This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62009TN0127
Case T-127/09: Action brought on 15 April 2009 — Abdulrahim v Council and Commission
Case T-127/09: Action brought on 15 April 2009 — Abdulrahim v Council and Commission
Case T-127/09: Action brought on 15 April 2009 — Abdulrahim v Council and Commission
OJ C 167, 18.7.2009, p. 12–13
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
18.7.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 167/12 |
Action brought on 15 April 2009 — Abdulrahim v Council and Commission
(Case T-127/09)
2009/C 167/26
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Abdulbasit Abdulrahim (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Jones, Barrister and M. Arani, Solicitor)
Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
|
— |
annul in whole or in part Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, as amended by the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008, and/or the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008, insofar as they are of direct and individual concern to the Applicant; |
|
— |
or, in the alternative, to declare Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 and/or Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 to be inapplicable to the applicant; |
|
— |
or, in the alternative, to consider the basis for listing of the Applicant’s name in Annex I of the Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 and determine whether the Commission’s decision to add the applicant’s name in Annex I is appropriate and well-founded on the law and on the facts; |
|
— |
to order the defendants to provide for reasons and evidence for listing the applicant’s name in annex I of the Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, within a strict time-frame; |
|
— |
decide that listing of the applicant’s name in Annex I is inappropriate and unfounded on the law and on the facts and order the applicant’s name be deleted from the Annex I of the Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002; |
|
— |
take such further action as it may deem appropriate; |
|
— |
order the defendant, the Council and/or the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs; |
|
— |
order the defendant, the Council and/or the Commission, to pay damages to the applicant for loss of earnings, loss of profit and non-material damage. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In the present case the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 of 22 December 2008 (1) in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision. In the alternative, the applicant requests the Court, pursuant to Article 241 EC, to declare the Council Regulation No 881/2002 and Commission Regulation No 1330/2008 to be inapplicable to the applicant. He also requests the Court to order the defendants to pay damages.
In support of its claims the applicant submits that the contested regulations infringe his fundamental human rights as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and by the Charter of Fundamental Right and Freedoms of the European Union.
First, he claims that the contested regulations infringe his right to be heard, right to effective judicial review and right to a fair trial as he has never been informed by the Council or the Commission of the reasons for his inclusion in Annex I and has never received any evidence justifying the listing decision. Thus, the applicant contends that he has not been given the possibility to comment on the grounds and reasons for including his name in Annex I of the contested Regulation and in consequence, he has not been able to challenge the listing decision before any judicial body.
Second, the applicant submits that the contested measures infringe his right for respect for property and constitute a disproportionate interference with his private and family life.