|
2.12.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 294/30 |
Appeal brought on 25 September 2006 by Faraj Hassan against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2006 in Case T-49/04: Faraj Hassan v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
(Case C-399/06 P)
(2006/C 294/54)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Faraj Hassan (represented by: E. Grieves, Barrister, H. Miller, Solicitor)
Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
1) |
Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance |
|
2) |
Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 (1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2049/2003 20 November 2003 (2) and/or Commission Regulation (EC) No 2049/2003 20 November 2003 in its entirety and/or in respect of the proscription of the Applicant; and |
|
3) |
Alternatively declare the aforementioned Regulations inapplicable in respect of its application to the applicant; and |
|
4) |
Take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate; and |
|
5) |
Order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings; |
|
6) |
Order the Council to pay damages. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant maintains that the Council and Commission are obliged to respect the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’) and cannot abrogate that obligation, unless ‘at least equivalent protection’ is offered as a result of that abrogation.
It is further maintained that the protections offered by the operation of the United Nations Security Council (‘UNSC’) are not equivalent to that offered by the Convention.
The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law when it:
|
i) |
failed to directly assess whether the UNSC offered equivalent protection to that of the Convention, specifically in relation to Articles 6, 8, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention; and |
|
ii) |
scrutinized the operation of the UNSC indirectly by virtue of the principle of jus cogens rather than by virtue of and by reference to the protection offered by Articles 6, 8, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention. |
It is further submitted that the Court of First Instance erred when it found that the restriction on the usage of property was not a relevant one as to the substance of the right to property.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan. (OJ L 139, p. 9)
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2049/2003 of 20 November 2003 amending for the 25th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001. (OJ L 303, p. 20)