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 62013TN0545

Case T-545/13: Action brought on 8 October 2013 — Al Matri v Council

OJ C 359, 7.12.2013, p. 18–19 (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:
08/10/2013
Date lodged:
08/10/2013
Author:
General Court
Form:
Judicial information
Authentic language:
English
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Case affecting:
Link

7.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/18

Action brought on 8 October 2013 — Al Matri v Council

(Case T-545/13)

2013/C 359/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fahed Mohamed Sakher Al Matri (Doha, Qatar) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister, and G. Martin, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Annul Council Implementing Decision 2013/409/CFSP (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 735/2013 (2), insofar as they apply 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 defendant has manifestly erred in its assessment that the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled as regards the applicant.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence and to effective judicial protection.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging failure to give adequate reasons.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s right to property and to conduct his business.

(1)  Council Implementing Decision 2013/409/CFSP of 30 July 2013 implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2013 L 204, p. 52)

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 735/2013 of 30 July 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2013 L 204, p. 23)

Top