Terror Tag on the Main Iranian Opposition Group 
 
 
 

People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) 
 
 
 

November 2008  
People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI)  

·       As a member of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) is the largest and most active opposition movement in Iran and the most popular political organization inside and outside the country.  

·       The PMOI espouses a democratic and modern interpretation of Islam which has proven very effective in combating Islamic fundamentalism.  

·       PMOI is for gender equality, and women play a significant role in the organization. 

·       Ms. Sedigheh Hosseini was elected Secretary General of the PMOI in the summer of 2006.  

·       The PMOI is the prime victim of human rights violations in Iran. Over the past two decades, 120,000 of its members and supporters have been executed.

·       In its 2002 annual report on human rights, the US State Department acknowledged that "a large number of those executed" in Iran under various pretexts belong to the Mojahedin. 

·       Dozens of PMOI members and supporters have been assassinated abroad by Iranian regime's terrorists.  

·       The legitimate resistance of the PMOI and the democratic goals of the NCRI have been recognized by a majority of parliaments in several European countries and US Congress.

Mojahedin’s status recognized

·        On July 2, 2004, members of the People’s Mojahedin in Iraq were informed by the Command Headquarters of the Multi-national Force – Iraq that the US has recognized their status as “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention.” And that the decision has been submitted to international organizations such as Red Cross and UN High Commission for Refugees.  

·        In a letter on July 21, 2004, addressed to Mojahedin members in Ashraf, the deputy commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq wrote “I am writing to congratulate each individual living in camp Ashraf on their recognition as protected person under the Fourth Geneva Convention.” 

·        The New York Times wrote on July 27, 2004:  “A 16-month review by the United States has found no basis to charge members of an Iranian opposition group in Iraq with violations of American law.” It also quoted senior American officials as saying “extensive interviews by officials of the State Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation had not come up with any basis to bring charges against any members of the group.”  

      How the PMOI was included in the terrorism list 

· The PMOI was included in the terror list as part of a wrong policy to reach out to the Iranian regime and not out of concern over terrorism. This happened first in the U.S. and European governments followed suit several years later. 

• The U.S. State Department’s allegation of terrorism against the PMOI has its roots in the Iran-gate fiasco in mid-80s, when in exchange for the release of American hostages held in Lebanon by the Iranian regime's proxies, the State Department issued a statement calling the PMOI a “terrorist” organisation. 
• Two years later, a congressional inquiry into the fiasco revealed that the Iranian regime had told U.S. officials that one of its main conditions for releasing American hostages in Lebanon was for the U.S. to brand the PMOI as terrorist.  (Tower Commission report, page 359) 
• When the U.S. State Department included the PMOI in its terrorism list, the Los Angeles Times wrote on October 9, 1997: “One senior Clinton administration official said inclusion of the People's Moujahedeen was intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran and its newly elected moderate president, Mohammad Khatami.”  
•   Reuters, October 13, 1997: “A U.S. decision branding Iran's main rebel group "terrorists" is being seen in Tehran as the first positive sign of American goodwill towards the new government of moderate President Mohammad Khatami. Diplomats, analysts and Iranian newspapers said on Monday the U.S. move was important because it satisfied one of Tehran's basic demands.” 
• Newsweek on Web, September 26, 2002: Martin Indyk the US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs at the time of the PMOI designations in an interview by Newsweek disclosed that “[There] was White House interest in opening up a dialogue with the Iranian government. At the time, President Khatami had recently been elected and was seen as a moderate. Top administration officials saw cracking down on the [PMOI], which the Iranians had made clear they saw as menace, as one way to do so.”
• When Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi met his British counter-part Robin Cook in September 1998 to discuss Khomeini’s fatwa on Salman Rushdie, Kharrazi’s top demand was that Cook should denounce the PMOI as a terrorist organization. 
• The UK government included PMOI in the terrorism list under pressure from Tehran and as a goodwill gesture to Khatami. In a written note to Parliament on 28 February 2001, the then-Home Secretary Jack Straw emphasized that “the MeK has not attacked UK or Western interests.”

 

 

• Kharrazi declared on a number of occasions that the Iranian regime had formally asked the EU to include the Mojahedin in the list of terrorist organizations. One such occasion was on 7 November 2001, after his meeting with Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel, whose country was the rotating EU president. 

