do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-85/09: Action brought on 26 February 2009 — Kadi v Commission
Date: 2009-02-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, fight against crime, infringement of EU law, terrorism








C_2009090EN.01003701.xml










18.4.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/37





Action brought on 26 February 2009 — Kadi v Commission
(Case T-85/09)
2009/C 90/56
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Yassin Abdullah Kadi (represented by: D. Anderson, QC, M. Lester, Barrister, G. Martin, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought







—


annul Regulation No 1190/2008, in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs of this action.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Regulation No 1190/2008 of 28 November 2008 amending for the 101st time Council Regulation No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (1) in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision. Regulation no 881/2002 was annulled by the Court of Justice in joined cases C-402/05 and C-415/05, Kadi and al Barakaat v Council and Commission
 (2)

The applicant puts forward four pleas in law in support of its claims.
First, the applicant submits that the contested regulation lacks a sufficient legal basis because it appears to amend Regulation 881/2002 without relevant determination by United Nations which, in the applicant’s opinion, is precondition for the amendment of that regulation.
Second, the applicant claims that the contested regulation violates his rights of defence, both the right to an effective hearing and the right to effective judicial protection, and fails to remedy the infringements of those rights as found by the Court in joined cases C-402/05 and C-415/05. He further contends that the contested regulation provides no procedure for communicating to the applicant the evidence on which the decision to freeze his assets was based, or for enabling him to comment meaningfully on that evidence.
Third, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to provide compelling reasons for maintaining the asset freeze against the applicant, in violation of its obligation under Article 253 EC.
Fourth, it claims that the Commission failed to undertake an assessment of all relevant facts and circumstances in deciding whether to enact the contested regulation and therefore manifestly erred in its assessments.
Fifth, the applicant contends that the contested regulation constitutes an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on his right to property which is not justified by compelling evidence.


(1)  OJ 2008 L 322, p. 25


(2)  Not yet reported in ECR
Commission communication pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2009-02-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU office or agency, Italy, air transport, airline, inland transport, public service

26.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/13

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

Commission communication pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the
European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the
Community

Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

Member State

Concerned route

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 47/09)

Italy

Pantelleria-Trapani and vice versa

Pantelleria-Palermo and vice versa

Lampedusa-Palermo and vice versa

Lampedusa-Catania and vice versa

Trapani-Milano Linate and vice versa

Trapani-Roma Fiumicino and vice versa

Date of entry into force of the public
service obligations

Address where the text and any rele-
vant information and/or documenta-
tion related to the public service obli-
gation can be obtained

180 days after the date of publication of this notice

Ente nazionale per l'aviazione civile (ENAC)
Direzione centrale regolazione economica
Direzione trasporto aero
Viale del Castro Pretorio, n. 118
I-00185 Roma
www.enac-italia.it
E-mail: trasporto.aereo@enac.rupa.it
2009/167/EC: Council Decision of 26 February 2009 amending the Decision of 27 March 2000 authorising the Director of Europol to enter into negotiations on agreements with third States and non-EU-related bodies
Date: 2009-02-26
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Europol, Montenegro, international negotiations, powers of the institutions (EU), third country

28.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 56/15

COUNCIL DECISION

of 26 February 2009

amending the Decision of 27 March 2000 authorising the Director of Europol to enter into
negotiations on agreements with third States and non-EU-related bodies

(2009/167/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

(3)

The Decision of 27 March 2000 should therefore be
amended accordingly,

Having regard to Article 42(2), Article 10(4) and Article 18 of
the Convention on the establishment of a European Police
Office (Europol Convention) (1),

Having regard to the Council Act of 3 November 1998 laying
down rules governing Europol’s external relations with third
States and non-European Union related bodies (2), and in
particular Article 2 of that Act,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Decision of 27 March 2000 is hereby amended as follows:

In Article 2(1), under the heading ‘Third States’, the following
State shall be added to the alphabetical list:

Having regard to the Council Act of 3 November 1998 laying
down rules concerning the receipt of information by Europol
from third parties (3), and in particular Article 2 of that Act,

‘— India’.

Article 2

Having regard to the Council Act of 12 March 1999 adopting
the rules governing the transmission of personal data by
Europol to third States and third bodies (4), and in particular
Articles 2 and 3 of that Act,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

On 27 March 2000 the Council adopted the Decision
authorising the Director of Europol to enter into nego­
tiations on agreements with third States and non-EU-
related bodies (5).

There are operational interests that require that India be
added to the list of third States with which the Director
of Europol is authorised to start negotiations.

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the
European Union.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of
its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 26 February 2009.

For the Council
The President

I. LANGER

(1) OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 2.
(2) OJ C 26, 30.1.1999, p. 19.
(3) OJ C 26, 30.1.1999, p. 17.
(4) OJ C 88, 30.3.1999, p. 1.
(5) OJ C 106, 13.4.2000, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5424 — DOW/Rohm and Haas) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-02-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agronomy, chemical product, economic concentration, electrical equipment, exchange of information, hydrocarbon, merger control, provision of services, salt

26.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/1

II

(Information)

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

COMMISSION

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5450 — Kühne/HGV/TUI/Hapag-Lloyd)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 47/01)

On 6 February 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to
declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public
after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

— from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This
website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case
number, date and sectoral indexes,

— in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5450. EUR-Lex is the

on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5424 — DOW/Rohm and Haas)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 47/02)

On 8 January 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare
it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is
cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

— from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This
website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case
number, date and sectoral indexes,

— in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5424. EUR-Lex is the

on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).