CELEX: 62007TJ0256
Language: en
Date: 2008-10-23
Title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 October 2008. # People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council of the European Union. # Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Freezing of funds - Actions for annulment - Rights of the defence - Statement of reasons - Judicial review. # Case T-256/07.

Case T-256/07
      People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran
      v
      Council of the European Union
      (Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism – Freezing of funds – Actions for annulment – Rights of the defence – Statement of reasons – Judicial review)
      Summary of the Judgment
      1.      Procedure – Decision or regulation replacing the contested measure during the course of proceedings 
      2.      Acts of the institutions – Presumption of validity – Non-existent measure – Concept
      (Art. 249 EC)
      3.      Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Obligation to adopt implementing measures
      (Art. 233 EC)
      4.      Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope 
      (Art. 253 EC; Council Common Position 2001/931, Art. 1(6); Council Regulation No 2580/2001, Art. 2(3))
      5.      European Union – Common foreign and security policy – Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities
            with a view to combating terrorism
      (Council Common Position 2001/931, Art. 1; Council Regulation No 2580/2001, Art. 2(3))
      6.      European Union – Common foreign and security policy – Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities
            with a view to combating terrorism
      (Council Common Position 2001/931, Art. 1(4) and (6); Council Regulation No 2580/2001, Art. 2(3))
      7.      European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions
      (Arts 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC)
      1.      When a decision or a regulation of direct and individual concern to an individual is replaced, during the proceedings, by
         another measure with the same subject-matter, this is to be considered a new factor allowing the applicant to adapt its claims
         and pleas in law. It would be contrary to the principle of due administration of justice and to the requirements of procedural
         economy to oblige the applicant to make a fresh application. Moreover, it would be inequitable if the institution in question
         were able, in order to counter criticisms of a measure, contained in an application to the Community judicature, to amend
         the contested measure or to substitute another for it and to rely in the proceedings on such an amendment or substitution
         in order to deprive the other party of the opportunity of extending his original pleadings to the later measure or of submitting
         supplementary pleadings directed against the latter.
      
      (see para. 46)
      2.      Measures of the Community institutions, even though irregular, are in principle presumed to be lawful and accordingly produce
         legal effects until such time as they are withdrawn, declared void in an action for annulment or declared invalid following
         a reference for a preliminary ruling or a plea of illegality.
      
      By way of exception to that principle, measures tainted by an irregularity whose gravity is so obvious that it cannot be tolerated
         by the Community legal order must be treated as having no legal effect, even provisional, that is to say, they must be regarded
         as legally non-existent. The purpose of this exception is to maintain a balance between two fundamental, but sometimes conflicting,
         requirements with which a legal order must comply, namely, stability of legal relations and respect for legality. The gravity
         of the consequences attaching to a finding that a measure of a Community institution is non-existent means that, for reasons
         of legal certainty, such a finding may be reserved for quite extreme situations.
      
      (see paras 55-57)
      3.      In order to comply with an annulling judgment and to implement it fully, the institution that is the author of the measure
         is required to have regard not only to the operative part of the judgment but also to the grounds constituting its essential
         basis, in so far as they are necessary to determine the exact meaning of what is stated in the operative part. It is those
         grounds which, on the one hand, identify the precise provision held to be illegal and, on the other, indicate the specific
         reasons which underlie the finding of illegality contained in the operative part and which the institution concerned must
         take into account when replacing the annulled measure.
      
      However, although a finding of illegality in the grounds of a judgment annulling a measure primarily requires the institution
         which adopted the measure to eliminate that illegality in the measure intended to replace the annulled measure, it may also,
         in so far as it relates to a provision with specific scope in a given area, give rise to other consequences for that institution.
      
      Concerning the annulment for formal and procedural defects of a decision freezing funds which, by virtue of Article 1(6) of
         Common Position 2001/931 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, must be reviewed at regular intervals,
         the institution which adopted the measure is first of all under an obligation to ensure that subsequent fund-freezing measures
         adopted after the annulling judgment and governing periods subsequent to that judgment are not vitiated by the same defects.
      
      When, however, a measure has been annulled for formal or procedural defects, the institution concerned is entitled to adopt
         afresh an identical measure, this time observing the formal and procedural rules in question, and even to give that measure
         retroactive effect, if that is essential to the attainment of the public-interest objective pursued and if the legitimate
         expectations of the persons concerned are duly protected. While the measures necessary to comply with a judgment annulling
         an act, in accordance with Article 233 EC, may involve the institution’s amending or withdrawing, as the case may be, measures
         repealing and replacing the annulled decision, after the close of the oral procedure, the institution concerned has the right
         to maintain those measures in force for so long as is absolutely necessary for it to adopt a new measure satisfying the formal
         and procedural rules concerned.
      
      (see paras 60-62, 64-66)
      4.      Both the statement of reasons for an initial decision to freeze funds and the statement of reasons for subsequent decisions
         must refer not only to the legal conditions of application of Regulation No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed
         against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, in particular the existence of a national decision
         taken by a competent authority, but also to the actual and specific reasons why the Council considers, in the exercise of
         its discretion, that the person concerned must be made the subject of a measure freezing funds.
      
      Furthermore, it is clear from Article 1(6) of Common Position 2001/931 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism,
         also referred to by Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, that, while subsequent fund-freezing decisions must indeed be
         preceded by ‘review’ of the situation of the person concerned, that is not solely for the purpose of establishing whether
         he is still engaged in terrorist activity, as the applicant incorrectly maintains, but in order to check whether continuing
         to include him in the list at issue ‘remains justified’, where appropriate on the basis of new information or evidence.  In
         this regard, when the grounds of a subsequent decision to freeze funds are in essence the same as those already relied on
         when a previous decision was adopted, a mere statement to that effect may suffice, particularly when the person concerned
         is a group or entity. 
      
      (see paras 81-82)
      5.      Neither Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities
         with a view to combating terrorism nor Article 1(2), (3) and (6) of Common Position 2001/931 on the application of specific
         measures to combat terrorism precludes the imposition of restrictive measures on persons or entities that have in the past
         committed acts of terrorism, despite the lack of evidence to show that they are at present committing or participating in
         such acts, if the circumstances warrant it.
      
      First, although Article 1(2) of that Common Position uses the present indicative (‘persons who commit …’) to define what is
         meant by ‘persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts’, that is in the sense of a general truth particular to
         the legal definition of offences, and not by reference to a given period of time. The same is true of the present participle
         used in the French (‘les personnes … commettant’) and English (‘persons committing) texts of Article 2(3) of Regulation No
         2580/2001, which is confirmed by the use of the present indicative for the equivalent form used in other language versions.
         Furthermore, Article 1(4) of that Common Position permits the adoption of restrictive measures against, inter alia, persons
         who have been convicted of acts of terrorism, which would normally imply terrorist activity in the past and not actively pursued
         at the time the finding is made in the decision to convict. Lastly, Article 1(6) provides that the names of persons and entities
         in the list at issue are to be reviewed at regular intervals and at least once every six months to ensure that there are grounds
         for keeping them in the list. If that provision is not to be rendered redundant, it must be considered to allow the continued
         inclusion in the list at issue of persons and entities not having committed any fresh act of terrorism during the six-month
         period or periods before the review, if that continued inclusion is still justified in the light of all relevant circumstances.
         
      
      Secondly, Regulation No 2580/2001 and Common Position 2001/931, like Resolution 1373 (2001) of the Security Council of the
         United Nations to which they give effect, are intended to combat the threats to international peace and security posed by
         acts of terrorism. Attainment of that objective, which is of fundamental importance to the international community, would
         be at risk of being jeopardised if the measures to freeze funds provided for by those acts could be applied only to persons,
         groups or entities at present committing acts of terrorism or having done so in the very recent past.
      
      Furthermore, those measures, being intended essentially to prevent the perpetration of such acts or their repetition, are
         based more on the appraisal of a present or future threat than on the evaluation of past conduct. In this regard, experience
         has shown that temporary cessation of activities by an organisation with a terrorist past is not in itself a guarantee that
         the organisation concerned will not resume them at any moment, and that a purported renunciation of violence expressed in
         that context ought not necessarily to be believed. It follows that the broad discretion enjoyed by the Council with regard
         to the matters to be taken into consideration for the purpose of adopting or of maintaining in force a measure freezing funds
         extends to the evaluation of the threat that may be represented by an organisation having in the past committed acts of terrorism,
         notwithstanding the suspension of its terrorist activities for a more or less long period, or even their apparent cessation.
      
      (see paras 107-112)
      6.      Although it is indeed for the Council to prove that freezing of the funds of a person, group or entity is or remains legally
         justified, in the light of Article 1(4) and (6) of Common Position 2001/931 on the application of specific measures to combat
         terrorism and of Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons
         and entities with a view to combating terrorism, that burden of proof has a relatively limited scope in respect of the Community
         procedure for freezing funds. In the case of an initial decision to freeze funds, the burden of proof essentially relates
         to the existence of precise information or material in the relevant file which indicates that a decision by a national authority
         meeting the definition laid down in Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931 has been taken with regard to the person concerned.
         Furthermore, in the case of a subsequent decision to freeze funds, after review, the burden of proof essentially relates to
         whether the freezing of funds is still justified, having regard to all the relevant circumstances of the case and, most particularly,
         to the action taken upon that decision of the competent national authority.  
      
      (see para. 134)
      7.      The Council has broad discretion as to what to take into consideration for the purpose of adopting economic and financial
         sanctions on the basis of Articles 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC, consistent with a common position adopted on the basis of the
         common foreign and security policy. This discretion concerns, in particular, the assessment of the considerations of appropriateness
         on which such decisions are based. 
      
      However, although the Community judicature acknowledges that the Council possesses broad discretion in that sphere, that does
         not mean that the Court is not to review the interpretation made by the Council of the relevant facts. The Community judicature
         must not only establish whether the evidence relied on is factually accurate, reliable and consistent, but must also ascertain
         whether that evidence contains all the relevant information to be taken into account in order to assess the situation and
         whether it is capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it. Nevertheless, when conducting such a review, it must
         not substitute its own assessment of what is appropriate for that of the Council.
      
      In addition, where a Community institution enjoys broad discretion, the review of observance of certain procedural guarantees
         is of fundamental importance. Those guarantees include the obligation for the competent institution to examine carefully and
         impartially all the relevant elements of the individual case and to give an adequate statement of the reasons for its decision.
      
      (see paras 137-139)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Seventh Chamber)
      23 October 2008 (*)
      
      (Common foreign and security policy ‑ Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating
         terrorism – Freezing of funds – Actions for annulment – Rights of the defence – Statement of reasons – Judicial review)
      
      In Case T‑256/07,
      People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, established in Auvers‑sur‑Oise (France), represented by J.-P. Spitzer, lawyer, and D. Vaughan QC,
      
      applicant,
      v
      Council of the European Union, represented by M. Bishop and E. Finnegan, acting as Agents,
      
      defendant,
      supported by
      United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented initially by V. Jackson and T. Harris, and subsequently by V. Jackson, acting as Agents, and by S. Lee and M.
         Gray, Barristers,
      
      by
      Commission of the European Communities, represented initially by S. Boelaert and J. Aquilina, and subsequently by S. Boelaert, P. Aalto and P. van Nuffel, acting
         as Agents,
      
      and by
      Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by M. de Grave and Y. de Vries, acting as Agents,
      
      interveners,
      APPLICATION, initially, for annulment of 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 (OJ 2007 L 169, p. 58), so far as it concerns the applicant,
      
      THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Seventh Chamber),
      composed of N.J. Forwood (Rapporteur), President, D. Šváby and L. Truchot, Judges,
      Registrar: E. Coulon,
      having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 6 March 2008,
      gives the following
      Judgment
       Background to the case
      1        For a summary of the early background to this case, reference is made to the judgment in Case T‑228/02 Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran v Council [2006] ECR II‑4665 (‘OMPI’), paragraphs 1 to 26.).
      