·        The Spanish ambassador said in an interview with the Iranian daily Entekhab on 28 October 2002, "There were three issues that Iran wanted to address with EU. When Spain was the President, the two sides were able to resolve these differences. One of the major issues was including the People's Mojahedin Organization to the list of terrorist groups by EU."   

·        The Iranian regime’s official news agency, IRNA, also reported on 16 November 2002 that "Analysts point out that this year the EU took several major steps to improve ties with Iran: it put the MKO grouplet on its terrorist list, decided to begin talks on a cooperation and trade accord, decided not to table a resolution at the UN General Assembly this year criticizing the human rights situation in Iran, and began discussions to boost cooperation in the energy sector."

      Growing calls for an end to blacklisting of PMOI 

·        More than 500 jurists, law professors and lawyers from 15 countries attending a conference in Paris on November 10, 2005, said in a declaration that the inclusion of the People's Mojahedin in terrorism lists lacked legal basis and called for an end to the blacklisting of the PMOI.

·       On 22 March 2005, in a symposium in London, hundreds of jurists, lawyers, MPs   and Lords called for the immediate de-proscribing of the PMOI.

·       A dozen legal opinions discussing the need to remove the PMOI from the terrorism lists have been written by distinguished experts in international and European laws, including the Rt. Hon. Lord Slynn of Hadley (former judge of the European Court of Justice), Prof. Eric David, President of the International Law Center of Brussels University, Prof. Jean-Yves de Cara, President of the International Law Institute of the University of Paris-V; Prof. Bill Bowring, Director of the Human Rights and Social Justice Research Institute, Prof. Douwe Korff, Professor of International Law at London Metropolitan University, Prof. Henri Labayle, Professor of Community Law at Pau University, Prof. Bruno Nascimbene, Professor of International Law at the University of  Milan; Dr. Joerg Arnold from Humboldt University in Berlin, Wolfgang Kaleck, President of the Republican Lawyers Association in Germany, Kenneth Lewis, President of Lawyers Without Borders in Sweden (with Prof. Owe Bring, Professor of International Law at the University of Stockholm), and Dr. Reinhard Marx, one of Germany's top experts in asylum law. 

·       Thousands of parliamentarians in Europe and North America have called for the removal of the terror tag on the People’s Mojahedin, describing it as “a legitimate resistance movement.” These include majorities in the parliaments of Italy, Britain, Belgium and Luxembourg and a majority of members of the U.S. Congress.

      Justice Prevails at EU Court

·       Europe’s second highest court on Tuesday December 12, 2006 annulled a European Union decision that had frozen the funds of an exiled Iranian opposition group and called into question the group’s label as a terrorist organization.

·       The ruling by the European Court of First Instance was more than a financial victory for the group, the Mujahedeen Khalq, or PMOI, which has long argued that its terrorist label is unfair.

·       Speaking to a conference at Westminster in London on December 15, the Rt. Hon The Lord Slynn of Hadley, former Advocate General at the European Court of Justice and Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, stressed that all restrictions placed on the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) must be removed. 

      Deproscription in the UK

·       On November 30, 2007, the Proscribed Organizations Appeal Commission (POAC), a branch of the High Court, in a unanimous 144-page judgment, ruled that in deciding to maintain the ban the Home Office had misunderstood the law, ignored important facts and reached a "perverse" decision.

• Courts rarely call government decisions perverse, and the panel, chaired by former high court judge Sir Harry Ognall and cleared to see secret material, said: "We recognise that a finding of perversity is uncommon." It added: "We believe, however, that this commission is in the (perhaps unusual) position of having before it all of the material that is relevant to this decision."

·       POAC ordered the Secretary of State to lay an order before the parliament to remove PMOI from the list of proscribed organizations.

·       The British government sought the leave to appeal the order. POAC did not allow the leave to appeal calling the government chances of success slim. The government then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

• The Court of Appeal in a unanimous judgment on May 7, 2008 approved POAC's findings and methodology and ordered the government to lay an order before the parliament to remove PMOI from the list.
• The government laid that order that was unanimously passed by both Houses of parliament on June 23, 2008 resulting the deproscription of the PMOI in the UK.

      Second Victory at EU Court

·       The European Court of First Instance on October 23, 2008 annuls decision 2007/868 ordering the freezing of the PMOI funds.

·       The ruling concluded that the Council failed to give sufficient reasons for its decision following a decision taken by a UK judicial authority to remove the PMOI from the national list of terrorist organisations.

