Case T-256/07, Peoples Mojahedin Organization of Iran v. Council, judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 October 2008, Case T-284/08, Peoples Mojahedin Organization of Iran v. Council, judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 December 2008.

摘要

The rulings in the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) casesudannotated here are part of lengthy litigation brought by the PMOI beforeudnational and European courts in order to challenge national and Europeanudauthorities’ decisions to include the organization in the EU terrorist list and toudfreeze its assets at Community level. All courts which have heard the matterudhave declared the listing of the PMOI unlawful either because of serious proceduraludfailures, or because of lack of evidence as to its current connectionudwith terrorist activities. In relation to the EU list, the CFI had already declaredudin December 2006 that in including the applicants the Council had failed toudrespect their basic procedural rights. Following the first decision, and in orderudto comply with the CFI ruling, the Council sought to remedy these proceduraludfailures, while maintaining the group on the list. As a result, the PMOI had to bring new proceedings to challenge new decisions that confirmed its inclusionudin the list, and the cases annotated here concern these more recent challenges.udIn both rulings, the CFI annulled the Council decision as far as theudapplicant was concerned, albeit on different grounds. In the first case, theudapplicant had been included at the request of the British Government, while inudthe second case the applicant had been included at the request of the FrenchudGovernment.udThe PMOI saga unveils in considerable detail the deep flaws in the EU terroristudlisting system. While the CFI’s approach had been very cautious in theudfirst two cases, showing a substantial deference to Council’s decisions as toudwho should be defined as a terrorist, in the third, and – it is to be hoped – final,udcase the Court’s ruling seems to show impatience with the Council’s cavalierudattitude to judicial protection and the rule of law. For the first time, the CFIudindicates its willingness to carry out not only a review of compliance with theudprocedural rights of those listed, but also of compliance with the legal conditionsudrequired by the Community instruments, and to a certain extent of theudsubstantive reasons that led to inclusion.udThese two cases are of paramount constitutional importance in relation toudboth the EU system of proscription and the constraints imposed on the Counciludin defining an individual or an organization as involved in terrorist activity.udAnd yet, as we shall see in detail below, the problems are far from solved.