      2        After the oral hearing in OMPI, which was held on 7 February 2006, but before the judgment was delivered, the Council adopted Decision 2006/379/EC of 29
         May 2006 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 Decision 2005/930/EC (OJ 2006 L 144, p. 21).  It is
         established that, by that decision, the Council continued to include the applicant’s name in the list in the Annex to Council
         Regulation (EC) 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities
         with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70, ‘the list at issue’). 
      
      3        By the judgment in OMPI, paragraph 1 above, the Court annulled, in so far as it concerned the applicant, Council Decision 2005/930/EC of 21 December
         2005 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2005/848/EC (OJ 2006 L 340, p. 64),
         on the ground that it did not contain a sufficient statement of reasons, that it had been adopted in the course of a procedure
         during which the applicant’s right to a fair hearing was not observed and that the Court itself was not in a position to review
         the lawfulness of that decision (see the judgment in OMPI, paragraph 1 above, paragraph 173).
      
      4        On 21 December 2006, the Council adopted Decision 2006/1008/EC implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 (OJ 2006
         L 379, p. 123). By that decision, the Council added the names of certain persons, groups and entities to the list at issue.
      
      5        By letter of 30 January 2007 the Council informed the applicant that, in its opinion, the reasons for including the applicant
         in the list at issue were still valid and that it therefore intended to maintain it in the list.  Enclosed with that letter
         was the Council’s statement of reasons.  The applicant was also informed that it could submit observations to the Council
         on the latter’s intention to continue to include it in the list and on the reasons stated in that regard, and any supporting
         documents, within a period of one month. 
      
      6        In the statement of reasons enclosed with the letter, the Council pointed out, inter alia, that a decision had been taken
         with respect to the applicant by a competent authority within the meaning of Article 1(4) of 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), namely, the order
         of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘the Home Secretary’) of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
         Ireland of 28 March 2001 proscribing the applicant as an organisation concerned in terrorism, under the Terrorism Act 2000
         (‘the Home Secretary’s order’). After noting that that decision, which under the abovementioned law was subject to review,
         was still in force, the Council held that the reasons for including the applicant in the list at issue still applied. 
      
      7        By letters of 27 February, and 19, 20 and 26 March 2007, the applicant submitted to the Council its observations in response.
         It argued in particular that, following the judgment in OMPI, paragraph 1 above, no decision whatsoever to ‘maintain’ the applicant in the list at issue could validly be adopted.  It
         also criticised both the reasons stated by the Council as justification for that decision and the procedure it had followed.
         Last, it requested access to the Council’s file. 
      
      8        Under cover of a letter of 30 March 2007, the Council sent the applicant a set of 16 documents.  It pointed out, with regard
         to communication of the other documents in the file, that the originating Member State(s) had first to be consulted.
      
      9        By letter of 16 April 2007 the applicant stated that it was essential for it to have access to all the documents in the file
         and to have the opportunity to comment on them before a decision was adopted.  On the same day, the applicant’s lawyers sent
         a joint opinion to the Council, in which they reiterated the arguments put forward previously and also argued that the Home
         Secretary’s order could not serve as a basis for the intended decision. 
      
      10      By notice published in the Official Journal (OJ 2007 C 90, p. 1) on 25 April 2007, the Council notified the persons, groups and entities listed in Decisions 2006/379
         and 2006/1008 that it intended to maintain them in the list at issue.  The Council also informed the parties concerned that
         it was possible to request the Council’s statement of reasons for including them in the list in question (unless this had
         already been communicated to them).
      
      11      By letter of 14 May 2007 the Council sent the applicant another document from the file.  As regards the other documents not
         yet communicated, the Council indicated that the State which provided them did not consent to their disclosure. Furthermore,
         the Council enclosed with that letter a note from its general secretariat to the Committee of Permanent Representatives (Coreper)
         of 19 January 2007 (document 5418/1/07 REV 1), entitled ‘Follow-up to the judgment [in OMPI]’, which enclosed a draft letter
         and statement of reasons the content of which is identical to that of the Council’s letter to the applicant of 30 January
         2007, referred to in paragraph 5 above. 
      
      12      By letter of 29 May 2007 the applicant submitted additional observations, in which it analysed the documents provided by the
         Council.  It also insisted that the exculpatory documents it provided should be included in the file. 
      
      13      By letter of 12 June 2007 the Council informed the applicant that copies of its correspondence and of all the exculpatory
         documents submitted by it had been distributed to the delegations of the Member States. 
      
      14      On 28 June 2007 the Council adopted Decision 2007/445/EC implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing
         Decisions 2006/379 and 2006/1008 (OJ 2007 L 169, p. 58).  Under Article 1 of that decision, the list provided for in Article
         2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 was replaced by the list contained in the annex to the decision.  It is common ground that
         the applicant’s name appears in that annex. 
      
      15      Decision 2007/445 was notified to the applicant under cover of a letter from the Council dated 29 June 2007 (‘the first letter
         of notification’).  The statement of reasons enclosed with that letter is in substance identical to that enclosed with the
         letter of 30 January 2007 (see paragraph 6 above). 
      
       Procedure and fresh developments during the proceedings
      16      By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 16 July 2007, the applicant brought the present action.
         
      
      17      By separate document lodged at the Registry on the same day, the applicant applied for the case to be decided under an expedited
         procedure pursuant to Article 76a of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.  The Council presented its observations
         on that application on 30 July 2007. 
      
      18      Before giving a ruling on that request, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) decided, on 13 September 2007, to summon
         the parties’ agents to an informal meeting before the Judge-Rapporteur pursuant to Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure. 
         That meeting was held on 10 October 2007. 
      
      19      The composition of the Chambers of the Court of First Instance having been altered as from the beginning of the judicial year,
         the Judge-Rapporteur was attached to the Seventh Chamber, to which this case has therefore been assigned. 
      
      20      On 11 October 2007, the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) decided to adjudicate under an expedited procedure, provided
         that the applicant submitted, within seven days, an abbreviated version of its application and a list of only those annexes
         which had to be taken into consideration, in accordance with the draft it had prepared for the informal meeting. The applicant
         complied with that condition. 
      
      21      By order of 20 November 2007, after the parties had been heard, the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of First
         Instance granted the United Kingdom, the Commission of the European Communities and the Kingdom of the Netherlands leave to
         intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Council. 
      
      22      By Open Determination No PC/02/2006 of 30 November 2007 the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, United Kingdom (‘the
         POAC’) allowed an appeal against the Home Secretary’s decision of 1 September 2006 refusing to lift the proscription of the
         applicant as an organisation concerned in terrorism and ordered the Home Secretary to lay before the United Kingdom Parliament
         the draft of an Order removing the applicant from the list of organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 (‘the
         POAC’s decision’).
      
      23      Under cover of a letter dated 5 December 2007, the applicant lodged at the Court Registry a copy of the POAC’s decision and
         a copy of the letter it had sent the same day to the Council seeking removal from the list at issue in the light of the POAC’s
         decision. 
      
      24      By letter of 12 December 2007, the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) put written questions to the parties concerning
         the possible effect of the POAC’s decision on the present case and the appropriateness of conducting the case under an expedited
         procedure. 
      
      25      By decision of 14 December 2007, the POAC refused an application by the Home Secretary for permission to lodge an appeal before
         the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) against the POAC’s decision of 30 November 2007.  In an addendum to that decision
         dated 17 December 2007, the POAC gave as the reason for its refusal the fact that none of the arguments advanced by the Home
         Secretary had a reasonable chance of succeeding. 
      
      26      On 20 December 2007 the Council adopted Council Decision 2007/868/EC implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001
         and repealing Decision 2007/445 (OJ 2007 L 340, p. 100).  In accordance with Article 1 of that decision, the list provided
         for in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 is replaced by the list in the annex.  It is common ground that the applicant’s
         name is repeated in point 2.19 of that annex, under the heading ‘Groups and entities’.
      
      27      On 28 December 2007 the Home Secretary made an application to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against the POAC’s decision.
      
      28      Decision 2007/868 was notified to the applicant under cover of a letter from the Council of 3 January 2008 (‘the second letter
         of notification’).  According to the tenor of that letter, the Council took the view that the reasons for continuing to include
         the applicant in the list at issue, previously communicated to that party by the first letter of notification, still held
         good.  With regard to the POAC’s decision, the Council observed that the Home Secretary had sought to bring an appeal against
         it.
      
      29      The statement of reasons enclosed with the second letter of notification is identical to that accompanying the first letter
         of notification (see paragraph 15 above).
      
      30      By letter received at the Court Registry on 11 January 2008, the applicant informed the Court of the adoption of Decision
         2007/868.  It requested to be allowed to amend the form of order sought so that its application sought annulment of that decision
         too.  Furthermore, it asked the Court to continue to adjudicate under the expedited procedure and maintained that this case
         was rendered all the more urgent by the adoption of the decision in question.
      
      31      The Council, the United Kingdom and the Commission lodged their written observations at the Registry in response to the Court’s
         questions of 12 December 2007 on 15 and 16 January 2008, respectively.
      
      32      Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur, the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) decided to open the oral procedure
         and, by way of measures of organisation of procedure pursuant to Article 64 of its Rules of Procedure, by letter of the Registrar
         of 5 February 2008:
      
      –        requested the Council and the interveners to submit their written observations on the request to amend the applicant’s form
         of order referred to in paragraph 30 above;
      
      –        requested the Council and the United Kingdom to lodge all the documents relating to the procedure following which Decision
         2007/868 was adopted, so far as it concerned the applicant;
      
      –        gave the United Kingdom leave to lodge a statement in intervention.
      33      In their observations written in response to those measures of organisation of procedure, lodged at the Court Registry on
         19 and 21 February 2008 respectively, the Council, the Commission and the Netherlands declared that they had no objection
         to the applicant’s request to adapt its forms of order, referred to in paragraph 30 above. 
      
      34      In contrast, the United Kingdom, in its statement in intervention lodged at the Court Registry on 21 February 2008, maintained,
         referring to paragraph 34 of OMPI, paragraph 1 above, that in this case the Court should exercise its judicial review in relation to Decision 2007/868 alone.
         According to that intervener, Decision 2007/445 can no longer be subject to such review because it was repealed by Decision
         2007/868.
      
      35      Further, the Council and the United Kingdom complied with the Court’s request that they should produce the documents relating
         to the procedure followed in the adoption of Decision 2007/868, in so far as it concerned the applicant.  On that occasion,
         the United Kingdom requested, none the less, that the information in the documents it produced should not be disclosed to
         the public.
      
      36      The parties’ oral arguments and their answers to the questions put by the Court were heard at the hearing of 6 March 2008.
      
      37      Under cover of a letter of 13 May 2008, the applicant lodged at the Court Registry a copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment
         of 7 May 2008 dismissing the Home Secretary’s application for leave to bring an appeal before that court against the POAC
         decision (‘the Court of Appeal’s judgment’).  In that letter, the applicant made several remarks on that judgment.
      
