Hamas vs European Council (Case T-400/10) Judgment 17/12/14

Hamas vs European Council (Case T-400/10) - Judgment Of December 17, 2014
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)

December 17, 2014 ( * )

"Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities in the context of the fight against terrorism - Freezing of funds - Evidence base of freezing funds - Reference to acts of terrorism - need for a competent authority decision within the meaning of Common Position 2001/931 - Obligation to state reasons - Modulation in time the effects of a cancellation "

In Case T-400/10,

Hamas, based in Doha (Qatar), represented by E L. Glock, lawyer,

applicant,

against

Council of the European Union, represented initially by Messrs. B. Driessen and R. Szostak, and subsequently by. Driessen and G. Étienne, acting as Agents,

defendant,

supported by

European Commission, represented initially by M. Konstantinidis and M me É. Cujo, and subsequently by. Konstantinidis and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents,

intervener,

whose original purpose a request for Council annulment of the notice to the attention of persons, groups and entities that have been included in the list referred to in Article 2, paragraph 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2580 / 2001 of the Council on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in the context of the fight against terrorism (OJ 2010 C 188, p. 13) of Decision 2010/386 / CFSP of the Council of 12 July 2010 concerning updating the list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931 / CFSP on the application of specific measures to fight against terrorism (OJ L 178, p. 28) and the Implementing Regulation (EU) No 610/2010 of the Council of 12 July 2010 implementing Article 2, paragraph 3, of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1285/2009 (OJ L 178, p. 1), as these acts concern the applicant,

THE COURT (Second Chamber)

composed of Messrs. NJ Forwood, President, F. Dehousse (Rapporteur) and J. Schwarcz, Judges,

Registrar: I C. Kristensen, Administrator,

further to the hearing on 28 February 2014 and the close of the hearing April 9, 2014,

given the decision of 15 October 2014 reopening the oral procedure and after its closing November 20, 2014,

gives the following

Stop

Background to the dispute

1 On 27 December 2001 the Council of the European Union adopted Common Position 2001/931 / CFSP on the application of specific measures to fight against terrorism (OJ L 344, p. 93), Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in the context of the fight against terrorism (OJ L 344, p. 70) and Decision 2001 / 927 / EC establishing the list provided for in Article 2, paragraph 3 of Regulation No 2580/2001 (OJ L 344, p. 83).

2 The "Hamas Izz al-Din al-Qassem (terrorist wing of Hamas)" was included on the lists annexed to Common Position 2001/931 and 2001/927 decision.

3 These two instruments were regularly updated, pursuant to section 1 st , Paragraph 6, Common Position 2001/931 and Article 2, paragraph 3 of Regulation No 2580/2001, the " Hamas Izz al-Din al-Qassem (terrorist wing of Hamas) "remaining on the lists. Since 12 September 2003, the entity on the list is the "Hamas (including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem)."

4 On 12 July 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/386 / CFSP concerning updating the list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931 ( OJ L 178, p. 28) and the Implementing Regulation (EU) No 610/2010, implementing Article 2, paragraph 3 of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1285/2009 (OJ L 178, p. 1) (hereinafter, together, the "Council acts in July 2010").

5 The "Hamas (including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem)" continued to be on the lists contained in these acts.

6 On 13 July 2010, the Council published in Official Journal of the European Union 's opinion to the attention of persons, groups and entities that have been included in the list referred to in Article 2, paragraph 3 of Regulation No 2580/2001 (OJ C 188, p. 13, hereinafter the "Notice of July 2010").

Process and new developments during the proceedings

7 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 12 September 2010, the applicant, Hamas, has brought this action.

8 In its application, the applicant claims that the Court should:

- Set aside the opinion of July 2010 and the proceedings of the Council in July 2010;

- Order the Council to costs.

9 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 21 December 2010, the European Commission applied to intervene in support of the Council. It was granted that request by order of President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 7 February 2011.

10 On 31 January 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/70 / CFSP concerning updating the list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931 ( OJ L 28, p. 57), in which he maintained the applicant on the list, and the Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2011, implementing Article 2, paragraph 3, of heading 2580 regulations / 2001, and repealing Regulation No 610/2010 of execution (OJ L 28, p. 14) (hereinafter, together, the "Council acts in January 2011").

11 On 2 February 2011, the Commission published in Official Journal of the European Union 's opinion to the attention of persons, groups and entities that have been included in the list referred to in Article 2, paragraph 3 of Regulation No 2580/2001 (OJ 2011 C 33, p. 14).

12 By letter of 2 February 2011, notified to him on 7 February 2011, the Commission addressed to it a statement of the reasons for his inclusion in the list.

13 By letter of 17 February 2011, lodged at the Registry of the Court on the same day, the applicant referred to the acts of the Council in January 2011 and the letter of 2 February 2011. He said that he maintained the grounds of the complaint against them acts and that it would develop its criticism against the reasons for his inclusion in the list notified by letter of 2 February 2011.

14 By letter of 30 May 2011, the Council informed the applicant of its intention to hold it at the next review of the restrictive measures, on the list of persons, groups and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for Regulation No 2580/2001.

15 The other parties have been heard, the Court authorized the applicant by letter from the Registry of 15 June 2011, to adapt, in its reply, the means and conclusions of its action regarding acts of the Council in January 2011, if necessary in the light of the grounds contained in the letter of February 2, 2011. The Court did, however, not allowed the applicant to adapt its claims regarding the letter of 2 February 2011.

16 The deadline for filing the reply was set for 27 July 2011.

17 On 18 July 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/430 / CFSP concerning updating the list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931 ( OJ L 188, p. 47), in which he maintained the applicant on the list, and the Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011, implementing Article 2, paragraph 3, of Regulation No 2580 / 2001 and repealing the implementing Regulation No 610/2010 and No. 83/2011 (OJ L 188, p. 2) (hereinafter, together, the "July 2011 Council acts").

18 On 19 July 2011, the Council published in Official Journal of the European Union 's opinion to the attention of persons, groups and entities that have been included in the list referred to in Article 2, paragraph 3 of Regulation No 2580/2001 (OJ 2011 C 212, p. 20).

19 By letter of 19 July 2011, the Council sent the applicant a statement of the reasons for his inclusion in the list.

20 By letter of 27 July 2011, the applicant referred to the July 2011 Council acts and the letter of 19 July 2011 as a substitute for acts initially challenged. He noted that the publication or notification of these acts was to run a new period of two months to appeal. He said the reasons for the replica was not filed.

