Case T-134/11: Action brought on 3 March 2011 — Al-Faqih and Others v Commission
Date: 2011-03-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Afghanistan, action for annulment, economic sanctions, human rights, international sanctions, natural person, terrorism








C_2011130EN.01002102.xml










30.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 130/21





Action brought on 3 March 2011 — Al-Faqih and Others v Commission
(Case T-134/11)
2011/C 130/41
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih (Birmingham, United Kingdom), Ghunia Abdrabbah (Birmingham, United Kingdom), Taher Nasuf (Manchester, United Kingdom), and Sanabel Relief Agency Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Grieves, Barrister, and N. Garcia-Lora, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 1139/2010 (1) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1138/2010 (2) insofar as they relate to the applicants; and










—


Order that the Council of the European Union pays, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the applicants and any sums advanced by way of legal aid by the cashier of the Court of Justice.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has deliberately ignored binding case-law of the Court of Justice and failed to independently review the basis of the applicants’ designations or required any reasons for those designations.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that Commission Regulation (EU) No 1139/2010 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1138/2010 did not respect the right to judicial review and infringed the rights of the defence, thereby interfering with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the conclusions reached in the Commission’s review concerning one of the applicants, Sanabel Relief Agency Ltd, are wrong and unsustainable in law.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that Commission Regulation (EU) No 1139/2010 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1138/2010 are a disproportionate interference to all four applicants’ rights to property and their private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In addition, such legislation is irrational, particularly given the United Kingdom’s stance that the first three applicants no longer fulfil the relevant criteria.






(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1139/2010 of 7 December 2010 amending for the 141st 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 2010 L 322, p. 6)

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1138/2010 of 7 December 2010 amending for the 140th 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 2010 L 322, p. 4)