      38      By order of 12 June 2008, the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) decided to order the reopening of the oral procedure
         in accordance with Article 62 of the Rules of Procedure, in order to enable the other parties to express a view on those new
         factors. 
      
      39      By letter from the Registry of 12 June 2008, the other parties were requested to submit their observations on the applicant’s
         letter of 13 May 2008 and on the Court of Appeal’s judgment. 
      
      40      The Council having complied with that request by letter lodged at the Registry on 7 July 2008 and the applicant not being
         authorised to respond to it, the Court again closed the oral procedure by decision of 15 July 2008.
      
       Forms of order sought by the parties
      41      In its application, the applicant claims that the Court should:
      
      –        annul Decision 2007/445, in so far as it applies to the applicant;
      –        order the Council to pay the costs. 
      42      In its letter to the Court of 11 January 2008, the applicant also claims that the Court should annul Decision 2007/868 in
         so far as the latter applies to it.
      
      43      The Council contends that the Court should:
      
      –        dismiss the application;
      –        order the applicant to pay the costs.
      44      The United Kingdom, the Netherlands and the Commission support the first of the Council’s heads of claim. 
      
       On the procedural consequences of the repeal and replacement of Decision 2007/445
      45      As is made clear in paragraph 26 above, since the application was lodged Decision 2007/445 has been repealed and replaced
         by Decision 2007/868.  The applicant has sought leave to adapt its original claims so that its action seeks annulment of those
         two decisions.
      
      46      It is to be borne in mind in this connection that, when a decision or a regulation is replaced, during the proceedings, by
         another measure with the same subject-matter, this is to be considered a new factor allowing the applicant to adapt its claims
         and pleas in law.  It would be contrary to the principle of due administration of justice and to the requirements of procedural
         economy to oblige the applicant to make a fresh application.  Moreover, it would be inequitable if the institution in question
         were able, in order to counter criticisms of a measure, contained in an application to the Community judicature, to amend
         the contested measure or to substitute another for it and to rely in the proceedings on such an amendment or substitution
         in order to deprive the other party of the opportunity of extending his original pleadings to the later measure or of submitting
         supplementary pleadings directed against that decision (OMPI, paragraph 1 above, paragraphs 28 and 29 and case-law cited).
      
      47      It is therefore appropriate in the present case, in accordance with that case-law, to allow the applicant’s request and to
         consider that, on the date on which the oral procedure was closed, its action sought annulment of Decision 2007/868 also,
         in so far as that act concerns it, and to allow the parties to reformulate their claims, pleas in law and arguments in the
         light of that new factor, which implies, for them, the right to submit supplementary claims, pleas in law and arguments (OMPI, paragraph 1 above, paragraph 30).
      
      48      Furthermore, the applicant still has an interest in obtaining annulment of Decision 2007/445 so far as the latter concerns
         it, in that the repeal of an act of an institution does not constitute recognition of the unlawfulness of that act and has
         effect ex nunc, unlike a judgment annulling an act, by which the act is retroactively eliminated from the legal order and is deemed never
         to have existed (OMPI, paragraph 1 above, paragraphs 34 and 35 and case-law cited; see also, to that effect, the judgment in Joined Cases 16/59,
         17/59 and 18/59 Geitling and Others v High Authority [1960] ECR 17, p. 26).  It is therefore to be considered that the Court’s review will extend to that decision too, contrary
         to the arguments of the United Kingdom based on a plainly incorrect reading of paragraphs 34 and 35 of OMPI, paragraph 1 above.
      
      49      In this judgment the Court will rule in turn on the application for annulment of Decision 2007/445 and on the application
         for annulment of Decision 2007/868.
      
       On the application for annulment of Decision 2007/445
      50      In support of its claim for annulment of Decision 2007/445, the applicant raises, essentially, five pleas in law. The first,
         which falls into three parts, alleges infringement of Article 233 EC and of the principles laid down by the Court of First
         Instance in OMPI, paragraph 1 above.  The second alleges infringement of the rights of the defence and of the obligation to state reasons.
         The third alleges infringement of Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001. The fourth alleges misapplication of the burden
         of proof and a manifest error of assessment of the evidence.  The fifth alleges abuse or misuse of powers.
      
       The first plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 23 EC and of the principles laid down by the Court of First Instance
            in OMPI 
       The first part of the first plea in law
      51      In the first part of that plea in law, the applicant observes that, according to the recitals in the preamble to Decision
         2007/445 and the statement of reasons contained in the letter of notification, the Council decided to ‘maintain’ the applicant
         in the list at issue on the basis of the fact that Decision 2006/379, which had not been annulled by the Court, was still
         in force.  Decision 2007/445 is therefore based on the ‘continued validity’ of Decision 2006/379. 
      
      52      The applicant then argues, in essence, that it was not possible for the Council to ‘maintain’ the applicant in the list at
         issue, since Decision 2005/930 had been annulled by the judgment in OMPI, paragraph 1 above, and all the other Council decisions, in particular Decision 2006/379, must be held null and void ipso jure in so far as they apply to the applicant, by virtue of that judgment, inasmuch as they are vitiated by the same procedural
         flaws (infringement of the rights of the defence) and formal defects (absence of reasons) as those providing grounds for the
         annulment of Decision 2005/930.
      
      53      The applicant relies, in particular, on paragraph 35 of the judgment in OMPI, paragraph 1 above, in which the Court held, on the one hand, that under a judgment annulling an act, ‘the act is eliminated
         retroactively from the legal order and is deemed never to have existed’ and, on the other hand, that if the contested acts
         were annulled, [the Council] w[ould] be obliged to take the measures necessary to comply with that judgment, pursuant to Article
         233 EC, which may involve its amending or withdrawing, as the case may be, any acts which have repealed and replaced the acts
         contested subsequent to the close of the oral procedure’.  The applicant believes that, in those circumstances, the Council
         is not entitled to rely, in adopting the contested decision, on the fact that the Court had not annulled Decision 2006/379.
         
      
      54      It is to be borne in mind here that by its judgment in OMPI, paragraph 1 above, the Court annulled Decision 2005/930 in so far as it concerned the applicant.  On the other hand, the
         Court did not annul Decision 2006/379, the latter not, indeed, having been submitted to its judicial review, because it had
         been adopted after the closure of the oral procedure and because the applicant had not sought to have that procedure reopened
         with a view to adapting its claims in the light of the new factor constituted by its adoption (see, also, OMPI, paragraph 1 above, paragraph 33).
      
      55      Moreover, according to settled case-law, measures of the Community institutions, even though irregular, are in principle presumed
         to be lawful and accordingly produce legal effects until such time as they are withdrawn, declared void in an action for annulment
         or declared invalid following a reference for a preliminary ruling or a plea of illegality (see, to that effect, Case 11/81
         Dürbeck v Commission [1982] ECR 1251, paragraph 17; Case 15/85 Consorzio Cooperativo d’Abruzzo v Commission [1987] ECR 1005, paragraph 10; Case C‑137/92 P Commission v BASF and Others [1994] ECR I‑2555, paragraph 48; Case C‑245/92 P Chemie Linz v Commission [1999] ECR I‑4643, paragraph 93; and Case C‑475/01 Commission v Greece [2004] ECR I‑8923, paragraph 18).
      
      56      By way of exception to that principle, measures tainted by an irregularity whose gravity is so obvious that it cannot be tolerated
         by the Community legal order must be treated as having no legal effect, even provisional, that is to say, they must be regarded
         as legally non-existent.  The purpose of this exception is to maintain a balance between two fundamental, but sometimes conflicting,
         requirements with which a legal order must comply, namely, stability of legal relations and respect for legality (Commission v BASF and Others, paragraph 55 above, paragraph 49; Chemie Linz v Commission, paragraph 55 above, paragraph 94; and Commission v Greece, paragraph 55 above, paragraph 19). 
      
      57      The gravity of the consequences attaching to a finding that a measure of a Community institution is non-existent means that,
         for reasons of legal certainty, such a finding may be reserved for quite extreme situations (Commission v BASF and Others, paragraph 55 above, paragraph 50; Chemie Linz v Commission, paragraph 55 above, paragraph 95 and Commission v Greece, paragraph 55 above, paragraph 20). 
      
      58      Decision 2006/379 cannot, however, be regarded as such a non-existent measure, even if it were vitiated by the same formal
         and procedural defects as those vitiating Decision 2005/930, as the applicant has claimed without being contradicted by the
         Council. 
      
      59      It follows that that decision could not be held by the Council to be ‘null and void ipso jure’ with regard to the applicant, contrary to the latter’s argument.
      
      60      For the rest, it is to be recalled that, in order to comply with an annulling judgment and to implement it fully, the institution
         that is the author of the measure is required to have regard not only to the operative part of the judgment but also to the
         grounds constituting its essential basis, in so far as they are necessary to determine the exact meaning of what is stated
         in the operative part.  It is those grounds which, on the one hand, identify the precise provision held to be illegal and,
         on the other, indicate the specific reasons which underlie the finding of illegality contained in the operative part and which
         the institution concerned must take into account when replacing the annulled measure (Joined Cases 97/86, 99/86, 193/86 and
         215/86 Asteris and Others v Commission [1988] ECR 2181, paragraph 27).
      
      61      However, although a finding of illegality in the grounds of a judgment annulling a measure primarily requires the institution
         which adopted the measure to eliminate that illegality in the measure intended to replace the annulled measure, it may also,
         in so far as it relates to a provision with specific scope in a given area, give rise to other consequences for that institution
         (Asteris and Others v Commission, paragraph 60 above, paragraph 28).
      
      62      In cases such as this, concerning the annulment for formal and procedural defects of a decision freezing funds which, by virtue
         of Article 1(6) of Common Position 2001/931, must be reviewed at regular intervals, the institution which adopted the measure
         is first of all under an obligation to ensure that subsequent fund-freezing measures adopted after the annulling judgment
         and governing periods subsequent to that judgment are not vitiated by the same defects (Asteris and Others v Commission, paragraph 60 above, paragraph 29).
      
      63      In this instance, the Council has satisfied that obligation by introducing and then setting in motion, immediately after delivery
         of the judgment in OMPI, paragraph 1 above, a new procedure in order to observe the formal and procedural rules set out by the Court in that judgment,
         in particular in paragraphs 126 (rights of the defence) and 151 (statement of reasons), and to enable the applicant to enjoy
         the guarantees under that new procedure, before adopting Decision 2007/445 with regard to the applicant (see paragraph 88
         et seq. below).
      
      64      It is in addition to be acknowledged that, by virtue of the retroactive effect of annulling judgments, the finding of unlawfulness
         takes effect from the date on which the annulled measure entered into force (Asteris and Others v Commission, paragraph 60 above, paragraph 30).  So, the Court stated in OMPI, paragraph 1 above, paragraph 35, that the measures necessary to comply with that judgment, in accordance with Article 233 EC,
         might involve the Council’s amending or withdrawing, as the case may be, measures repealing and replacing the annulled Decision
         2005/930, after the close of the oral procedure.
      
      65      The Council and the United Kingdom were correct, however, in noting in their pleadings that it did not follow from paragraph
         35 of OMPI, paragraph 1 above, that the Council was necessarily bound to amend or withdraw the measures in question.  It is apparent
         from the case-law that, when a measure has been annulled for formal or procedural defects, as it has in this instance, the
         institution concerned is entitled to adopt afresh an identical measure, this time observing the formal and procedural rules
         in question, and even to give that measure retroactive effect, if that is essential to the attainment of the public-interest
         objective pursued and if the legitimate expectations of the persons concerned are duly protected (Case 108/81 Amylum v Council [1982] ECR 3107, paragraphs 4 to 17; Case C‑331/88 Fedesa and Others [1990] ECR I‑4023, paragraphs 45 to 47; and Case T‑26/89 de Compte v Parliament [1991] ECR II‑781, paragraph 66). 
      