21 The letter of 27 July 2011 was admitted as a time extension request for filing the reply.

22 By letters from the Registry of 16 September 2011, the Tribunal informed the parties of its decision not to grant the request for an extension and fixed 2 November 2011 as the deadline for the submission by the Commission of its intervention .dropoff window

23 On 28 September 2011 the applicant lodged at the Court Registry a residual memory. In this submission, the applicant stated "extend its claim for annulment against [the acts of the Council in July 2011]."

24 He also said that, in light of the initial request, the letter of 17 February 2011 and the supplementary memory, the present action must now be regarded as directed against the acts of the Council in July 2010, January 2011 and July 2011. The applicant added that the findings presented against the advice of July 2010 were also held and it said its cancellation requests were the acts in question as they only concerned the.

25 On 28 October 2011, the Commission filed its intervention.

26 By letter of 15 November 2011, the Council informed the applicant's counsel of his intention to keep it, at the next review of restrictive measures, on the list of persons, groups and entities subject to restrictive measures provided by Regulation No 2580/2001.

27 By decision of the Court of 8 December 2011, the supplementary submission was received.

28 By letter of 20 December 2011, the Tribunal informed the parties that, in view of the expiry, before filing the supplementary memory, delay action for annulment against acts of the Council in January 2011, the adaptation of conclusions of appeal against such acts admissible se, as already requested and carried to the requisite legal by the applicant's letter of 17 February 2011, would not be considered that in view of the only ways and arguments of this part before the expiration of the action for annulment against these acts, those advanced in the original application.

29 The Court has set February 17, 2012 the deadline for the deposit by the Council and the Commission for their comments on the adaptation of findings against the acts of the Council in January 2011, and March 5, 2012, extended to April 3, 2012, the deadline for filing, by the same parties, their observations on the supplementary memory.

30 On 22 December 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/872 / CFSP concerning updating the list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931, and repealing Decision 2011/430 (OJ L 343, p. 54), in which he maintained the applicant on the list, and the Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1375/2011, implementing Article 2 paragraph 3 of Regulation No 2580/2001, and repealing Regulation No 687/2011 of execution (OJ L 343, p. 10) (hereinafter together the "Council acts in December 2011").

31 On 23 December 2011, the Council published in Official Journal of the European Union 's opinion to the attention of persons, groups and entities that have been included in the list referred to in Article 2, paragraph 3 of Regulation No 2580/2001 (OJ 2011 C 377, p. 17).

32 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 1 st February 2012, the applicant has adjusted its claims against the acts of the Council of December 2011.

33 By documents lodged at the Court Registry on 13 and 16 February 2012, the Commission and the Council at the Court's request, submitted their observations on the adaptation of the findings against the acts of the Council in January 2011.

34 By documents lodged at the Court Registry on 3 April 2012, the Council and the Commission at the Court's request, submitted their observations on the residual memory.

35 On 25 June 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/333 / CFSP concerning updating the list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931, and repealing Decision 2011/872 (OJ L 165, p. 72), in which he maintained the applicant on the list, and the Implementing Regulation (EU) No 542/2012, implementing Article 2 paragraph 3 of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Implementing Regulation No 1375/2011 (OJ L 165, p. 12) (hereinafter, together, the "Board of acts of June 2012").

36 On 26 June 2012, the Council published in Official Journal of the European Union 's opinion to the attention of persons, groups and entities that have been included in the list referred to in Article 2, paragraph 3 of Regulation No 2580/2001 (OJ 2012 C 186, p. 1).

37 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 28 June 2012, the applicant, at the invitation of the Tribunal, filed comments in response to the comments of the Council and the Commission of 3 April 2012.

38 By letter lodged at the Court on 10 July 2012, the applicant has adjusted its claims against the acts of the Council of June 2012.

39 By documents lodged at the Court Registry on 20 and 23 July 2012, the Commission and the Council at the Court's request, submitted their observations on the adaptation of findings against the acts of the Council of June 2012.

40 By documents lodged at the Court Registry on 5 and 6 September 2012, the Commission and the Council, at the invitation of the Court, the applicant responded to the comments of 28 June 2012.

41 On 10 December 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/765 / CFSP concerning updating the list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931, and repealing Decision 2012/333 (OJ L 337, p. 50), in which he maintained the applicant on the list, and the Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1169/2012, implementing Article 2 paragraph 3 of Regulation No 2580/2001, and repealing Regulation No 542/2012 of execution (OJ L 337, p. 2) (hereinafter, together, the "acts of the Council in December 2012") .dropoff window

42 On 11 December 2012, the Commission published in Official Journal of the European Union 's opinion to the attention of persons, groups and entities that have been included in the list referred to in Article 2, paragraph 3 of Regulation No 2580/2001 (OJ 2012 C 380, p. 6).

43 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 11 February 2013, the applicant has adjusted its claims against the acts of the Council of December 2012.

44 By documents lodged at the Court Registry on 11 and 13 March 2013, the Commission and the Council at the Court's request, submitted their observations on the adaptation of findings against the acts of the Council of December 2012.

45 On 25 July 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/395 / CFSP concerning updating the list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931, and repealing Decision 2012/765 (OJ L 201, p. 57), in which he maintained the applicant on the list, and the Implementing Regulation (EU) No 714/2013, implementing Article 2 paragraph 3 of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Implementing Regulation No 1169/2012 (OJ L 201, p. 10) (hereinafter, together, the "Council acts in July 2013") .dropoff window

46 By letter of 24 September 2013, the applicant has adjusted its claims against the acts of the Council in July 2013.

47 By letter of 4 October 2013, the Court invited the Council, which complied with that request by act of October 28, 2013, to produce certain documents and put certain questions to the parties to the hearing.

48 By documents lodged at the Court Registry on 28 and 30 October 2013, the Council and the Commission at the Court's request, submitted their observations on the adaptation of the findings against the acts of the Council in July 2013.

