advocateopinion of advocate general poiares maduro opinion

8/11/2019 AdvocateOPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL POIARES MADURO Opinion

1/16

InfoCuria -

Case-law of the

Court of Justice

(bg) espaol (es) etina (cs) dansk (da) Deutsc (de)

eesti keel (et) !""#$%&' (el) nglis (en) *an+ais (*) *,atski (*)

italiano (it) lat,ieu ,aloda (l,) lietu,i- kalba (lt) .ag/a* (u) il0

1alti (.t) 2ede*lands (nl) polski (pl) po*tugu3s (pt) *o.4n5 (*o)slo,enina (sk) slo,enina (sl) suo.i (i) s,enska (s,)

Home>Search form> List of results> Documents

Start printing

Language of document : Bulgarian Spanish Czech Danish German Estonian Greek English FrenchItalian Latvian Lithuanian ungarian !altese Dutch "olish "ortuguese #omanian Slovak SloveneFinnish S$edish

6782862 69 :D;62?:@"%IES !&D'#%

delivered on () *anuar+ ,--. /A0

Case C-402/05 P

Yassin Abdullah Kadi

vCouncil of the European Unionand

Coission of the European Counities

(1 2he appellant in the present proceedings has 3een designated 3+ the Sanctions Committee ofthe 'nited 4ations Securit+ Council as a person suspected of supporting terrorism5 $hose funds andother financial resources are to 3e frozen1 Before the Court of First Instance5 the appellant challengedthe la$fulness of the regulation 3+ $hich the Council has implemented the freezing order in theCommunit+1 e argued 6 unsuccessfull+ 6 that the Communit+ lacked competence to adopt thatregulation5 and5 moreover5 that the regulation 3reached a num3er of his fundamental rights1 %n $hatare essentiall+ the same grounds5 he no$ asks the Court of *ustice to set aside the 7udgment of theCourt of First Instance1 2he Council and the Commission disagree $ith the appellant on 3oth counts1!ost importantl+5 ho$ever5 the+ contend that the regulation is necessar+ for the implementation of3inding Securit+ Council resolutions5 and5 accordingl+5 that the Communit+ Courts should not assessits conformit+ $ith fundamental rights1 Essentiall+ the+ argue that5 $hen the Securit+ Council has
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6?PortalAction_x_000_userLang=enhttp://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6?PortalAction_x_000_userLang=enhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?doclang=EN&text=&pageIndex=0&part=1&mode=lst&docid=69710&occ=first&dir=&actionMethod=document%2Fdocument.xhtml%3AformController.resetAction&cid=310079http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?doclang=EN&text=&pageIndex=0&part=1&mode=lst&docid=69710&occ=first&dir=&actionMethod=document%2Fdocument.xhtml%3AformController.resetAction&cid=310079http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?doclang=EN&text=&pageIndex=0&part=1&mode=lst&docid=69710&occ=first&dir=&actionMethod=document%2Fdocument.xhtml%3AformController.resetAction&cid=310079http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?pro=&lgrec=en&nat=or&oqp=&lg=&dates=&language=en&jur=C%2CT%2CF&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&num=C-402%252F05P&td=%3BALL&pcs=Oor&avg=&page=1&mat=or&jge=&for=&cid=310079http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?doclang=EN&text=&pageIndex=0&part=1&mode=lst&docid=69710&occ=first&dir=&cid=310079http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footnote1http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?doclang=EN&text=&pageIndex=0&part=1&mode=lst&docid=69710&occ=first&dir=&actionMethod=document%2Fdocument.xhtml%3AformController.resetAction&cid=310079http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?pro=&lgrec=en&nat=or&oqp=&lg=&dates=&language=en&jur=C%2CT%2CF&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&num=C-402%252F05P&td=%3BALL&pcs=Oor&avg=&page=1&mat=or&jge=&for=&cid=310079http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?doclang=EN&text=&pageIndex=0&part=1&mode=lst&docid=69710&occ=first&dir=&cid=310079http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footnote1http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6?PortalAction_x_000_userLang=en


