This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011CN0417
Case C-417/11 P: Appeal brought on 10 August 2011 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 8 June 2011 in Case T-86/11 Bamba v Council
Case C-417/11 P: Appeal brought on 10 August 2011 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 8 June 2011 in Case T-86/11 Bamba v Council
Case C-417/11 P: Appeal brought on 10 August 2011 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 8 June 2011 in Case T-86/11 Bamba v Council
IO C 311, 22.10.2011, p. 21–21
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
22.10.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 311/21 |
Appeal brought on 10 August 2011 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 8 June 2011 in Case T-86/11 Bamba v Council
(Case C-417/11 P)
2011/C 311/35
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop, B. Driessen and E. Dumitriu-Segnana, Agents)
Other parties to the proceedings: Nadiany Bamba, European Commission
Form of order sought
The Council claims that the Court should:
|
— |
set aside the judgment delivered on 8 June 2011 by the General Court (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) in Case T-86/11 Bamba v Council; |
|
— |
give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of the present appeal and dismiss the application by Ms Nadiany Bamba as unfounded; and |
|
— |
order Ms Nadiany Bamba to pay the costs incurred by the Council at first instance and in connection with the present appeal. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Council puts forward two pleas in law in support of its appeal.
The appellant’s main plea is that the reasoning provided in the contested measures meets the requirements of Article 296 TFEU and, consequently, the General Court erred in law in ruling that the contested measures are vitiated by an inadequate statement of reasons. The Council provided in the recitals in the preambles to the contested measures a detailed description of the particularly serious situation in Côte d’Ivoire which justified the measures taken against certain persons and entities. Moreover, the Council clearly stated the reasons why it considers that Ms Nadiany Bamba should be subject to the restrictive measures concerned.
In the alternative, the Council claims that the General Court erred in law in failing to take into account, in its assessment of whether the obligation to state reasons had been complied with, the context, which is well known to Ms Nadiany Bamba, in which the contested measures were adopted.