Help Print this page 

Document 62017TN0216

Title and reference
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)
Languages, formats and link to OJ
BG ES CS DA DE ET EL EN FR GA HR IT LV LT HU MT NL PL PT RO SK SL FI SV
HTML html BG html ES html CS html DA html DE html ET html EL html EN html FR html HR html IT html LV html LT html HU html MT html NL html PL html PT html RO html SK html SL html FI html SV
PDF pdf BG pdf ES pdf CS pdf DA pdf DE pdf ET pdf EL pdf EN pdf FR pdf HR pdf IT pdf LV pdf LT pdf HU pdf MT pdf NL pdf PL pdf PT pdf RO pdf SK pdf SL pdf FI pdf SV
Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal
 To see if this document has been published in an e-OJ with legal value, click on the icon above (For OJs published before 1st July 2013, only the paper version has legal value).
Multilingual display
Text

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