Case C-403/06 P: Appeal brought on 27 September 2006 by Chafiq Ayadi against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2006 in Case T-253/02: Chafiq Ayadi v Council of the European Union
Date: 2006-12-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, abuse of power, action for annulment (EU), administrative sanction, appeal, foreign capital, international sanctions, terrorism, trade restriction

C 294/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.12.2006

That legislation and administrative practice does not comply
with the provisions of Article 9 of the Sixth VAT Directive.
Services which are performed in the capacity of executor for
customers established outside the Community or for taxable
persons established in the Community but not in the same
country as the supplier are services of which the place of
supply must be determined in accordance with Article 9(2)(e)
of the Sixth VAT Directive.

The Commission takes the view, contrary to the arguments of
the German Government, that the activities of an executor are
also among those activities which a lawyer performs principally
and habitually. The activity as such rather than the professional
title should be taken as a basis for the evaluation:
it is the
nature of the service which is relevant.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should order that:

— the decision of the Court of First Instance is set aside, in

whole;

— it is declared that Articles 2 and 4 and Annex 1 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 (1) are invalid insofar as they
are of direct and individual concern to the Appellant;

— the Council pay the Appellant's costs of this appeal and of

the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

The term ‘other similar services’ does not refer to a feature
common to the activities named in the third indent of Article
It is sufficient that the
9(2)(e) of the Sixth VAT Directive.
service to be evaluated is similar to any of
the activities
expressly listed in that provision. That is the case when both
activities serve the same purpose. According to the determin-
ation of the European Court of Justice, the principal and habi-
tual activities of a lawyer include those of representing and
defending the interests of a client. In so far as the Court of
Justice refers to ‘representing or defending the interests of a
person’, that requirement is also present in the activities of an
executor: he represents and defends the interests of the testator.
His
an independently
appointed representative and advisor. The fact that executor-
ship is not an activity reserved to the legal profession does not
preclude the two activities from serving the same purpose.

correspond to those of

activities

(1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.

Appeal brought on 27 September 2006 by Chafiq Ayadi
against
Instance
(Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2006 in Case T-
253/02: Chafiq Ayadi v Council of the European Union

the Court of First

the judgment of

(Case C-403/06 P)

(2006/C 294/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Chafiq Ayadi (represented by: H. Miller, Solicitor and
S. Cox, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in
law in:

a) failing to hold that Article 308 EC, in conjunction with Arti-
cles 60 EC and 301 EC, did not confer power on the
Council to make the impugned provisions;

b) failing to hold that the making of the impugned powers
infringed the fundamental principle of subsidiarity and/or
Article 5 EC second paragraph;

c) failing to hold that an essential procedureal requirement has
been infringed in the making of the impugned provisions,
namely the requirement
the Council state adequate
reasons why the measures considered necessary cannot be
determined by individual Member States.

that

d) holding that decisions of the Security Council of the United
Nations ('UNSC') which call upon Member States of the
United Nations are binding on the Member States and/or
upon the Community;

e) holding that the Community courts can only annul a Com-
munity measure implementing a UNSC decision by refer-
ence to the standard of ius cogens and in failing to hold that
it can annul such a measure in order to protect human
rights recognised in the legal order of the United Nations;

f) failing to hold that

the impugned parts of Regulation

881/2002 infringe the Appellant's human rights.

(1) 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
OJ L 139, p. 9