Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 27 March 2009 - Al Shanfari v Council and Commission

(Case T-121/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Thamer Al Shanfari (represented by: P. Saini, QC, T. Nesbitt and B. Kennelly, Barristers, A. Patel, N. Sheikh, and K. Mehta, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 77/2009, in so far as it concerns the applicant; and

an order that the Council and the Commission pay the applicant's costs of this action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By operation of Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004¹ as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 77/2009² ("the Contested Regulation"), all of the applicant's funds within the Member States of the European Union have been frozen with the effect of preventing him from doing business in the EU, as well as being branded as having ties to the repressive regime in Zimbabwe and as being implicated in activities that seriously undermine democracy, respect of human rights and the rule of law. In addition, the applicant is subject to a travel ban pursuant to Article 4 of Council Common Position 2004/161/CFSP³.

The applicant contends that the Contested Regulation should be annulled on the following grounds, each of which is addressed below:

First, the applicant submits that the Contested Regulation has no proper legal basis since neither Article 60 EC nor Article 301 EC give the Council the power to freeze the entirety of an individual's funds who is not connected with the Government of Zimbabwe.

Second, according to the applicant's submissions, the Contested Regulation infringes the Council and the Commission's obligation to state reasons under Article 253 EC since the brief statement relating to the applicant in Annex III is manifestly inadequate and the Council Common Position which subjects the applicant to a travel ban provides no further particulars.

Third, the applicant claims that the Contested Regulation infringes the applicant's fundamental rights, by interfering with his rights to effective judicial protection and to a fair hearing; as well as by interfering to a disproportionate extent with his rights to peaceful enjoyment of his property.

____________

¹ - Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 of 19 February 2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (OJ 2004 L 55, p. 1)

² - Commission Regulation (EC) No 77/2009 of 26 January 2009 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (OJ 2009 L 23, p. 5)

³ - Council Common Position 2004/161/CFSP of 19 February 2004 renewing restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ L 50, p. 66)