Case T-531/11: Action brought on 28 September 2011 — Hamas v Council
Date: 2012-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: common foreign and security policy, infringement of EU law, international sanctions, terrorism








C_2012126EN.01001802.xml










28.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 126/18





Action brought on 28 September 2011 — Hamas v Council
(Case T-531/11)
2012/C 126/37
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Hamas (represented by: L. Glock, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision 2011/430/CFSP of 18 July 2011 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, in so far as that decision concerns Hamas (including Hamas-Izz-al-Din-al-Quassem);










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 of 18 July 2011 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 610/2010 and (EU) No 83/2011, in so far as that regulation concerns Hamas (including Hamas-Izz-al-Din-al-Quassem);










—


order the Council to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (1) concerning the taking of a decision by a competent authority, in so far as that authority:






—


should be a judicial authority and not an administrative authority;










—


should be able to rely upon the principle of cooperation in good faith;










—


cannot be the Government of the United States because of the special features of the rules governing listing in the United States;










—


cannot be an authority which does not respect the procedural rights of the persons concerned.




The applicant further claims that the Council does not produce any evidence showing that, in this case, the national decisions concerned are based on serious evidence or clues.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an error in respect of the accuracy of the facts, since the Council failed to prove the facts that it relies on autonomously. The applicant claims that the inaccuracies observed in its application confirm the error in respect of the accuracy of the facts.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an error of assessment as regards the terrorist nature of the applicant, since the classification proposed by the Council is not consistent with the criteria laid down in Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. The applicant submits that the criteria used by the Council are based on an incorrect interpretation of the term ‘terrorism’ which is incompatible with international substantive law.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that insufficient consideration was taken of the evolution of the situation over time, since the Council did not in fact carry out the review provided for in Article 1(6) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP.










5.


Fifth plea, alleging infringement of the principle of non-interference.










6.


Sixth plea, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, since the statement of reasons sent to the applicant does not contain any details on the serious and credible evidence and clues used against the applicant.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection. The applicant submits that those principles were infringed:






—


during the national phase of the procedure, whilst the Council ought to have carried out a review in this connection, and










—


during the European phase of the procedure, owing to the insufficient nature of the evidence supplied by the Council to the applicant.














8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property, since an illegal fund-freezing measure cannot be regarded as a justified interference with the right to property.






(1)  Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 93).