Case C-595/10 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2010 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2010 in Case T-85/09: Yassin Abdullah Kadi v European Commission
Date: 2010-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, appeal, fight against crime, infringement of EU law, miscarriage of justice, terrorism








C_2011072EN.01001001.xml










5.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/10





Appeal brought on 16 December 2010 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2010 in Case T-85/09: Yassin Abdullah Kadi v European Commission
(Case C-595/10 P)
2011/C 72/17
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson, Agent, D. Beard and M. Wood, Barristers)

Other parties to the proceedings: Yassin Abdullah Kadi, European Commission, Council of the European Union, French Republic

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside, in whole, the decision of the General Court in case T-85/09;










—


Dismiss the application of Mr Yassin Abdullah Kadi for annulment of Regulation 881/2002 (1) insofar as it concerns him;










—


Order Mr Yassin Abdullah Kadi to bear the costs of the United Kingdom in the proceedings before the Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The conclusion of the General Court that full judicial review is appropriate for EU measures faithfully implementing United Nations Security Council resolutions is contrary to the terms of the EU Treaties and the case law of the EU Courts. It is directly at odds with the history and purpose of the EU and, in particular, the development of common foreign and security policy competence.
The United Nations Charter requires compliance with its obligations by its Member States. Such obligations prevail over the obligations which may arise under any other international agreement. Such obligations include those imposed under Security Council resolutions intended to combat international terrorism.
Having regard, in particular, to Articles 3(5) and 21 TEU and Article 351 TFEU, the obligation upon EU Member States to comply with the decisions of the Security Council prevails over any obligations which may arise under the EU Treaties.
The EU must consider itself bound by the terms of the UN Charter and the UN Security Council decisions made under it.
It is inconsistent with the binding effect of UN Security Council decisions for the judicature of the Union to engage in a full review of the EU measures that seek to implement the Security Council decisions.
To the extent that any review of EU measures faithfully implementing Security Council resolutions is appropriate, the Union judicature must pay due regard to the nature and purpose of the United Nations Charter and the role of the Security Council as the principal body charged with ensuring international peace and security. Given the nature of the Security Council and the important role which it fulfils, having regard to the creation and operation of the Office of Ombudsperson, and taking due account of the summary of reasons provided to the Commission and Mr Yassin Abdullah Kadi, there is no reason to annul Regulation 881/2002 so far as it concerns Mr Yassin Abdullah Kadi.


(1)  OJ L 139, p. 9