Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 6 April 2010 - Ayadi v Commission

(Case T-527/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Chafiq Ayadi (represented by: H. Miller Solicitor, B. Emmerson and S. Cox, Barristers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

annul Commission Regulation No 954/2009, in so far as it applies to the applicant;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case, the applicant seeks the partial 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 in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision.

The applicant puts forward four pleas in law in support of its claims.

First, the applicant submits that the Commission misused its power by including the applicant in Annex I to Regulation No 881/2002 without having carefully and impartially examined all the relevant elements of the applicant's case.

Second, the applicant claims that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of the applicant's right to effective judicial review since the regulation lacked of evidential basis and, in consequence, the Court is unable even to begin to exercise its duty of considering that evidence.

Third, the applicant argues that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of the applicant's right of defence. He submits that the Commission failed to provide a statement of evidence but only provided the allegations in the Sanctions Committee statement. Without the evidence, the applicant was unable to address the Commission on defects in that evidence or misunderstandings.

Fourth, he claims that the contested regulation, freezing the applicant's assets both retrospectively and, for an indefinite period, prospectively, constitutes an unjustified restriction on his fundamental right of property.

____________