- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-284/08: Action brought on 21 July 2008 — People's Mojahedin of Iran v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0284
62008TN0284
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
13.9.2008
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 236/16
(Case T-284/08)
(2008/C 236/27)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (Auvers sur Oise, France) (represented by: J.-P. Spitzer, lawyer and D. Vaughan, QC)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
—To annul Decision 2008/583/EC of the Council insofar as it applies to the applicant;
—To order the defendant to pay the applicant's costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 230 EC, partial annulment and in so far as it concerns the applicant, of Council Decision 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2008 (the contested decision) 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 Decision 2007/868/EC.
In support of its application, the applicant submits that the contested decision should be annulled because, in so far as it relates to the inclusion of the applicant on the list of terrorist organisations, there was no relevant decision at the time from a competent national authority sufficient to form any justification for the decision. In addition, the applicant claims that the decision should be annulled because while it was said to be based on ‘new information’ and on a decision from a competent authority other than that of the United Kingdom, the evidence on which the Council relied was not disclosed to the applicant before adopting the decision. Further, the applicant claims that no justification was given as to why such information was to be treated as new, or relevant.
The applicant puts forward that the contested decision was taken without any proper evaluation of the new information and on whether that constituted concrete and reliable evidence upon which the Council was entitled to act, in order to prove that the applicant was engaged in terrorism.
Furthermore, the applicant contends that the contested decision was adopted in violation of the applicant's right to be heard and its fundamental rights. The applicant submits, finally, that the contested decision was adopted in circumstances which amounted to an abuse or misuse of procedures and/or powers.
* * *
(1) OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21.