      66      That case-law may be applied, by analogy, to the situation envisaged in paragraph 35 of OMPI, paragraph 1 above, on the understanding that, in such a case, the institution concerned has the right to maintain in force
         the measure repealing or replacing the annulled measure, after the oral procedure has been closed, for so long as is absolutely
         necessary for it to adopt a new measure satisfying the formal and procedural rules concerned.  In this very particular situation,
         it would clearly run counter to the attainment of the public interest objective pursued to require the Council first to withdraw
         the measure inconsistent with those rules and then, subsequently, to authorise it to give retroactive effect to the measure
         newly adopted in keeping with those rules.
      
      67      Thus, in this instance, and still on the assumption that Decision 2006/379 is vitiated by the same formal and procedural defects
         as those marring Decision 2005/930, it is not to be held against the Council that it refused to amend or withdraw it, so far
         as the applicant was concerned, for so long as was absolutely necessary for it to adopt a new measure, observing the formal
         and procedural rules the breach of which was found to be wrongful in OMPI, paragraph 1 above, if that institution believed that the grounds it relied on in order to include the applicant in the list
         at issue were still valid.  In this regard, the Council has rightly noted that, in OMPI, paragraph 1 above, the Court did not give a decision on the merits of those grounds.  Moreover, the legitimate expectations
         of the party concerned have been duly observed, for the Council informed it of its intentions by letter of 30 January 2007
         (see paragraph 5 above).
      
      68      Nor, in those circumstances, can the Council be criticised for having decided to ‘maintain’ the applicant in the list at issue,
         or for having relied, for that purpose, on the ‘continued validity’ of Decision 2006/379.
      
      69      In any case, as the United Kingdom and the Council have rightly argued, Decision 2007/445 is neither based on, nor conditional
         on the validity of, Decision 2006/379.  Although it is true that in OMPI, paragraph 1 above, the Court, for the purposes of determining the content and limitations of the guarantees relating to
         observance of the rights of the defence and to the obligation to state reasons, distinguished the ‘initial decision’ to freeze
         funds, as referred to in Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931, from ‘subsequent decisions’ to continue the freezing of
         funds, after review, as provided for in Article 1(6) of that Common Position, the fact remains that each of those subsequent
         decisions constitutes a new decision taken pursuant to Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and resulting from review by
         the Council of the list at issue (see, to that effect, Case C‑229/05 P PKK and KNK v Council [2007] ECR I‑445, paragraph 103, expressly upholding on that point the order made by the Court of First Instance on 15 February
         2005 in Case T‑229/02 PKK and KNK v Council [2005] ECR II‑539, paragraph 44).
      
      70      In those circumstances, neither the fact that the Council referred, in the preamble to Decision 2007/445, to Decision 2006/379,
         nor the fact that it decided to ‘maintain’ the applicant in the list at issue, is such as to taint Decision 2007/445 with
         unlawfulness.
      
      71      The first part of the first plea in law must, therefore, be rejected as unfounded. 
      
       The second part of the first plea in law
      72      In the second part of the plea, the applicant observes that Decision 2007/445 is based, so far as it is applicable to the
         applicant, on the same order of the Home Secretary and on the same items of evidence as those which were the basis for Decision
         2005/930.
      
      73      Next, the applicant claims, in substance, that the Council had no right to ‘reuse’ or ‘recycle’ such matters to form the basis
         of Decision 2007/445.  By relying on those matters alone, the Council proceeded by way of ‘regularisation’, in breach not
         only of the principles laid down by the Court in OMPI, paragraph 1 above, but also of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.
      
      74      The applicant argues more particularly that, in so far as Decision 2005/930 was annulled in part for infringement of the rights
         of the defence and of the obligation to give reasons, it was incumbent on the Council to adopt a new decision with regard
         to the applicant, based on a new decision taken by a national authority or on new evidence, but certainly not on the Home
         Secretary’s order or on pre-2001 evidence.  In its view, Decision 2007/445, being based solely on this latter material, is
         null and void ipso jure so far as it concerns the applicant. 
      
      75      It suffices to note that annulment of a measure for formal or procedural defects in no way prejudices the right of the institution
         that was the author of the measure to adopt a new measure on the basis of the same matters of law and fact as those serving
         as the basis for the measure annulled, provided that on this occasion it observes the formal and procedural rules whose breach
         gave rise to the annulment and that the legitimate expectations of the persons concerned are duly protected (see paragraph
         65 above).
      
      76      In this instance, even if it were to be established that Decision 2007/445 is based, so far the applicant is concerned, on
         the same order of the Home Secretary and on the same items of evidence as those which were the basis for Decision 2005/930,
         that could have no bearing on the lawfulness of that decision.  Furthermore, it has already been found, in paragraph 67 above,
         that the legitimate expectations of the party concerned had been duly protected in the circumstances. 
      
      77      The second part of the first plea in law must, therefore, be rejected as unfounded.
      
       The third part of the first plea in law
      78      In the third part of the first plea in law, put forward in the alternative, the applicant notes that in OMPI, paragraph 1 above, the Court distinguished the initial decision to include a person in the list at issue from the subsequent
         decisions to keep him in the list.  It maintains that it is apparent from paragraphs 143 and 145 of that judgment that an
         initial decision may be adopted on the sole basis of a decision taken by a competent national authority.  By contrast, subsequent
         decisions must state the actual and specific reasons relied on by the Council.  It is equally clear from paragraphs 144 and
         145 of OMPI, paragraph 1 above, that subsequent decisions must be preceded by a review of the situation of the person concerned, in order
         to establish whether he is still engaged in terrorist activities.
      
      79      It follows, according to the applicant, that in order to continue to include the applicant in the list at issue, by Decision
         2007/445, the Council could not rely simply upon an order of the Home Secretary or refer to events dating from 2001.
      
      80      It must immediately be stated that the applicant’s arguments proceed from a misinterpretation of OMPI, paragraph 1 above.
      
      81      It follows in particular from paragraphs 143 to 146 and 151 of that judgment that both the statement of reasons for an initial
         decision to freeze funds and the statement of reasons for subsequent decisions must refer not only to the legal conditions
         of application of Regulation No 2580/2001, in particular the existence of a national decision taken by a competent authority,
         but also to the actual and specific reasons why the Council considers, in the exercise of its discretion, that the person
         concerned must be made the subject of a measure freezing funds.
      
      82      Furthermore, it is clear from both paragraph 145 of that judgment and from Article 1(6) of Common Position 2001/931, also
         referred to by Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, that, while subsequent fund-freezing decisions must indeed be preceded
         by ‘review’ of the situation of the person concerned, that is not solely for the purpose of establishing whether he is still
         engaged in terrorist activity, as the applicant incorrectly maintains, but in order to check whether continuing to include
         him in the list at issue ‘remains justified’, where appropriate on the basis of new information or evidence.  In this regard,
         the Court has stated that, when the grounds of a subsequent decision to freeze funds are in essence the same as those already
         relied on when a previous decision was adopted, a mere statement to that effect may suffice, particularly when the person
         concerned is a group or entity (judgment of 11 July 2007 in Case T‑327/03 Al-Aqsa v Council, not published in the ECR, paragraph 54).
      
      83      As to the remainder, the applicant’s arguments clearly lack any factual basis.  In the statement of reasons enclosed with
         its letter to the applicant of 30 January 2007, the Council did not merely rely on the Home Secretary’s order.  In the first
         paragraph of that statement of reasons, the Council referred to a series of acts, allegedly performed by the applicant, which
         it considered fell within the scope of Article 1(3)(iii)(a), (b), (d), (g) and (h) of Common Position 2001/931 and had been
         performed with the aims set out in Article 1(3)(i) and (iii) thereof.  In the second paragraph of its statement of reasons,
         the Council drew the inference that Article 2(3)(ii) of Regulation No 2580/81 applied to the applicant. In the following paragraphs
         of that statement, the Council also pointed out that the Home Secretary’s order, which was intended to proscribe the applicant
         as an organisation concerned in terrorism and which, under the Terrorism Act 2000, could be the subject of judicial review,
         remained in force.  Having thus stated that the grounds for including the applicant in the list at issue were still valid,
         the Council informed that party of its decision to continue to subject it to the measures provided for in Article 2(1) and
         (2) of Regulation No 2580/2001.
      
      84      The Council thus stated, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraphs 81 and 82 above, the actual and specific reasons
         why it considered, in the exercise of its discretion, that the applicant must continue to be the subject of a measure freezing
         its funds.
      
      85      The question whether the grounds relied on by the Council were such as to provide legal justification, in fact as in law,
         for the adoption of Decision 2007/445, falls within the ambit of the review of lawfulness of the substance of that decision,
         which will be carried out when the third and fourth pleas in law are examined.
      
      86      The third part of the first plea in law must therefore be rejected as unfounded and, with it, that plea in its entirety.
      
       The second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the obligation to state reasons
      87      With regard, first, to the alleged infringement of the rights of the defence, the applicant maintains that it was never able
         properly to put its case relating to the relevant explanations put forward to justify its continued inclusion in the list
         at issue.  It argues, more particularly, that the only information it has received from the Council dates from before 2001,
         that the Council has not sought in any way to respond to the criticisms submitted to it, that it has taken no account at all
         of the exculpatory material produced by the applicant and, furthermore, that the applicant has not been given the opportunity
         to express its views at a hearing.  
      
      88      It is to be borne in mind that the purpose of the safeguard relating to observance of the rights of the defence, in the context
         of the adoption of a decision to freeze funds taken pursuant to Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, and the limitations
         of that safeguard which may lawfully be applied to the persons concerned, in such a context, have been defined by the Court
         in OMPI, paragraph 1 above, paragraphs 114 to 137.
      
      89      In the present case, it is clear from the facts and circumstances set out in paragraphs 5 to 13 above that in adopting Decision
         2007/445 the Council acted in due conformity with the principles laid down by the Court in OMPI, paragraph 1 above, paragraphs 114 to 137.
      
      90      First, in an enclosure with its letter of 30 January 2007, the Council sent to the applicant a statement clearly and unambiguously
         explaining the reasons which, in its opinion, justified the applicant’s continued inclusion in the list at issue (see also
         paragraph 83 above).  That statement contained specific examples of acts of terrorism as referred to in the relevant provisions
         of Common Position 2001/931 for which the applicant was said to be responsible.  It also stated that, because of those acts,
         a decision had been taken by a competent authority of the United Kingdom to proscribe the applicant as an organisation concerned
         in acts of terrorism, that that decision was subject to review under the applicable United Kingdom legislation and that it
         was still in force.  The letter of 30 January 2007 further stated that the applicant might submit to the Council its observations
         on the latter’s intention to maintain it in the list at issue and on the reasons adduced in that connection, and all supporting
         documents, within the period of one month.
      
      91      Secondly, by letters of 30 March and 14 May 2007, the Council communicated to the applicant a number of documents from the
         file.  As regards the other documents, the Council explained in its letter of 14 May 2007 that it was not in a position to
         forward them to the applicant, because the State which had provided them had not consented to their disclosure.  In the present
         proceedings, the applicant has challenged neither that refusal to communicate certain incriminating documents, nor the reasons
         put forward to justify it.
      