2/16

spoken5 the Court must remain silent1

! " #ac$%round to the appeal

,1 !r 8adi /9the appellant0 is resident in Saudi &ra3ia1 %n (; %cto3er ,--(5 he $as included inthe list in &nne< I to #egulation 4o =)>?,--( as a person suspected of supporting terrorism1 /B0 &s aconse@uence5 all his funds and other financial resources in the Communit+ $ere to 3e frozen1 %n ,>!a+ ,--,5 that regulation $as repealed and replaced 3+ Council #egulation /EC0 4o ..(?,--, /9the

contested regulation01 /C0 o$ever5 the appellant continued to 3e listed 6 in &nne< I to the contestedregulation 6 as a person suspected of supporting terrorism $hose funds $ere to 3e frozen1

A1 2he contested regulation $as adopted on the 3asis of &rticles )- EC5 A-( EC and A-. EC inorder to give effect5 $ithin the Communit+5 to Council Common "osition ,--,?=-,?CFS"1 /0 2hatCommon "osition5 in turn5 reflected #esolutions (,)>/(;;;05 /E0 (AAA/,---0 /F0 and (A;-/,--,0 /G0of the 'nited 4ations Securit+ Council1 Considering that the suppression of international terrorism isessential for the maintenance of international peace and securit+5 the Securit+ Council adopted thoseresolutions under Chapter II of the '4 Charter1

=1 2he resolutions provide5 inter alia5 that all States are to take measures to freeze the fundsand other financial assets of individuals and entities associated $ith 'sama 3in Laden5 the &laidanet$ork and the 2ali3an5 as designated 3+ a committee of the Securit+ Council composed of all itsmem3ers /9the Sanctions Committee01 %n . !arch ,--(5 the Sanctions Committee pu3lished a first

consolidated list of the persons and entities that $ere to 3e su37ected to the freezing of funds1 2hatlist has since 3een amended and supplemented several times1 2he name of the appellant $as addedto the list 3+ the Sanctions Committee on (; %cto3er ,--(1

1 %n ,- Decem3er ,--,5 the Securit+ Council adopted #esolution (=,/,--,05 intended tofacilitate the implementation of counterterrorism measures1 2hat resolution provides for a num3er ofe/(;;;05 (AAA/,---0 and (A;-/,--,0that ma+ 3e granted 3+ the States on humanitarian grounds5 on condition that the SanctionsCommittee has 3een notified and has not o37ected or5 in some cases5 has given its consent1 Inaddition5 on (> *anuar+ ,--A5 the Securit+ Council adopted #esolution (=/,--A05 intended toimprove the implementation of the measures for the freezing of funds1

)1 In the light of those resolutions5 the Council adopted Common "osition ,--A?(=-?CFS" /H0 inorder to provide for the e !arch ,--A5the Council amended the contested regulation as regards e1 2he contested regulation5 as amended5 provides in &rticle , that 9all funds and other financialresources 3elonging to5 or o$ned or held 3+5 a natural or legal person5 group or entit+ designated 3+the Sanctions Committee and listed in &nne< I shall 3e frozen1 &rticle ,a provides for certaine 4ovem3er ,--5 the appellant 3rought thepresent appeal against the 7udgment of the Court of First Instance1 &part from the appellant5 theparties to the present appeal proceedings are the Council5 the Commission and the 'nited 8ingdom5
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footnote2http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footnote3http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footnote4http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footnote5http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footnote6http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footnote7http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footnote8http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footnote9http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footnote10http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footnote2http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footnote3http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footnote4http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footnote5http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footnote6http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footnote7http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footnote8http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footnote9http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footnote10


3/16

as $ell as Spain5 France and the 4etherlands5 as interveners in the appeal1 For the sake of 3revit+ Ishall refer5 on occasion5 to the Council5 the Commission and the 'nited 8ingdom as 9the respondents1

(-1 !+ anal+sis of the appeal $ill proceed as follo$s1 First5 I shall discuss the pleas concerningthe legal 3asis of the contested regulation1 Su3se@uentl+5 I shall address the pleas concerning the

