CELEX: 62007TN0341
Language: en
Date: 2007-09-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-341/07: Action brought on 10 September 2007 — Sison v Council

10.11.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 269/58
            
         Action brought on 10 September 2007 — Sison v Council
   (Case T-341/07)
   (2007/C 269/105)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: J. M. Sison (Utrecht, The Netherlands) (represented by: J. Fermon, A. Comte, H. Schultz, D.Gürses, W. Kaleck, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Partially annul as specified hereafter, on the basis of Article 230 EC, Council Decision 2007/445/EC of 28 June 2007 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 Decisions 2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC and more specifically:
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul Article 1 point 1.33 of the said decision which reads: ‘Sison, Jose Maria (a.k.a. Armando Liwanag, a.k.a. Joma, in charge of the Communist Party of the Philippines including NPA) born 8.2.1939 in Cabugao, Phippines’;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul partially Article 1 point 2.7 of said decision insofar as it mentions the name of the applicant: Communist Party of the Philippines, including New Peoples Army (NPA), Philippines, linked to Sison Jose Maria C. (a.k.a. Armando Liwanag, a.k.a. Joma, in charge of the Communist Party of the Philippines including NPA);
            
         
               —
            
            
               declare illegal, on the basis of Article 241 EC, 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 (OJ, L 344, p. 70);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Community to compensate the applicant on the basis of Article 235 and 288 EC in an amount to be fixed at EUR 291 427,97 plus EUR 200,87 every month until pronouncement of the judgment of the Court, including interests from October 2002 until the payment in full;
            
         
               —
            
            
               require the Council to bear the costs of suit.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of its application, the applicant seeks partial annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of Council Decision 2007/445/EC (1), of 28 June 2007, implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 (2) on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC, insofar as this decision includes Professor Jose Maria Sison. In addition, the applicant seeks a declaration on the basis of Article 241 EC that Council Regulation No 2580/2001 is illegal, as well as a request for compensation, pursuant to Article 235 EC and 288 EC, for the damages allegedly incurred.
   In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward the following grounds:
   The applicant claims that the Council allegedly infringed Article 253 EC with regards to its statement of reasons motivating its decision. In this regard, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment when reaching the contested decision, since the later was based on unsubstantiated facts and allegations. In addition, according to the applicant, the decision at stake violates the principle of sound administration. Moreover, the applicant submits that the decision violates Article 2(3) of Regulation 2580/2001 EC and Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP and contravenes the principle of proportionality. Furthermore, the applicant contends that the decision is contrary to the freedom of circulation of capital, enshrined in Article 56 EC. Finally, the applicant alleges that the decision was taken in violation of the general principles of Community law deriving from the principle of due process, the right to an impartial Court, the principle of presumption of innocence, the rights of defense and the right to be heard, the principle of legality, the right to the freedom of expression, the right of association as well as the right of ownership, provided in the European Convention of Human Rights. Lastly, the applicant contends that the Council misused its power by including the applicant on the list annexed to the contested decision.
   
      (1)  OJ L 169, p. 58.
   
      (2)  OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 70.