Case C-415/05 P: Appeal brought on  23 November 2005  by Ahmed Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber (Extended Composition)) of  21 September 2005  in Case T-306/01 Ahmed Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v the Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-02-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Somalia, Sweden, UN resolution, appeal, economic sanctions, foreign capital, international sanctions, refugee

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/11

(prosecuted in Belgium as the offence of receiving and hand-
ling and performing other acts in regard to goods resulting
from crime, in breach of Article 505 of the Criminal Code),
are to be regarded as the “same acts” for the purposes of
Article 54 aforesaid where the courts establish that they
share a common intention and thus legally constitute a
single act?’

Bangor, Brighton, Broadstairs, Carrickfergus, Coleraine,
Donaghadee, Larne, Lerwick, Londonderry, Margate, Newto-
nabbey, Omagh and Portrush at the latest by 31 December
2000, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 4
paragraphs 1 and 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1).

2. If Question 1 is answered affirmatively:

Ireland to pay the costs.

2. order The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

‘Must the expression “may not be prosecuted … for the
same acts” in Article 54 of the Convention implementing
the Schengen Agreement be interpreted as meaning that the
“same acts” may also be constituted by different acts sharing
the same intention, and thus constituting a single act, which
would mean that a defendant can no longer be prosecuted
for the offence of money-laundering in Belgium once he has
been duly convicted in the Netherlands of other offences
committed with the same intention, regardless of any other
offences committed during the same period but which
became known or in respect of which prosecutions were
brought in Belgium only after the date of the definitive
foreign judgment or, in such a case, must that expression be
interpreted as meaning that
the court determining the
merits may enter a conviction in respect of these other acts
on a subsidiary basis, taking into account the sentences
those other
already imposed, unless
sentences in its view constitute sufficient punishment of all
the offences, and ensuring that the totality of the penalties
imposed may not exceed the maximum of
the severest
penalty?’

it considers

that

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission is of the view that the failure by the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ensure
adequate treatment is provided for the entirety of the waste
water discharges produced in the agglomerations of Bangor,
Broadstairs, Carrickfergus, Coleraine, Londonderry, Larne,
Lerwick, Margate, Newtonabbey, Omagh, Brighton, Portrush,
Donaghdee and Bideford/ Northam is in breach of Article 4,
paragraphs 1 and 3, of the directive. Furthermore, the failure to
control substantial new developments in the agglomerations of
Portrush, Newtonabbey, Bangor, Londonderry and Larne or to
ensure that
is accompanied by mitigating
measures is exacerbating the breaches of the aforementioned
articles of the Directive in these five agglomerations.

their approval

(1) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban

waste-water treatment OJ L 135, 30.05.1991 P. 40 - 52

(1) OJ 2000, L 239, p. 19.

Action brought on 18.11.2005 by Commission against the
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland

(Case C-405/05)

(2006/C 48/22)

(Language of the case: English)

Appeal brought on 23 November 2005 by Ahmed Yusuf
and Al Barakaat International Foundation against the judg-
ment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber
(Extended Composition)) of 21 September 2005 in Case T-
306/01 Ahmed Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foun-
dation v the Council of the European Union and Commis-
sion of the European Communities

(Case C-415/05 P)

(2006/C 48/23)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

An action against the The United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 18.11.2005 by the Commission,
represented by Sara Pardo Quintillan, Xavier Lewis and Hubert
van Vliet, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that in failing to ensure that adequate treatment is
provided for urban waste waters from the agglomerations of

An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(Second Chamber (Extended Composition)) of 21 September
2005 in Case T-306/01 Ahmed Yusuf and Al Barakaat Interna-
tional Foundation v the Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities was brought before
the European Communities on 23
the Court of
November 2005 by Ahmed Yusuf and Al Barakaat Interna-
tional Foundation, Spånga (Sweden),
represented by Leif
Silbersky and Thomas Olsson, lawyers.

