Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 22 August 2002 by Chafiq Ayadi against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-253/02)

    Language of the case: English

An action against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 August 2002 by Chafiq Ayadi Dublin (Ireland), represented by A. Lyon, Solicitor and S. Cox, Barrister.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

- annul Article 2 of 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-Qaida 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 Afghanistan¹ and so much of Article 4 as relates to Article 2;

- order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant is named in Annex I to the contested Regulation as a person to whom Article 2 applies. Under this provision, the applicant's bank accounts have been frozen.

The applicant submits that the provisions enabling the Security Council of the United Nations to call upon its Members to apply certain measures do not impose upon Members of the United Nations a duty to apply those measures. Members are free to choose how to respond to the Security Council's call.

The applicant further alleges that the Council was not competent to make Article 2 of the Regulation in that Articles 60 and 301 EC did not confer on the Council the power to do so. The Council and the Commission misused their powers in that Article 2 of the Regulation does not in fact pursue the objectives of Articles 60 and 301 EC.

Furthermore, Article 2 of the Regulation infringes fundamental principles of Community law, in particular the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and the respect for human rights.

Member States are best placed to establish what measures are proportionate, and the total denial of all income and of all un-earned assistance to an individual is disproportionate. Article 2 infringes human rights as it deprives an individual of access to his property and to the means of existence without providing any judicial remedy for that denial.

Finally, the applicant submits that an essential procedural requirement has been infringed in the making of Article 2, namely the requirement that the Council and the Commission state adequate reasons why the measures considered necessary cannot be determined by individual Member States.

____________

¹ - OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9.