      92      Thirdly, the Council placed the applicant in a position to make its case properly regarding the evidence incriminating it,
         an opportunity of which it in fact availed itself in its letters of 27 February, 19, 20 and 26 March, 16 April and 29 May
         2007.
      
      93      With regard to the applicant’s argument concerning the Council’s refusal of its request to be heard at a formal hearing, it
         is sufficient to state that neither the legislation in question, namely, Regulation No 2580/2001, nor the general principle
         of observance of the rights of the defence, gives the persons concerned the right to such a hearing (see, to that effect and
         by analogy, Joined Cases T‑134/03 and T‑135/03 Common Market Fertilisers v Commission [2005] ECR II‑3923, paragraph 108; see also OMPI, paragraph 1 above, paragraph 93).
      
      94      The applicant’s argument that the Council has not sought in any way to respond to the criticism levelled at it and that it
         has taken no account at all of the exculpatory material produced by the applicant proceeds from an incorrect appraisal of
         the obligations imposed on the Council in respect of observance of the rights of the defence.  In this instance, as is apparent
         from the Council’s letter of 12 June 2007 and from the first letter of notification, that institution has taken due account
         of the observations made, and the exculpatory evidence produced, by the applicant, in particular by ensuring that they were
         communicated to the delegations of the Member States before Decision 2007/445 was adopted.
      
      95      On the other hand, the Council was not obliged to reply to those observations in the light of those documents, if it thought
         that they did not warrant the conclusions that the applicant claimed to infer from them.  The Court considers in this respect
         that the word-for-word repetition of the statement of reasons attached to the Council’s letter of 30 January 2007 in the statement
         of reasons enclosed with the first letter of notification in itself means only that the Council maintained its point of view.
         In the absence of any other relevant evidence, as is the case here, such similarity of texts does not establish that the Council
         failed, when assessing the case, to afford proper consideration to the arguments put forward by the party concerned in arguing
         its case (see, by analogy, Case T‑141/94 Thyssen Stahl v Commission [1999] ECR II‑347, paragraphs 117 and 118).
      
      96      Moreover and in any case, the Council gave a specific reply, in the first letter of notification, to the main argument put
         forward by the applicant during the administrative procedure, that only present and current terrorist activity is capable
         of justifying its continued inclusion in the list at issue (see also paragraph 142 below).
      
      97      It follows from the foregoing that the alleged infringement of the rights of the defence has not in the circumstances been
         established.
      
      98      With regard, secondly, to the alleged infringement of the obligation to state reasons, the applicant maintains that Decision
         2007/445 does not state the actual and specific reasons why the Council considered that the relevant rules were applicable
         to it (OMPI, paragraph 1 above, paragraph 143) and that, following re-examination, the freezing of its funds was still justified (OMPI, paragraph 1 above, paragraph 151).  In particular, the Council had taken no account of the information provided by the applicant
         for the period after 2001, and Decision 2007/445 lacks any reasoning at all in relation to that period.
      
      99      In this regard it is to be borne in mind that the purpose of the safeguard afforded by the obligation to state reasons, in
         the context of the adoption of a decision to freeze funds taken pursuant to Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, and the
         limitations of that safeguard that may lawfully be imposed on the persons concerned in such a context, were defined by the
         Court in OMPI, paragraph 1 above, paragraphs 138 to 151.
      
      100    In the present case, it is apparent from examination of the third part of the first plea in law (see paragraphs 83 and 84
         above) that the Council duly observed the principles laid down by the Court in those paragraphs 138 to 151 of OMPI, paragraph 1 above, in the context of the adoption of Decision 2007/445.
      
      101    With regard to the argument that the Council did not take into consideration the information provided by the applicant for
         the period after 2001 or give reasons for its decision in that respect, it must be recalled that although, by virtue of Article
         253 EC, the Council is required to state all the factual circumstances justifying the measures it adopts and the legal considerations
         leading it to take them, that provision does not require the Council to discuss all the points of fact and law which may have
         been raised by the persons concerned during the administrative procedure (Joined Cases 43/82 and 63/82 VBVB and VBBB v Commission [1984] ECR 19, paragraph 22; Case C‑338/00 P Volkswagen v Commission [2003] ECR I­9189, paragraph 127; and Joined Cases T‑346/02 and T‑347/02 Cableuropa and Others v Commission [2003] ECR II‑4251, paragraph 232).
      
      102    Moreover and in any case, it has already been found, in paragraph 96 above, that the Council had specifically answered, in
         the first letter of notification, the argument put forward by the applicant during the administrative procedure to the effect
         that only current and present terrorist activity could justify its continued inclusion in the list at issue.
      
      103    It follows from the foregoing that the alleged infringement of the obligation to state reasons has not been established in
         the circumstances of the case.
      
      104    Consequently, the second plea in law must be rejected as unfounded.
      
       The third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001
      105    The applicant notes that both Article 2(3) of Regulation 2580/2001 and Article 1(2), (3) and (6) of Common Position 2001/931
         are expressed in the present tense. It follows, in its view, that there must be some close and immediate temporal connection
         between the decision to include or maintain a person in the list at issue and the acts of terrorism taken into consideration
         for that purpose.  A person can thus be included in the list at issue only if there is alleged to be some current or at least
         recent terrorist activity.  Similarly, a person cannot be maintained in that list, following a review, on the basis of historical
         acts alone. 
      
      106    In this instance, Decision 2007/445 is not based on any act after 2001, so far as the applicant is concerned, and the latter
         has produced numerous exculpatory documents for the period after 2001.
      
      107    With regard to that plea, the Court considers, like the United Kingdom and the Council, that the applicant’s interpretation
         of the provisions of Regulation No 2580/2001 and of Common Position 2001/931 in question is unduly restrictive and that nothing
         in those provisions precludes the imposition of restrictive measures on persons or entities that have in the past committed
         acts of terrorism, despite the lack of evidence to show that they are at present committing or participating in such acts,
         if the circumstances warrant it. 
      
      108    First, contrary to the applicant’s arguments, that point of view is not undermined by the wording of the provisions in question.
         Although Article 1(2) of Common Position 2001/931 uses the present indicative (‘persons who commit …’) to define what is meant
         by ‘persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts’, that is in the sense of a general truth particular to the legal
         definition of offences, and not by reference to a given period of time.  The same is true of the present participle used in
         the French (‘les personnes … commettant’) and English (‘persons committing) texts of Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001,
         which is confirmed by the use of the present indicative for the equivalent form used in other language versions (see, in particular,
         the German ‘Personen, die eine terroristische Handlung begehen’, Italian ‘persone che commettono’, Dutch ‘personen die een
         terroristische daad plegen’ and Slovak ‘osôb, ktoré páchajú’).  Furthermore, Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931 permits
         the adoption of restrictive measures against, inter alia, persons who have been convicted of acts of terrorism, which would
         normally imply terrorist activity in the past and not actively pursued at the time the finding is made in the decision to
         convict.  Lastly, Article 1(6) provides that the names of persons and entities in the list at issue are to be reviewed at
         regular intervals and at least once every six months to ensure that there are grounds for keeping them in the list.  If that
         provision is not to be rendered redundant, it must be considered to allow the continued inclusion in the list at issue of
         persons and entities not having committed any fresh act of terrorism during the six-month period or periods before the review,
         if that continued inclusion is still justified in the light of all relevant circumstances.
      
      109    Secondly, it must be emphasised that Regulation No 2580/2001 and Common Position 2001/931, like Resolution 1373 (2001) of
         the Security Council of the United Nations to which they give effect, are intended to combat the threats to international
         peace and security posed by acts of terrorism.  Attainment of that objective, which is of fundamental importance to the international
         community, would be at risk of being jeopardised if the measures to freeze funds provided for by those acts could be applied
         only to persons, groups or entities at present committing acts of terrorism or having done so in the very recent past.
      
      110    Furthermore, those measures, being intended essentially to prevent the perpetration of such acts or their repetition, are
         based more on the appraisal of a present or future threat than on the evaluation of past conduct.
      
      111    In this regard, the Council and the United Kingdom have explained that experience has shown that temporary cessation of activities
         by an organisation with a terrorist past is not in itself a guarantee that the organisation concerned will not resume them
         at any moment, and that a purported renunciation of violence expressed in that context ought not necessarily to be believed.
         That might in particular be the case if the absence of such activity is the result of the effectiveness of the sanctions imposed,
         or if it has been decided on because the organisation in question seeks to have the sanctions lifted in order to be able to
         resume its previous terrorist activities.  It could also be ascribable to the difficulties encountered by the person concerned
         in committing fresh acts of terrorism, given the effectiveness of the preventative measures adopted by the competent authorities,
         or indeed to the time required for the preparation of such acts.
      
      112    Those considerations appearing not unreasonable, it must be acknowledged that the broad discretion enjoyed by the Council
         with regard to the matters to be taken into consideration for the purpose of adopting or of maintaining in force a measure
         freezing funds (OMPI, paragraph 1 above, paragraph 159) extends to the evaluation of the threat that may be represented by an organisation having
         in the past committed acts of terrorism, notwithstanding the suspension of its terrorist activities for a more or less long
         period, or even their apparent cessation.
      
      113    In this instance, the fact that the Council referred exclusively to past terrorist acts and to acts before 2001, in relation
         to the applicant, is therefore not enough on its own to indicate an infringement of Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001.
      
      114    Whether, having regard to all the other relevant circumstances, by so doing the Council overstepped the bounds of its discretion
         is a question that falls to be considered with the fourth plea in law. 
      
      115    In light of the foregoing, the third plea in law must be rejected as unfounded.
      
       The fourth plea in law, alleging misapplication of the burden of proof and manifest error in assessing the evidence
       Arguments of the parties
      116    The applicant claims that the decisions taken pursuant to Regulation No 2580/2001 constitute manifest and serious interference
         with the rights guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
         Freedoms (ECHR), signed at Rome on 4 November 1950, and by Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR.  It stresses, in that regard,
         the draconian consequences for it of Decision 2007/445.
      
      117    Consequently, the applicant submits that it is necessary for the Council to prove that the implementation of the measures
         taken against the applicant is prescribed in law, pursues a legitimate aim and is necessary in a democratic society.
      
      118    The applicant also submits that the burden of proving that on 28 June 2007 there were grounds for freezing its funds rests
         with the Council, and that the requisite standard of proof for this purpose should be that applicable to criminal cases.
      
      119    As for the role of the Court, the applicant argues that, in circumstances such as those of the present case, the Court must
         objectively review all the facts, both those relied upon by the Council and those relied upon by the applicant, so as to decide
         whether there were reasonable grounds for the Council’s adoption in 2007 of Decision 2007/445.
      
      120    The applicant maintains that, in the circumstances, Decision 2007/445 was adopted on the basis of incriminating material which
         was not precise or serious or credible, all pre-dating 2001, and without any proper consideration of the extensive exculpatory
         material relating to the years after 2001 adduced by the applicant.
      
      121    As regards the exculpatory material, the applicant points out more particularly that, at an Extraordinary Congress held in
         Ashraf City (Iraq) in June 2001, its leadership took the unilateral decision to end the organisation’s military activities
         inside Iran.  That decision was ratified by two Ordinary Congresses, in September 2001 and in 2003.  But for a few operations
         carried out by operational units which had not received the message in time, the applicant has not engaged in any military
         operations since the summer of 2001 and its operational units have been definitively dissolved.  Furthermore, it has disclosed
         the coordinates of all its bases to the United Nations, and to the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States.
      
