Case T-253/02: Action brought on 22 August 2002 by Chafiq Ayadi against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-11-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: abuse of power, action for annulment (EU), administrative sanction, foreign capital, international sanctions, terrorism, trade restriction

23.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 289/25

Action brought on 22 August 2002 by Chafiq Ayadi
against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of the European Communities

Furthermore, Article 2 of the Regulation infringes fundamental
principles of Community law, in particular the principles of
subsidiarity and proportionality and the respect for human
rights.

(Case T-253/02)

(2002/C 289/48)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of
the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 22 August 2002 by Chafiq Ayadi Dublin (Ireland), rep-
resented by A. Lyon, Solicitor and S. Cox, Barrister.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002
of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive
measures directed against certain persons and entities
associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network
and the Taliban, and repealing 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 of Afghanistan (1) and
so much of Article 4 as relates to Article 2;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Member States are best placed to establish what measures are
proportionate, and the total denial of all income and of all un-
earned assistance to an individual is disproportionate. Article 2
infringes human rights as it deprives an individual of access to
his property and to the means of existence without providing
any judicial remedy for that denial.

Finally, the applicant submits that an essential procedural
requirement has been infringed in the making of Article 2,
namely the requirement that the Council and the Commission
state adequate reasons why the measures considered necessary
cannot be determined by individual Member States.

(1) OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9.

Action brought on 4 September 2002 by REWE-ZEN-
TRAL AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-267/02)

(2002/C 289/49)

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
submitted: German)

The applicant is named in Annex I to the contested Regulation
as a person to whom Article 2 applies. Under this provision,
the applicant’s bank accounts have been frozen.

The applicant submits that the provisions enabling the Security
Council of the United Nations to call upon its Members to
apply certain measures do not impose upon Members of the
United Nations a duty to apply those measures. Members are
free to choose how to respond to the Security Council’s call.

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
4 September 2002 by REWE-ZENTRAL AG, Köln (Germany),
represented by H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumenröder,
Chr. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K Brandt, A. Franke, U. Ste-
phani, B. Allekotte, E. Pfrang, K. Lochner and B. Ertle, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg. Fritidsresor AB,
Stockholm (Sweden) was an additional party to the proceed-
ings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant further alleges that the Council was not com-
petent to make Article 2 of the Regulation in that Articles 60
and 301 EC did not confer on the Council the power to do so.
The Council and the Commission misused their powers in that
Article 2 of
the Regulation does not in fact pursue the
objectives of Articles 60 and 301 EC.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision R 0888/2001 of the First Board of Appeal

of OHIM of 1 July 2002;

— order the Office to pay the costs.