The 13 judge European Court of Justice issued a historical verdict in which it decisively dismissed France’s appeal against the judgment of the General Court removing the PMOI from the EU list of terrorist organizations.

The European Court of Justice obligated the French Government to pay for the expenses of the court.

The French Government was the only EU member state to appeal the European Court of Justice verdict.

The European Court of Justice ruling acknowledges the official revocation of the PMOI designation by the 27 members states and is a testimony to the legitimacy of the Iranian people’s resistance
Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the Iranian Resistance said: The historical ruling of the European Court of Justice is a testament to the legitimacy and righteousness of the Iranian people’s resistance for freedom

Court of Justice of the European Union
Press Release No. 137/11
Luxemburg, December 21st, 2011
Judgment in Case –C-27/09 P
French Republic vs. People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran

The Court dismisses France’s appeal against the judgment of the General Court removing the PMOI from the EU list of terrorist organisations
The General Court rightly decided that the Council had breached the PMOI’s rights of defence by failing to notify it of the grounds for its inclusion in the list before the decision was adopted

In December 2008, the General Court annulled a Council decision including the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran in the European list of terrorist organisations whose funds and other financial assets must be frozen. This was the third time that the General Court had annulled a decision of that kind.
The previous Council decisions annulled by the General Court had been based on an order proscribing the PMOI in the United Kingdom, the existence of such a decision taken by a competent authority at national level being a pre-condition for the inclusion of an organisation in the EU list. However, the PMOI’s name was removed from the list of organisations proscribed in the UK on June 24th, 2008, following the decision of a British court in November 2007 describing that listing as ‘perverse’ and ‘unreasonable’.

Nevertheless, when the Council adopted another decision on July 15th, 2008 updating the EU list, it maintained the PMOI on the list. The inclusion of the PMOI was based on two pieces of information supplied by the French Government: the first, relating to a 2001 opening of a judicial investigation by the anti-terrorist prosecutor’s office of the Tribunal de grande instance of Paris and the second, relating to two supplementary charges in 2007 against alleged members of the PMOI. The PMOI was notified of that information by the Council on the day the decision was adopted.
Annulling this decision, the General Court found that the Council had violated PMOI’s rights of defence by failing to notify it of the new information before adopting the decision.
Whilst this in itself was sufficient to annul the decision, the General Court, for the sake of completeness, also examined the other arguments put forward by the PMOI. In particular it found that the opening of a judicial inquiry and the two supplementary charges did not constitute a decision by a competent authority, in respect of PMOI itself, noting that no reasons were advanced as to why the acts ascribed to the alleged members of the PMOI should be attributed to that organisation itself. Furthermore, the Court found that by failing to communicate to the Court certain information about the case which the French authorities refused to declassify, the Council had equally infringed the PMOI’s fundamental right to effective judicial protection.
France brought an appeal against that judgment before the Court of Justice.
In its judgment today, the Court of Justice has dismissed that appeal and upheld the judgment of the General Court.
In the judgment under appeal, the General Court applied those principles to the facts of the case and rightly concluded that, given that the PMOI’s name had been maintained in the list by the contested decision, the Council could not, as it did in that case, simply communicate the new incriminating evidence against the PMOI at the same time as it adopted the contested decision.
The Court considers that the General Court did not err in law.
Lastly, the Court rejected the arguments directed against the grounds of the judgment of the General Court included purely for the sake of completeness, since they cannot, in any event, lead to the judgment’s being set aside and are therefore ineffective.