Appeal of the Decision of the District Court of the Hague

The claimants argue, based on the severity of the human rights situation in Egypt and its role in Yemen, the supply of military equipment is in violation of the Common Position.nnn

The claimants also argue that PAX, whose standing to bring a case was denied by the District Court, do have an interest in bringing this case and their claims should be allowed and that the court applied a number of incorrect starting points in its judgement.

On the claim’s substance, the claimants argue that the human rights situation in Egypt is very serious and the Egyptian armed forces, including the navy, are guilty of internal repression, including during operations in North Sinai and there is a clear risk that military equipment supplied to the navy could be used for internal repression, therefore in violation of Criterion 2a.

In addition, it is submitted that Egypt is a member of the Saudi-led coalition, who are committing serious violations of IHL in Yemen and that the Egyptian Navy was involved in the blockade of Yemen, and there is a clear risk that military equipment supplied to the Egyptian Navy is being used in these acts therefore allowing exports is contrary to the correct application of criterion 2c of the Common Position.

They also highlight that the District Court failed to properly take into account the record of Egypt’s compliance with its international commitments under criteria 6.