7urisdiction of the Communit+ Courts to revie$ $hether the contested regulation 3reachesfundamental rights1 Finall+5 I shall discuss the @uestion of the appropriate standard of revie$ and Ishall assess $hether or not the contested regulation infringes the fundamental rights invoked 3+ the

appellant1

!! " &he le%al basis of the contested re%ulation

((1 2he appellants first plea relates to the legal 3asis of the contested regulation1 2he 7udgmentunder appeal devotes considera3le attention to this issue1 'pon consideration of various alternatives5the Court of First Instance concluded that the com3ined effect of &rticles )- EC5 A-( EC and A-. ECgave the Communit+ po$er to adopt the contested regulation1 /AA0 2he appellant argues that thisfinding is mistaken in la$ and maintains that the Communit+ lacked competence altogether to adoptthe contested regulation1 2hough rel+ing on slightl+ different 7ustifications5 3oth the Council and the'nited 8ingdom agree $ith the Court of First Instance that the contested regulation finds its legal3asis in &rticles )- EC5 A-( EC and A-. EC1 2he Commission5 ho$ever5 takes a different vie$ andconcludes that &rticles )- EC and A-( EC alone $ould have provided a sufficient legal 3asis1

(,1 I agree $ith that argument1 2he Court of First Instance considered that the po$ers to imposeeconomic and financial sanctions provided for 3+ &rticles )- EC and A-( EC5 namel+5 the interruptionor reduction of economic relations $ith one or more third countries5 do not cover the interruption orreduction of economic relations $ith individuals $ithin those countries5 3ut onl+ $ith their governingregimes1 2hat vie$ is difficult to reconcile $ith the $ording and the purpose of those provisions1&rticle A-( EC authorises the Council to 9interrupt or to reduce economic relations $ith one or morethird countries through unspecified 9urgent measures that are necessar+ to carr+ out the 'nionsCommon Foreign and Securit+ "olic+ /9CFS"01 &s such5 &rticle A-( EC is fundamentall+ concerned$ith the o37ectives of these measures5 namel+ the o37ectives of the CFS"5 to 3e achieved 3+ affectingthe Communit+s economic relations $ith third countries1 &rticle )-/(0 EC authorises the Council totake such measures $ith respect to the 9movement of capital and on pa+ments as regards the thirdcountries concerned1 It therefore indicates the means for carr+ing out the o37ectives stated earlierthose means involve restricting the flo$ of funds into and out of the Communit+1 Be+ond these t$oprovisions5 the EC 2reat+ does not regulate $hat shape the measures should take5 or $ho should 3e

the target or 3ear the 3urden of the measures1 #ather5 the onl+ re@uirement is that the measures9interrupt or reduce economic relations $ith third countries5 in the area of movement of capital orpa+ments1

(A1 2he financial sanctions in the contested regulation meet that re@uirement: the+ are targetedpredominantl+ at individuals and groups $ithin third countries1 B+ affecting economic relations $ithentities $ithin a given countr+5 the sanctions necessaril+ affect the overall state of economic relations3et$een the Communit+ and that countr+1 Economic relations $ith individuals and groups from $ithina third countr+ are part of economic relations $ith that countr+ targeting the former necessaril+affects the latter1 2o e


4/16

impose financial sanctions on individuals $ho do not e


5/16

Communit+ legal order1 2he appellant cites the ruling of this Court in Bosphorus /AF0 as a precedent1

,-1 2he 'nited 8ingdom has raised a plea of inadmissi3ilit+ as regards the line of argument 3asede


6/16

Courts must 3o$ to that rule $ith complete ac@uiescence and appl+ it unconditionall+ in theCommunit+ legal order1 2he relationship 3et$een international la$ and the Communit+ legal order isgoverned 3+ the Communit+ legal order itself5 and international la$ can permeate that legal orderonl+ under the conditions set 3+ the constitutional principles of the Communit+1

,1 It follo$s that the present appeal turns fundamentall+ on the follo$ing @uestion: is there an+3asis in the 2reat+ for holding that the contested regulation is e1 4evertheless5 the Council5 the Commission and the 'nited 8ingdom claim that the 7udgmentin Bosphorus does not provide the authorit+ the appellant seeks to ascri3e to it1 2he+ argue that the

