This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013CN0397
Case C-397/13 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2013 by Simone Gbagbo against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 April 2013 in Case T-119/11 Gbagbo v Council
Case C-397/13 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2013 by Simone Gbagbo against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 April 2013 in Case T-119/11 Gbagbo v Council
Case C-397/13 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2013 by Simone Gbagbo against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 April 2013 in Case T-119/11 Gbagbo v Council
OJ C 274, 21.9.2013, p. 11–11
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 274, 21.9.2013, p. 7–8
(HR)
|
21.9.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 274/11 |
Appeal brought on 15 July 2013 by Simone Gbagbo against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 April 2013 in Case T-119/11 Gbagbo v Council
(Case C-397/13 P)
2013/C 274/19
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Simone Gbagbo (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, avocat)
Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Republic of Côte d’Ivoire
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
declare the appeal brought by Ms Simone Gbagbo admissible and well founded; |
|
— |
set aside the judgment under appeal; |
|
— |
annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP; (1) Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005; (2) Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire; (3) and Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, (4) in so far as they concern the appellant; |
|
— |
order the Council to pay the costs. |
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
The appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.
First, the appellant criticises the General Court for rejecting her plea in law alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons. The appellant takes issue with the General Court for finding that the Council had provided sufficient information when the sole reason for the contested decision was, according to the appellant, her status as ‘President of the FPI group in the National Assembly’.
Secondly, the appellant argues that the General Court made a manifest error of assessment in relation to the facts. She maintains that the facts construed as obstruction of the peace and reconciliation processes and as public incitement to hatred and violence are substantively inaccurate; moreover, there is not even any evidence to support them.