      Canadian Perspective

·       Canada added the PMOI on its list of proscribed listed entities in May 2005. This was done after the fact that members of PMOI in Iraq were recognized as “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

·       The only explanation for this listing at the time by the then government officials was that “they met the threshold of being a listed entity”.

·       With a strong legal base that was the foundation of the European Court ruling of December 2006 and October 2008, the ruling of POAC and Court of Appeal in the UK where the British government finally deproscribed PMOI in Jume 2008, Canada must take immediate steps to delist the movement without having to encounter another major embarrassment.  
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Appendix 1 

Ruling of the European Court of First Instance  

December 2006 

 

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
 
Press and Information 
 
PRESS RELEASE No° 97/06 
 
12 December 2006 
 
Judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-228/02 
 
Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran v Council of the European Union 
 
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ANNULS THE COUNCIL’S DECISION ORDERING THE FREEZING OF THE FUNDS OF THE ORGANISATION DES MODJAHEDINES DU PEUPLE D’IRAN IN THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM 
 
The contested decision infringes the right to a fair hearing, the obligation to state reasons and the right to effective judicial protection

 
 
 
 
On 28 September 2001, the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution calling on all Member States of the UN to combat terrorism and the financing of terrorism by all means, in particular by freezing the funds of persons who commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist acts. That resolution did not, however, identify the persons and entities in question, leaving that assessment to the Member States to determine. 
 
That resolution has been implemented in the Community through a common position(1) and a regulation(2) of the Council, adopted on 27 December 2001, which ordered the freezing of the funds and other financial assets or economic resources of persons and entities included in a list established and regularly updated by Council decisions. Inclusion on the list is to be done on the basis of precise information or material in the file which indicates that a decision has been taken by a competent national authority, usually a judicial authority, in respect of the persons and entities concerned, irrespective of whether it concerns the instigation of investigations or prosecution for a terrorist act, an attempt to perpetrate, participate in or facilitate such an act based on serious and credible evidence or clues, or a finding of guilt in respect of such deeds. The names of persons and entities on the list are to be reviewed at regular intervals and at least once every six months to ensure that there are still grounds for keeping them on the list. 
 
The Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran (OMPI, People’s Mujahidin of Iran), was founded in 1965 and set itself the objective of replacing the regime of the Shah of Iran, then the mullahs’ regime, by a democracy. In the past, it has had an armed branch operating inside Iran. It has stated, however, that it has expressly renounced all military activity since June 2001. 
 
By a common position and a decision of 2 May 2002, the Council updated the list of persons and entities whose funds were to be frozen as part of the fight against terrorism, including, among others, the OMPI. Since then, the Council has adopted a number of common positions and decisions updating the list in question. The OMPI has always been maintained on the list. 
 
The OMPI brought an action before the Court of First Instance seeking annulment of those common positions and decisions, in so far as those acts concern it. 
 
The Court finds that certain fundamental rights and safeguards, including the right to a fair hearing, the obligation to state reasons and the right to effective judicial protection, are, as a matter of principle, fully applicable in the context of the adoption of a Community decision to freeze funds under Regulation No 2580/2001. 
 
In this respect, the Court draws a distinction between the present case and the cases concerning the freezing of funds of persons and entities linked to Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and the Taleban, which were the subject-matter of the judgments in Yusuf and Kadi of 21 September 2005(3) and also the judgments in Ayadi and Hassan of 12 July 2006.(4) In those cases, the Council and the Commission had merely transposed at Community level resolutions of the Security Council and decisions of its Sanctions Committee which identified the persons concerned by name, without the Community institutions having any discretionary power as to the appropriateness or well-foundedness of those measures. By contrast, in the system at issue in the present case, the Security Council left it to the discretion of the UN Members to carry out the specific identification of the persons and entities whose funds are to be frozen. That identification thus involves the exercise of the Community’s own powers, entailing a discretionary appreciation by the Community. In those circumstances, the Council is in principle bound to observe the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Community legal order. 
 
Next, the Court defines the scope of those rights and safeguards, and also the restrictions which may be imposed on them when a Community measure freezing funds is adopted. 
 
