Case T-327/03: Action brought on 19 September 2003 by STICHTING AL-AQSA against the Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-11-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), international sanctions, restriction of liberty, terrorism

C 289/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.11.2003

Action brought on 19 September 2003 by STICHTING
AL-AQSA against the Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-327/03)

(2003/C 289/62)

(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 19 September 2003 by STICHING AL-AQSA, Heerlen, The
Netherlands, represented by Victor Koppe and Laura Janssen,
lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Partially annul, on the basis of Article 230 of the EC
Treaty, COUNCIL DECISION 2003/480/EC of 27 June
2003 and/or COUNCIL DECISION 2003/646/EC of
12 September 2003, implementing Article 2 paragraph 3
of Regulation (EC) No. 2580/2001 on specific restrictive
measures directed against certain persons and entities
with a view to combatting terrorism and more specifi-
cally;

— Annul article 1, part 2, point 22, that reads: ‘Stichting Al
Aqsa (alias Stichting Al Aqsa Nederland, alias Al Aqsa
Nederland)’

— Declare inapplicable, on the basis of Article 241 of the
EC Treaty, Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of
27 December 2001, on specific restrictive measures
directed against certain persons and entities with a view
to combatting terrorism.

decision, in that contrary to the requirements of these pro-
visions no decision had been taken by a competent authority
in respect of the applicant, concerning the instigation of
investigations or prosecution for a terrorist act, based on
serious and credible evidence or clues. The applicant also
invokes alleged violations of the general principles of Com-
munity law, in particular the principles of proportionality, the
right to a fair hearing, the right to privacy, the right to freedom
of expression and association, and the right to property.
Finally, the applicant submits that the contested decisions
violate the freedom of circulation of capital protected by
article 56 of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 70-75.
(2) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 93-94.

Action brought on 26 September 2003 by Xanthippi
Liakoura against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-330/03)

(2003/C 289/63)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 26 September 2003 by Xanthippi Liakoura,
residing in Brussels, represented by J.A. Martin, avocat.

— Require the defendants to bear the costs of suit.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decisions the applicant was included in the
list of persons whose assets were frozen in application of
Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001
on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons
and entities with a view to combatting terrorism (1). In support
of its application the applicant invokes first of all alleged
violations of essential procedural requirements, more specifi-
cally an alleged failure to state any reasons in the contested
decisions and an alleged violation of its right to be heard prior
to the adoption of the contested decision. The applicant further
submits that regulation 2580/2001, as well as Common
Position 2001/931/CFSP (2), to which article 2 paragraph 3 of
regulation 2580/2001 refers, were infringed by the contested

— annul the Council’s decision dated 18 June 2003 and
received on 23 June 2003 not to promote the applicant
to Grade C 1 in the 2002 promotion procedure;

— order the Council to pay the applicant the sum of

EUR 30 000;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in this case challenges the Appointing Auth-
ority’s refusal to promote her to Grade C 1 in the 2002
promotion procedure.