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 62011TN0146

Case T-146/11: Action brought on 14 March 2011 — Yoro v Council of the European Union

OJ C 130, 30.4.2011, p. 25–25 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

30.4.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/25

Action brought on 14 March 2011 — Yoro v Council of the European Union

(Case T-146/11)

2011/C 130/50

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Claude Yoro (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: G. Collard, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Claude YORO, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, have no factual basis,

—

consequently,

—

annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011;

—

in the alterntive, order that the name of Mr Claude YORO be removed from the lists annexed to the aforementioned Regulation and the aforementioned Decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and principal arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-137/11 Guiai Bi Poin v Council.

Top