      122    The applicant also refers to the documents contained in Annexes 2 and 6 to its application, which show that since 2001 it
         and all its members have voluntarily renounced violence and terrorism, surrendered their arms, signed an agreement with the
         coalition forces in Iraq and duly been recognised as ‘protected persons’.
      
      123    Finally, the applicant points out that there has never been any suggestion that it has committed any terrorist act whatsoever
         within the European Union.
      
      124    The Council and the United Kingdom state first of all that in OMPI, paragraph 1 above (paragraph 135), the Court clearly indicated that the freezing of funds did not constitute a criminal
         sanction.
      
      125    The Council and the United Kingdom next submit that freezing of funds does not constitute an interference with the right to
         freedom of expression and of association, since the alleged restrictions of these freedoms are an unintended or incidental
         consequence of a decision by the authorities.  Furthermore, the freezing of funds does not affect the very substance of the
         right to property (Case T‑315/01 Kadi v Council and Commission [2005] ECR II‑3649, paragraph 248).  In any event, the Council considers that there is no violation of Articles 10 and 11
         of the ECHR or of Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol of the ECHR because the measures in question are prescribed by
         law, have the legitimate aim of combating terrorism and are necessary in a democratic society in order to achieve that aim.
      
      126    The Council and the United Kingdom therefore submit that, in accordance with the normal rule applicable to cases before the
         Community judicature (see, in that regard, Case T‑106/95 FFSA and Others v Commission [1997] ECR II‑229, paragraph 115, and Case T‑48/00 Corus UK v Commission [2004] ECR II‑2325, paragraph 125), it is the applicant that bears the burden of adducing proof of its claim that Decision
         2007/445 is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.  In this regard the United Kingdom stresses that that decision enjoys
         a presumption of lawfulness and that the proceedings in which its validity is challenged are civil proceedings, with the result
         that the burden of proof is borne by the applicant and the standard of proof required is that applicable in civil cases. 
         Moreover, the legislation applicable nowhere makes provision for any reversal or mitigation of the burden of proof.
      
      127    As regards the extent of the Court’s judicial review, the Council and the United Kingdom refer to OMPI, paragraph 1 above (paragraph 159), the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 21 February 1986 in James (A series, vol. 98) and to the opinion delivered by Advocate General Jacobs in Case C‑84/95 Bosphorus [1996] ECR I‑3953, point 65. Accordingly, the Council and the United Kingdom maintain that the Court has no jurisdiction
         to substitute its own assessment of the facts and evidence concerning the applicant for that of the Council.  This applies
         in particular to the assessment of the circumstances in which the legislature may decide if and when restrictive measures
         should no longer be applied.  In this connection, the United Kingdom stresses that, in so far as those responsible for taking
         the decision have the advantage of a wide range of advice on security and terrorist matters which, if not evaluated correctly,
         can have serious consequences, they are entitled to adopt a precautionary approach to the evaluation of the risk of such consequences.
         In that context, significant weight and deference should be accorded to their decision.  In particular, the courts, national
         or Community, must not ‘make up their own minds’ concerning the grounds of the decision at issue.
      
      128    The Council maintains, moreover, referring to its observation in answer to the third plea, that it assessed the relevant evidence
         properly in this case.
      
       Findings of the Court
      129    It is from the outset to be borne in mind, in response to the applicant’s line of argument, that fund-freezing measures of
         the kind at issue in this case are prescribed by law, namely, Resolution 1373 (2001) of the Security Council of the United
         Nations and Regulation No 2580/2001 itself.  Furthermore, as is apparent from the preambles to those acts, the measures serve
         the legitimate purpose of combating terrorism.  Last, in the preamble to Resolution 1373 (2001), the Security Council reaffirmed
         the need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international peace and
         security caused by terrorist acts, and considered that it was necessary for States to complement international cooperation
         by taking additional measures to prevent and suppress, in their territories through all lawful means, the financing and preparation
         of any acts of terrorism.  Unless that assessment is to be called in question, the measures at issue must, therefore, be considered
         to be necessary, in a democratic society, to the attainment of their objective.
      
      130    Nevertheless, as the Court pointed out in paragraphs 115 and 116 of OMPI, paragraph 1 above, the matters of fact and law capable of affecting the application of a fund-freezing measure to a person,
         group or entity are determined by Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001.  In the words of that provision, the Council, acting
         by unanimity, is to establish, review and amend the list of persons, groups and entities to which that regulation applies,
         in accordance with the provisions laid down in Article 1(4) to (6) of Common Position 2001/931.  The list in question must,
         therefore, be drawn up, in accordance with Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931, on the basis of precise information or
         material in the relevant file which indicates that a decision has been taken by a competent authority in respect of the persons,
         groups and entities concerned, irrespective of whether it concerns the instigation of investigations or prosecution for a
         terrorist act, or an attempt to perpetrate, participate in or facilitate such an act, based on serious and credible evidence
         or clues [sic], or condemnation [sic] for such deeds.  ‘Competent authority’ means a judicial authority or, where judicial
         authorities have no competence in that area, an equivalent authority in that sphere.  In addition, the names of the persons
         and entities appearing in that list must be reviewed at regular intervals and at least once every six months to ensure that
         there are grounds for keeping them on the list, in accordance with Article 1(6) of Common Position 2001/931.
      
      131    In paragraph 117 of OMPI, paragraph 1 above, the Court inferred from those provisions that the procedure which may culminate in a measure to freeze
         funds under the relevant rules therefore takes place at two levels, one national, the other Community.  In the first phase,
         a competent national authority, in principle judicial, must take in respect of the party concerned a decision meeting the
         definition in Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931.  If it is a decision to instigate investigations or to prosecute,
         it must be based on serious and credible evidence or ‘clues’.  In the second phase, the Council, acting by unanimity, must
         decide to include the party concerned in the disputed list, on the basis of precise information or material in the relevant
         file which indicates that such a decision has been taken.  Next, the Council must, at regular intervals, and at least once
         every six months, be satisfied that there are grounds for continuing to include the party concerned in the list at issue.
         Verification that there is a decision of a national authority meeting that definition is an essential precondition for the
         adoption, by the Council, of an initial decision to freeze funds, whereas verification of the consequences of that decision
         at the national level is imperative in the context of the adoption of a subsequent decision to freeze funds. 
      
      132    In paragraph 123 of OMPI, paragraph 1 above, the Court noted, inter alia, that under Article 10 EC, relations between the Member States and the Community
         institutions are governed by reciprocal duties to cooperate in good faith (see Case C‑339/00 Ireland v Commission [2003] ECR I‑11757, paragraphs 71 and 72 and case-law cited).  That principle is of general application and is especially
         binding in the area of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (commonly known as ‘Justice and Home Affairs’)
         (JHA) governed by Title VI of the EU Treaty, which is moreover entirely based on cooperation between the Member States and
         the institutions (Case C‑105/03 Pupino [2005] ECR I‑5285, paragraph  42).
      
      133    In paragraph 124 of OMPI, paragraph 1 above, the Court found that, in a case of application of Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931 and Article
         2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, provisions which introduce a specific form of cooperation between the Council and the Member
         States in the context of combating terrorism, that principle entails, for the Council, the obligation to defer as far as possible
         to the assessment conducted by the competent national authority, at least where it is a judicial authority, in particular
         in respect of the existence of ‘serious and credible evidence or clues’ on which its decision is based.
      
      134    It follows from the foregoing that, although it is indeed for the Council to prove that freezing of the funds of a person,
         group or entity is or remains legally justified, in the light of the relevant legislation, as the applicant rightly maintains,
         that burden of proof has a relatively limited scope in respect of the Community procedure for freezing funds (see, by analogy,
         OMPI, paragraph 1 above, paragraph 126, concerning the purpose of the rights of the defence in the same procedure).  In the case
         of an initial decision to freeze funds, the burden of proof essentially relates to the existence of precise information or
         material in the relevant file which indicates that a decision by a national authority meeting the definition laid down in
         Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931 has been taken with regard to the person concerned.  Furthermore, in the case of
         a subsequent decision to freeze funds, after review, the burden of proof essentially relates to whether the freezing of funds
         is still justified, having regard to all the relevant circumstances of the case and, most particularly, to the action taken
         upon that decision of the competent national authority. 
      
      135    Last, it follows from paragraphs 145, 146 and 151 of OMPI, paragraph 1 above, that, inasmuch as the Council, when unanimously adopting a measure to freeze funds under Regulation No
         2580/2001, does not act under circumscribed powers, it enjoys discretion in assessing the reasons why the person concerned
         must be the subject of such a measure.
      
      136    In this regard, it is none the less to be made clear that, when the Council is required to determine whether freezing of the
         funds of a person, group or entity is or remains justified, the prime consideration for the Council must be its perception
         or evaluation of the danger that, for want of such a measure, those funds might be used to fund or prepare acts of terrorism
         (see paragraph 129 above).
      
      137    With regard to the part played by the Court, the latter has recognised, in paragraph 159 of OMPI, paragraph 1 above, that the Council has broad discretion as to what to take into consideration for the purpose of adopting
         economic and financial sanctions on the basis of Articles 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC, consistent with a common position adopted on the basis of the CFSP.  This discretion concerns, in particular,
         the assessment of the considerations of appropriateness on which such decisions are based.
      
      138    However, although the Court acknowledges that the Council possesses broad discretion in that sphere, that does not mean that
         the Court is not to review the interpretation made by the Council of the relevant facts.  The Community judicature must not
         only establish whether the evidence relied on is factually accurate, reliable and consistent, but must also ascertain whether
         that evidence contains all the relevant information to be taken into account in order to assess the situation and whether
         it is capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it. However, when conducting such a review, it must not substitute
         its own assessment of what is appropriate for that of the Council (see, by analogy, Case C‑525/04 P Spain v Lenzing [2007] ECR I‑9947, paragraph 57 and case-law cited).
      
      139    In addition, it must be noted that, where a Community institution enjoys broad discretion, the review of observance of certain
         procedural guarantees is of fundamental importance.  Thus, the Court of Justice has had occasion to specify that those guarantees
         include the obligation for the competent institution to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant elements of the
         individual case and to give an adequate statement of the reasons for its decision (see Spain v Lenzing, paragraph 138 above, paragraph 58 and case-law cited).
      
      140    In connection with the present plea in law, the applicant requests the Court to determine whether, in the circumstances of
         the case and having regard to all relevant facts, both those adduced by the Council and those which it has itself adduced,
         the Council had reasonable grounds in 2007 for adopting Decision 2007/445 in relation to the applicant (see paragraph 119
         above).
      
      141    Such a determination, in the light of the objectives pursued by the legislation applicable (see paragraphs 130, 135 and 136
         above), falls beyond all question within the bounds of the judicial review that the Community judicature may carry out of
         a decision to freeze funds taken pursuant to Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001.  It corresponds, in essence, to the
         review of a manifest error of assessment (OMPI, paragraph 1 above, paragraph 159).  Moreover, neither the Council nor the United Kingdom maintains that such review goes
         beyond the level of review which the case-law recognises as belonging to the Court in a sphere such as that of economic and
         financial sanctions.
      
