26.11.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/38

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation 687/2011 in so far as it applies to the applicant;

—

declare that Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 does not apply to the applicant;

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that Implementing Regulation 687/2011, (1) in so far as it concerns the applicant, is contrary to the sound administration of justice and procedural economy, on account of the appeals still pending before the Court of Justice against the judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 and on account of the decision of 18 April 2011 of the Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs to consider that the Sanctieregeling Terrorisme (Netherlands regulation on sanctions for the suppression of terrorism) 2007-II applies to the applicant.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant does not fall within the scope of the Common Position. (2)

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that no competent authority has taken a decision as referred to in Article 1(4) of the Common Position. Neither the judgment of the judge hearing an application for interim measures of 3 June 2003, nor the decision of 18 April 2011, by which the Sanctieregeling Terrorisme 2007-II is deemed to apply to the applicant, can be regarded as a decision by a competent authority.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that, according to the applicant, there is no indication that it had the knowledge required by Article 1(3)(k) of the Common Position.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the applicant could not be considered to (still) be facilitating the commission of terrorist acts, since that cannot be inferred either from the order of the judge hearing an application for interim measures of 3 June 2003 or from the decision of 18 April 2011 by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs to consider that the Sanctieregeling Terrorisme 2007-II applies to the applicant.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and excessive use of discretion. The Council wrongly failed to carry out a review and failed to discharge the burden of proof on it in respect of a reinstatement decision.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since the Implementing Regulation constitutes a disproportionate interference in the right to respect for property.

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU.

10.

Tenth plea in law, based on the right to an effective remedy and the principle of the rights of the defence, since the Council failed to provide specific and concrete information as to why maintenance on the list is necessary.