C 112/28
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
27.3.2023
Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, French Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands
Form of order sought The appellant claims that the Court should:
— set aside the judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2022 in Joined Cases T-316/14 RENV and T-148/19 in so far as it concerns the dismissal of the actions for annulment brought against Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/513 (1) of 26 March 2015, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1325 (2) of 31 July 2015, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2425 (3) of 21 December 2015, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1127 (4) of 12 July 2016, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/150 (5) of 27 January 2017, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1420 (6) of 4 August 2017, Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 (7) of 8 January 2019, and Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1341 (8) of 8 August 2019 insofar as they concern the PKK (a.k.a.
KADEK a.k.a.
KONGRA-GEL);
— give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal and to annul these Implementing Regulations and Decisions insofar as they concern the PKK (a.k.a.
KADEK a.k.a.
KONGRA-GEL);
— order the Council to pay the costs of litigation of the Appellant arising from the present appeal and from joint cases T-316/14 RENV and T-148/19 with interest.
Pleas in law and main arguments The Appellant submits that the General Court erred in the contested judgment on the following points:
I.
The General Court erred in law regarding the first subparagraph of Article 1(3) of Common Position (9) 2001/931 (hereafter: CP 931) in regards in particular to the interpretation given to the ‘aims’ therein and its application to the case.
The General Court wrongfully concluded that the plea alleging infringement of Article 1(3) CP 931 must be rejected.
II.
The General Court wrongly held that the Council could rely on the order of the UK Home Secretary of 29 March 2001 (hereafter: the UK 2001 decision) as the 1(4) CP 931 decision, since it is not clear whether the events mentioned in the Statements of Reasons in connection to the UK 2001 decision underly the UK 2001 decision, those events are outdated and do not support the conclusion that the appellant was a terrorist group within the meaning of article.
The General Court wrongfully concluded that the plea alleging infringement of article 1(3) and article 1(4) CP 931 in so far as the contested measures are based on the UK 2001 decision must be rejected.
III.
The General Court wrongly held that the Council’s review fulfilled the obligations under Article 1(6) CP 931, that it was conducted in due and proper form and that the Appellant’s plea that Article 1(6) was infringed upon by Council should be rejected as regards the 2015 to 2017 measures and the 2019 decisions.
IV.
The General Court erred in law regarding the principle of proportionality and applied it wrongly to the case at hand.