This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015TN0289
Case T-289/15: Action brought on 2 June 2015 — Hamas v Council
Case T-289/15: Action brought on 2 June 2015 — Hamas v Council
Case T-289/15: Action brought on 2 June 2015 — Hamas v Council
OJ C 245, 27.7.2015, p. 43–44
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
27.7.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 245/43 |
Action brought on 2 June 2015 — Hamas v Council
(Case T-289/15)
(2015/C 245/52)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Hamas (Doha, Qatar) (represented by: L. Glock, lawyer)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/521 of 26 March 2015 updating and amending the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision 2014/483/CFSP in so far as it concerns Hamas (including Hamas-Izz-al-Din-al-Quassem); |
— |
annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/513 of 26 March 2015 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 790/2014 in so far as it concerns Hamas (including Hamas-Izz-al-Din-al-Quassem); |
— |
order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law: infringement of Article 1(4) of Common Position No 2001/93 (1) in so far as the national decisions relied on by the Council do not satisfy the conditions laid down by that article for a decision to be considered as taken by a competent authority. |
2. |
Second plea in law: incorrect statement of the facts, since the main facts cited by the Council are not substantiated by any evidence. |
3. |
Third plea in law: mistaken characterisation of Hamas as a terrorist group. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principle of non-interference which prevents Hamas, a lawful political movement that won the Palestinian elections and forms the core of the Palestinian government, from being characterised as a terrorist group. |
5. |
Fifth plea in law: infringement of the duty to state reasons by the Council. |
6. |
Sixth plea in law: infringement of the applicant’s right of defence and its right to effective judicial protection in the course of the national proceedings. |
7. |
Seventh plea in law: infringement of the right to property in so far as the freezing of the applicant’s funds unjustifiably infringes its right to property. |
(1) Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 93).