An action against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communitie was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 February 2003 by Jose Maria Sison, Utrecht,the Netherlands, represented by Mr Jan Fermon,Lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—partially annul,on the basis of Article 230,EC Treaty, Council Decision 2002/947/EC of 12 December 2002 implementing Article 2(3)of Regulation (EC)No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC (OJ L 337, p.85)and more specifically annul Article 1, point 1.25 of said decision and annul partially Article 1,point 2.14 of said decision insofar as it mentions the name of the applicant;

—declare illegal,on the basis of Article 241,EC Treaty, Council Regulation EC 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ L 344,p.7);

—require the Community to compensate the applicant on the basis of article 235 and 288 in an amount to be fixed ex aequo et bono of not less than EUR 100 000;

—require the respondent parties to bear the costs of suit.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant lives in the Netherlands and,in 1992,was recognized as a refugee in accordance with the Geneva Refugee Convention because of valid reasons of fear of persecution in the Philippines. The applicant was active in the Communist Party of the Philippines and is a consultant for the negotiating panel of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines in the peace negotiations with the government.

On 28 October 2002,the Council adopted decision 2002/848/EC (1 )and included the applicant on the list made pursuant to article 2 (3)of Regulation 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combatting terrorism (2 ).The applicant was also included in the list adopted by decision 2002/974/EC (3 )of 12 December 2002.This last act is being contested in the present application.

In support of its application,the applicant invokes a violation of the obligation to state reasons,a patent error of judgment and a violation of the principle of sound administration. The applicant indicates that he has not, as an alias,Armando Liwanag and is not in charge of the New People ’s Army (NPA). The applicant furthermore claims that the contested decision violates the principle of proportionality and the freedom of circulation of capital.

The applicant also invokes the violation of several general principles of Community Law,such as the principles enshrined in Articles 6,7,10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of the First Protocol thereto.

The applicant finally invokes the illegality of Regulation 2580/2001.According to the applicant,the Council had no competence to adopt this regulation.The applicant claims that Articles 60,301 and 308 of the EC Treaty are not sufficient nor do they explicitly authorise the Council to issue such a regulation.In this respect,the applicant also invokes a violation of the principle of roportionality,the principle of legal certainty and a misuse of power by the Council.

______________________

(1 )2002/848/EC:Council Decision of 28 October 2002 implementing Article 2(3)of Regulation (EC)No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC (OJ L 295,p.12).

(2 )Council Regulation (EC)No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ L 344,p.7).

(3 )2002/974/EC:Council Decision of 12 December 2002 implementing Article 2(3)of Regulation (EC)No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/848/EC (OJ L 337,p.85).