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‑306/10 AJ,
Hani El Sayyed Elsebai Yusef, residing in London (United Kingdom), represented by E. Grieves, Barrister, and H. Miller, Solicitor,
applicant,
v
European Commission, represented by E. Paasivirta and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents,
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 23 July 2010, Mr Hani El Sayyed Elsebai Yusef 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 265 TFEU, for ‘revocation’ of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1629/2005 of 5 October 2005 amending for the 54th 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 2005 L 260, p. 9) in so far as it concerns him.
2 In support of that application, he claims, in particular, producing a number of supporting documents: that, by reason of the freezing of his funds resulting from Regulation No 1629/2005, he has no resources of his own; that he and his wife are disabled; that his wife, who receives social benefits in the amount of GBP 1 221.10 per month, and family allowances in the amount of GBP 574.72 per month, supports him in kind, and that the couple have three dependent children.
3 By letter of 23 July 2010, Mr Yusef also provided an assessment of his legal fees, which according to him will amount to GBP 21 450, excluding disbursements, for the whole of the proceedings which he proposes to bring.
4 Attached to that letter was a letter from the Legal Services Commission dated 23 July 2010, which confirmed that Mr Yusef is eligible for legal aid in England and Wales.
5 By letter from the Registry of 29 July 2010, the Court requested the Commission to submit its observations on the application for legal aid made by Mr Yusef.
6 In its observations, lodged at the Registry on 23 August 2010, the Commission explains that, taking into account the Mr Yusef’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 Yusef’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).
7 By letter of 27 August 2010, Mr Yusef produced, in the form of a ‘General Licence’ issued on 30 June 2010 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.
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 Yusef, 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 Yusef, 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 Yusef is represented by the same barrister and solicitor who represented the applicant in the cases giving rise to the judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2006, in Case T‑49/04 Hassan v Council and Commission, not published in the ECR, and, on appeal, to the judgment of the Court of Justice 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, and 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, not published in the ECR, and that the solicitor representing Mr Yusef also represented the applicants in Case T‑253/02 Ayadi v Council [2006] ECR II‑2139, and in the cases giving rise to the orders in Maftah v Council and Commission and Elosta v Council and Commission, cited above, and to the order of the President of the Second Chamber of the General Court of even date in Case T‑527/09 Ayadi v Commission, not published in the ECR, and that the legal context of those various cases is identical to that of 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 failure to act which Mr Yusef proposes to bring 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 Yusef must be granted legal aid. The final decision on the amount of disbursements and fees shall be reserved and 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 Yusef 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 two lawyers appointed to defend Mr Yusef’s interests in the course of the proceedings which he intends to bring.
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 Yusef 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 Hani El Sayyed Elsebai Yusef is granted legal aid.
2. Mr E. Grieves and Mr H. Miller are appointed as lawyers for Mr Yusef.
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.