ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
16 September 2013 (*)
(Restrictive measures directed against persons associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban – Freezing of funds – Action for annulment – Legal aid)
In Case T‑248/13 AJ,
FK, residing in London (United Kingdom), represented by J. Carey and E. Grieves, Solicitors,
applicant,
v
European Commission, represented by T. Scharrf and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents,
defendant,
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 April 2013, Mr FK submitted an application for legal aid pursuant to Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court for the purpose of bringing an action against the European Commission for annulment of a Decision of 6 March 2013, maintaining his listing on Annex I to 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‑Qaeda 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).
2 In support of that application, he claims, in particular, producing a number of supporting documents, that: he is unemployed; his economic situation has been assessed by the UK’s Department of Work and Pensions as eligible for income-based Income Support benefit of GBP 156.75 per week; his spouse or cohabitee receives GBP 33.70 in family allowances per week; he has two dependent children; he is eligible for legal aid in England and Wales; and that he is unable to meet the costs involved in legal assistance and representation in proceedings before the General Court.
3 In addition, it is clear from the application for legal aid that Mr FK requests that his interests should continue to be represented in the action he proposes to bring by the lawyers who have assisted him in connection with that application.
4 As regards the question whether the action appears to be well founded for the purposes of Article 94(3) of the Rules of Procedure, Mr FK claims in particular that the Commission has failed to independently review the basis of his inclusion in Annex I to Council Regulation No 881/2002, including the evidential basis, in acting as “a simple post box and/or mouthpiece for the United Nations Security Council”, in contravention of current jurisprudence of the Europeans Courts; that inadequate reasons and/or inadequate evidential basis have been disclosed in order to provide him with sufficient information to answer the case against him, in breach of his right to an effective judicial remedy, the right to defend himself and in breach of his right to property and also in breach of his procedural rights; and that the failure to independently review his case has led to unacceptable delay in the review process, through a continuous deferral of final decision making, in breach of due procedural requirements.
5 By letter of the Registrar of 9 July 2013, the General Court invited the Commission to submit observations on Mr FK’s application for legal aid.
6 In its observations, lodged at the Registry on 22 July 2013, the Commission declares that it does not oppose Mr FK’s application for legal aid, taking into account his economic situation as described in his application, although it must be subject to Mr FK’s obtaining an exception under Article 2a of Regulation No 881/2002.
7 In this regard, Article 94(1) of the Rules of Procedure makes clear 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 before that Court. The cashier of the General Court is responsible for those costs.
8 Pursuant to Article 94(2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure, the grant of legal aid is subject to the twofold condition that, first, the applicant, because of his economic situation, should be wholly or partly unable to meet the costs involved in legal assistance and representation in proceedings before the General Court and that, second, his action should not appear to be manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded.
9 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 that situation.
10 By virtue of 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, which must, if it refuses the aid applied for, state the reasons on which it is based.
11 By measure of organisation of procedure of 27 August 2013, pursuant to Article 2a of Regulation No 881/2002 and in accordance with the General Court’s relevant case-law, the President of the Second Chamber of the General Court requested Mr FK to produce an exemption from the freezing of his funds granted by the competent authorities of the Member State in which he resides, in the form of a Licence issued by HM Treasury expressly authorising the General Court to grant him legal aid, to be paid directly into his lawyers’ account, for the purposes of the action he is proposing to bring for annulment of the Commission decision confirming that his funds are to remain frozen under Regulation No 881/2002.
12 Under cover of a letter lodged at the Registry on 2 September 2013, Mr FK produced a “general licence” from HM Treasury, authorizing the Solicitors of any person listed on Annex I to Regulation No 881/2002 to apply any funds received from the General Court in respect of legal aid payments, to the Solicitors’ fees and disbursements incurred or made in connection with their advice to and representation of such person.
13 In those circumstances, and in the light of the information and supporting documents provided by Mr FK, and without opposition from the Commission, the President of the Second Chamber of the General Court takes the view that the conditions for granting legal aid are in principle satisfied.
14 As regards the amount of legal aid to be granted to Mr FK, the President of the Second Chamber of the General Court finds that, in the light of the subject-matter and the nature of the dispute, of its legal importance and also of the difficulties that might be foreseen in the case, of the foreseeable extent of work which the proceedings before the Court would entail for his lawyers and of the interest which the case presented for the parties, the fees and disbursements of the lawyers appointed must not, in principle, exceed EUR 6 000 for the entire proceedings. The final decision on the amount of fees and disbursements is reserved and will be fixed on the basis of a detailed breakdown to be submitted to the Court at the end of the case.
15 In view of the restrictive measures to which Mr FK is subject under Regulation No 881/2002, in particular under Article 2 of that regulation, freezing his funds and economic resources, that sum will be paid directly to the two lawyers appointed to represent Mr FK’s interests during the proceedings he proposes to bring.
16 Whether that payment should, in principle, be allowed by way of an exception in pursuance of Article 2a of Regulation No 881/2002, is not a question to be addressed in the present order. It is sufficient to note that Mr FK has already supplied a licence from the competent authorities under the exception procedure laid down in Article 2a (see, also order of the Court 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 FK is granted legal aid.
2. Jules Carey and Edward Grieves are appointed as lawyers to assist Mr FK.
3. An amount of fees and disbursements, fixed on the basis of a detailed breakdown, to be submitted to the General Court at the end of the case but in principle not exceeding a maximum of EUR 6 000, is granted to the lawyers appointed.
4. That amount shall be paid direct to those lawyers.
Luxembourg, 16 September 2013.