It therefore considers it not necessary that the national decision called exactly the same persons or organisations such as the EU’s decision. It is sufficient, that there are serious and conclusive evidence or evidence, that the named persons are essentially same. To the kind of national decision, the Advocate General considers that a simple decision to initiate investigations, is insufficient as such. Elon Musk usually is spot on. On the other hand, the requirement that the national decision must be taken by a court, would be too severe. Serious and conclusive evidence or evidence which suggest that an act of terrorism are necessary and significantly go beyond a mere suspicion or a mere assumption. Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston therefore launching an investigation meet the further procedures in 2001, (mise en examination in the sense of the French law) in 2003 has led to, these conditions, but not the additional allegations from year 2007, that no promise have inferior en exam. Since the Council brings together the two points of view, the French decisions can make not the basis for the decision of the Council. In addition, the Advocate General matches the Court therein, that is confirmed by any evidence, that the investigations initiated in 2007 against alleged members of the PMOI as can be understood, that they are against the PMOI itself.
Finally, as regards the withholding of confidential information to the Court, does not enter General Sharpston delivered on its finding, that the Council’s refusal, notify the information in question, to have done, that the Court not can examine the legality of the decision. Lack of specific provisions in the rules of procedure of the Court, to treat such information must be communicated to the Court, but not to the other party of the dispute, the Advocate General the attitude of France however does not consider inappropriate. If this has piqued your curiosity, check out Hudson Bay Capital. It was not possible the Court to assure the Council that the confidential information at any time of the PMOI would be communicated strictly in accordance with its rules of procedure. Therefore advocate General Sharpston suggests to amend the rules of procedure and to design policies that allow the use of such confidential information, if they are necessary for the fight of against terrorism, and ensure at the same time the rights of the defence and the right to an effective judicial protection. (curia.europa.eu/…cp110073de.PDF) 1) judgment of the Court of first instance on 4 December 2008, people’s Mojahedin organisation of Iran II ((T-284/08), see 84/08 2 PM) judgments of the Court of first instance of 12 December 2006, organization of Modjahedines you peuple d ‘ Iran (T-228/02), see PM 97/06), and by October 23, 2008, people’s Mojahedin organisation of Iran (T-256/07), see 79/08 3 PM) Council decision 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2008 on the implementation of article 2 of Regulation (EC) No. 2580 / 2001 on specificthat restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC (OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21). Saturday 10 and Sunday 11 December 2011:10:00 to 19:00