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 62016TN0408

    Case T-408/16: Action brought on 27 July 2016 — HX v Council

    IO C 419, 14.11.2016, p. 46–47 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    27/07/2016
    Date lodged:
    27/07/2016
    Author:
    Cúirt Ghinearálta
    Form:
    Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
    Authentic language:
    Bulgáiris
    Type of procedure:
    Caingean le haghaidh neamhniú
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Case affecting:
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    14.11.2016   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 419/46

    Action brought on 27 July 2016 — HX v Council

    (Case T-408/16)

    (2016/C 419/62)

    Language of the case: Bulgarian

    Parties

    Applicant: HX (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: S. Koev, lawyer)

    Defendant: Council of the European Union

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    hold the present action to be admissible and well founded, and hold all the pleas it contains to be well founded;

    —

    examine the present action under the accelerated procedure;

    —

    declare that the contested acts may be annulled in part since the part of the acts which should be annulled can be separated from the act as a whole, and accordingly annul the following:

    —

    Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant, and

    —

    Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

    —

    order the Council to pay the entirety of the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the right not to be tried or punished twice for the same criminal offence (Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to a fair trial.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection.

    5.

    Fifth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment on the part of the Council.

    6.

    Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to property, of the principle of proportionality and of the freedom to conduct a business.

    7.

    Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a normal life.

    8.

    Eighth plea in law, alleging a serious infringement of the right to the protection of reputation.
    Top