7udgment is silent on the matter of the scope of the Courts 7urisdiction5 3ecause5 at an+ rate5 theregulation did not infringe fundamental rights1 I do not consider this argument ver+ persuasive1 2rue5$hile the &dvocate General dismissed the idea in passing5 the Court did not e EC1 2he first paragraph of that article provides: 92he rights and o3ligations arising fromagreements concluded 3efore ( *anuar+ (;. or5 for acceding States5 3efore the date of theiraccession5 3et$een one or more !em3er States on the one hand5 and one or more third countries onthe other5 shall not 3e affected 3+ the provisions of this 2reat+1 In the vie$ of the 'nited 8ingdom5that provision5 read in con7unction $ith &rticle (- EC5 $ould impose on the Communit+ an o3ligationnot to impair !em3er State compliance $ith Securit+ Council resolutions1 In conse@uence5 the Courtshould a3stain from 7udicial revie$ of the contested regulation1 I shall state at the outset that I amnot convinced 3+ that argument5 3ut it is nevertheless $orth looking into the matter in some detail5particularl+ since &rticle A-> EC figured prominentl+ in the reasoning of the Court of FirstInstance1 /CJ0

A-1 &t first sight5 it ma+ not 3e entirel+ clear ho$ !em3er States $ould 3e prevented fromfulfilling their o3ligations under the 'nited 4ations Charter if the Court $ere to annul the contestedregulation1 Indeed5 in the a3sence of a Communit+ measure5 it $ould in principle 3e open to the!em3er States to take their o$n implementing measures5 since the+ are allo$ed5 under the 2reat+5to adopt measures $hich5 though affecting the functioning of the common market5 ma+ 3e necessar+for the maintenance of international peace and securit+1 /CA0 4one the less5 the po$ers retained 3+the !em3er States in the field of securit+ polic+ must 3e e


7/16

same Communit+ rules for the protection of fundamental rights as the Communit+ institutionsthemselves1 %n that assumption5 if the Court $ere to annul the contested regulation on the groundthat it infringed Communit+ rules for the protection of fundamental rights5 then5 3+ implication5!em3er States could not possi3l+ adopt the same measures $ithout 6 in so far as those measurescame $ithin the scope of Communit+ la$ 6 acting in 3reach of fundamental rights as protected 3+the Court1 2hus5 the argument 3ased on &rticle A-> EC is of indirect relevance onl+1

A(1 2he crucial pro3lem $ith the argument raised 3+ the 'nited 8ingdom5 ho$ever5 is that it

presents &rticle A-> EC as the source of a possi3le derogation from &rticle )/(0 E'5 according to$hich 9the 'nion is founded on the principles of li3ert+5 democrac+5 respect for human rights andfundamental freedoms5 and the rule of la$1 I see no 3asis for such an interpretation of &rticle A->EC1 !oreover5 it $ould 3e irreconcila3le $ith &rticle =; E'5 $hich renders accession to the 'nionconditional on respect for the principles set out in &rticle )/(0 E'1 Furthermore5 it $ould potentiall+ena3le national authorities to use the Communit+ to circumvent fundamental rights $hich areguaranteed in their national legal orders even in respect of acts implementing internationalo3ligations1 /C0 2his $ould plainl+ run counter to firml+ esta3lished casela$ of this Court5 accordingto $hich the Communit+ guarantees a complete s+stem of 7udicial protection in $hich fundamentalrights are safeguarded in consonance $ith the constitutional traditions of the !em3er States1 &s theCourt stated in Les Verts5 9the European Communit+ is a communit+ 3ased on the rule of la$inasmuch as neither its !em3er States nor its institutions can avoid a revie$ of the @uestion $hetherthe measures adopted 3+ them are in conformit+ $ith the 3asic constitutional charter5 the2reat+1 /CE0 !ore straightfor$ardl+5 in Schmidberger5 the Court reaffirmed that 9measures $hich are

incompati3le $ith the o3servance of human rights are not accepta3le in the Communit+1 /CF0 Inshort5 the 'nited 8ingdoms reading of &rticle A-> EC $ould 3reak a$a+ from the ver+ principles on$hich the 'nion is founded5 $hile there is nothing in the 2reat+ to suggest that &rticle A-> EC has aspecial status 6 let alone a special status of that magnitude 6 in the constitutional frame$ork of theCommunit+1