The Court holds that the general principle of observance of the right to a fair hearing does not require that the persons concerned be heard by the Council when an initial decision to freeze their funds is adopted, as it must be able to benefit from a surprise effect. However, that principle does require that, unless precluded by overriding considerations concerning the security of the Community and its Member States, or the conduct of their international relations, the parties concerned must be informed of the specific information or material in the file which indicates that a decision has been taken in respect of them by a competent authority of a Member State, in so far as reasonably possible, either concomitantly with or as soon as possible after the adoption of such a decision. Subject to the same reservations, the parties concerned must be afforded the opportunity to make known effectively their view on any subsequent decision to maintain a freeze on funds. 
 
Likewise, unless precluded by overriding considerations concerning the security of the Community and its Member States, or the conduct of their international relations, the statement of reasons for an initial or subsequent decision to freeze funds must at least make actual and specific reference to the specific information or material in the file which indicates that a decision has been taken in respect of them by a competent authority of a Member State. That statement must also state the reasons why the Council considers, in the exercise of its discretion, that such a measure must be taken in respect of the parties concerned. 
 
Lastly, the right to effective judicial protection is effectively ensured by the right the parties concerned have to bring an action before the Court against any decision to freeze their funds or maintain the freeze on their funds. However, given the broad discretion enjoyed by the Council in this area, the review carried out by the Court of the lawfulness of such decisions must be restricted to checking that the rules governing procedure and the statement of reasons have been complied with, that the facts are materially accurate, and that there has been no manifest error of assessment of the facts or misuse of power. 
 
Applying those principles to the facts of the present case, the Court notes, first, that the relevant legislation does not explicitly provide for any procedure for notification of the evidence adduced or for a hearing of the parties concerned, either before or concomitantly with the adoption of an initial decision to freeze their funds or, in the context of the adoption of subsequent decisions, with a view to having them removed from the list. 
 
Next, the Court finds that at no time before the action was brought was the evidence adduced against the OMPI notified to it. Neither the initial decision to freeze its funds nor subsequent decisions to maintain that freeze even mention the specific information or material in the file showing that a decision justifying its inclusion on the disputed list was taken in respect of it by a competent national authority. 
 
The Court infers therefrom that the decisions in question do not contain sufficient statements of reasons. 
 
Not only has the OMPI been unable effectively to make known its views to the Council but, in the absence of any statement, in the contested decision, of the actual and specific grounds justifying that decision, it has not been placed in a position to avail itself of its right of action before the Court. 
 
Moreover, neither the file material produced before the Court, nor the responses given at the hearing by the Council and the United Kingdom in response to the questions put by the Court, enable it to conduct its judicial review, since it is not even in a position to determine with certainty exactly which is the national decision on which the contested decision is based. 
 
In conclusion, the Court finds that the decision ordering the freezing of the OMPI’s funds does not contain a sufficient statement of reasons and that it was adopted in the course of a procedure during which the right of the party concerned to a fair hearing was not observed, and that it is not in a position to review the lawfulness of that decision. Accordingly that decision must be annulled in so far as it concerns the OMPI. 
 
REMINDER: An appeal, limited to points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities against a decision of the Court of First Instance, within two months of its notification. 

 
 
1 Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 93). 
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 2001 L 344, p. 70). 
3 See Press Release No 79/05 of 21 September 2005. 
4 See Press Release No 57/06 of 12 July 2006.

 

 
 

Appendix 2 

Ruling of the European Court of First Instance  

October 2008 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Press and Information

PRESS RELEASE No° 79/08

23 October 2008

Judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-256/07

People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ANNULS DECISION 2007/868 ORDERING THE FREEZING OF THE PEOPLE’S MOJAHEDIN ORGANIZATION OF IRAN’S FUNDS

The Council failed to give sufficient reasons for its decision following a decision taken by a UK judicial authority to remove the PMOI from the national list of terrorist organisations

On 28 September 2001 the Security Council of the United Nations adopted a resolution calling on all the Member States of the United Nations to combat by all means terrorism and its funding, in particular by freezing the funds of persons and entities committing or attempting to commit acts of terrorism.

That resolution was put into effect in the Community by, in particular, a common position¹ and a Council regulation², adopted on 27 December 2001, ordering the freezing of the funds of the persons and entities included in a list drawn up and regularly updated by Council decisions. Inclusion in that list must be made on the basis of precise information or material in the file which indicates that a decision has been taken by a competent national authority, in principle judicial, in respect of the persons and entities referred to. The names of persons and entities included in the list must be reviewed at regular intervals, at least once every six months, to be certain that there are grounds for their continued inclusion in the list.

