This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0193
Case T-193/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NG v European Council
Case T-193/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NG v European Council
Case T-193/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NG v European Council
OJ C 232, 27.6.2016, p. 26–26
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
27.6.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 232/26 |
Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NG v European Council
(Case T-193/16)
(2016/C 232/34)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: NG (Levbos Island, Greece) (represented by: B. Burns, Solicitor)
Defendant: European Council
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the agreement between the European Council and Turkey dated 18th March 2016 entitled ‘EU-Turkey statement, 18th March 2016’; |
— |
order that the applicant’s legal costs are paid. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the agreement between the European Council and Turkey dated 18th March 2016 entitled ‘EU-Turkey statement, 18th March 2016’;, is incompatible with EU fundamental rights, particularly Articles 1, 18 and 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that Turkey is not a safe third country in the sense of Article 36 of Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13-34). |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (OJ L 212, 7.8.2001, p. 12-23) should have been implemented. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the challenging agreement is in reality a binding Treaty or ‘act’ having legal effects for the Applicant and that the failure to comply with Article 218 TFUE and/or Article 78.3 TFUE, either together or separately, render the challenged agreement invalid. |
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the prohibition of collective expulsion in the sense of Article 19.1 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union is breached. |