EU, EU shame on U!

EU court: the right to defense of the PMOI, violated by France

It goes with out saying that “the enemy of thy enemy is thy friend”.

This however is not the case for 27 member states of the EU Council, which appear to be hand bolted and head tight in appeasing the most vicious religious dictatorship of the century in Iran.

It is obvious that these members are well aware of the facts and figures surrounding Tehran’s nature, its composition and its objectives in the nuclear proliferation, state sponsored terrorism and human right violations.

What amazes one is the scope of submission by the so called strong European powers, which only emboldens the image of “the docile slaves of a political appeasement that have been haunted by a nonviable politics of appeasing a religious dictatorship for economic benefits.”

Of course it is short of courtesy to say that even a small child would know that expecting such a despotic regime based on “Supreme religious leadership” embedded in its constitution, to suddenly mutate into a semi-democratic entity, would be as fatuous as wishing an orange tree to give fruit to apples!!

Yet the most striking fact about these superpowers is that, despite their size, their wealth, their overwhelming accumulation of nuclear weapons, they are crippled when it comes to taking a decisive and brave action against the “politics of deceit” so artfully displayed by Tehran. Instead they enchain the viable resistance force that has for the past 29 years stood, with perseverance against the same despotic power with courage.

The 27, lead by France have been hand picking politics as far as Tehran is concerned, but this time with a difference: The blood price would be paid by the Iranian resistance and the people who on daily bases display their wish for democratic change in street demonstrations.

The statistics in the Human right violation spectrum goes far beyond any ones expectations:

– 13 minors hanged during 8 months! as the world record holder in killing minors

– More than 47000 arrests in one year

– More than 26 kinds of suppressive institutions, apart from the army, the police and the secret service,

– 15 people hanged only days after the UN resolution condemning Human Rights violations, Ahmadinejad’s reaction to International laws expressed in practical terms.

Tehran’s dismal record in human rights violations cannot be illustrated in a simple article as such.

The other side to the coin of the “blood money” is the enlisting of the Iranian resistance (PMOI), known to be the viable solution to the Iranians crisis in the region, in a sham black list of terrorist organizations of the EU.

As consequence, members and supporters of the Iranian resistance have been paying the price of appeasement with the religious fascist in Iran. One supporter said in an interview:

“I never imagined that one day, in a democracy such as Europe, I’d taste the kind of harassment one would expect from the Iranian guards in Iran. They (EU countries) are putting a lid on all the massacres in Iran by putting all of us in the terrorist list. The real terrorists are playing safe in their embassies; while victims of terrorists (people like us) are being used as bate.”

All resistance movements with popular bases have had the winning side in the past history of social progress in various parts of the world namely France, Sweden, Norway and so forth.

Looking at the parallels of history , there has been one common lesson: it’s clear that the struggle for justice should never be abandoned because of the apparent overwhelming power of those who have the guns and the money and who seem invincible in their determination to hold on to it. That apparent power has, again and again, proved vulnerable to human qualities less measurable than bombs and dollars: moral fervor, determination, unity, organization, sacrifice, wit, ingenuity, courage, patience.

This is the same pattern adapted with splendor and courage by the Iranian resistance in facing the: “black listing.”

A long and durable legal struggle that had begun five years ago, lead to a glorious victory in December 2008.

The PMOI filed a complaint to the European court of First Instance and won the argument.

Four consecutive judgments, all annulling the illegal proscription of the Iranian resistance (PMOI) by the EU ministers, the last highlighting the role France had played in committing the 27 to a pledge with the Iranian dictators:

In its recent judgment, the court of First Instance of Luxembourg in paragraphs 72 and 73 strongly protested to the behavior of France in making the files against the PMOI as secret and classified and refrained from providing them to the Court, while at the same time requesting EU member states to refuse communication of information to the court, which justified the keeping of the PMOI on the funds-freezing list.



The Council has violated the rights of defence of the PMOI by not communicating to it the new

information which, according to the Council, justified maintaining it on the European list of

terrorist organisations; by refusing to communicate to the Court certain information about the

case, the Council has equally infringed the fundamental right of the PMOI to effective judicial


In its unprecedented one day “expedited procedure,” the court has with astonishing reiteration stressed on the illegality of the manor of which the French authorities had framed the PMOI in to the black list.

The final judgment of the court which came out on 18 December, has categorically ruled out any appeal on behalf of the EU Ministers, reiterating the fact that they have no legal argument on the case and that the Ministers had to pay compensation to the PMOI.

Still, despite four consecutive judgments in favor of delisting the Iranian resistance, the EU Minister’s ambition to keep the resistance movement in the list is shocking and brings the feeling of shame to jurists and human right activists’ world wide. The sense of shame is depicted by the daily demonstrations in various parts of the world, portraying disgust towards a catastrophic politics of appeasement:

“Who is going to pay for the Blood money?” They say, “EU EU shame on U” is the only response to politics over Iran.

a Brief History and Facts on The Proscription of Pmoi

CFI Ruling – PMOI vs. Council of the EU

27 December, 2001: In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 and based on UN Security Council Resolution 1373, the EU decided to compile its own list of individuals and organizations linked to terror. The PMOI was not on the initial list.