49 On 10 February 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/72 / CFSP updating and revising the list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931, and repealing Decision 2013/395 (OJ L 40, p. 56), in which he maintained the applicant on the list, and the Implementing Regulation (EU) No 125/2014, implementing Article 2 paragraph 3 of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Implementing Regulation No 714/2013 (OJ L 40, p. 9) (hereinafter, together, the "acts of the Council in February 2014") .dropoff window

50 On 28 February 2014, the applicant has adjusted its claims against the acts of the Council in February 2014.

51 By documents lodged at the Court Registry on 4 and 5 March 2014, the Commission and the Council at the Court's request, submitted their observations on the adaptation of the findings against the acts of the Council in February 2014.

52 On 22 July 2014 the Council adopted Decision 2014/483 / CFSP, updating and amending the list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931, and repealing Decision 2014/72 (OJ L 217, p. 35), in which he maintained the applicant on the list, and the Implementing Regulation (EU) No 790/2014 implementing Article 2 paragraph 3 of Regulation No 2580/2001, and repealing Regulation No 125/2014 of implementation (OJ L 217, p. 1) (hereinafter, together, the "acts of the Council in July 2014"; the July 2010 Council acts, January, July and December, 2011, June and December 2012, June 2013 and February and July 2014 being hereinafter referred to, together, the "acts of the Council July 2010-July 2014 ").

53 On 21 September 2014, the applicant has adjusted its claims against the acts of the Council in July 2014.

54 By documents lodged at the Court Registry on 23 October and 4 November 2014, the Council and the Commission at the Court's request, submitted their observations on the adaptation of findings against the acts of the Council in July 2014 .dropoff window

Conclusions of the parties

55 The facts above that, by this action, the applicant claims that the Court should:

- Annul, as they relate to the Opinion of July 2010 and the acts of the Council from July 2010 to July 2014 ('the contested acts "below);

- Order the Council to costs.

56 The Council, supported by the Commission, claims that the Court should:

- Dismiss the action;

- Order the applicant to pay the costs.

In law

Preliminary observations on the subject of the appeal as well as the scope and the admissibility of the applicant's observations of 28 June 2012

On the subject of the appeal

57 As is clear from the statement of facts, the July 2010 Council acts were repealed and replaced successively by acts of the Council in January, July and December, 2011, June and December 2012, July 2013, February and July 2014.

58 The applicant successively adapted its original claims so that its action seeks the annulment of these acts, if they concern him. It has, moreover, expressly maintained its claim for annulment of the repealed acts.

59 According to settled case law appeals against successive measures freezing funds adopted under Regulation No 2580/2001, an applicant retains an interest in obtaining the annulment of a decision imposing restrictive measures repealed and replaced by a subsequent decision restrictive, in that the repeal of an act of an institution is not a recognition of its illegality and takes effect ex nunc, unlike a judgment annulling in under which the act is eliminated retroactively from the legal order and is deemed never to have existed (judgment of 12 December 2006, the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran / Council, T-228/02, following the "OMPI T-228/02", Rec, USA: T: 2006: 384, paragraph 35; see also the judgment of 23 October 2008, People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran / Council, T-256/07, following the "Stop PMOI T-256/07," Rec, EU: T: 2008: 461, paragraphs 45 to 48, and the case, and judgment of 30 September 2009, Sison / Council, T-341/07, hereinafter "Sison T-341/07," Rec, EU: T: 2009 372, paragraphs 47 and 48).

60 It follows that the present action for annulment retains its subject matter earlier contested acts to the acts of the Council in July 2014.

The scope and the admissibility of the applicant's observations of 28 June 2012

61 On 28 June 2012, the applicant in response to an invitation by the Court, submitted its comments on the observations of the Council and the Commission of 3 April 2012 on alternative memory.

62 The applicant having called his comments' reply memorandum ", the Council, in its observations of 6 September 2012, objected that the applicant can not be allowed to file a reply on the entire affair as initially commenced by the filing of the petition.

63 The Council considered that the exchange of briefs on the merits of the case should have ended with the submission by the applicant, the residual memory and that, by the Council of its observations on that statement.

64 It should be noted that while the observations of the applicant's June 28, 2012, filed with the Court's request, can not constitute a replica within the meaning of Article 47, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, in the present case.

65 Indeed, as has been stated in paragraphs 20 to 22 above, the applicant has not, in this case, file a reply within the deadline and request an extension of time for filing a replica, deduced by the Court of the applicant's letter of 27 July 2011, was rejected.

66 The fact remains that if the observations of 28 June 2012 can not be taken into account in the present action in that it seeks the annulment of acts of the Council in July 2010 and January 2011 (see, the latter respect, paragraph 28 above), they are admissible as part of the application for annulment of acts of the Council in July 2011 (introduced by the filing of supplementary memory), to the extent that they meet the observations Council on the new means of supplementary memory against acts in July 2011, and in the context of applications for annulment of subsequent acts of the Council.

67 Moreover, it is precisely because the Court considered it necessary to allow the applicant to respond, in this context, the comments of the Council of 3 April 2012 on the supplementary memory, it invited the applicant to file observations.

68 Finally, it is clear from the terms of the observations of 28 June 2012 (see point 1 of those observations) that they are intended only to meet the Council's observations of 3 April 2012 on the supplementary memory.

69 In light of these clarifications regarding the scope of the observations of 28 June 2012 must be rejected the Council's objections to the admissibility of the comments.

The admissibility of the appeal in that it seeks annulment of the notice of July 2010

70 The Council, supported by the Commission, argues that the action is, with regard to the opinion of July 2010, inadmissible, as it is a non-challenged.

71 According to Article 263, paragraph 1, TFEU, acts likely to be subject to an appeal are the acts "intended to produce legal effects in relation to third parties."

72 According to settled case-law, if, in determining whether the contested measures are acts within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU, it is appropriate to focus on their substance, constitute acts or decisions which may be the subject of an action for annulment that measures producing binding legal effects such as to affect the interests of the applicant by significantly altering its legal situation [see the order of 14 May 2012, Sepracor Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) / Commission, C -477 / 11 P, EU: C: 2012: 292, paragraphs 50 and 51 and the case].

73 In the present case, maintaining the applicant on the list of freezing EU funds (hereinafter the "freezing list funds') was operated by the acts of the Council in July 2010.

74 The opinion of July 2010, published in the Official Journal of the European Union the day after the adoption of these acts, only had intended to try to inform the persons, groups and entities whose funds remained frozen in execution of these acts of their opportunities were offered to ask the competent national authorities the authorization to use frozen funds for certain requirements, to ask the Council's statement of reasons for keeping them on the gel fund list, request the Council to reconsider its decision to detain and finally to appeal to the judge of the Union.