A,1 Besides5 the o3ligations under &rticle A-> EC and the related dut+ of lo+al cooperation flo$ in3oth directions: the+ appl+ to the Communit+ as $ell as to the !em3er States1 /CG0 2he secondparagraph of &rticle A-> EC provides that 9the !em3er State or States concerned shall take allappropriate steps to eliminate incompati3ilities 3et$een their prior treat+ o3ligations and theiro3ligations under Communit+ la$1 2o this end5 !em3er States shall 9assist each other and shall5$here appropriate adopt a common attitude1 2hat dut+ re@uires !em3er States to e


8/16

dissenting opinion in the Korematsucase of the 'nited States Supreme Court:

KLike other claims conflicting $ith the asserted constitutional rights of the individual5 thatJ claimmust su37ect itself to the 7udicial process of having its reasona3leness determined and its conflicts$ith other interests reconciled1 Hhat are the allo$a3le limits of discretionJ5 and $hether or not the+have 3een overstepped in a particular case5 are 7udicial @uestions1 /J0

A1 Certainl+5 e1 It is certainl+ correct to sa+ that5 in ensuring the o3servance of fundamental rights $ithin theCommunit+5 the Court of *ustice dra$s inspiration from the casela$ of the European Court of uman#ights1 /C0 4one the less5 there remain important differences 3et$een the t$o courts1 2he task ofthe European Court of uman #ights is to ensure the o3servance of the commitments entered into 3+the Contracting States under the Convention1 &lthough the purpose of the Convention is themaintenance and further realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the individual5 it isdesigned to operate primaril+ as an interstate agreement $hich creates o3ligations 3et$een theContracting "arties at the international level1 /0 2his is illustrated 3+ the Conventionsintergovernmental enforcement mechanism1 /E0 2he EC 2reat+5 3+ contrast5 has founded anautonomous legal order5 $ithin $hich States as $ell as individuals have immediate rights ando3ligations1 2he dut+ of the Court of *ustice is to act as the constitutional court of the municipal legalorder that is the Communit+1 2he European Court of uman #ights and the Court of *ustice aretherefore uni@ue as regards their 7urisdiction ratione personaeand as regards the relationship of theirlegal s+stem $ith pu3lic international la$1 2hus5 the Council5 the Commission and the 'nited8ingdom attempt to dra$ a parallel precisel+ $here the analog+ 3et$een the t$o Courts ends1

A.1 2he Council asserted at the hearing that5 3+ e


9/16


10/16

to appl+ $isdom in matters relating to the threat of terrorism1 Ket5 the same holds true for thepolitical institutions1 Especiall+ in matters of pu3lic securit+5 the political process is lia3le to 3ecomeoverl+ responsive to immediate popular concerns5 leading the authorities to alla+ the an


11/16

2hat principle re@uires that the addressees of decisions $hich significantl+ affect their interestsshould 3e placed in a position in $hich the+ ma+ effectivel+ make kno$n their vie$s1 /EJ0 &s to theright to effective 7udicial revie$5 the Court has held: 92he European Communit+ is a communit+3ased on the rule of la$ in $hich its institutions are su37ect to 7udicial revie$ of the compati3ilit+ oftheir acts $ith the 2reat+ and $ith the general principles of la$ $hich include fundamental rights1 Individuals are therefore entitled to effective 7udicial protection of the rights the+ derive from theCommunit+ legal order5 and the right to such protection is one of the general principles of la$stemming from the constitutional traditions common to the !em3er States1 /EA0

-1 2he respondents argue5 ho$ever5 that in so far as there have 3een restrictions on the right to3e heard and the right to effective 7udicial revie$5 these restrictions are 7ustified1 2he+ maintain thatan+ effort on the part of the Communit+ or its !em3er States to provide administrative or 7udicialprocedures for challenging the la$fulness of the sanctions imposed 3+ the contested regulation $ouldcontravene the underl+ing Securit+ Council resolutions and therefore 7eopardise the fight againstinternational terrorism1 In consonance $ith that vie$5 the+ have not made an+ su3missions that$ould ena3le this Court to e


