Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/27

—

(Case C-386/19 P)

(2019/C 220/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Hamas (represented by: L. Glock, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of 6 March 2019, Hamas v Council, T-289/15;

—give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of the appeal;

—order the Council to pay all the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The applicant relies on four grounds of appeal.

First, in holding that the facts set out in paragraph 15 of Annex A and paragraph 17 of Annex B to the statement of reasons for the acts of March 2015 were invoked independently by the Council, the General Court distorted the evidence before it, substituted its own grounds for those of the author of the contested acts, failed to comply with the obligation to state reasons for its decision and deprived the applicant of the ability to prepare its defence.

Secondly, the General Court infringed Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931 by accepting that a decision of an administrative authority had been taken by a competent authority within the meaning of that provision, even though it had never been subject to judicial review.

Thirdly, the General Court infringed Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/93, Article 296 TFEU, and the applicant’s rights of the defence and right to effective judicial protection by holding that the British decision was a condemnation decision and that the Council was therefore obliged to defer as far as possible to the assessment conducted by the authority that adopted it.

Fourthly, in holding that Hamas and Hamas IDQ were a single entity, the General Court infringed the rules on the burden of proof, allowed the Council to alter its grounds in the course of the proceedings, took account of evidence without checking its veracity, breached the audi alteram partem rule in relation to the facts, distorted the evidence before it and breached the principle of the independence of proceedings.

—