75 In doing so, the opinion of July 2010 did not produce binding legal effects such as to affect the applicant's interests by significantly altering its legal situation.

76 This review therefore does not constitute a challengeable act, the action must be dismissed as inadmissible in that it is canceled.

The application for annulment of acts of the Council from July 2010 to July 2014

77 In support of its application for annulment of acts of the Council in July 2010 and January 2011, the applicant relies in its application, four pleas in substance, first, infringement of its rights of defense, the second, a manifest error of assessment, the third, infringement of property rights and, fourth, breach of the obligation to state reasons.

78 In support of its application for annulment of acts of the Council in July and December, 2011, June and December 2012, July 2013 and February and July 2014 (hereinafter, together, the "acts of Council from July 2011 to July 2014 "), the applicant relies in the residual memory and adaptations of subsequent conclusions, eight pleas, alleging, first, breach of Article 1 st , paragraph 4, of Common Position 2001/931, the second error on the facts, the third, an error of assessment as to the applicant's terrorist character, the fourth, the insufficient consideration of changes the situation "because of the passage of time", the fifth, infringement of the principle of non-interference, the sixth, breach of the obligation to state reasons, the seventh, infringement of its rights of the defense and the right to effective judicial protection and the eighth, infringement of property rights.

79 It should begin by examining the fourth and sixth pleas for annulment of acts of the Council from July 2011 to July 2014, taken together, alleging inadequate consideration of the evolution of the situation "because of the passage of time "and the breach of the obligation to state reasons.

80 The applicant states that the freezing of funds must be based on actual and specific reasons that show that this measure is still necessary. The Council would be required to pay particular attention to the action taken in proceedings at national level. In the present case, the Council would have been content to cite a series of facts and assert that national decisions were still in force. It is not clear from the statement of reasons of the Council from July 2011 to July 2014 that this institution would really interested suites with national measures taken against the applicant. Thus, the applicant criticizes the Council an insufficient consideration of the evolution of the situation "because of the passage of time."

81 The Council was to have included in the motivation for his actions the elements demonstrating the existence of serious evidence and clues to the basis of national decisions. However, the explanatory memoranda sent to the applicant would include any details about it. The reasons for acts of the Council from July 2011 to July 2014 could not have been limited to evoke the existence of national decisions, but it should have, in addition, set out the relevant information the Council drew these decisions to found his own decision. However, the Council would provide no indication of the charges against the applicant in these national decisions.

82 The Council denies failing to take sufficient account of the evolution of the situation "because of the passage of time." Since the first applicant's inclusion on the list of funds freeze in 2003, the applicant was kept on the list at the end of the periodic reviews of the Council on the basis of measures adopted by the US authorities and the United Kingdom .dropoff window

83 The Council considers that the statements of reasons, in conjunction with the July 2011 Council acts in July 2014, have compelling reasons which satisfy the obligation to state reasons.

84 First, it should be recalled that the Council, following the adoption on the basis of decisions of national authorities, a registration decision of a person or group on the freezing list of funds, should, at regular intervals, at least once every six months, that maintaining the applicant on the list at issue.

85 If the verification of the existence of a decision of a national authority meeting the definition in Article 1 st , paragraph 4 of Common Position 2001/931 appears as an essential precondition for the adoption by the Council, of an initial decision to freeze funds, the verification of the consequences of that decision at the national level is imperative in the context of the adoption of a subsequent decision to freeze funds (WIPO stops T-228/02 , paragraph 59 above, EU: T: 2006: 384, paragraph 117, and 11 July 2007, Sison / Council T-47/03, EU: T: 2007: 207, paragraph 164). The question is important when considering the maintenance of a person on the list at issue is whether, since the inclusion of that person on the list or from the previous review, the factual circumstances have changed in such a way that it does not allow to draw the same conclusion concerning the involvement of that person in terrorist activities (judgment of 15 November 2012, Al-Aqsa / Council and Netherlands / Al-Aqsa, C-539/10 P and C -550 / 10 P, Rec, US: C: 2012: 711, paragraph 82).

86 Second, it should be recalled that, according to settled case law, the statement of reasons required by Article 296 TFEU, which must be adapted to the nature of the act in question and the context in which it was adopted, must show clearly and unequivocally the Commission's reasoning, the author of the act, so as to enable interested parties to know the justification for the measure, and the competent court to exercise its power of review. The requirement to state reasons must be assessed according to the circumstances of the case, in particular the content of the act, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees or other persons directly and individually concerned by 'may have in receiving explanations (see OMPI T-228/02, paragraph 59 above, EU: T: 2006: 384, paragraph 141 and cases cited therein).

87 In the context of the adoption of a decision to freeze funds under Regulation No 2580/2001, the grounds for that decision must be assessed primarily in the light of the legal conditions of application of the regulation to case, as set out in Article 2, paragraph 3, and, by reference, either Article 1 st , paragraph 4, or Article 1 st , paragraph 6, of the common position 2001/931, as is an initial decision or a subsequent decision to freeze funds (OMPI T-228/02, paragraph 59 above, EU: T: 2006 384, item 142) .dropoff window

88 In this regard, the Court can not accept that the reasons may consist merely of a general, stereotypical formulation, modeled on the drafting of Article 2, paragraph 3 of Regulation No 2580/2001 and Article 1 st paragraphs 4 or 6, Common Position 2001/931. Accordance with the principles mentioned above, the Board is required to state the matters of fact and law on which the legal justification for its decision and the considerations which led him to take it. The motivation for such a measure must therefore indicate the actual and specific reasons why the Council considers that the relevant rules are applicable to the person concerned (see OMPI T-228/02, paragraph 59 above, EU: T: 2006: 384, paragraph 143 and cases cited therein).

89 Therefore, as the motivation of an initial decision to freeze funds that subsequent decisions motivation should cover not only the legal conditions for applying Regulation No 2580/2001, in particular the existence of a decision taken by a competent national authority, but also the actual and specific reasons why the Council considers, in the exercise of its discretionary power of assessment, that the person must be a measure to freeze funds (Sison T-341/07, paragraph 59 above, EU: T: 2009 372, paragraph 60).

