The story goes like this. The UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1373 (2001) calling on all states to suppress and prevent the financing of terrorist organizations. That resolution was implemented in EU law by, among others, Council Decision 2002/334/EC. That Decision was replaced by Decision 2002/460/EC which included the PKK on the list of terrorist organizations whose assets should be frozen.
Osman Ocalan brought an action to annul Decision 2002/460/EC on behalf of the PKK and Serif Vanly also brought an action on behalf of the Kurdistan National Congress (KNK). The Court of First Instance dismissed both actions as inadmissible by an order of February 15th, 2005 in Case T-229/02. As for the PKK, the Court of First Instance found that the organization no longer existed and thus Mr Ocalan could not represent it. And as for the KNK, the Court of First Instance held that it was not individually and directly concerned by the measure which was directed against the PKK. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Court of Justice.
In respect of the PKK, the Court of Justice held in its judgment in Case C-229/05 P that the Court of First Instance had misconstrued the evidence on the existence of the PKK. It held that the evidence adduced before the Court of First Instance showed that the PKK did in fact still exist and that it had sufficient capacity to bring an action to annul a measure that applied to it. The Court of Justice thus referred the case back to the Court of First Instance so that it can examine the merits of the PKK's case.
As for the KNK, the Court of Justice held that the Court of First Instance was correct to find that the KNK was not individually and directly concerned within the meaning of Article 230 (4) EC by the measure. The KNK claimed that it provides a representative platform for the PKK. An association which represents a category of natural or legal persons cannot be considered to be individually concerned, for the purposes of that provision, by a measure affecting the general interests of that category (see, Joined Cases 19/62 to 22/62 Fédération nationale de la boucherie en gros et du commerce en gros des viandes and Others v Council, at p. 499, and the order in Case 117/86 UFADE v Council and Commission, at paragraph 12). The KNK also claimed that it was linked to the PKK and as a consequence some of its funds could be frozen if it dealt with the PKK as a consequence of the Decision. But the Court of Justice held that it is settled case-law that a link of that kind is inadequate to establish that an entity is individually and directly concerned for the purposes of Article 230 (4) EC.
Interestingly, the KNK submitted that if Article 230 (4) EC was interpreted in that way - to reject the action of a connected person - then it would be in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights. As a result the Court of Justice examined the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the right of action of persons linked to a victim of a violation of human rights while not being themselves a direct victim of the violation. It is apparent, according to the Court of Justice, from the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights that persons who claim to be linked to an entity included in the list annexed to Common Position 2001/931, but who are not included in it themselves, do not have the status of victims of a violation of the ECHR within the meaning of Article 34 thereof and that, consequently, their applications are inadmissible (see, Segi and Gestoras Pro-Amnistia and others v. 15 States of the European Union).