Iran-EU: “There is no way that the PMOI be rubber stamped back onto the EU list” (Lord Slynn)

“Once the Court annulled this decision in regards to the PMOI it is saying that not only did it not exist, but that it had never existed and as the Court itself makes plain it can only be reinstated on the list by taking measures of a just approach, a just procedure to reconsider the whole matter. As I see it, there is simply no way that the PMOI can simply be rubber stamped back onto the list,” said Lord Slynn of Hadley in an international conference in Paris on February,5.

“Once the Court annulled this decision in regards to the PMOI it is saying that not only did it not exist, but that it had never existed and as the Court itself makes plain it can only be reinstated on the list by taking measures of a just approach, a just procedure to reconsider the whole matter. As I see it, there is simply no way that the PMOI can simply be rubber stamped back onto the list,” said Lord Slynn of Hadley in an international conference in Paris on February,5.

Here is the text of his speech :

Thank you very much. I was going to stand up, but it looked as if the journey to there through these chairs was too dangerous and too complicated. Perhaps that is a good thing as we have been told very strictly that we should not exceed the time limit and I shall do my best to be far less than the lime limit and I want to say once again very much by way introduction, not introduction of individuals, but introduction of why we are here.

These are very crucial days in the life and the work of the National Resistance Council of Iran and they are very crucial days in the work and the life of the People’s Mojahedin of Iran. Because they are very crucial days, this is a very important meeting to discuss matters of principal.

If I may say so it is very good that so many have come to this meeting today to hear not from me, but from those who follow the importance of these questions of principle. Let me just set the scene, the National Resistance Council and the PMOI have through their leader Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, long insisted, long asserted that what they seek for Iran is democracy, peace and justice. And they seek to do that not through aggression or appeasement as it is unacceptable, they seek to do it through democratic means and through rational debate.

Now let me say at once and I think I speak not only for myself, I speak for others. We must, we do all recognise that governments including those of the member states of the European Union cannot be expected to submit to terrorist acts, to lie down whilst terrorist acts are committed against them and around them. That they must take steps to protect their people against real terrorists and it was to this end that the European Union in 2001 following a resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations, on the strategy to deal with terrorists, adopted a resolution which it called a common position, a policy document.

Let us start with the acceptance that terrorism does not have to be tolerated, must not be tolerated. Let us then move on to what is equally then important, that it is of the utmost importance that the restrictions which are imposed on individuals and goods should be imposed only on individuals and groups who are engaged in terrorist activity. The European Union recognised this once, because it defined persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts as persons who commit not to have committed, commit or attempt to commit terrorist acts or who participate in or facilitate, present tense, the commission of terrorist acts. And it included groups of people who are directed or composed by such persons or who act under the direction of such persons.

The European Union declaration insists that the names on the list shall be reviewed not irregularly, not infrequently, but every 6 months. Why? To ensure that there are grounds for keeping them on the list. Those grounds must clearly be that they commit or attempt, note attempt to commit terrorist activity, but you know very well that the National Council of Resistance has never been on the list and the PMOI was not on the first list which was made. The PMOI was added later and from that time has insisted that it, the PMOI is not within the definition of persons, groups or entities which commit terrorist acts. Its case has been all along that there are, there were no ground in 2002 when it was first put on the list, for putting it on the list and every time that the review has taken place there have been no grounds for leaving the PMOI on the list. And so the PMOI said to the Council, you are bound in law and in fact to take us off the list. Well as you all know very well, that protest to the Council did not work and so the PMOI in 2002 began proceedings in the European Court, the Court of First Instance.

Let us be glad in the European community that we have a court, independent and impartial to which such applications can be made. But what was the PMOI saying to this independent impartial court. It was saying two things, let justice decide, let the law in relation to these matters be applied as it is intended to be applied. The PMOI asked the court to annul its declaration as a terrorist group or to say that the rule which had been made by the Council was not applicable and that the decisions and the common position as far as they referred to the PMOI had to be set aside.

Well, the Council opposed the PMOI’s application, that gave nobody any surprise at all, but the Council was supported by the United Kingdom although not by any other member state and so two or more years later after a carefully prepared submission in writing and powerful, carefully prepared oral speech the PMOI lawyers David Vaughn, Jean-Pierre Spitzer and Gisella Ketwel all went to the Court and not surprisingly from their speech, I can say that because I sat behind them and listened to their speech and even I as a hardened lawyer and judge, was very impressed by the cogency of their arguments and I was not surprised, I was very relieved and I was very relieved that the Court of First Instance after a very full and very detailed review of the law found that at no time before the action was there any specific decision of a member state nor was there any material on the face of it to show that a competent national authority have taken a decision on evidence of specific allegations that this group the PMOI included in the list as terrorist, but it went further than that. The essential things that are very important for the future development of our judicial review of this kind of decision by the Council.

I won’t go into detail I will allow the others to do it, but the European Court of First Instance said very firmly here that there was no fair hearing of the PMOI’s protest to the Council that they were not due to be listed as terrorist nor was there a statement of reasons which anybody could regard as sufficient. There was no way that the PMOI could properly put its views, but in one sense more important and in one sense less important that they said there was simply no material on which the Court of Justice could take a decision, so having ruled on the law and on the facts in this way they decided that the decision of the Council had to be annulled.

The Ministers know that to annul something it ceases to exist and as a matter of law retroactively it never has lawfully valuably existed. So once the Court annulled this decision in regards to the PMOI it is saying that not only did it not exist, but that it had never existed and as the Court itself makes plain it can only be reinstated on the list by taking measures of a just approach, a just procedure to reconsider the whole matter. As I see it there is simply no way that the PMOI can simply be rubber stamped back onto the list.

So this is a very important decision and so what now must happen is to consider the next step, what will the Council do, what can the Council do, what will be the reaction of the PMOI? And of course there has been criticisms of individuals, things were said, not only about PMOI members outside Iraq, Iran, but things were said about the people in Ashraf. It was said that they were terrorists who should be either restrained or sent back to Iran or treated in some other way.

Those of us who have been to Ashraf will be struck as I was struck by what has been created in Ashraf. It is at Ashraf that much of this attention is directed. What is to be found in Ashraf is a way of life with a commitment to democracy and to peace. Here is a city created with a system of higher education at times at university levels. The world of culture, creativity and music and literature which will be the envy of many countries. 

If you go there you come away with a clear feeling that Ashraf is not the world of a militant mob or a terrorist gang. It is a world of dedicated people lead by a woman of great commitment and great distinction who has explained, expounded the ideals for which they seek to work, for which they have worked and for which they do work. Well we got so far with the Court, the others who know far more about the law than I do will tell you a little bit more about the law and what we should do in the future.