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 62013TN0408

    Case T-408/13: Action brought on 30 July 2013 — Mayaleh v Council

    OJ C 344, 23.11.2013, p. 56–57 (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:
    30/07/2013
    Date lodged:
    30/07/2013
    Author:
    General Court
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Case affecting:
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    23.11.2013   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 344/56

    Action brought on 30 July 2013 — Mayaleh v Council

    (Case T-408/13)

    2013/C 344/102

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: Adib Mayaleh (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni and C. Dumont, lawyers)

    Defendant: Council of the European Union

    Form of order sought

    —

    Annul:

    —

    Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria in so far as it concerns Mr Adib Mayaleh;

    —

    Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, corrected on 9 May 2013 in so far as it concerns Mr Adib Mayaleh;

    order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs in accordance with Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to the first, second, third, fifth, sixth and seventh pleas in law relied on in Case T-383/11 Makhlouf v Council.  (1)

    (1)  OJ 2011 C 282, p.30.

    Top