27.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/43

(Case T-289/15)

(2015/C 245/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Hamas (Doha, Qatar) (represented by: L. Glock, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/521 of 26 March 2015 updating and amending the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision 2014/483/CFSP in so far as it concerns Hamas (including Hamas-Izz-al-Din-al-Quassem);

—annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/513 of 26 March 2015 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 790/2014 in so far as it concerns Hamas (including Hamas-Izz-al-Din-al-Quassem);

—order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

1.First plea in law: infringement of Article 1(4) of Common Position No 2001/93 (1) in so far as the national decisions relied on by the Council do not satisfy the conditions laid down by that article for a decision to be considered as taken by a competent authority.

2.Second plea in law: incorrect statement of the facts, since the main facts cited by the Council are not substantiated by any evidence.

3.Third plea in law: mistaken characterisation of Hamas as a terrorist group.

4.Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principle of non-interference which prevents Hamas, a lawful political movement that won the Palestinian elections and forms the core of the Palestinian government, from being characterised as a terrorist group.

5.Fifth plea in law: infringement of the duty to state reasons by the Council.

6.Sixth plea in law: infringement of the applicant’s right of defence and its right to effective judicial protection in the course of the national proceedings.

7.Seventh plea in law: infringement of the right to property in so far as the freezing of the applicant’s funds unjustifiably infringes its right to property.

Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 93).