Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2007/211/94

Case T-256/07: Action brought on 16 July 2007 — People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council

OJ C 211, 8.9.2007, p. 50–50 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

8.9.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/50


Action brought on 16 July 2007 — People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council

(Case T-256/07)

(2007/C 211/94)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (Auvers sur Oise, France) (represented by: J.P. Spitzer, lawyer, and D. Vaughan, QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

Annul Decision 2007/445/EC of the Council insofar as it applies to the applicant;

order the defendant to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Council Decision 2007/445/EC of 28 June 2007 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 Decisions 2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC (1) maintaining the applicant on the list of the persons, groups and entities to whom a freeze of funds and other financial resources applies.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the contested Council decision should be annulled because the Council continued to rely on the listing of the applicant in Decision 2006/379/EC which should have been annulled or amended by the Council with regard to the applicant following the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-228/02 Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran v Council [2006] ECR II-0000. According to the applicant the Council was under an obligation to remove the applicant's name from the said list.

Furthermore, the applicant contends that the contested decision was adopted in violation of the applicant's right to be heard and without proper reasoning.

Moreover, the applicant claims that the contested decision was adopted on the basis of material all of which related to the period prior to the year 2001 and without taking into consideration material relating to the years after 2001 adduced by the applicant.

Finally, the applicant alleges that these circumstances amount to an abuse or misuse of powers.


(1)  OJ 2007 L 169, p. 58.


Top