Appeal brought on 13 January 2016 by Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih, Ghunia Abdrabbah, Taher Nasuf, Sanabel Relief Agency Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 28 October 2015 in Case T-134/11: Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih, Ghunia Abdrabbah, Taher Nasuf, Sanabel Relief Agency Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-19/16 P)

(2016/C 106/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih, Ghunia Abdrabbah, Taher Nasuf, Sanabel Relief Agency Ltd (represented by: N. Garcia-Lora, Solicitor, E. Grieves, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

This appeal advances 4 pleas in law.

Ground 1 disputes the Court's decision that the challenges to the substantive decision to list the first three applicants were not properly raised before the Court. The Court failed to properly characterise pleading IV as a challenge to the Commission's assessment of the facts. The Court failed to take into account the applicants' observations, which ought to have been considered because a) the Court had requested them, b) they had been served prior to the defendant lodging its defence and c) the applicants had always indicated that they wished to challenge the assessment of facts. The Court's approach was inconsistent with Ayadi v Commission T-527/09 (14.4.15)

Ground 2 challenges the Court's decision on the basis that it failed to apply the binding authority of Kadi II. The Court failed to determine for itself whether or not the allegations in the statement of reasons were well founded.

Ground 3 challenges the Court's finding that the Commission conducted a careful and independent analysis of the justification for listing. The Court's finding that the Commission did conduct such an analysis was unsustainable in light of the facts of the case and previous judicial findings in other similar cases.

Ground 4 challenges the Court's decision that Sanabel had no legal standing on the basis that the court erred in its understanding of the law. Sanabel's legal standing is not contingent upon parallel characterisations under domestic law, but upon whether it is deemed capable of being so designated.