90 Third, as to the control exercised by the Court, it was recognized that the Council has broad discretion as to what to take into consideration for the adoption of economic and financial sanctions on basis of Articles 75 TFEU, 215 TFEU and 352 TFEU, in accordance with a common position adopted under the common foreign and security policy. This discretion concerns, in particular, the appropriateness on which such decisions are based (see Sison T-341/07, paragraph 59 above, EU: T: 2009 372, paragraph 97 and case-law cited) .dropoff windowHowever, if the Court acknowledges that the Council discretion in the matter, it does not mean that it must decline to review the interpretation made by the Council of the relevant data. Indeed, the European Union judicature must include not only check the accuracy of the evidence relied upon, reliability and consistent but also whether that evidence contains all the information which must be taken into account to assess the situation and if they are capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it. However, in the context of this review, it is not for it to substitute its assessment is appropriate for that of the Council (see Sison T-341/07, paragraph 59 above, EU: T: 2009 372, paragraph 98 and case law cited).

91 Fourth, regarding the legal and factual basis for a decision to freeze Terrorism funds, it should be recalled that, under Article 1 st , paragraph 4, of the Common Position 2001 / 931, the fund-freezing list is established on the basis of precise information or file which indicates that a decision has been taken by a competent authority in respect of that person, of this group or that entity, be it the opening of investigations or prosecution for a terrorist act, or an attempt to commit, or participation in, or facilitate such an act based on evidence or serious and credible evidence, or whether a conviction for such deeds.

92 The Court, in its judgment Al-Aqsa / Council and Netherlands / Al-Aqsa, paragraph 85 above (US: C: 2012: 711), recalled that it follows from the reference in Article 1 st paragraph 4, of the Common Position 2001/931, a decision of a "competent authority", and the words "accurate information" and "evidence or serious and credible evidence" that this provision intended to protect those concerned by ensuring that their registration by the Board in the disputed list only take place on a solid factual basis, and that Common Position aims to achieve this by using the requirement of decision by a national authority (paragraph 68 of the judgment). Indeed, the Court noted, the Union has no means to carry out itself investigations on the involvement of a person in terrorist acts (paragraph 69 of the judgment).

93 It is in the light of the above it is appropriate to examine the reasons given by the Council to base its actions from July 2011 to July 2014.

94 The statements of reasons for the acts of the Council from July 2011 to July 2014 start with a paragraph in which the Commission describes the applicant as a "group involved in acts of terrorism, from 1988, regularly perpetrated the attacks and claimed aimed at Israeli targets, including abductions, attacks with knives and firearms from civilians and suicide bombings in public transport and in public places. " The Council states that "Hamas has organized attacks on both the Israeli side of the Green Line 'in the Occupied Territories" and that "in March 2005, Hamas declared a' tahdia '(lull), which led a decrease of its activities. " The Council goes on to state that "nevertheless, September 21, 2005, a Hamas cell kidnapped and killed an Israeli [and that] in a video recording, Hamas claimed to have kidnapped the man to try to negotiate the release of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel. " The Council states that "Hamas militants were involved in firing of rockets into southern Israel from Gaza [and] in the past, to carry out attacks against civilians in Israel, Hamas recruited suicide bombers by offering assistance to their families. " The Council states that "in June 2006, Hamas (including Hamas-al-Din lzz-aI-Qassem) was involved in the operation that led to the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit" (first paragraphs of statements of reasons for the acts of the Council from July 2011 to July 2014). From the explanatory memorandum of the Implementing Regulation No. 1375/2011 of 22 December 2011, the Council states that, "October 11, 2011, the [Gilad Shalit] was released by Hamas after was held for five years as part of a prisoner exchange with Israel. "

95 Next, the Council draws up a list of "terrorist activities" Hamas, he said, conducted recently, as of January 2010 (second paragraphs of explanatory memoranda acts of the Council from July 2011 to July 2014) .dropoff window

96 The Council, having considered that "these acts fall under Article 1 st , paragraph 3, [as] a), b), c), d), f) and g) of Common Position 2001/931 and committed to achieve the purposes set forth in section 1 st , Paragraph 3, [as] i), ii) and iii) of that Common Position, "and that" Hamas (including Hamas Izz al-Din al-Qassem) falls under Article 2, paragraph 3, [as] ii) of Regulation No 2580/2001 "(third and fourth paragraphs of explanatory memoranda acts of the Council in July 2011 to July 2014), discusses the decisions that the American authorities and the UK would, as is clear from the grounds and the file, adopted in 2001 against the applicant (seventh to fifth paragraphs of the statements of reasons for acts Board from July 2011 to July 2014). In the explanatory memorandum of the Implementing Regulations No. 790/2014 of 22 July 2014, the Council suggests, for the first time, a US decision of 18 July 2012.

97 These decisions cited by the Council are, firstly, a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Home Secretary, UK) March 29, 2001, on the other hand, the government's decisions of United States adopted pursuant to Section 219 of the US Immigration and Nationality Act (United States immigration law and nationality, hereinafter the "INA") and Executive Order 13224.

98 With respect to these decisions, the Commission refers to the fact that, with regard to the decision of the United Kingdom, is regularly reviewed by a national government commission and, with regard to American decisions, they are likely to administrative and judicial review.

99 The Board deduced from these considerations that "[t] he decisions that have been taken against Hamas (including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem) have been by competent authorities within the meaning Article 1 st , paragraph 4 of Common Position 2001/931 "(eighth paragraph of explanatory memoranda of July 2011 Council acts to July 2014).

100 Finally, the Council "notes that the above decisions [...] are still in force and [...] considers that the reasons which justified the inclusion of Hamas (including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem) on the [freezing funds] are valid "(ninth paragraph of explanatory memoranda Council instruments from July 2011 to July 2014). The Board concluded that the applicant must continue to be on this list (tenths paragraphs explanatory statements of July 2011 Council acts to July 2014).

101 It should, immediately and regardless of whether deductions set out in paragraph 99 above are correct to point out that, even though the list of incidences of violence for the period after 2004, and especially for the period 2010-2011, prepared by the Council to the first and second paragraphs of explanatory memoranda acts of the Council from July 2011 to July 2014 plays a key role in the assessment of the appropriateness of the freezing of the applicant's funds, when this list based recognition by the Council of the existence of acts of terrorism committed by the applicant during this period, none of these facts were examined in the 2001 national decisions relied on the fifth and sixth paragraphs of the said statements of reasons.

