Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62017TN0216

Case T-216/17: Action brought on 7 April 2017 — Mabrouk v Council

OJ C 195, 19.6.2017, p. 34–34 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
07/04/2017
Date lodged:
07/04/2017
Author:
General Court
Form:
Judicial information
Authentic language:
English
Type of procedure:
Action for annulment
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Case affecting:
Instruments cited in case law:
Link

19.6.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/34

Action brought on 7 April 2017 — Mabrouk v Council

(Case T-216/17)

(2017/C 195/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mohamed Marouen Ben Ali Ben Mohamed Mabrouk (Tunis, Tunisia) (represented by: J-R. Farthouat, N. Boulay, lawyers, and S. Crosby, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/153 of 27 January 2017 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2017 L 23, p. 19) insofar as it applies to the applicant; and

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the freeze of the applicant’s assets infringes the reasonable time rule of Articles 6 and 47 of the ECHR and the EU fundamental Rights charter respectively.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that there is an insufficient basis for the freeze:

—

Contrary to the evidence presented by the applicant, the Council considers the applicant’s assets to be illegitimate, but fails to state reasons.

—

In holding the applicant’s assets to be illegitimate the Council makes an error of factual assessment, in so far as it has made any assessment;

—

The freeze is devoid of purpose, because it is designed to assist Tunisia to recover misappropriated assets. However, none of the applicant’s assets were misappropriated.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that, by freezing his assets after the fall of President Ben Ali, the freeze infringes the applicant’s right to work.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the freeze is in any event disproportionate and infringes the applicant’s property rights.
Top