12/16

the 'nited 4ations sanctions list remains $ithin the full discretion of the Sanctions Committee 6 adiplomatic organ1 In those circumstances5 it must 3e held that the right to 7udicial revie$ 3+ anindependent tri3unal has not 3een secured at the level of the 'nited 4ations1 &s a conse@uence5 theCommunit+ institutions cannot dispense $ith proper 7udicial revie$ proceedings $hen implementingthe Securit+ Council resolutions in @uestion $ithin the Communit+ legal order1

1 It follo$s that the appellants claim that the contested regulation infringes the right to 3eheard5 the right to 7udicial revie$5 and the right to propert+ is $ell founded1 2he Court should annul

the contested regulation in so far as it concerns the appellant1

* " Conclusion

)1 I propose that the Court should:

(0 set aside the 7udgment of the Court of First Instance of ,( Septem3er ,-- in Case2A(?-( Kadi v Council and Commission

,0 annul5 in so far as it concerns the appellant5 Council #egulation /EC0 4o ..(?,--, of ,> !a+,--, imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons andentities associated $ith 'sama 3in Laden5 the &laida net$ork and the 2ali3an5 andrepealing Council #egulation /EC0 4o =)>?,--( prohi3iting the e?,--( /%* ,--( L ,>>5 p1 ,01

C6 Imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated$ith 'sama 3in Laden5 the &laida net$ork and the 2ali3an5 and repealing Council #egulation /EC04o =)>?,--( /%* ,--, L (A;5 p1 ;01

6 Concerning restrictive measures against 'sama 3in Laden5 mem3ers of the &laida organisation andthe 2ali3an and other individuals5 groups5 undertakings and entities associated $ith them and repealingCommon "ositions ;)?>=)?CFS"5 (;;;?>,>?CFS"5 ,--(?(=?CFS" and ,--(?>>(?CFS" /%* ,--, L (A;5 p1=01 See5 in particular5 &rticle A and the ninth recital in the "ream3le1

E6 S?#ES?(,)>/(;;;0 of ( %cto3er (;;;1

F6 S?#ES?(AAA/,---0 of (; Decem3er ,---1

G6 S?#ES?(A;-/,--,0 of () *anuar+ ,--,1

H6 Concerning e


13/16

I6 Council #egulation /EC0 4o )(?,--A amending5 as regards e


14/16

BE6 See5 for instance5 %pinion ,?;=5 cited in footnote ,,5 paragraphs A-5 A= and A1

BF6 Cited in footnote ()1

BG6 Bosphorus5 cited in footnote ()5 paragraph ,)1

BH6 2he impounding of the aircraft of Bosphorus &ir$a+s took place in accordance $ith Securit+ Council#esolution .,-/(;;A01 2he '4 Sanctions Committee had decided that a failure on the part of theauthorities to impound the aircraft $ould amount to a 3reach of the resolution1

BI6 %pinion of &dvocate General *aco3s in Bosphorus5 cited in footnote ()5 paragraph A1 See alsoparagraph A= of %pinion ,?;=5 cited in footnote ,,1

CJ6 "aragraphs (. to (;( and (;) of the 7udgment under appeal1

CA6 &rticles ,;> EC and )-/,0 EC1 See also: Case C>-?;= 9erner (;;J EC# IA(.; Case

C.A?;= Leier and !thers (;;J EC# IA,A( and the %pinion of &dvocate General *aco3s in CaseC(,-?;= Commission v Greece (;;)J EC# I((A1

CB6 Case C(,=?; Centro6Com (;;>J EC# I.(5 paragraph ,1

CC6 Case C,)-?.; (;;(J EC# I,;,1 See also Case CA).?; 7amiliapress (;;>J EC# IA).; and CaseC)-?-- Carpenter ,--,J EC# I),>;1