102 Indeed, all these facts are subsequent to such national decisions and therefore can not be considered in these decisions.

103 Now, if the statements of reasons for the acts of the Council from July 2011 to July 2014 state that national decisions they evoke remained in effect, they have so far, no reference to recent national decisions and even less reasons for such decisions, subject to the special acts of the Council in July 2014, which include for the first time a US decision of 18 July 2012.

104 Confronted with the applicant's reviews about it, the Council does not produce any more recent decision of the US authorities and the United Kingdom that it proves that he would have had in the adoption of his actions from July 2011 to July 2014 and which it appears, in effect, that the subsequent actions to 2004 listed in the explanatory memoranda had actually been reviewed and accepted by those authorities.

105 Thus, as regards the proceedings in the United Kingdom, the Council produces no subsequent decision to 2001.

106 Regarding the American decisions taken pursuant to Section 219 of the INA, the Council does not produce any subsequent decision to 2003. As for the decision of 18 July 2012 made under Section 219 of the INA and mentioned for the first time in the explanatory statement of the acts of the Council in July 2014, the Council does not provide any evidence to know the real motivation in relation to the list of violent facts contained in the explanatory memoranda of these acts. And more generally in terms of reasons for the designation made under section 219 of the INA, the Council produced only a 1997 paper Concerning American decisions taken pursuant to Executive Order 13224, the Council produced before the Court a decision of 31 October 2001. The Council produces no subsequent decision of the US Government under this text. As to the reasons for designation, the Council produced an undated document, which emanate from the US Treasury, and mentions Hamas by reference to the facts of which the latest date back to June 2003.

107 As regards the national decisions referred for the first time at the hearing, they are - even beyond the fact that they are not produced - an attempt to delay motivation, inadmissible (see, to that effect, Case 12 November 2013, North Drilling / Council, T-552/12, EU: T: 2013: 590, paragraph 26, and December 12, 2013, Nabipour ea / Council, T-58/12, US: T: 2013: 640, paragraphs 36 to 39). Moreover, it is to be noted that these decisions are not included in the explanatory statement of the acts of the Council in July 2014, subsequent to the hearing.

108 The Council however argued in its comments on the supplementary memory, it would suffice to refer to the press to find that the applicant regularly claiming terrorism.

109 This consideration, combined with the absence of any reference in the explanatory memoranda of July 2011 Council acts to July 2014, with decisions of more recent authorities that the alleged facts and referring to such facts, clearly demonstrates the that the Council did not base its allocation to the applicant of terrorist acts adopted for the period after 2004 of the assessments in the decisions of the competent authorities, but on information from him by the press.

110 However, as is apparent from out in paragraphs 91 and 92 above, Common Position 2001/931 requires for the protection of the persons concerned and given the lack of specific investigative resources of the Union that the factual basis of a decision of the gel Union Terrorism funds is based not on evidence that the Council learned from the press or the Internet but on practical items examined and retained in decisions competent national authorities within the meaning of Common Position 2001/931.

111 It is only on such a reliable factual basis it is then up to the Council to exercise wide discretion which is his part of the adoption of decisions to freeze funds at EU level in particular regarding the appropriateness on which such decisions are based.

112 It follows from the foregoing that the Board has not met the requirements of Common Position 2001/931.

113 The reasons for acts of the Council from July 2011 to July 2014 shows, moreover, reasoning Council operated in reverse of what is needed that Common Position.

114 Thus, instead of taking the factual basis for its assessment of the decisions of the competent authorities having taken into consideration the specific facts and acted on their basis, and to verify that the facts are indeed "acts of terrorism" and the group concerned although "a group" within the meaning of the definitions of Common Position 2001/931, to finally decide on this basis and in the exercise of its broad discretion, to eventually adopt a decision at the Union, the Council, in the presentations of the reasons for his actions from July 2011 to July 2014, proceeds in reverse.

115 It begins with assessments which are, in reality, his own, calling it a terrorist applicant in the first sentence of the explanatory statements - which closes the issue that these patterns are supposed to decide - and imputing a series of facts Violence drawn him to the press and the Internet (first and second paragraphs of explanatory memoranda Council instruments from July 2011 to July 2014).

116 It should be noted in this regard that the fact that this is a review of the gel list of funds, so secondary to previous examinations, can not justify the classification performed immediately. Without ignoring the past, a review of a fund-freezing measure is, by definition, open to the possibility that the person or group concerned is no longer a terrorist when the Council acts. So it is that after that review that the Council may draw its conclusion.

117 The Council then finds that the facts he attributes to the applicant falls within the definition of terrorist act within the meaning of Common Position 2001/931 and that the applicant is a group within the meaning of the common position (third and fourth paragraphs statements of reasons for the acts of the Council from July 2011 to July 2014).

118 It is only after these sayings that the Council evokes national authorities decisions, which, however, are being, at least for the July 2011 Council acts to February 2014, prior to the facts charged .dropoff window

119 The Council does not seek to justify in the explanatory memoranda of these acts, as any subsequent review of national decisions or other decisions of the competent authorities, in fact examined and retained the concrete facts at the beginning of such statements of reasons.He is content in the explanatory memoranda acts of the Council from July 2011 to February 2014, to quote the initial national decisions and to indicate, without more, that they are still in force. It is only in the explanatory memorandum of the acts of the Council in July 2014 that it mentions a subsequent US decision to the facts actually paid by the applicant, but again without justifying that decision did consider the concrete facts and retained at the beginning of that explanatory memorandum.

120 This case, like that which gave rise to the judgment of 16 October 2014, LTTE / Council (T-208/11 and T-508/11, ECR, EU: T: 2014: 885) differs clearly from the other cases that have opened proceedings relating to the measures to freeze funds Terrorism before the Tribunal, after the adoption of Common Position 2001/931 (Business Aqsa / Council Sison / Council and People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran / Council).

121 Indeed, while in those first EU litigation cases relating to terrorism, the factual basis of Council Regulations had its roots in decisions of national authorities, the Council is no longer based in the Here, on facts that were first enjoyed by national authorities but shall itself to its own self factual imputations on the basis of the press or the Internet. In doing so, the Council shall act as the "competent authority" within the meaning of Article 1 st , paragraph 4 of Common Position 2001/931, which is, however, as noted in the substance Court nor its jurisdiction according to the common position nor in its means.

