Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2006/048/65

Case T-299/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 November 2005 — Selmani v Council and Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Council common positions — Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Action for annulment — Manifest lack of jurisdiction — Time-limits — Admissibility)

OB C 48, 25.2.2006, p. 33–33 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

25.2.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/33


Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 November 2005 — Selmani v Council and Commission

(Case T-299/04) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Council common positions - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Action for annulment - Manifest lack of jurisdiction - Time-limits - Admissibility)

(2006/C 48/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Abdelghani Selmani (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: C. Ó Briain, Solicitor)

Defendant(s): Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan and D. Canga Fano, Agents) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and C. Brown, Agents)

Application for

primarily, annulment of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restricted measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70) and Article 1 of Council Decision 2004/306/EC of 2 April 2004 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2003/902/EC (OJ 2004 L 99, p. 28) and all decisions adopted by the Council on the basis of Regulation No 2580/2001 and having the same effect as Decision 2004/306, in so far as those measures apply to the applicant,

Operative part of the Order

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2.

The applicant shall pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.


Top