Justice of

C 48/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2006

The appellants claim that the Court should:

1. set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21

September 2005 in Case T-306/01,

2. annul Regulation (EC) No 881/2002,

3. order the Council of the European Union and the Commis-
sion of the European Communities to pay the costs of the
actions before the Court of First Instance and the Court of
Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants submit that the Court of First Instance erred in
finding that the Council was competent to adopt Regulation
(EC) No 881/2002 on the basis of Articles 60 EC, 301 EC and
308 EC. In addition, they submit as follows:

The Court of First Instance erred in finding that Regulation (EC)
No 881/2002 fulfils the requirement under Article 249 EC that
it be of general application.

The Court of First Instance wrongly limited its assessment of
whether the applicants' fundamental rights had been infringed
by Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 merely to considering the
question whether the Security Council resolution is compatible
with the superior rules of international law falling within the
ambit of
Instance has not
assessed whether the regulation was valid in accordance with
Community law or whether the Security Council resolution
was implemented pursuant to Community law and national
laws.

jus cogens. The Court of First

The Court of First Instance erred in finding that neither the
applicants' rights of defence nor right
to an effective legal
remedy were infringed by Regulation (EC) No 881/2002.

04 to T-297/04: Centro Provincial de Jóvenes Agricultores de
Jaén (ASAJA), Salvador Contreras Gila,
José Ramiro López,
Antonio Ramiro López, Cristobal Gallego Martínez, Benito
García Burgos and Antonio Parras Rosa v Council of the Euro-
pean Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 25 November 2005 by Centro
Provincial de Jóvenes Agricultores de Jaén (ASAJA), Salvador
Contreras Gila,
José Ramiro López, Antonio Ramiro López,
Cristobal Gallego Martínez, Benito García Burgos and Antonio
Parras Rosa, represented by J.F. Vásquez Medina, lawyer.

The appellants claim that the Court should:

(1) Annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8
September 2005 in its entirety on the ground that
it
infringes Community law (Article 173 of the EEC Treaty;

(2) Grant in their entirety the forms of order sought at first
instance relating to the merits of the case in order to
comply with Community law;

(3) Order the respondent to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Infringement of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty

The appellants claim to have locus standi to bring appeals since
they are clearly and entirely different
from other olive oil
producers by reason of the particular legal situation which
affects them.

All the appellants are owners of olive groves planted in 1998,
and all had an olive production of 0 Kg of olives in the 1999
marketing year. Those circumstances are particular to them and
distinguish them from the rest of the olive sector.

Appeal brought on 25 November 2005 by Centro Provin-
cial de Jóvenes Agricultores de Jaén (ASAJA), Salvador
Contreras Gila,
José Ramiro López, Antonio Ramiro
López, Cristobal Gallego Martínez, Benito García Burgos
and Antonio Parras Rosa against the judgment of the
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 September
2005 in Joined Cases T-295/04 to T-297/04: Centro Provin-
cial de Jóvenes Agricultores de Jaén (ASAJA), Salvador
Contreras Gila,
José Ramiro López, Antonio Ramiro
López, Cristobal Gallego Martínez, Benito García Burgos
and Antonio Parras Rosa v Council of the European Union

(Case C-418/05 P)

(2006/C 48/24)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(Third Chamber) of 8 September 2005 in Joined Cases T-295/

Appeal brought on 28 November 2005 by Ricosmos B.V.
against the judgment delivered by the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) on
13 September 2005 in Case T-53/02 Ricosmos v Commis-
sion of the European Communities

(Case C-420/05 P)

(2006/C 48/25)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities on 28 November 2005 by Ricosmos B.V.,
represented by J.J.M. Hertoghs and J.H. Peek, of the law firm
Hertoghs Advocaten-Belastingkundigen, Parkstraat 8, (4818 SK)
Breda, Netherlands, against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of
the European Communities (First Chamber) of
13 September 2005 in Case T-53/02 Ricosmos B.V. v Commis-
sion of the European Communities.