Early 2002: The Tehran regime pressed the EU to include the PMOI in the list at a time when the EU was seeking to boost trade relations with Iran.

29 March, 2001: The UK put the PMOI on its national list of terrorist organizations under the UK Anti-Terrorism Act. UK Home Secretary later acknowledged it was in response to demands from the Iranian regime.

2 May, 2002: At the UK’s behest, the Council of the European Union included the PMOI in the EU terrorist list. The decision must be reviewed every six months by all EU member states. The PMOI’s assets were frozen in the EU, making fund-raising impossible.

26 July, 2002: The PMOI filed a petition before the EU Court of First Instance in Luxembourg, attacking the decision of the Council on the grounds of infringing the right to a fair hearing, essential procedural requirements, the right to effective judicial protection, the presumption of innocence, a manifest error of assessment, and the right to revolt against tyranny and oppression.

12 February 2003: The UK joined the case as a third party in support of the Council decision, but was the only EU member state to do so.

7 Feb., 2006: At the oral hearing the Council and the UK failed to provide the Court with any precise information or even reference to an act of terrorism or a coherent answer on which competent national authority has taken the decision regarding the PMOI.

29 May, 2006: The Council renewed the list which includes the PMOI; the Court has not ruled yet. (Decision 2006/379)

12 Dec., 2006: The court retroactively annulled the Council Decision of 21 December 2005. The Council accepted that under Article 233 EC it is obliged to extend the annulment to any decision repealing and replacing the December decision which includes Decision 2006/379 of 29 May 2006.

21 Dec, 2006: The Council made a new decision but in breach of its obligation did not remove the PMOI from the list. It did not review the list and published no new list.

12 Feb, 2007: The deadline for appeal of the judgment lapsed without the Council or the UK lodging an appeal. The judgment was therefore final.

30 Jan.2007: The Council informed the PMOI of its intention to “maintain” the organization in the EU terror list. It gives the PMOI one month to present its views.

27.Feb. 2007: PMOI’s lawyers wrote to the Council arguing that the obligation of the Council was to implement the annulment. It also protested that the Council did not specify or produce any relevant, precise or convincing evidence upon which it relied so as to show that there were grounds for including the PMOI in the list in 2007.

19 March 2007: PMOI’s lawyers wrote a further letter to the Council challenging the Council disregard of the Court ruling. They once again reminded the Council of its duties under the Treaty to implement the Court ruling and remove the PMOI from the list. They also made it clear that changing the procedure for future could not substitute the annulment which the Council is obliged to do so. They further asked for access to the file in order to respond to the allegations.

26 March 2007: PMOI’s lawyers in another letter protested at the Council’s inactivity and requested a detailed response to the letters of 19 March by 30 March 2007. They reiterated their request for access to the file and the right of their client to recourse to legal remedy if the Council continues to disregard its obligation.

30 March 2007: In a letter to PMOI’s lawyers the Council refused to respond to PMOI’s request by saying it was not the practice of the Council to provide opinion to third party. In response to PMOI’s demand for having access to the file and alleged evidence, the Council annexed a few general documents adding that for more evidence it was necessary to consult the originating State(s). A de facto refusal to give access to the file.

5 April 2006: Another letter from PMOI’s lawyers (they had not yet received the 30 March Council’s letter) reiterating that the Council was in breach of its obligation and that it could rely on a decision of the UK Home Secretary in 2001 to continue with the listing of the PMOI.

16 April 2007: PMOI’s lawyers in a letter to the Council expressed the view that the Council’s position could only be treated as a refusal by the Council to carry out its Treaty obligations under Article 233 EC. They once again demanded full access to the file in order to make their observation. Nothing has yet been herd from the Council.

16 April 2007: PMOI lawyers sent a joint opinion to the Council reiterating the obligation of the Council to remove PMOI from the list. In particularly rejecting the assertion that removing the PMOI from the EU list was pending on a decision in a UK proceeding.

25 April 2007: As a last attempt to avoid recourse to Court, the PMOI lawyers wrote to the Commission requesting the Commission to intervene with the Council to secure the Council’s compliance with its Treaty obligations.

9 May 2007: The PMOI started a new proceeding against the Council for breaching its obligations and requesting from the Court to annul its decision for:

1. Not removing PMOI from the terrorist list in breach of its obligation under Article 233EC. (annulling the decision 2000/379 so far as it concerns the PMOI)

2. Not reviewing within six months or thereafter Council Decision 2006/379 in relation to the PMOI, in breach of the law.

4 December 2008: A European Union court on Thursday annulled a new move by the bloc to freeze the assets of an exiled Iranian opposition group in the latest in a string of legal setbacks to its blacklist of suspected terrorist groups. The European Court of First Instance already threw out last month a 2007 move to freeze the assets of People’s Mujahideen Organization of Iran (PMOI), the group which exposed Iran’s covert nuclear programme in 2002

19 December 2008 : The Court of First Instance of the European Communities (CFI), in its fourth ruling over the past two years, rejected a request by the EU Council and France to delay implementation of the December 4 court ruling on the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI [MEK]) until the deadline to submit an appeal against the ruling has ended. It described their demand as “clearly unacceptable” and ordered the Council to pay all legal costs incurred by the PMOI (MEK).