      142    In this instance, it is apparent from the Council’s letter of 30 January 2007, from the first letter of notification and from
         the statement of reasons enclosed with each of those two letters that, essentially, the Council took as a basis the fact that
         the Home Secretary’s order, which in its view met the definition in Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931, was still in
         force although, under the Terrorism Act 2000, it could have been the subject of an application for judicial review.  It is
         likewise apparent from the first letter of notification and from the statement of reasons enclosed with it that the Council
         took into consideration the observations submitted, and the exculpatory evidence adduced, by the applicant, so far as the
         period after 2001 was concerned, but that it took the view that they did not justify its request to be removed from the list
         at issue.  In particular, the Council rejected the argument that it was entitled to maintain in force a decision to freeze
         funds only if the person concerned was at the time committing or attempting to commit acts of terrorism.
      
      143    The Court considers that, in the light of all the relevant information thus taken into account, the Council had reasonable
         grounds and sufficient evidence for the adoption of the contested decision with regard to the applicant, that it committed
         no manifest error in its assessment of that information and that it has therefore justified to the required legal standard
         the continued inclusion of the applicant in the list at issue.
      
      144    First, the Home Secretary’s order does indeed appear, in the light of the relevant national legislation, to be a decision
         of a competent national authority meeting the definition in Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931.  Furthermore, that classification
         has not been challenged by the applicant in this action.
      
      145    Secondly, as regards the argument that the contested decision was adopted in relation to the applicant on the basis of incriminating
         material lacking in precision, seriousness and credibility, it follows from the principles recalled in paragraphs 133 and
         134 above that the Council was not only justified in leaving, but even required to leave, as much as possible to the assessment
         of the competent national authority, in particular regarding the existence of the ‘serious and credible evidence or clues’
         on which the latter’s decision was based.  While it is true that that national authority was not a judicial authority, the
         fact that its decision was open to judicial review and that such an action was either not brought or did not lead to a decision
         in the applicant’s favour, placed the Council in the same position.
      
      146    Thirdly, considerations analogous to those set out in paragraph 145 above apply to the argument that the contested decision
         was adopted in relation to the applicant on the basis of incriminating evidence all before 2001 and without any examination
         of the exculpatory document produced by the applicant for the subsequent period.  Given that the Home Secretary’s order could
         at any time since 2001 have formed the subject of challenge before the courts under domestic law, made either directly against
         the order or indirectly against any subsequent decision of the Home Secretary refusing to withdraw or repeal it, it was reasonable
         for the Council to treat the fact that the order was still in force as decisive for the purposes of its own assessment.
      
      147    Fourthly, with regard to the weighing up of the incriminating and exculpatory evidence, the Court considers that the Council
         acts reasonably and prudently when, in a situation in which, as in the instant case, the decision of the competent national
         authority on which the Community decision to freeze funds is based may be or is the subject of challenge before the courts
         under domestic law, that institution refuses in principle to express an opinion on the validity of the arguments on substance
         raised by the party concerned in support of such an action, before it knows the outcome of the proceedings.  If it acted otherwise,
         the assessment made by the Council, as a political or administrative institution, would run the risk of conflicting, on issues
         of fact or law, with the assessment made by the competent national court or tribunal. 
      
      148    Fifthly and last, as regards the argument that it has never been alleged that the applicant has committed any act of terrorism
         in the territory of the European Union, it suffices to point out that Regulation No 2580/2001 does not make the adoption of
         Community decisions to freeze funds in any way subject to the condition that the acts of terrorism relied on in that context
         should have been committed in that territory.  Such a condition would, moreover, be contrary to the spirit and purpose of
         Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001), the preamble to which reaffirms, inter alia, ‘the principle established by the General
         Assembly in its declaration of October 1970 (resolution 2625 (XXV)) and reiterated by the Security Council in its resolution
         1189 (1998) of 13 August 1998, namely that every State has the duty to refrain from organising, instigating, assisting or
         participating in terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organised activities within its territory directed towards
         the commission of such acts’ and calls on the States to ‘suppress, in their territories through all lawful means, the financing
         and preparation of any acts of terrorism’.
      
      149    In the light of the foregoing, the fourth plea in law must be rejected. 
      
       The fifth plea in law, alleging abuse or misuse of powers
      150    The applicant maintains that, so far as it is concerned, Decision 2007/445 was adopted by the Council in circumstances amounting
         to an abuse or misuse of powers.  In its view, the Council had decided in advance to continue to include it in the list at
         issue, despite the evidence totally exonerating it since 2001, for the sole reason that it wished to appease the current Iranian
         regime.
      
      151    As the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance have repeatedly held, a measure is vitiated by misuse of powers only
         if it appears on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence to have been taken with the exclusive purpose, or
         at any rate the main purpose, of achieving an end other than those pleaded or of evading a procedure specifically prescribed
         by the Treaty for dealing with the circumstances of the case (Case C‑210/03 Swedish Match [2004] ECR I‑11893, paragraph 75, and Case T‑158/99 Thermenhotel Stoiser Franz and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II‑1, paragraph 164 and case-law cited).
      
      152    In this instance, nothing in the documents before the Court provides any ground for crediting the idea that the procedure
         leading to the adoption of Decision 2007/445 was initiated for a purpose other than that of combating terrorism and its funding.
         In particular, the applicant’s allegation that the decision was taken with regard to it for the sole purpose of appeasing
         the current Iranian regime merely seeks to impugn the Council’s motives without being supported by any objective evidence.
      
      153    The fifth plea in law must therefore be rejected.
      
      154    None of the pleas in law raised by the applicant in support of its application for annulment of Decision 2007/445 having been
         successful, that application must be dismissed as unfounded.
      
       The application for annulment of Decision 2007/868
       Arguments of the parties
      155    In its letter lodged at the Court Registry on 11 January 2008, the applicant argues that the pleas in law raised in support
         of its application for annulment in part of Decision 2007/445 are also relevant to its application for annulment in part of
         Decision 2007/868.
      
      156    The applicant emphasises that the POAC is the specialist body set up by the Parliament of the United Kingdom to hear and determine
         appeals brought against decisions proscribing, or refusing to lift the proscription of, organisations regarded as terrorist
         by the Home Secretary. 
      
      157    In its decision of 30 November 2007 (see paragraph 22 above), the POAC described as ‘perverse’ the Home Secretary’s decision
         refusing to lift the applicant’s proscription as a terrorist organisation.  It also refused the Home Secretary leave to bring
         an appeal against that decision before the Court of Appeal.  Furthermore, in the course of such an appeal before the Court
         of Appeal, the Home Secretary is not entitled to challenge the findings of fact made by the POAC.
      
      158    In the case in point, the POAC examined the evidence, both confidential and non-confidential, adduced by the Home Secretary,
         and questioned in camera the witness summoned to speak on behalf of the latter.  Its findings of fact demonstrate that all the factual evidence put
         forward by the applicant during the procedure leading to the adoption of Decision 2007/445 was correct and that there was
         no factual basis for maintaining that the applicant was still a terrorist organisation.  The same applies to the adoption
         of Decision 2007/868.
      
      159    The applicant therefore complains that the Council adopted Decision 2007/868 at a time when it was aware, not only of the
         decision of the POAC and of its findings of fact, but also of the POAC’s refusal to grant the Home Secretary leave to bring
         an appeal before the Court of Appeal and of the terms in which that refusal was couched. 
      
      160    The applicant observes that although the Home Secretary did indeed make a fresh application to the Court of Appeal for leave
         to appeal against the POAC’s decision, as she was entitled to do, the fact nevertheless remains that Decision 2007/868 is
         based, with respect to the applicant, solely on the Home Secretary’s order of 28 March 2001 and takes no account of the POAC’s
         decision. 
      
      161    According to the applicant, those factors show that Decision 2007/868 is plainly misconceived and, moreover, vitiated by misuse
         of powers so far as it is concerned.
      
      162    In its observations lodged at the Court Registry on 15 January 2008, the Council made no comment on the relevance of the POAC’s
         decision for the purposes of the present proceedings. 
      
      163    At the hearing, that institution argued, referring to the findings of fact made by the POAC, that even if the latter must
         be regarded as correct and as giving a generally accurate picture, it was still reasonable to believe that the applicant was
         involved in terrorist acts, in the sense intended in Regulation No 2580/2001, and that as a result the freezing of its funds
         was still justified.  The Council maintained, in addition, that, while it had taken into consideration the Home Secretary’s
         application for leave from the Court of Appeal to bring an appeal against the POAC’s decision, it had not merely decided to
         await the outcome of that action before reassessing the applicant’s situation.
      
      164    In its observations lodged at the Court Registry on 16 January 2008, the Commission maintains that it would be premature to
         give due effect to the POAC’s decision at Community level at the present time.  In its view, it is necessary to wait for the
         Court of Appeal’s decision on the Home Secretary’s application for leave to appeal and then to await the outcome of any appeal
         before the Court of Appeal and of any subsequent appeal to the House of Lords, before determining whether that decision must
         have an effect on the lawfulness of decisions adopted at Community level.
      
      165    In its observations lodged at the Court Registry on 16 January 2008, the United Kingdom notes that in any case the Home Secretary’s
         order of 28 March 2001 is still in force.  So, that order constitutes a sufficient legal basis for the purposes of the Council’s
         adoption of Decision 2007/868 so far as it concerns the applicant.  It also observes that, pursuant to section 6(3) of the
         Terrorism Act 2000, the POAC’s decision does not require the Home Secretary to remove the applicant from the national list
         analogous to that drawn up by the Council, until all appeal processes have been exhausted, including an appeal to the House
         of Lords. 
      
      166    In its statement in intervention, the United Kingdom states, moreover, that Decision 2007/868 was adopted by the Council when
         it was fully aware of the POAC’s decision and of the Home Secretary’s subsequent decision to appeal against that decision.
         The hearing before the Court of Appeal, dealing with both the application for leave to appeal and the substance of the case,
         took place from 18 to 20 February 2008.  
      
       Findings of the Court
      167    In connection with the application for annulment in part of Decision 2007/868, the parties have devoted the core of their
         arguments to the relevance of the POAC’s decision mentioned in paragraph 22 above for the purposes of the review of lawfulness
         carried out in this case by the Court.
      
      168    In that decision, the POAC inter alia described as ‘perverse’ the Home Secretary’s conclusion, in his decision of 1 September
         2006 refusing to lift the applicant’s proscription, that the applicant was, at that period, still an organisation ‘concerned
         in terrorism’ within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000.  That means, according to the POAC’s assessment, that no reasonable
         person could have reached such a conclusion and that, on the contrary, any reasonable person would have reached the opposite
         conclusion, on the basis of the evidence available to the Home Secretary.
      
      169    In this connection, the POAC summarised as follows its main findings of fact and the legal conclusions that it drew from those
         findings, in paragraphs 347 to 349 of its decision:
      
      ‘347. …. We have to examine all the material that was or could reasonably have been available to the Secretary of State in
         order to consider whether the PMOI was or could honestly have been believed by him to be concerned in terrorism. We have subjected
         all the material to the intense scrutiny which we have indicated we believe to be the appropriate standard for our appraisal.
      
      348. We have already set out in detail our conclusions on the material before us. In our view, intense scrutiny of the material
         requires the conclusion that:
      
      348.1 With the possible exception of the single questioned incident in May 2002, the PMOI has not engaged in terrorist acts
         in Iran or elsewhere since August 2001;
      
      348.2. Even if the PMOI had a military command structure at some point within Iran, the material demonstrates that such structure
         had ceased to exist by (at the latest) the end of 2002;
      
      348.3. Even if the three reports in 2002 could amount to glorification [of terrorism] within section 3(5)(c) of the 2000 Act,
         all such activity ceased by August 2002;
      
      348.4. In May 2003, the PMOI was disarmed;
      348.5. There is no material which indicates that the PMOI has obtained or sought to obtain arms or otherwise reconstruct any
         military capability despite their capacity to do so after May 2003;
      
      348.6. Further, there is no material to suggest that the PMOI has sought to recruit or train members for military or terrorist
         action. 
      
