000) to cover Osama Bin Laden and
persons and bodies associated with him. On 6 March 2001
the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 467/2001. Under
Article 2 of that regulation all funds and other financial
resources belonging to any natural or legal person, entity or
body listed in Annex I are to be frozen. On the basis of
Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 the Commission
adopted Regulation (EC) No 2199/2001. As a result of the
amendment of its list by the Taliban Sanctions Committee of
the Security Council, the Commission decided to add a number
of other persons and bodies to Annex I to Regulation (EC)
No 467/2001, including the applicants.

submit

applicants

The
that Council Regulation (EC)
No 467/2001 — which provides that the applicants’ funds are
to be frozen and that resources are not to be made available to
them — exceeds the powers which the Council has under
Article 60 and 301 EC and is in breach of Article 249 EC. The
Council does not have the power to adopt sanctions against
individuals and organisations and has misused its powers.
Moreover,
in practice, the Council and Commission have
delegated decisions as to which persons or organisations
should be included in Annex I to the Taliban Sanctions
Committee.

C 44/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.2.2002

The applicants submit further that the Council and Com-
mission have not examined the reasons why the Taliban
Sanctions Committee included the applicants in its list. Nor
were the applicants given any opportunity to apprise them-
selves of and refute the allegations on which the decision to
include them in Annex I was based. The applicants have
thus had onerous sanctions imposed on them without any
legal
opportunity to defend themselves. The fundamental
principle of the right to a fair and equitable hearing has thus
been disregarded.

Moreover, Regulation (EC) No 2199/2001 is marred by
significant flaws, which points clearly to the need to consider
each individual case separately. At the same time, there are
good reasons to doubt whether it is appropriate to impose
sanctions on the applicants.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2199/2001 of 12 November
2001 amending, for the fourth time, Council Regulation (EC)
No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services
to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the
freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the
Taliban
(EC)
and
of Afghanistan
No 337/2000 (OJ 2001 L 295, p. 16).

repealing Regulation

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 of 6 March 2001 pro-
hibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan,
strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and
other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan,
and repealing Regulation (EC) No 337/2000 (OJ 2001 L 67, p. 1).

— annul the measure of 22 May 2001 adversely affecting the
applicant and the implied rejection of her administrative
complaint;

— require the defendant to pay to the applicant 85 % of the

cost of surgery on her of BEF 200 234;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.

The applicant challenges the adverse decision of the
Claims Office of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of
22 May 2001 relating to meeting the costs of operating
on the applicant.

2.

(a)

Infringement of Articles 24 and 72 of the Staff
Regulations, and of the Rules on sickness insurance
for officials of the European Communities (in par-
ticular of Article 1 and Annexes I and II).

(b)

Infringment of the principles of good adminstration
and of transparency.

(c) Manifest error as to the facts and clear error of

assessment.

(d)

Inadequate statement of grounds.

Action brought on 17 December 2001 by R against the
Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 27 December 2001 by José Marı´a Pujals
Gomis against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-313/01)

(2002/C 44/48)

(Language of the case: Greek)

(Case T-332/01)

(2002/C 44/49)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 December 2001 by R, a
Commission official, represented by K. Tagaras, Lawyer, with
an address for service in Athens.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 December 2001 by José
Marı´a Pujals Gomis, residing in Cerdanyola del Vallés (Spain),
represented by Javier Pujals Gomis, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— grant the application in its entirety and in respect of all

— Annul the decision of the selection board for Competition

its claims;

COM/B/1/0 of 28 September 2001;