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 62020TN0105

    Case T-105/20: Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Ruhorimbere v Council

    IO C 129, 20.4.2020, p. 11–12 (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:
    19/02/2020
    Date lodged:
    19/02/2020
    Author:
    Cúirt Ghinearálta
    Form:
    Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
    Authentic language:
    Fraincis
    Type of procedure:
    Caingean le haghaidh neamhniú
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Case affecting:
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    20.4.2020   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 129/11

    Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Ruhorimbere v Council

    (Case T-105/20)

    (2020/C 129/14)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: Éric Ruhorimbere (Mbuji-Mayi, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

    Defendant: Council of the European Union

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 10 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

    —

    annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 10 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

    —

    rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful;

    —

    order the Council to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-95/20, Kazembe Musonda v Council.

    Top