The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (‘the PMOI’), founded in 1965, set itself the goal of replacing the government of the Shah of Iran, then that of the mullahs, with a democracy. In the past it had an armed branch operating in Iran. It says, however, that it has explicitly renounced all military activity since June 2001.

By decision of 2 May 2002, the Council included the PMOI in the list of persons and entities whose funds must be frozen in order to combat terrorism. Since then, the Council adopted several decisions giving effect to the list in question. The PMOI continued to be included in that list. 

The PMOI brought an action before the Court of First Instance against those decisions. In its judgment of 12 December 2006 (‘OMPI’), the Court annulled the decision of 2005³ ordering the freezing of the PMOI’s funds on the grounds that it did not contain a sufficient statement of reasons, that it had been adopted in the course of a procedure during which the applicant’s right to a fair hearing had not been observed and that the Court itself was not in a position to review the lawfulness of that decision⁴.

By letter of 30 January 2007, the Council told the PMOI that, in its opinion, the grounds relied on for including the PMOI in the list were still valid and that, as a result, it intended to continue including that organisation in the list. In the statement of reasons enclosed with that letter, the Council pointed out, inter alia, that a decision had been taken with respect to the PMOI by a national authority, namely the order of the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom of 28 March 2001 proscribing the applicant as an organisation concerned in terrorism, and that that decision was still in force. In various letters, the PMOI submitted to the Council its observations in response, arguing that following the judgment in OMPI, no decision whatsoever to ‘maintain’ the applicant in the list could validly be adopted.

After several exchanges of letters between the Council and the PMOI, on 28 June 2007 the Council adopted Decision 2007/445/EC updating the fund-freezing list. The PMOI was still included in the list.

On 16 July 2007 the PMOI brought the present case, asking the Court to annul Decision 2007/445.

On 30 November 2007 the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (‘the POAC’) allowed an appeal against the Home Secretary’s decision refusing to lift the proscription of the PMOI as an organisation concerned in terrorism. It ordered the Home Secretary to remove the PMOI from the list of proscribed organisations. In that decision the POAC inter alia described as ‘perverse’ and ‘unreasonable’ the Home Secretary’s conclusion that the applicant was still an organisation concerned in terrorism. Subsequently, the POAC refused an application by the Home Secretary for permission to lodge an appeal before the Court of Appeal on the ground that none of the arguments advanced by the Home Secretary had a reasonable chance of succeeding.

On 20 December 2007 the Council adopted Decision 2007/868/EC updating the list. The PMOI’s name was included in that list. The Council took the view that the reasons for continuing to include the PMOI in the list still held good and observed that the Home Secretary had sought to bring an appeal against the POAC’s decision.

In consequence, the PMOI made a request to the Court to be allowed to amend the form of order sought so that its application also sought annulment of Decision 2007/868.

The Home Secretary’s application to the Court of Appeal for leave to bring an appeal before that Court against the POAC’s decision was rejected on 7 May 2008. On 24 June 2008, the Parliament of the United Kingdom withdrew the PMOI from the national list of proscribed organisations. On 15 July 2008 the Council adopted Decision 2008/583/EC updating the fund-freezing list. The PMOI’s name was included in that list. The Council noted in that regard that, even if the Home Secretary’s order was no longer in force, ‘new information concerning the group has been brought to the Council’s attention. The Council considers that this new information warrants the group’s inclusion on the list.’ That decision is still in force and has not been challenged in the present proceedings. On 21 July 2008 the PMOI brought an action seeking annulment of that decision. That case, numbered T-284/08, is still pending before the Court.  

The consequences of the OMPI judgment and the application for annulment of Decision 2007/445

First of all, the Court observes that by the OMPI judgment, the Court annulled Decision 2005/930 in so far as it concerned the PMOI.

Following that annulment, the Council was obliged to ensure that subsequent fund-freezing measures adopted after that judgment were not vitiated by the same defects. In this instance, the Council has satisfied that obligation by introducing and then setting in motion, immediately after delivery of the OMPI judgment, a new procedure in order to observe the formal and procedural rules set out by the Court in that judgment, and to enable the PMOI to enjoy the guarantees under that new procedure, before adopting Decision 2007/445.

