CELEX: 62014CA0158
Language: en
Date: 2017-03-14 00:00:00
Title: Case C-158/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — A, B, C and D v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) — Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Common Position 2001/931/CFSP — Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA — Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 — Article 2(3) — Inclusion of the ‘Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)’ on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts — Question referred for a preliminary ruling concerning the validity of that inclusion — Compliance with international humanitarian law — Concept of ‘terrorist act’ — Actions by armed forces during periods of armed conflict)

15.5.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 151/2
            
         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — A, B, C and D v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken
   (Case C-158/14) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA - Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 - Article 2(3) - Inclusion of the ‘Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)’ on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts - Question referred for a preliminary ruling concerning the validity of that inclusion - Compliance with international humanitarian law - Concept of ‘terrorist act’ - Actions by armed forces during periods of armed conflict))
   (2017/C 151/02)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   
      Referring court
   
   Raad van State
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Appellants: A, B, C and D
   
      Respondent: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               It is not obvious, within the meaning of the case-law based on the judgments of 9 March 1994, TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf (C-188/92, EU:C:1994:90), and of 15 February 2001, Nachi Europe (C-239/99, EU:C:2001:101), that actions for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 610/2010 of 12 July 2010 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1285/2009 or the acts of the European Union preceding that implementing regulation and relating to the inclusion of the ‘Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)’ on the list referred to in Article 2(3) of 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, brought before the General Court of the European Union by persons in a situation such as that of the appellants in the main proceedings, would have been admissible.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               As neither Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism nor Regulation No 2580/2001 precludes actions by armed forces during periods of armed conflict, within the meaning of international humanitarian law, from constituting ‘terrorist acts’ for the purposes of those acts of the European Union, the fact that the activities of the ‘Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)’ may constitute such actions does not affect the validity of Implementing Regulation No 610/2010 or that of the acts of the European Union preceding that implementing regulation and relating to the inclusion referred to in point 1 of the present operative part.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2016.