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 62012TN0446

    Case T-446/12: Action brought on 9 October 2012 — Drex Technologies v Council

    OJ C 373, 1.12.2012, p. 12–13 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    1.12.2012   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 373/12

    Action brought on 9 October 2012 — Drex Technologies v Council

    (Case T-446/12)

    2012/C 373/21

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: Drex Technologies SA (Tortola, British Virgin Isles) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

    Defendant: Council of the European Union

    Form of order sought

    —

    Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

    —

    In consequence, annul

    —

    Council Implementing Decision 2012/424/CFSP of 23 July 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and the corrigendum thereto of 9 August 2012, in so far as those measures affect the applicant;

    —

    and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 673/2012 of 23 July 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and the corrigendum thereto of 9 August 2012, in so far as those measures affect the applicant;

    —

    Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)

    (1)  JO 2011 C 290, p. 13.

    Top