ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
22 October 2010 (*)
(Restrictive measures directed against certain persons associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban – Freezing of funds – Action for annulment – Legal aid – Agreement from the United Nations Security Council)
In Case T‑527/09 AJ,
Chafiq Ayadi, residing in Dublin (Ireland), represented by B. Emmerson QC, S. Cox, Barrister, and H. Miller, Solicitor,
applicant,
v
European Commission, represented by M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agent,
defendant,
concerning an application for legal aid,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
makes the following
Order
1 By document lodged at the Registry of the Court on 28 December 2009, Mr Chafiq Ayadi made an application for legal aid, pursuant to Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, for the purposes of bringing an action against the Commission, under Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 954/2009 of 13 October 2009 amending for the 114th 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 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 2009 L 269, p. 20) in so far as it concerns him.
2 In support of that application, he claims, in particular, producing a number of supporting documents: that he has been receiving, since March 2003, unemployment benefit in the amount of EUR 495.90 per week; that he has a wife and six dependent children; that he has already been granted legal aid on several occasions by the European Union Courts in the context of proceedings concerning the freezing of funds, and that, by reason of the freezing of his funds resulting from Regulation No 954/2009, he has no resources of his own.
3 Mr Ayadi has also provided an assessment of his legal fees, which according to him will amount to GBP 35 325, excluding disbursements, for the whole of the proceedings which he proposes to bring.
4 By letter from the Registry of 29 January 2010, the Court requested the Commission to submit its observations on the application for legal aid made by Mr Ayadi.
5 In its observations, lodged at the Registry on 11 February 2010, the Commission explains that, taking into account Mr Ayadi’s economic situation as described by him, it does not oppose the application for legal aid, provided that the grant of legal aid is subject to Mr Ayadi’s obtaining an exemption pursuant to Article 2a of 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 2002 L 139, p. 9).
6 By letter of 24 February 2010, Mr Ayadi produced, in the form of a ‘licence’ issued on that same date by the Asset Freezing Unit of Her Majesty’s Treasury, the determination of a competent authority as referred to in Article 2a(2) of Regulation No 881/2002, establishing that he had applied for an exemption pursuant to Article 2 of that regulation for the purposes of obtaining legal aid in the context of the present proceedings, and that that exemption had been granted in accordance with those provisions.
7 By application received at the Registry of the Court on 6 April 2010, Mr Ayadi brought the action in respect of which the present application for legal aid is made.
8 In that regard, it is apparent from Article 94(1) of the Rules of Procedure that, in order to ensure effective access to justice, legal aid granted for proceedings before the General Court is to cover, in whole or in part, the costs involved in legal assistance and representation by a lawyer in proceedings before the General Court. The cashier of the General Court is to be responsible for those costs.
9 Under Article 94(2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure, the grant of legal aid is subject to two conditions: first, the applicant, because of his economic situation, must be wholly or partly unable to meet the costs involved in legal assistance and representation by a lawyer in proceedings before the Court and, second, his action must not appear to be manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded.
10 Pursuant to Article 95(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the application for legal aid must be accompanied by all information and supporting documents making it possible to assess the applicant’s economic situation, such as a certificate issued by the competent national authority attesting to his economic situation.
11 Under Article 96(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the decision on the application for legal aid is to be taken by the President by way of an order and, if legal aid is refused, that order must state the reasons on which it is based.
12 In the present proceedings, the President of the Second Chamber of the General Court considers that the action in respect of which legal aid is sought does not appear to be manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded. Accordingly, legal aid must not be refused on the basis of Article 94(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
13 As to the remainder, the President of the Second Chamber of the General Court holds that, in the light of the information and supporting documents supplied by Mr Ayadi, and of the fact that the Commission does not oppose the application, the other conditions relating to the grant of legal aid have been met.
14 As regards the amount of legal aid to be granted to Mr Ayadi, it should be noted that, in the orders of 18 August 2010 in Case T‑101/09 AJ Maftah v Council and Commission, not published in the ECR, and in Case T‑102/09 AJ Elosta v Council and Commission, not published in the ECR, in cases with a legal context identical to that of the present case, the President of the Seventh Chamber of the General Court held that the disbursements and fees of the appointed lawyers could not, in principle, exceed an amount of EUR 6 000 for the whole of the proceedings.
15 It should be noted, in particular, that Mr Ayadi is represented by the same barrister and solicitor who represented him in Case T‑253/02 Ayadi v Council [2006] ECR II‑2139 and, on appeal, in Joined Cases C‑399/06 P and C‑403/06 P Hassan v Council and Commission and Ayadi v Council [2009] ECR I‑0000, that the solicitor representing Mr Ayadi also represented the applicants in the cases giving rise to the judgment of General Court of 12 July 2006 in Case T‑49/04 Hassan v Council and Commission, not published in the ECR, to the Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the General Court of 14 April 2010 in Case T‑127/09 AJ Abdulrahim v Council and Commission, not published in the ECR, and to the Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the General Court of even date in Case T‑306/10 AJ Yusef v Commission, not published in the ECR, and that the legal context of those various cases is similar to that in the present case, and that, generally, representation of a party by a number of lawyers is unnecessary (see, to that effect, orders of the Court of Justice in Case C‑104/89 DEP Mulder and Others v Council and Commission [2004] ECR I‑1, paragraph 62, and of 15 December 2004 in Case C‑39/03 DEP Cambridge Healthcare Supplies v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 33) and cannot, therefore, be covered by legal aid.
16 It should also be borne in mind that the action for annulment which Mr Ayadi has brought appears to raise questions essentially identical to those resolved by the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C‑402/05 P and C‑415/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I‑6351, and by the General Court in Case T‑85/09 Kadi v Commission [2010] ECR II‑0000.
17 In the light of the foregoing considerations, it must be held that the conditions for the grant of legal aid have been met and, accordingly, Mr Ayadi must be granted legal aid. The final decision on the amount of disbursements and fees shall be reserved and shall be fixed on the basis of a detailed breakdown of expenses submitted to the Court at the end of the case.
18 Having regard to the object and the nature of the dispute, to its importance from the point of view of the law, to the foreseeable difficulties in the action, and to the amount of work which it is foreseeable the contested proceedings will represent for the parties, it must none the less be held that, from this point in time, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 96(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the disbursements and expenses of the lawyers appointed may not, in principle, exceed a ceiling of GBP 5 000.
19 In the light of the restrictive measures to which Mr Ayadi is subject pursuant to Regulation No 881/2002, in particular Article 2 of that regulation imposing a freeze on his funds and economic resources, that amount is to be paid directly to the three lawyers appointed to defend Mr Ayadi’s interests in the course of the proceedings which he has brought.
20 As regards the issue whether that payment should, as a matter of principle, be authorised by way of an exemption pursuant to Article 2a of Regulation No 881/2002, that need not be dealt with in the present order. It is sufficient to take note of the fact that Mr Ayadi has already produced an authorisation from the competent authorities in accordance with the exemption procedure laid down in Article 2a (see, also, order of the Court of Justice of 2 September 2009 in Case C‑403/06 P AJ Ayadi, not published in the ECR).
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
hereby orders:
1. Mr Chafiq Ayadi is granted legal aid.
2. Mr B. Emmerson, Mr S. Cox and Mr H. Miller are appointed as lawyers for Mr Ayadi.
3. An amount for disbursements and fees, fixed on the basis of a detailed breakdown submitted to the Court at the end of the case, shall be granted to the appointed lawyers, that amount not to exceed, in principle, a maximum of GBP 5 000.
4. That amount shall be paid directly to the abovementioned lawyers.
Luxembourg, 22 October 2010.