Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62025TN0587

Case T-587/25: Action brought on 23 August 2025 – Ola Energy v Council

OJ C, C/2025/5363, 13.10.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5363/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)

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5363/oj

European flag

Official Journal
of the European Union

EN

C series


C/2025/5363

13.10.2025

Action brought on 23 August 2025 – Ola Energy v Council

(Case T-587/25)

(C/2025/5363)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ola Energy Holding Ltd (Floréal, Mauritius) (represented by: A. Bahrami and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Declare the action for annulment admissible and well founded;

Annul the Decision of the Council dated 13 June 2025 (SGS 25 / 2281) refusing to transpose into the EU legal order the Implementation Assistance Notice No 1 of 7 March 2012, issued by the UN Security Council Committee established pursuant to Resolution 1970 (2011) concerning Libya;

In the alternative, declare that the Council has infringed the Treaties, in breach of Article 265 TFEU, by failing to adopt a measure to amend or clarify Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 following the applicant’s formal request of 11 March 2025;

Order the Council to pay all the legal fees and costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to comply with binding UN Security Council Resolutions.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to review restrictive measures.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging error of law.

9.

Alternatively, alleging a failure to act under Article 265 TFEU.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5363/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)


Top