122 Thus, in the case which led to the PMOI off T-256/07, paragraph 59 above (US: T: 2008: 461, paragraph 90), the actions identified in the gel patterns of the funds sent by the Council to the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (hereinafter the "PMOI") were not using autonomous Review Board, but assessments of the competent national authority. As is apparent from paragraph 90 of the PMOI judgment T-256/07, paragraph 59 above (US: T: 2008: 461), the explanatory statement of 30 January 2007 sent to the relevant group (PMOI) mentioned acts PMOI of terrorism which would have been responsible and stated that "because of these acts, a decision had been taken by a competent national authority." The acts recorded in the statement of the Council's reasons on 30 January 2007, sent to the PMOI had been examined and used against this group by the competent national authority. Their census did not arise, unlike the present case, autonomous Review Board.

123 Similarly, in Case T-348/07 Al-Aqsa / Council, the Court had the text of the decisions of authorities cited in the preamble to the contested regulations and analyzed them in detail .dropoff window He concluded that the Council had not committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that the applicant knew that the money he collected would be used for terrorist purposes (judgment of 9 September 2010, Al-Aqsa / Council T- 348/07, Rec, USA: T: 2010: 373, paragraphs 121 to 133). The factual basis on which the Council was working then, according to the findings of the Tribunal, the evidence base entirely healthy, arising directly from the findings made by the competent national authorities. In its judgment of 11 July 2007, Al-Aqsa / Council (T-327/03, EU: T: 2007: 211), it is also clear from the grounds (paragraphs 17 to 20 of the judgment) that the assessments to the basis for the freezing of EU funds were drawn from not own factual findings to the Council, but from decisions of national authorities.

124 Similarly, in Case T-341/07 Sison / Council, the assessments at the base of the fund-freezing measures were not taken from own factual findings to the Council, but from decisions res judicata and adopted by the competent national authorities [Raad van State (Council of State, the Netherlands) and Arrondissementsrechtbank te 's-Gravenhage (District Court of The Hague, Netherlands)] (Sison T-341/07, paragraph 59 above, EU: T: 2009 372 points 1, 88, 100-105).

125 It should be added that while the factual motivation of July 2011 Council acts in July 2014, so the list of allegations against the applicant by the Council in this case, not a judicial assessment covered the authority of res judicata. The fact remains that this factual statement of reasons in question played a decisive role in the assessment by the Council of the appropriateness of the applicant on the freeze list of funds and that the Council, far from set to have learned that motivation of decisions by competent authorities certify actually have relied on information from the press.

126 The Court considers that this approach violates the two-tier system established by Common Position 2001/931 on terrorism.

127 If, as noted by the Court, the question that matters in a review is whether, since the inclusion of the person on the list of freezing funds or since the previous review, the factual situation changed so that it no longer possible to draw the same conclusion concerning the involvement of that person in terrorist activities (stop Al-Aqsa / Council and Netherlands / Al-Aqsa, paragraph 85 above, EU: C 2012: 711, paragraph 82), with the result that the Council may, where appropriate and as part of its broad discretion, decide to maintain a person on the list of funds gel in the absence of change in the factual situation, the fact remains that any further acts of terrorism that the Council inserted in its reasoning on the occasion of this review, in order to justify the maintenance of the person to the gel fund list shall, in the decision two-tier system of Common Position 2001/931 and due to the lack of investigation Board means, have been reviewed and a decision of competent authority within the meaning of the common position (stop LTTE / Council, paragraph 120 above, EU: T: 2014: 885, paragraph 204).

128 It is in vain that the Council and the Commission suggest that the lack of reference in the explanatory memoranda acts of the Council from July 2011 to July 2014, with decisions of competent authorities with specific concrete reviewed and retained facts taken ahead of those grounds would be attributable to the applicant, which could and should, in the Council and the Commission, challenging the restrictive measures taken against nationally.

129 First, the Council's obligation to base its decisions to freeze Terrorism funds drawn on a factual basis of decisions of competent authorities derives directly from the two-tier system established by Common Position 2001/931, as confirmed by the judgment in Al-Aqsa / Council and Netherlands / Al-Aqsa, paragraph 85 above (US: C: 2012: 711, paragraphs 68 and 69).

130 This obligation is not conditioned by the behavior of the person or group concerned. The Council shall, under the obligation to state reasons, which is an essential procedural requirement, indicate in the reasons for its decisions to freeze funds, the decisions of national authorities who actually examined and retained the acts of terrorism that he resumed as factual basis of its own decisions.

131 Moreover, the argument of the Council and the Commission does, ultimately, that corroborate the finding, already made in paragraph 109 above, that the Council relied, in reality, not on the assessments contained in the decisions of the competent authorities, but on information from him by the press and the Internet. In this regard, it seems paradoxical that the Council criticizes the applicant not having contested national factual imputations that it fails to connect himself to any specific decision of competent authority.

132 Finally, it should be noted that the findings above do not exceed the scope of the limited review which the Court and consistent, without calling into question the wide discretion of the Council, to monitor compliance with the procedure and the accuracy of the facts. Thus, moreover, that the Court in Sison T-341/07, paragraph 59 above (US: T: 2009: 372), was taken to check - and seen - that factual allegations against Mr Sison in the explanatory memorandum to his inclusion in the fund-freezing list were duly supported by the findings of fact supremely operated in the decisions of the Dutch authorities (Raad van State and Arrondissementsrechtbank 's-Gravenhage), relied upon by the Council under the same reasons (Sison T-341/07, paragraph 59 above, EU: T: 2009 372, paragraphs 87 and 88).

133 By contrast, in the present case, the Tribunal has, in the explanatory memoranda of July 2011 Council acts to July 2014, references to any competent authority decision the reasons for which he could connect the facts adopted by the Council against the applicant.

134 Furthermore, and still in the Sison T-341/07, paragraph 59 above (US: T: 2009: 372), it should be noted that, while finding that the facts contained in the explanatory memoranda of acts of the Council from July 2011 to July 2014 were from many two Dutch cases relied in these statements of reasons, the Tribunal has nonetheless subsequently denied these Dutch decisions on the nature of decisions by competent authorities on the ground did not concern the imposition of a preventive or punitive measure to the person concerned against under the fight against terrorism (Sison T-341/07, paragraph 59 above, EU: T : 2009: 372, paragraphs 107 to 115).