C6 In certain legal s+stems5 it seems ver+ unlikel+ that national measures for the implementation ofSecurit+ Council resolutions $ould en7o+ immunit+ from 7udicial revie$ /$hich incidentall+ sho$s that adecision 3+ this Court to eA=(,1 2he Czech #epu3lic: QstavnR soud5 ( &pril ,--A /I1 QS>,?-,0 QstavnR soud5 ,( Fe3ruar+ ,--> /I1 QS )-=?-=01 Ital+: Corte Costituzionale5 (; !arch ,--(54o >A1 ungar+: =?(;;> /I1 ,,10 &B hatrozat1 "oland: %rzecznict$o 2r+3unaTu 8onst+tuc+7nego /z3iUrurzVdo$+05 ,> &pril ,--5 " (?-5 pkt 15 Seria &5 ,-- 4r =5 poz1 =, and %rzecznict$o 2r+3unaTu8onst+tuc+7nego /z3iUr urzVdo$+05 , *ul+ ,-->5 8 =(?-5 Seria &5 ,--> 4r >5 poz1 >,1

CE6 Les Verts5 cited in footnote (.5 paragraph ,A1

CF6 Case C((,?-- Schmidberger ,--AJ EC# I);5 paragraph >A1

CG6 For a recent e EC5 seeCase C,-A?-A Commission v$ustria ,--J EC# I;A5 paragraph ;1

CH6 See5 in a similar vein5 on the re@uirement of unit+ in the international representation of theCommunit+5 %pinion (?;= (;;=J EC# I,)>5 paragraphs (-) to (-;5 andCommission v Council5 cited infootnote ,A5 paragraphs =- to (1

CI6 2he term 9political @uestion $as coined 3+ 'nited States Supreme Court Chief *ustice 2ane+
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref25http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref26http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref27http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref28http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref29http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref30http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref31http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref32http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref33http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref34http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref35http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref36http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref37http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref38http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref39http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref25http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref26http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref27http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref28http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref29http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref30http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref31http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref32http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref33http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref34http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref35http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref36http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref37http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref38http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=69710&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=310079#Footref39


15/16

in Luther v1 Borden5 =. '1S1 ( /(.=;05 =)=>1 2he precise meaning of this notion $ithin the Communit+conte0: 9Given thatthe effect of inclusion on the listJ is the freezing of assets5 the right to contest inclusion is a necessit+1 &tthe international level5 these procedures do not at present e


16/16

G6 See5 in particular5 the Second #eport of the &nal+tical Support and Sanctions !onitoring 2eam/S?,--?.A05 in $hich it is noted5 in paragraph =5 that 9the $a+ entities or individuals are added to theterrorist list maintained 3+ the Council and the a3sence of revie$ or appeal for those listed raise seriousaccounta3ilit+ issues and possi3l+ violate fundamental rights5 norms and conventions and5 in paragraph .5that 9revisions to the process could help to reduce the possi3ilit+ of one or more potentiall+ negative courtdecisions1 In that connection5 the #eport specificall+ mentions the European Court of *ustice1 See also&nne< I to the Si?(A,0 for an

overvie$ of legal challenges to aspects of the sanctions programme1

H6 In accordance $ith &rticle )( of the Statute of the Court1

I6 Supreme Court of Israel5 C* >);?-, ,--)J The Public Committee $gainst Torture in #srael et- al-)- The Go)ernment o #srael et- al-5 paragraphs )( and ), /internal @uotation marks omitted01

EJ6 Case CA,?; " Lisrestal and !thers (;;)J EC# IA>A5 paragraph ,(1 See also &rticle =(/,0 of theCharter on Fundamental #ights of the European 'nion1

EA6 Case C-?-- " .niAn de Peueos $gricultores v Council ,--,J EC# I))>>5 paragraphs A. and A;1See also &rticle => of the Charter on Fundamental #ights and &rticles ) and (A EC#1

EB6 2he delisting procedure has undergone several changes since the original adoption of the measuresagainst the appellant1 'nder the initial regime5 the person concerned could onl+ su3mit re@uests fordelisting to their State of citizenship or of residence1 'nder the current procedure5 petitioners seeking tosu3mit a re@uest for delisting can do so either through a 'nited 4ations 9focal point or through their Stateof residence or citizenship1 o$ever5 the fundamentall+ intergovernmental nature of the delisting processhas not changed1 See Securit+ Council #esolution (>A-/,--)0 of (; Decem3er ,--) and the SanctionCommittees Guidelines for the Conduct of its Hork5 availa3le athttp:??$$$1un1org?sc?committees?(,)>?inde