—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 of 8 January 2019 (1) insofar as it concerns the applicant (whereas the applicant disputes that Kadek and Kongra Gel are its aliases);

—

in the alternative, warrant a less onerous measure than continued listing on the European Union terrorist list;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs with interest.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2019/25 is void insofar as it concerns the applicant since the applicant could have not been qualified as a terrorist organisation as defined in Article 1(3) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001. (2)

The defendant would have failed to establish that the applicant is a structured group acting in concert to commit terrorist attacks. Moreover, the bulk of the acts mentioned in the statement of reasons cannot be attributed to the applicant, are not included in the limitative list of acts in Article 1(3) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP and/or cannot seriously damage a country. Finally, the aim of the applicant was not a ‘terrorist aim’ as defined in Article 1(3) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. In particular, this aim must be considered in light of the armed conflict for self-determination.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2019/25 is void insofar as it concerns the applicant because no decision by a competent authority, as required by Article 1(4) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, would have been taken.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2019/25 is void insofar as it concerns the applicant since the defendant would have not conducted any proper review as required by Article 1(6) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP.

The statement of reasons would have not shown that any proper review has taken place, both on the national level and by the defendant itself. No due regard is paid to the information provided by the applicant in previous procedures regarding the peace process, the fight against Daesh and the autocratic developments in Turkey.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2019/25 is void insofar as it concerns the applicant as the decision would have not complied with the requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity.

In particular, the diaspora of Kurds is disproportionally hurt by the listing.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2019/25 is void insofar as it concerns the applicant as it does not comply with the obligation to state reasons in conformity with Article 296 TFEU.

The General Court in its judgment of 15 November 2018, PKK v Council (T-316/14, EU:T:2018:788), came to a similar conclusion based on the exact same statement of reasons.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2019/25 is void insofar as it concerns the applicant because it would have infringed the applicant’s right of defence and its right to effective judicial protection.

In particular, the defendant would have ignored the judgment of 15 November 2018, PKK v Council (T-316/14, EU:T:2018:788), and the proceedings leading up to it.