The Council sent to the PMOI a statement clearly and unambiguously explaining the reasons justifying its continued inclusion in the list and sent it a number of documents from the file. The PMOI was also placed in a position to make its case properly regarding the evidence incriminating it. In those circumstances, the Council observed the PMOI’s rights of the defence and satisfied its obligation to state reasons.

Lastly, with regard to the assessment of the evidence, the Court notes that verification that there is a decision of a national authority is an essential precondition for the adoption of an initial decision to freeze funds, whereas 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. The Court observes that, in this instance, the Council essentially took as a basis the fact that the Home Secretary’s order was still in force. The Council also took into consideration the observations and evidence submitted by the PMOI in their defence, but took the view that they did not justify its request to be removed from the list. The Court considers therefore that the Council had reasonable grounds and sufficient evidence for the adoption of Decision 2007/445 and that it committed no manifest error in its assessment of that information. The Council therefore justified to the required legal standard the continued inclusion of the PMOI in the list.

In consequence, the Court dismisses the application for annulment of Decision 2007/445.

The application for annulment of Decision 2007/868

The Court considers that the POAC’s decision is of considerable importance, inasmuch as it is the first decision of a competent judicial authority ruling on the lawfulness of the Home Secretary’s refusal to withdraw the order on the basis of which the Council adopted both the initial decision to freeze the PMOI’s funds and all the subsequent decisions. Because of the overriding necessity to verify the consequences at national level of decisions of a competent authority, having regard to all the relevant information at the date when Decision 2007/868 was adopted, and taking account of the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the Council’s statement of reasons (that Home Secretary intended to bring an appeal against the POAC’s decision) is manifestly insufficient to provide legal justification for continuing to freeze the PMOI’s funds.

The Court considers that that statement of reasons does not make it possible to understand the extent to which the Council actually took into account the POAC’s decision, as it was required to do. The statement does not explain the specific and concrete reasons why the Council took the view, in spite of the findings of fact made by the POAC against which no appeal lies and the particularly severe legal conclusions for the Home Secretary drawn from those findings by the POAC, that the continued inclusion of the applicant in the list at issue remained justified in the light of the same body of facts and circumstances on which the POAC had had to rule. Lastly, the Court considers that while it is true that the Council could have regard to the existence of appeals against the POAC’s decision and to the Home Secretary’s actual recourse to them, it was not sufficient for the Council merely to state that the Home Secretary had sought to lodge an appeal in order to be relieved of the need to take into specific consideration the findings of fact made by the POAC against which no appeal lies and the legal conclusions which it drew from those findings. That was all the more so because, on the one hand, the POAC had described the Home Secretary’s refusal to lift the applicant’s proscription as ‘unreasonable’ and ‘perverse’ and, on the other, when Decision 2007/868 was adopted, the Council had been informed of the POAC’s refusal to grant the Home Secretary leave to introduce such an appeal on the ground that none of the arguments put forward stood a reasonable chance of succeeding before the Court of Appeal

Consequently, the Court annuls Decision 2007/868 in so far as it concerns the PMOI.

REMINDER: An appeal, limited to points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities against a decision of the Court of First Instance, within two months of its notification. 

Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of First Instance.

Languages available: DE EN ES EL FR IT PT RO

The full text of the judgment may be found on the Court’s internet site http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=rechercher&numaff=T-256/07 It can usually be consulted after midday (CET) on the day judgment is delivered.

For further information, please contact Christopher Fretwell Tel: (00352) 4303 3355 Fax: (00352) 4303 2731

Pictures of the delivery of the judgment are available on EbS “Europe by Satellite”, a service provided by the European Commission, Directorate-General Press and Communications, L-2920 Luxembourg, Tel: (00352) 4301 35177 Fax: (00352) 4301 35249 or B-1049 Brussels, Tel: (0032) 2 2964106 Fax: (0032) 2 2965956 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 

Appendix 3 

POAC Judgment  

November 30, 2007 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 

Appendix 4 

Some Media Coverage 
 
 
 
 

 

Ottawa Citizen

December 13, 2006 

EU court removes resistance group from terror list

Thursday, 14 December 2006

The European Court of Justice yesterday overturned a EU decision to put the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran, an exiled Iranian Resistance movement, on the bloc’s terror blacklist.

The ruling annuls a 2002 decision to freeze European assets of the Paris-Based group. The United States lists the People’s Mujahedeen as a terrorist organization. However, the group founded in the 1960s by students at Tehran University says it advocates the overthrow of Iran’s hardline clerical regime by peaceful means.