135 If the Tribunal could thus deviate from the findings of fact nevertheless derived from relevant authorities on the ground that the decisions of these authorities were not "convictions of initiations or prosecution", it implies that it can not, in this case, give press articles - in any event not mentioned in the explanatory memoranda acts of the Council from July 2011 to July 2014 - the procedural and evidentiary status reserved by Common Position 2001/931 to decisions of the competent authorities.

136 The Court considers, finally, appropriate to emphasize the importance of the guarantees of fundamental rights in this context (see conclusions France / People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran, C-27/09 P, Rec, US: C: 2011: 482 points 235 to 238).

137 In light of all the foregoing considerations, it must be concluded that the Council, in adopting its actions from July 2011 to July 2014 under the conditions described above, violated both Article 1 st of the common position 2001/931 that the obligation to state reasons.

138 The Council argues, however, that the applicant's involvement in terrorism was, in any event, established as part of this action. It refers in this respect to the passages of the application in which the applicant states have not deviated from its course of conduct consisting of spare civilians momentarily as the "Tomb of the Patriarchs massacre" committed by Israel February 25, 1994, and in which he said that the use of suicide attacks was transient. The Council adds that the applicant does not dispute its liability to the capture of soldier Gilad Shalit and the death of Israeli soldiers.

139 It is clear that by doing so, the Council shall, in substance, before the Court, a substitution of the reasons for his actions from July 2011 to July 2014, through a reduction of the reasons initially retained in these acts a few facts that according to the Board, the applicant admitted before the Tribunal.

140 However, the Court can not, in the circumstances of the case, grab a judgment that it is the Council, acting unanimously, to operate.

141 Given the above considerations, which indicate that the Council violated both Article 1 st of Common Position 2001/931 that in the absence of reference in the motivation to decisions of authorities regarding facts charged to the applicant, the obligation to state reasons, should be canceled, as they relate to the applicant, the acts of the Council from July 2011 to July 2014, and the actions of the Council in July 2010 and January 2011, including it is clear that they have the same lack of reference to decisions of authorities regarding the allegations against the applicant and are, therefore, tainted by the same breach of the obligation to state reasons.

142 The Tribunal notes that these cancellations, incurred for fundamental reasons procedure, do not imply any judgment on the substantive question of the qualification of the applicant as a terrorist group within the meaning of Common Position 2001/931.

143 In view of all the foregoing considerations, it is appropriate to uphold the present application and annul the contested measures, except in regard to the Opinion of July 2010 for which it should dismiss the action (see 76 above).

144 As to the effects in time of such cancellation, it should be no need to comment on the nature of the contested measures under Article 60, second paragraph, of the Statute of the Court of Justice the European Union, noted that Article 264, second paragraph TFEU allows the EU Courts indicate, if it deems necessary, which of the effects of the acts he cancels that must be considered as definitive.

145 In the circumstances of this case, the Court considers that, to avoid the risk of serious and irreversible damage to the effectiveness of restrictive measures, taking into account the significant impact of the restrictive measures concerned on the rights and the applicant's freedoms, it is appropriate, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, to suspend the effective date of this judgment in respect of acts of the Council in July 2014 for a period of three months after its pronounced or, if an appeal is brought within the period referred to in Article 56, first paragraph, of the Statute of the Court, until the Court rules on it.

Costs

146 Under Article 87 paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party to pay the costs, if pleadings. The Council has been unsuccessful in the main, it is to be ordered to pay the costs, as sought by the applicant.

147 Under Article 87 paragraph 4, first paragraph, of the Procedural Regulation, Member States and institutions which intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs. Therefore the Commission to bear its own costs.

For these reasons,

THE COURT (Second Chamber)

hereby:

1) Decisions 2010/386 / CFSP of 12 July 2010, 2011/70 / CFSP of 31 January 2011 2011/430 / CFSP of 18 July 2011 concerning updating the list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931 / CFSP on the application of specific measures to fight against terrorism, decisions 2011/872 / CFSP Council of 22 December 2011, 2012/333 / CFSP of 25 June 2012 2012/765 / CFSP of 10 December 2012, 2013/395 / CFSP of 25 July 2013 2014/72 / CFSP of 10 February 2014, and 2014/483 / CFSP of 22 July 2014 concerning updating the list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 position Joint 2001/931 / CFSP on the application of specific measures to fight against terrorism and repealing Decisions 2011/430 respectively, 2011/872, 2012/333, 2012/765, 2013/395 and 2014/72 are canceled, as they relate Hamas (including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem).

2) Implementing Regulation (EU) No 610/2010 of the Council of 12 July 2010, No. 83/2011 of the Council of 31 January 2011, No. 687/2011 of the Council of 18 July 2011, n ° 1375/2011 of the Council of 22 December 2011, No. 542/2012 of the Council of 25 June 2012, No. 1169/2012 of the Council of 10 December 2012, No. 714/2013 of the Council of 25 July 2013 No. 125/2014 of the Council of 10 February 2014, and No. 790/2014 of the Council of 22 July 2014 implementing Article 2, paragraph 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 concerning the adoption of specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in the context of the fight against terrorism and repealing implementing regulations respectively (EU) No 1285/2009, No. 610/2010, n ° 83/2011, No. 687/2011, No. 1375/2011, No. 542/2012, No. 1169/2012, No. 714/2013 and No. 125/2014, are canceled, as they relate Hamas (including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem).

3) The effects of decision 2014/483 and Implementing Regulation No 790/2014 were maintained for three months from the delivery of this judgment or, if an appeal is brought within the period referred to in Article 56, first paragraph of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, until the Court rules on it.

4) The appeal is dismissed.

5) The Council of the European Union is condemned to bear its own costs, the costs of Hamas.

6) The Commission shall bear its own costs.

Forwood Dehousse Schwarcz

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 17 December 2014.

Table of Contents

Background to the dispute

Process and new developments during the proceedings

Conclusions of the parties

In law

Preliminary observations on the subject of the appeal as well as the scope and the admissibility of the applicant's observations of 28 June 2012

On the subject of the appeal

The scope and the admissibility of the applicant's observations of 28 June 2012

The admissibility of the appeal in that it seeks annulment of the notice of July 2010

The application for annulment of acts of the Council from July 2010 to July 2014

Costs

© Scoop Media