      In short, there is no evidence that the PMOI has at any time since 2003 sought to re-create any form of structure that was
         capable of carrying out or supporting terrorist acts.  There is no evidence of any attempt to “prepare” for terrorism. There
         is no evidence of any encouragement to others to commit acts of terrorism. Nor is there any material that affords any grounds
         for a belief that the PMOI was “otherwise concerned in terrorism” at the time of the decision in September 2006. In relation
         to the period after May 2003, this cannot properly be described as “mere inactivity” as suggested by the Secretary of State
         in his Decision Letter. The material showed that the entire military apparatus no longer existed whether in Iraq, Iran or
         elsewhere and there had been no attempt by the PMOI to re-establish it.
      
      349. In those circumstances, the only belief that a reasonable decision maker could have honestly entertained, whether as
         at September 2006 or thereafter, is that the PMOI no longer satisfies any of the criteria necessary for the maintenance of
         their proscription. In other words, on the material before us, the PMOI is not and, at September 2006, was not concerned in
         terrorism.’
      
      170    For the reasons set out, in paragraphs 130 to 139 above, the Court considers that the POAC’s decision is of considerable importance
         for the purposes of these proceedings. 
      
      171    It is the first decision of a competent judicial authority ruling on the lawfulness, in the light of the domestic law applicable,
         of the Home Secretary’s refusal to withdraw the order of 28 March 2001 on the basis of which the Council adopted both the
         initial decision to freeze the applicant’s funds and all the subsequent decisions, up to and including Decision 2007/868.
         
      
      172    The POAC’s decision therefore unarguably constitutes an action taken at national level in consequence of the Home Secretary’s
         order of 28 March 2001. 
      
      173    The Court has already pointed out that verification of such consequences appeared to be imperative in the context of the adoption
         of a subsequent decision to freeze funds (see paragraph 131 above).
      
      174    As regards the extent to which the Council was aware of the POAC’s decision and took account of it, in the adopting of Decision
         2007/868, the explanations put forward by that institution and by the United Kingdom and the documents relating to that procedure,
         produced by the parties in response to the measures of organisation of procedure adopted by the Court, make it clear that:
      
      –        on 13 November 2007 the representative of the United Kingdom orally informed the members of the Council’s working group on
         Common Position 2001/931 (‘the CP 931 working group’) that the POAC would give its decision in the case concerning the applicant
         on 30 November 2007 and the United Kingdom would decide its position with regard to the applicant’s proscription in the light
         of that decision;  
      
      –        on 3 December 2007 the United Kingdom sent an email to the Portuguese Presidency of the Council informing it of the POAC’s
         decision, which it summarised, inviting the Presidency to examine the decision on the internet site where it was available
         and informing it of its intention to raise the matter at the next meeting of the CP 931 working group; 
      
      –        on 4 December 2007 the United Kingdom informed the Portuguese Presidency by email that the Home Secretary had clearly stated
         her intention of seeking leave to appeal against the POAC’s decision; the United Kingdom thought that the decision as to that
         leave would be taken before 17 December 2007; if leave was granted, the hearing before the Court of Appeal would take place
         in early 2008; in that same e-mail, the United Kingdom proposed that the European Union should take no action relating to
         the applicant’s continued inclusion in the list at issue until the appeals procedure in the United Kingdom had run its course,
         and stated that the proscription of the applicant in the United Kingdom would remain in force during that period;
      
      –        on 6 December 2007 a copy of the letter sent to the Council by the applicant on 5 December 2007 with a view to its removal
         from the list at issue in the light of the POAC’s decision (see paragraph 23 above), and a copy of that decision, were forwarded
         by the Secretariat General of the Council to the delegations of the Member States in the Council; 
      
      –        on 12 December 2007 the CP 931 working group held a meeting in order to prepare for the adoption of Decision 2007/868; according
         to the ‘outcome of proceedings’ of that meeting, forwarded by the Secretariat General of the Council to the delegations of
         the Member States in the Council on 20 December 2007, that working group was informed by the United Kingdom delegation of
         the POAC’s decision; the United Kingdom delegation also  informed the other delegations of the Home Secretary’s intention
         to appeal against that decision and explained to them that if the POAC itself refused leave the Home Secretary meant to apply
         for leave directly to the Court of  Appeal; 
      
      –        on 17 December 2007 a draft decision and a draft common position reflecting the outcome of the meeting of the CP 931 working
         group were forwarded by the Secretariat General of the Council to the working group of external relations advisers; the applicant’s
         name was included in the lists annexed to those drafts; on the same day, the working group of external relations advisers
         approved the drafts and invited Coreper to recommend that the Council should adopt them; the covering letter containing those
         facts (‘note I/A’) was sent by the Secretariat General of the Council to Coreper on 18 December 2007;
      
      –        on 19 December 2007 Coreper approved the recommendations in question;
      –        on 19 December 2007 the United Kingdom sent an email to the Portuguese Presidency, the Secretariat General of the Council
         and the delegations of the Member States having expressly so requested informing them that the POAC had refused the leave
         to appeal sought by the Home Secretary; it added that the Home Secretary intended to apply for that leave to the Court of
         Appeal, but was unable to say when the latter would give a ruling on that application.
      
      175    Those were the circumstances in which the Council adopted Decision 2007/868 on 20 December 2007.
      
      176    As regards the statement of the actual and specific reasons why the Council considered, after review, that the freezing of
         the applicant’s funds was still justified, which is at the heart of the obligation to state reasons imposed on that institution
         when adopting a subsequent decision to freeze funds (OMPI, paragraph 1 above, paragraphs 143 and 144), it is made clear in the summary of the facts set out in paragraphs 28 and 29
         above that in the second letter of notification the Council took the view that the reasons for continuing to include the applicant
         in the list at issue, previously communicated to that party by the first letter of notification, still held good.  Furthermore,
         the statement of reasons enclosed with the second letter of notification is strictly identical to that enclosed with the first
         letter of notification.  With regard to the POAC’s decision, the Council did no more than note, in the second letter of notification,
         that the Home Secretary had sought to bring an appeal.  
      
      177    Having regard to all the relevant information at the date when Decision 2007/868 was adopted, and taking account of the particular
         circumstances of the case, the Court considers that that statement of reasons is obviously insufficient to provide legal justification
         for continuing to freeze the applicant’s funds. 
      
      178    In the first place, that statement of reasons does not make it possible to grasp how far the Council actually took into account
         the POAC’s decision, as it was required to do (see paragraph 173 above).
      
      179    In the second place, that statement did not explain the actual specific reasons why the Council took the view, in spite of
         the findings of fact made by the POAC against which no appeal lies and the legal conclusions, particularly severe for the
         Home Secretary, which that body drew from those findings, that the continued inclusion of the applicant in the list at issue
         remained justified in the light of the same body of facts and circumstances on which the POAC had had to rule (see, by analogy,
         Case C‑360/92 P Publishers Association v Commission [1995] ECR I‑23, paragraphs 39 to 44).
      
      180    That is particularly the case in light of the POAC’s conclusion that the only belief that a reasonable decision-maker could
         have honestly entertained, as from September 2006, was that the applicant no longer met any of the criteria necessary for
         the maintenance of its proscription as a terrorist organisation or that, in other words, it had not been involved in terrorism
         since that period.  In those circumstances, the Council ought at the very least to have reevaluated its assessment of the
         existence of a decision taken by a competent national authority on the basis of ‘serious and credible evidence’ within the
         meaning of Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931.
      
      181    At the hearing, the Council strove to make good the clear inadequacy of its statement of reasons by maintaining, with examples
         in support, that, even on the basis of the facts as found by the POAC, it was still reasonable to consider, when Decision
         2007/868 was adopted, that the applicant was involved in acts of terrorism, as defined in Regulation 2580/2001, and that the
         freezing of its funds therefore remained justified (see paragraph 163 above).
      
      182    In this regard, it is, however, to be borne in mind that the statement of reasons for a measure must in principle be notified
         to the person concerned at the same time as the act adversely affecting him and that failure to state the reasons, or the
         obvious inadequacy of the reasons stated, cannot be remedied by the fact that the person concerned learns the reasons for
         the measure during the proceedings before the Community courts (OMPI, paragraph 1 above, paragraph 139 and case-law cited).
      
      183    In the third place, the Court considers that, while it is true that the Council could have regard to the existence of appeals
         against the POAC’s decision and to the Home Secretary’s actual recourse to them, it was not, in this instance, sufficient
         for the Council to state that the Home Secretary had sought to lodge an appeal in order to be relieved of the need to take
         into specific consideration the findings of fact made by the POAC against which no appeal lies and the legal conclusions which
         it drew from those findings.
      
      184    That is all the more the case because, on the one hand, the POAC, the judicial authority competent to review the lawfulness
         of acts of the Home Secretary, had described the refusal to lift the applicant’s proscription as ‘unreasonable’ and ‘perverse’
         and, on the other, when Decision 2007/868 was adopted, the Council had been informed of the POAC’s refusal to grant the Home
         Secretary leave to introduce such an appeal and of the grounds of that refusal, namely, that, according to the POAC, none
         of the arguments put forward by the Home Secretary stood a reasonable chance of prospering before the Court of Appeal. 
      
      185    In short, the Court finds that, in the light of all the relevant information and having regard to the particular circumstances
         of the case, proper and sufficient reasons have not been adduced for the continued freezing of the applicant’s funds under
         Article 1 of Decision 2007/868, in conjunction with point 2.19 of the list annexed to that decision, under the heading ‘Groups
         and entities’.
      
      186    That finding cannot but lead to the annulment of those provisions, in so far as they concern the applicant.
      
      187    For the rest, none of the pleas in law raised by the applicant can amount to good grounds for its application for annulment,
         so far as it is concerned, of the other provisions of that decision, in particular Article 2 thereof, by which Decision 2007/445
         is repealed. 
      
       Costs
      188    Under Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court may order the costs to be shared or the parties to bear their own
         costs if each party succeeds on some and fails on other heads.  In the circumstances of the present case, it must be decided
         that the Council should pay, in addition to its own costs, one third of the applicant’s costs.
      
      189    Under the first subparagraph of Article 87(4) of the Rules of Procedure, Member States and institutions intervening in the
         proceedings are to bear their own costs.
      
      On those grounds,
      THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Seventh Chamber)
      hereby:
      1.      Dismisses the action as unfounded in so far as it seeks annulment of 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;
      2.      Annuls Article 1 of Council Decision 2007/868/EC of 20 December 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001
            on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing
            Decision 2007/445, and point 2.19 of the list annexed to that decision, in so far as they concern the People’s Mojahedin Organization
            of Iran;
      3.      Dismisses the action as unfounded in so far as it seeks annulment of the other provisions of Decision 2007/868, so far as
            the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran is concerned;
      4.      Orders the Council to bear, in addition to its own costs, one third of the costs of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of
            Iran;
      5.      Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Commission and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay
            their own costs.
      
               Forwood
            
            
               Šváby
            
            
               Truchot
            
         Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 23 October 2008.
      
               E. Coulon 
            
             
            
                      N.J. Forwood
            
         
               Registrar 
            
             
            
                     President
            
         * Language of the case: English.