Action brought on 11 April 2011 - LTTE v Council
(Case T-208/11)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (Herning, Denmark) (represented by: V. Koppe, lawyer)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2011
1 in as far as it concerns the applicant;
determine that the Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001
2 is not applicable to the applicant;
award the costs and interests to the applicant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In the present case the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2011 in so far as the name of the applicant is maintained on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
1. First plea in law, alleging that the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2011 is void in as far as it concerns the applicant and/or the Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 is inapplicable due to a failure to take regard of the law of armed conflict.
Second plea in law, alleging that the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2011 is void in as far as it concerns the applicant since the applicant cannot be qualified as a terrorist organisation as defined in Article 1(3) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP
3. In this regard the applicant submits that its activities do not amount to offences under international humanitarian law and national criminal law, which does not apply to situations of armed conflict.
Third plea in law, alleging that the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2011 is void in as far as it concerns the applicant because no decision by a competent authority, as required by Article 1(4) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, has been taken.
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2011 is void in as far as it concerns the applicant since the Council did not conduct any review as required by Article 1(6) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. The applicant contends that, as it no longer uses military means to achieve its goals and is no longer directly active in Sri Lanka, such a review would have led to the conclusion that it must be removed from the list.
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2011 is void in as far as it concerns the applicant as it does not comply with the obligation to state reasons in violation of Article 296 TFUE.
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2011 is void in as far as it concerns the applicant because it infringes upon the applicant's right of defence, the applicant's right to effective judicial protection.
____________1 - Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2011 of 31 January 2011 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 610/2010. (OJ 2011, L 28, p. 14).2 - Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism. (OJ 2001, L 344, p. 70).3 - Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism. (OJ 2001, L 344, p. 93).