Read the official text on the action brought by the Frente Polisario against the Council of the European Union, as published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 23 February 2013.
Published 23 February 2013
Official Journal of the European Union
Language of the case: French
Applicant: Front Populaire pour la liberation de la saguia-el-hamra et du rio de oro (Front Polisario) (Laâyoune) (represented by: CE Hafiz, lawyer)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
- Annul the contested act and, consequently, all implementing acts.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant raises five pleas in law in support of its action against (i) Council Decision 2012/497/EU of 8 March 2012 on the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures on agricultural products, processed agricultural products, fish and fishery products, the replacement of Protocols 1, 2 and 3 and their Annexes and amendments to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (OJ 2012 L 241, p. 2) and (II) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 812/2012 of 12 September 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 as regards tariff quotas of the Union for certain agricultural and processed agricultural products originating in Morocco (OJ 2012 L 247, p. 7).
The applicant is of the opinion that, as the representative of the Sahrawi people, it is directly and individually affected by those acts.
1. First plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of the duty to state reasons, when it was particularly necessary to state reasons for having regard to the legal environment and, second, infringement of the right to a hearing, since the Front Polisario was not consulted.
2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental rights protected by Article 67 TFEU, Article 6 TEU and the principles laid down in the case-law by breaching the righ to self-determination of the Sahrawi people and by encouraging the policy of annexation followed by the Kingdom of Morocco, an occupying power in the view of applicant. The applicant also claims infringement of the principle of coherence laid down in Article 7 TFEU by the failure to respect the principle of sovereignty and infringement of the values on which the European Union is based and the principles governing its external action in contravention of Articles 2 TEU, 3(5) TEU, 21 TEU and 205 TFEU.
3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of international agreements concluded by the European Union, in particular the Association Agreement concluded between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of a number of norms of international law, including the right to self-determination, the relative effect of the Treaties and the essential provisions of international humanitarian law.
5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are unlawful, since the illicit nature of the European Union’s conduct under international law makes those acts unlawful.
The leading MEP on the proposal to extend EU-Morocco trade relations into occupied Western Sahara wants a legal opinion to be certain the proposed Western Sahara trade scheme meets the standards of the highest EU Court. The European Parliament is to vote this afternoon.
Members of the European Parliament request more clarity before voting on the Commission's proposed trade deal for Western Sahara. Meanwhile, 93 Western Sahara civil society groups lament the Parliament rapporteur's lack of diligence on the file.
On Monday, the European Parliament's committee for International Trade decided to delay the ratification-process of the EU-Moroccan agricultural agreement due to legal ambiguities.
What is EU's position on labelling of products from occupied Western Sahara? The EU Commission has now for the third time published a response to a parliamentary question on the matter, but the latest version fails to address the question.