ECJ, Organisation des Modjahedines du people d’Iran v. Council, T-228/02, 2016
- 2016
- Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Topics
Terrorism financingLegal bases
European Convention on Human Rights Treaty of the European UnionCourts
European Court of Justice (ECJ)Laws
Right to a fair trial Right to an effective remedyFacts
Following the events of 11 September 2001, a United Nations Security Council resolution calling on all UN Member States to combat terrorism and the financing of terrorism by all means, in particular by freezing the funds of persons who commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist acts had been adopted. The resolution was implemented in the Community through a Council Common Position and Regulation which ordered the freezing of the funds and other financial assets or economic resources of persons and entities included in a list to be established and regularly updated by Council decisions. The Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran (OMPI) was added to the list in an update of the Common Position and the decision containing the list. The OMPI then brought an action before the Court of First Instance seeking annulment of the Common Position and decision concerned. OMPI argued that it did not have the chance to challenge the reasons for its inclusion in the list in fair hearing.
Legal grounds
Article 6 TEU; Article 6 ECHR
Findings
The Court held that, since the identification of the persons, groups and entities and the adoption of the ensuing measure of freezing funds involved the exercise of the Community’s own powers, the Community institutions concerned, in this case the Council, were bound to observe the right to a fair hearing regarding the maintenance of the asset freeze. The parties concerned must be given the opportunity to defend their rights effectively, particularly in legal proceedings which might be brought before the Court of First Instance. To allow them to do this, the evidence adduced against them must be notified to them in so far as reasonably possible, either concomitantly with or as soon as possible after the adoption of the initial decision to freeze funds. Finding that the rights of fair hearing as explained above had not been observed, the Court annulled the contested decision in respect of the applicant.