Iranian resistance leader Maryam Rajavi called for the immediate lifting of all restrictions on the group and described the ruling as “proof of the resistance’s legitimacy over the religious fascism in Iran and victory of justice over economic interests.”

The group acts as an umbrella for exiled Iranian opponents of the Islamic Republic. 
 

New York Times

December 13, 2006 

European Court Says Exiled Iranian Group Was Unfairly Labeled

Wednesday, 13 December 2006

By Craig S. Smith 

Europe’s second highest court on Tuesday annulled a European Union decision that had frozen the funds of an exiled Iranian opposition group and called into question the group’s label as a terrorist organization.

The ruling by the European Court of First Instance was more than a financial victory for the group, the Mujahedeen Khalq, or People’s Holy Warriors, which has long argued that its terrorist label is unfair.

The European court ruled that the European Union had not provided adequate reasons or a fair hearing in deciding to freeze the organization’s assets in 2002, and that the decision “must be annulled.”

“All restrictions resulting from the terror tag should be removed from the Iranian resistance immediately,” the group’s leader, Maryam Rajavi, said during a visit to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France. She said that the ruling proved that her organization was a legitimate resistance movement rather than a terrorist group.

The Mujahedeen Khalq was formed by leftist students in Iran in 1965 and quickly became one of the most active groups opposing Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. But the Islamic government of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini turned against the group after the shah’s overthrow in 1979.

The group moved its headquarters to France and then to Iraq in 1986, when it set up a well-financed military base under the protection of Saddam Hussein. The American military disarmed the militia in May 2003 and has since kept its members confined to the camp near Baghdad.

Ms. Rajavi remained in Paris, in charge of the group’s political activities as head of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. She has been lobbying to be taken seriously as a viable opposition movement to topple the theocracy in Iran.

She argues that the organization has been unfairly labeled a terrorist organization out of the West’s misguided efforts to engage the Iranian government, and that the only real hope to effect change in Iran, short of war, is to support her organization and give it free rein.

Those hopes are not without some foundation: the fact that the group’s Iraqi military base is, in effect, under United States protection suggests that Washington may yet envision a role for the group if relations with Iran deteriorate further.

New York Times

Ocober 24, 2008 

E.U. Court Rejects Freeze on Iranian Opposition Group’s Funds 

By JAMES KANTER

BRUSSELS — A prominent Iranian opposition group won an appeal on Thursday against a European Union decision to freeze its funds.

But the group, the People’s Mujahedeen, will remain on a European terror list because the decision concerned a blacklist compiled last year, not the most recent list that was compiled this year.

The decision by the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg follows a ruling in May by the British Court of Appeal that the British government was wrong to include the group on its list of banned terrorist groups. The decision Thursday could increase pressure on the E.U. to relax its ban on the group.

The E.U. first placed the group on a terror blacklist in 2002. But the court said Thursday the evidence presented was “manifestly insufficient to provide legal justification for continuing to freeze” the group’s funds.

Maryam Rajavi, the president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the group’s political wing, said in a statement on Thursday that the ruling “puts an end to the unjust label of terrorism.”

She accused some European governments of seeking to maintain the ban to nurture good relations with the current leadership of Iran.

The group is regarded as potentially the most important force in the Iranian resistance. Legalization could enable the group to raise money and organize resistance to the ruling ayatollahs in Iran.

According to the E.U. court, the Iranian group was founded in 1965 with the goal of replacing the government of the Shah of Iran and subsequently its successors with a democracy.

The court said that in the past the group had an armed branch operating in Iran, but noted that the group had renounced all military activity in 2001. 

 

Iranian group wins EU court case

A top European Union court has annulled an EU decision to freeze the funds of a prominent Iranian opposition group.

The People's Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI) was put on the EU's terror blacklist in 2002, which meant the EU could bloc the group's finances.

But the Luxembourg-based Court of First Instance ruled on Thursday that the EU's decision was wrong.

The verdict follows an appeal by the group after a British court had ruled in its favour last year.

Story from BBC NEWS: 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/7685836.stm 
 
Published: 2008/10/23 08:48:02 GMT 
 
© BBC MMVIII 

 

 

May 8, 2008 

Iranian Exiles Aren’t Terrorist Group, British Court Says 

 

Lord Corbett, left front, urged celebrating People’s Mujahedeen backers to sit down Wednesday (AP)