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 62015TN0619

Case T-619/15: Action brought on 6 November 2015 — Badica and Kardiam v Council

OJ C 27, 25.1.2016, p. 68–69 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

25.1.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/68

Action brought on 6 November 2015 — Badica and Kardiam v Council

(Case T-619/15)

(2016/C 027/86)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Bureau d’achat de diamant Centrafrique (Badica) (Bangui, Central African Republic), Kardiam (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: D. Luff and L. Defalque, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

annul Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1485 of 2 September 2015 and point B 1 of the Annex to that regulation in so far as the applicants are added to Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 of 10 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Central African Republic;

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing and to effective judicial protection. This plea is expressed in two parts:

—

first part, alleging a failure on the part of the Council to notify the applicants individually of the decision to freeze funds;

—

second part, alleging a failure to disclose the evidence and the file, and infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem and of transparency.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment of the facts relating to the applicants’ activities resulting in an error of law.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging defects in the examination carried out by the Council.
Top