Case T-102/09: Action brought on 1 September 2010 — Elosta v Commission
Date: 2010-09-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Afghanistan, action for annulment (EU), common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, foreign capital, international affairs, international sanctions, terrorism, trade restriction








C_2011013EN.01002602.xml










15.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/26





Action brought on 1 September 2010 — Elosta v Commission
(Case T-102/09)
()
2011/C 13/52
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Abdelrazag Elosta (Pinner, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Grieves, Barrister, and A. McMurdie, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 (1) insofar as it relates to the applicant;










—


Order the defendant to immediately remove the applicant from the annex to the said regulation; and










—


Order the defendant and/or the Council of the European Union to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the applicant and any sums advanced by way of legal aid by the cashier of the Court of Justice of the European Union.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008, insofar as the name of the applicant has been placed on the list of persons and entities to which certain restrictive measures were imposed.
In support of his action, the applicant submits the following pleas in law:






 


Firstly, the Commission has failed to independently review the basis of the applicant’s inclusion in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 (2) at any point, or required any reasons or evidence for that inclusion.










 


In addition, the Commission has failed to provide to the applicant with any reasons at all and then failed to provide any adequate reasons justifying his inclusion in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 in breach of his right to an effective judicial remedy, the right to defend himself and in breach of his rights to property under the European Convention on Human Rights.










 


Finally, the continued inclusion in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is irrational given that: (i) there were and are no reasons available which would satisfy the relevant criteria for inclusion in the said annex; (ii) the United Kingdom’s government’s position is that the applicant no longer fulfils the relevant criteria; and (iii) the judgments by a specialized UK Court that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group has not merged with the Al-Qaida network and/or every person associated with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group has an Al-Qaida violent global jihadist ideology.






(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 of 22 December 2008 amending for the 103rd time Council Regulation (EC) 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 (OJ 2008 L 345, p. 60).

(2)  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 2002 L 139, p. 9).