Second Administrative Challenge against the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation

Violation of the EU Common Position

The basis of the claim was the same as the previous case, namely that in dismissing their initial ‘notice of objection to the permit‘, the Minister had failed to correctly apply the EU Common Position in light of the compelling evidence that the Egyptian Navy was directly involved in the commission of IHL and IHRL violations in the armed conflict in Yemen.

Standing

Discussion in this case continued to centre on questions of legal standing. The claimants maintained that as an organisation defending collective interests, they were entitled, under Dutch law, to take legal action against the administrative decisions of public authorities.

Decision of the District Court

The Claim was dismissed by the District Court under the same reasoning as the previous case.

Notably, the court maintained that the applicable law was the Union Customs Code Regulation, which requires the claimants to be ‘directly and individually affected’ by the decision and that this had not been established in the case.

The claimant’s argument based on EU law was also dismissed as it was held that the claimants did not have a ‘direct interest’ in the case as defined by EU law.

Decision on Appeal

This decision was upheld on appeal. The Court of Appeal held that ‘the appellants are therefore not individually concerned by the permit they challenge and are therefore not entitled to a right of objection and appeal.’