Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62021TN0103

Case T-103/21: Action brought on 19 February 2021 — Boshab v Council

OJ C 128, 12.4.2021, p. 44–44 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

12.4.2021   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/44

Action brought on 19 February 2021 — Boshab v Council

(Case T-103/21)

(2021/C 128/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Évariste Boshab (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 6 in Annex II to that Decision;

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 6 in Annex I to that Regulation;

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of his rights of defence. The applicant raises a number of complaints with regard to infringement of the rights of the defence during the proceedings which led the Council to adopt and renew the restrictive measures against him and alleges, in particular, infringement of his right to be heard under acceptable conditions.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, in that the Council found the applicant to be involved in acts constituting serious human rights breaches in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The applicant criticises the context of the review which preceded the renewal of restrictive measures against him and disputes any current involvement in the events underpinning the decision to include him in the list of persons covered by Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP of 20 December 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo and repealing Common Position 2008/369/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 336, p. 30).
Top