Appeal brought on 19 December 2014 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 16 October 2014 in joined Cases T-208/11 and T-508/11: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) v Council of the European Union

(Case C-599/14 P)

(2015/C 089/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, E. Finnegan, and G. Etienne, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested judgment the General Court annulled the listing of LTTE purely for reasons related to the procedure used for their adoption. The Council submits that the General Court erred on the following points:

First plea: The General Court wrongly held that the Council must demonstrate in the statement of reasons that it has verified that the activity of the listing authority in the third state is carried out with sufficient safeguards. Although the Council accepts that the activity of the competent authority in a third state must be framed within legislation and practice that respects the fundamental rights of those affected by it, it submits that the General Court errs in law by requiring this information to be included in the statement of reasons.

Second plea: The General Court erred in law in its assessment of the Council’s use of information in the public domain. Moreover, the General Court was wrong to dismiss the use by the Council of open source material. The General Court errs further in reasoning that the Council should have asked a competent authority to investigate the press items referred to in the statement of reasons. Finally, the General Court errs in concluding that its refusal to uphold the Council’s reliance on open source material should result in the annulment of the contested decision.

Third plea: the General Court erred by not concluding that the listing could stand on the basis of the 2001 UK Proscription Order. The General Court’s interpretation, apart from being not warranted in law, has the consequence that an entity could obstruct its listing under CP931 by refusing to contest its listing or proscription in the Member State from where the decision under Article 1(4) of CP931 emanates. In addition, the General Court’s reasoning is not compatible with the judgment in Kadi II.