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 62011TN0255

    Case T-255/11: Action brought on 20 May 2011 — Fellah v Council

    OJ C 211, 16.7.2011, p. 28–29 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    16.7.2011   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 211/28

    Action brought on 20 May 2011 — Fellah v Council

    (Case T-255/11)

    2011/C 211/61

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: Zakaria Fellah (New York, USA) (represented by: G. Collard, lawyer)

    Defendant: Council of the European Union

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    hold that, in relation to the applicant, Mr Zakaria Fellah, Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 and Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011, published on 7 April 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are factually unfounded;

    —

    in consequence:

    —

    annul Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 and Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011;

    —

    in the alternative, order that the name of Mr Zakaria Fellah be removed from the lists annexed to the said regulation and the said decision.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons, inasmuch as the grounds for including the name of the applicant in the list of persons and bodies to which restrictive measures apply were sterotyped, without mention of any precise factual element allowing the relevance of the inclusion of that name to be assessed.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, in so far as:

    —

    the applicant is accused of financing the administration of Mr L. Gbagbo, whereas, first, the applicant essentially carried out his functions with Mr L. Gbagbo at a time when the latter was recognised as legitimate head of state by the international community, and, second, the applicant did not have resources allowing him to finance the adminstration of Mr L. Gbagbo;

    —

    the contested measures appear to be devoid of purpose since 11 April 2011, Mr L. Gbagbo having been captured on that date.
    Top