Case T-316/14: Action brought on 1 May 2014 — PKK/Conseil
Date: 2014-05-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: human rights, law of war, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence, terrorism








C_2014245EN.01002201.xml










28.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/22





Action brought on 1 May 2014 — PKK/Conseil
(Case T-316/14)
2014/C 245/30
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) (represented by: A. van Eik, T. Buruma and M. Wijngaarden, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 125/2014 (1) insofar as it concerns the PKK (a.k.a KADEK a.k.a. Kongra-GEL);










—


Determine that Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 (2) is not applicable to the PKK (a.k.a KADEK a.k.a. Kongra-GEL);










—


In the alternative, determine that a lesser measure than continued placement on the list is warranted;










—


Award of costs and interest to the applicant.





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 that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 125/2014 is void insofar as it concerns the PKK and/or Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 is inapplicable due to a failure to observe the law of armed conflict.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 125/2014 is void insofar as it concerns the PKK since the PKK cannot be qualified as a ‘terrorist organisation’ as defined in Article 1(3) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (3).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 125/2014 is void insofar as it concerns the PKK because no decision by a competent authority, as required by Article 1(4) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP has been taken.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 125/2014 is void insofar as it concerns the PKK as the decision is in part based on information obtained through torture or ill-treatment, thereby failing to respect the fundamental rights, observe the principles and promote the application thereof in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 125/2014 is void insofar as it concerns the PKK since the Council has not conducted any proper review as required by Article 1(6) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 125/2014 is void insofar as it concerns the PKK as the decision does not comply with the requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 125/2014 is void insofar as it concerns the PKK as it does not comply with the obligation to state reasons in conformity with Article 296 TFUE.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 125/2014 is void insofar as it concerns the PKK because it infringes upon the PKK’s right of defense and it’s right to effective judicial protection.






(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 125/2014 of 10 February 2014 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 Regulation (EU) No 714/2013.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism.

(3)  Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism.