This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013TN0248
Case T-248/13: Action brought on 6 November 2013 — FK v Commission
Case T-248/13: Action brought on 6 November 2013 — FK v Commission
Case T-248/13: Action brought on 6 November 2013 — FK v Commission
IO C 9, 11.1.2014, p. 24–24
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
11.1.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 9/24 |
Action brought on 6 November 2013 — FK v Commission
(Case T-248/13)
2014/C 9/39
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: FK (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Grieves, Barrister, and J. Carey, Solicitor)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 14/2007 of 10 January 2007 amending for the 74th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 (OJ L 6, p.6) insofar as it applies to the applicant, and Commission’s decision of 6 March 2013 to maintain the listing; |
— |
Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
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 contested decision was not taken promptly or within a reasonable time period. |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to meaningfully evaluate for itself whether the applicant satisfied the relevant criteria. In particular, the applicant states that the Commission: (a) failed to seek and/or obtain the underlying evidence for the allegations; (b) failed to ensure the statement of reasons was coterminous with the reason relied upon by the United Nations Sanctions Committee and failed to seek and/or obtain sufficient detail of the allegations such as to permit the applicant to answer such effectively; (c) failed to assess whether any of the allegations are based upon material tainted by torture; and (d) failed to seek and/or obtain any relevant exculpatory material. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to apply the correct burden and standard of proof. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the statement of reasons relied upon by the Commission is legally defective in that: (a) none of the allegations are supported by evidence thereby failing to demonstrate the allegations are well founded; (b) some allegations are insufficiently precise such as to enable to the applicant to effectively challenge the allegations; (c) some allegations are so historic and/or vague such as to fail to rationally connect to the relevant criteria; and (d) some allegations are inconsistent with exculpatory material. |
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to perform a proportionality exercise, balancing the fundamental rights of the applicant with the actual current risk he is said to pose. |