Case C-576/08 P: Appeal brought on 23 December 2008 by People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 October 2008 in Case T-256/07 People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council of the European Union
Date: 2008-12-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, appeal, international sanctions, restriction of liberty, terrorism

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/15

Article 7(4):
incomplete transposition (the way in which the
hunting seasons have been fixed does not ensure that hunting is
prohibited during the rearing season and the various stages of
in particular, as regards migratory species,
reproduction; nor,
does it ensure that hunting is prohibited during the period of
reproduction or during the return to the rearing grounds; more-
over, the obligation to send the Commission all relevant infor-
mation on the practical application of the hunting legislation
has not been transposed);

Article 9: not transposed at State level in compliance with the
directive (the reviews of the legitimacy of the derogations are
ineffective and belated); incorrect transposition and implementa-
tion at regional
(Abruzzo, Lazio, Toscana, Lombardia,
Emilia Romagna, Marche, Calabria and Puglia);

level

Article 10(2): incomplete transposition (failure to transpose the
obligation to send the Commission the information required for
the coordination of the research and work for the protection,
management and use of the population of the species of bird
protected by the directive);

Article 11:
incomplete transposition (failure to transpose the
obligation to consult the Commission with respect to the intro-
duction of exotic species);

Article 13: not transposed;

Article 18(2): failure on the part of the Italian authorities to
communicate the texts setting out the provisions of regional law
on hunting for the regions of Lazio, Lombardia, Toscana and
Puglia.

(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation

of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1).

Appeal brought on 23 December 2008 by People's
Mojahedin Organization of Iran against the judgment of
the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on
23 October 2008 in Case T-256/07 People's Mojahedin
Organization of Iran v Council of the European Union

(Case C-576/08 P)

(2009/C 55/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance insofar
as that Court dismissed the PMOI's application to annul
Council Decision 2007/445/EC (1) as unfounded;

— annul Decision 2007/445/EC insofar as it concerned the

PMOI;

— order the Council to pay the Appellant's costs in this Court
and with regard to Decision 2007/445/EC in the Court of
First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant contends that in a case which concerned funda-
mental rights and the application of Article 1(4) and 1(6) of
Common Position 931/2001 and Article 2(3) of Regulation
2580/2001 in relation to a Community measure which main-
tained the People's Mojahedin of Iran on the list of proscribed
organisations:

(1) In determining whether the Council had made a manifest
error of assessment, the Court of First Instance failed to
provide a full review of Decision 2006/445/EC as required
by the EC Treaty;

(2) The Court of First Instance failed to respect the principle of
effective judicial protection by failing to provide full review;

(3) The Court of First Instance was wrong in law to conclude
that the Council had not committed a manifest error of
assessment in reaching its Decision. The Council and the
CFI had before it all the facts and arguments that were
before the national tribunal and should have considered the
exculpatory material in detail;

(4) The Court of First Instance was wrong in law under Arti-
cles 1(4) and (6) of the aforesaid Common Position and
Article 2(3) of the aforesaid Regulation to reject the Appel-
lant's
terrorist
activity or threats are capable of justifying the continued
inclusion of a person on the list;

contention that only contemporaneous

(5) The CFI was wrong to conclude that the Council could
correctly exclude the exculpatory material adduced by the
Appellant on the basis of its conclusion on the matters
addressed by the previous ground of appeal;

Appellant: People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (represented
by:
lawyer, D. Vaughan QC, M.-E. Demetriou,
Barrister)

J.-P. Spitzer,

(6) The Court of First Instance was wrong to reject the Appel-
lant's argument that the Council had failed to give adequate
reasons in respect of the exculpatory material adduced by

C 55/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.3.2009

the Appellant concerning matters since 2001, and why the
continued inclusion of
the Appellant on the list of
proscribed organisations was justified.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State
(Netherlands) lodged on 29 December 2008 — Rhimou
Chakroun v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

(1) Council Decision of 28 June 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of
Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measres
directed against certain persons and entities with a view to
combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2006/379/EC and
2006/1008/EC (2007/445/EC) (OJ L 169, p. 58).

(Case C-578/08)

(2009/C 55/26)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te
Antwerpen, Afdeling Hasselt
on
29 December 2008 — Rijksdienst voor pensioenen v
E. Brouwer

(Belgium)

lodged

Referring court

Raad van State

(Case C-577/08)

(2009/C 55/25)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties to the main proceedings

Referring court

Applicant: Rhimou Chakroun

Arbeidshof te Antwerpen, Afdeling Hasselt

Defendant: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rijksdienst voor pensioenen

Questions referred

Defendant: E. Brouwer

Question referred

Are the Royal Decrees of 1.12.1969, 18.6.1970, 8.6.1971,
14.9.1972, 31.7.1973, 12.7.1974, 13.2.1975, 28.11.1975,
26.11.1976, 26.9.1977, 31.7.1978, 31.8.1979, 2.12.1980,
13.1.1982, 14.3.1983, 11.1.1984, 30.11.1984, 24.1.1986,
30.12.1986, 6.1.1988, 2.12.1988, 30.11.1989, 10.12.1990,
1.6.1993, 8.12.1993, 19.12.1994 and 10.10.1995 enacted
pursuant to Article 25 of the Royal Decree of 21 December
1967 laying down general rules for the retirement and survi-
vor's pension for employed persons (Koninklijk Besluit tot vasts-
telling van het algemeen reglement betreffende het rust- en over-
leveringspensioen voor werknemers) — which establish lower
notional and/or flat-rate daily wages for the calculation of a
retirement pension for female frontier workers than for male
frontier workers — in accordance with Article 4(1) of Directive
79/7/EEC (1) on the progressive implementation of the principle
of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social
security?

1. Should the phrase ‘recourse to the social assistance system’ in
Article 7(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC (1) of
22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification be
interpreted as permitting a Member State to make an
arrangement in respect of family reunification which results
in family reunification not being granted to a sponsor who
has provided evidence of having stable and regular resources
to meet general subsistence costs, but who, given the level of
such resources, shall nevertheless be entitled to claim special
assistance to meet exceptional,
individually determined,
essential living costs, income-related remission of charges by
municipal authorities, or income-support measures in the
context of municipal minimum income policies?

to family reunification,

2. Should Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September
in particular
2003 on the right
Article 2(d), be interpreted as precluding national legislation
which,
in applying the resource requirement pursuant to
Article 7(1)(c), makes a distinction according to whether a
family relationship arose before or after the entry of the resi-
dent of the Member State?

(1) Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progres-
sive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and
women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).

(1) Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right

to family reunification (OJ L 251, p. 12).