This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0200
Case T-200/11: Action brought on 1 April 2011 — El-Materi v Council
Case T-200/11: Action brought on 1 April 2011 — El-Materi v Council
Case T-200/11: Action brought on 1 April 2011 — El-Materi v Council
OJ C 160, 28.5.2011, p. 23–24
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
28.5.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 160/23 |
Action brought on 1 April 2011 — El-Materi v Council
(Case T-200/11)
2011/C 160/38
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Fahd Mohamed Sakher Ben Mohamed El-Materi (Doha, Qatar) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister and G. Martin, Solicitor)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
— |
Annul Council Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 implementing Decision 2011/72/CSFP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 31, p. 40) and Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 of 4 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 31, p. 1), 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 five pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the criterion for including the applicant in the Annex to Council Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP has not been fulfilled, as:
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated the applicant’s rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection, as:
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for his inclusion in the contested measures, in violation of its obligation to give a clear statement of the actual and specific reasons justifying its decision, including the specific individual reasons that led it to consider that the applicant was responsible for misappropriating Tunisian State funds. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s right to property and to conduct his business, as:
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in deciding to apply these restrictive measures to the applicant, as no evaluation has apparently been carried out by the Council as regards the applicant or, if such assessment has been carried out, the Council erred in concluding that there was justification for including the applicant in the restrictive measures. |
(1) Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 62).