This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CN0545
Case C-545/14 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2014 by Aguy Clement Georgias, Trinity Engineering (Private) Ltd, Georgiadis Trucking (Private) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 18 September 2014 in Case T-168/12: Georgias e.a. v Council of the European Union, European Commission
Case C-545/14 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2014 by Aguy Clement Georgias, Trinity Engineering (Private) Ltd, Georgiadis Trucking (Private) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 18 September 2014 in Case T-168/12: Georgias e.a. v Council of the European Union, European Commission
Case C-545/14 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2014 by Aguy Clement Georgias, Trinity Engineering (Private) Ltd, Georgiadis Trucking (Private) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 18 September 2014 in Case T-168/12: Georgias e.a. v Council of the European Union, European Commission
OJ C 46, 9.2.2015, p. 25–27
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
9.2.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 46/25 |
Appeal brought on 27 November 2014 by Aguy Clement Georgias, Trinity Engineering (Private) Ltd, Georgiadis Trucking (Private) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 18 September 2014 in Case T-168/12: Georgias e.a. v Council of the European Union, European Commission
(Case C-545/14 P)
(2015/C 046/32)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellants: Aguy Clement Georgias, Trinity Engineering (Private) Ltd, Georgiadis Trucking (Private) Ltd (represented by: H. Mercer QC, I. Quirk, Barrister)
Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellants claim that the Court should:
— |
Set aside the decision of the General Court in whole |
— |
Grant the relief sought by the Appellant in the proceedings before the General Court (save for damages, which are to be assessed by the General Court) |
— |
Alternatively, remit the case to the General Court |
— |
In any event, order the Defendants to pay the Appellants’ costs |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the Appellants rely on four pleas in law:
1. |
First plea in law, that the General Court erred in holding that Regulation 314/2004 (1) entitled the Council to add persons to the Annex thereto simply on the ground that they were a member of the Government of Zimbabwe (paras. 57 and 66 of the General Court’s Judgment):
|
2. |
Second plea in law, that the General Court erred in its misreading of Article 5(1) of the Common Position, which led to it incorrectly applying the Regulation (para. 57 of the Judgment):
|
3. |
Third plea in law, that the General Court erred in interpreting the addition of the words ‘as such’ (added on 25 June 2007) to Senator Georgias’ listing in the Annex to the Regulation (and the Common Position) to be a ‘mere clarification’ that the mere status as a member of government was sufficient for inclusion (para. 58 of the Judgment):
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, that the General Court erred in holding that, in relation to the plea that there had been a breach of the rights of defence, Senator Georgias had not explained what he would have relied on had he been heard (para. 108 of the Judgment):
|
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 of 19 February 2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe
(2) Council Common Position 2004/161/CFSP of 19 February 2004 renewing restrictive measures against Zimbabwe