Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 26 February 2009 - Kadi v Commission

(Case T-85/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Yassin Abdullah Kadi (represented by: D. Anderson, QC, M. Lester, Barrister, G. Martin, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul Regulation No 1190/2008, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs of this action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Regulation No 1190/2008 of 28 November 2008 amending for the 101st time Council Regulation 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 Taliban¹ 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. Regulation n° 881/2002 was annulled by the Court of Justice in joined cases C-402/05 and C-415/05, Kadi and al Barakaat v Council and Commission²

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

First, the applicant submits that the contested regulation lacks a sufficient legal basis because it appears to amend Regulation 881/2002 without relevant determination by United Nations which, in the applicant's opinion, is precondition for the amendment of that regulation.

Second, the applicant claims that the contested regulation violates his rights of defence, both the right to an effective hearing and the right to effective judicial protection, and fails to remedy the infringements of those rights as found by the Court in joined cases C-402/05 and C­415/05. He further contends that the contested regulation provides no procedure for communicating to the applicant the evidence on which the decision to freeze his assets was based, or for enabling him to comment meaningfully on that evidence.

Third, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to provide compelling reasons for maintaining the asset freeze against the applicant, in violation of its obligation under Article 253 EC.

Fourth, it claims that the Commission failed to undertake an assessment of all relevant facts and circumstances in deciding whether to enact the contested regulation and therefore manifestly erred in its assessments.

Fifth, the applicant contends that the contested regulation constitutes an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on his right to property which is not justified by compelling evidence.

____________

¹ - OJ 2008 L 322, p. 25

² - Not yet reported in ECR