EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019CN0122
Case C-122/19 P: Appeal brought on 14 February 2019 by Hamas against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 December 2018 in Case T-400/10 RENV, Hamas v Council
Case C-122/19 P: Appeal brought on 14 February 2019 by Hamas against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 December 2018 in Case T-400/10 RENV, Hamas v Council
Case C-122/19 P: Appeal brought on 14 February 2019 by Hamas against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 December 2018 in Case T-400/10 RENV, Hamas v Council
OJ C 131, 8.4.2019, p. 30–31
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
8.4.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 131/30 |
Appeal brought on 14 February 2019 by Hamas against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 December 2018 in Case T-400/10 RENV, Hamas v Council
(Case C-122/19 P)
(2019/C 131/36)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Hamas (represented by: L. Glock, avocat)
Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, French Republic, European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellant claims the Court should:
— |
Set aside the judgment of 14 December 2018, Hamas v Council, T-400/10 RENV, in so far as it dismisses the application to annul the following measures:
|
— |
Give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal; |
— |
Order the Council to bear all the costs in Cases T-400/10, T-400/10 RENV, C-79/15 P and in the present case. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
1. |
First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles governing the shifting of the burden of proof as to the accuracy of the facts:
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial review:
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court infringed Article 1(4) of the Common Position by holding that the United Kingdom decision on which the Council relied was a conviction:
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law: the General Court was not entitled to reject the plea that the Council had not taken sufficient account of the development of the situation owing to the passage of time other than at the price of infringement of the second paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an unlawful substitution of grounds and on the basis of an incorrect assumption. |
5. |
Fifth plea in law: the General Court erred in law in the interpretation of Article 296 TFEU in holding that the facts established independently by the Council and their classification are set out with sufficient precision and detail in the grounds to be challenged by the appellant and reviewed by the court. |