Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62011TN0218

Case T-218/11: Action brought on 21 April 2011 — Dagher v Council

SL C 179, 18.6.2011, p. 19–20 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

18.6.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/19

Action brought on 21 April 2011 — Dagher v Council

(Case T-218/11)

2011/C 179/33

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Habib Roland Dagher (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: J.-Y. Dupeux and F. Dressen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 85/2011 of 31 January 2011, in so far as that act relates to him;

—

annul Council Decision 2011/71/CFSP of 31 January 2011, in so far as that act relates to him;

—

order the Council to pay the applicant EUR 40 000 as damages to make good the non-material loss and other damage suffered by 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 a single plea divided into three parts and alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.

—

By the first part of the plea, the applicant argues that the procedure followed by the Council was not of an adversarial nature, in so far as the Council failed to provide, as soon as possible after the publication of the contested measures, information permitting the applicant to understand the reasons for the measures taken in his regard and, later refused the applicant’s subsequent requests for information, which meant that the applicant was deprived of his right to exercise usefully any action of an administrative nature seeking to have those measures lifted;

—

By the second part of the plea, the applicant alleges failure to state reasons, since the grounds set out in the restrictive measures taken against him are unclear and brief, which prevents him from examining the substance of the complaints underlying the sanctions in question;

—

By the third part of the plea, the applicant claims an infringement of the right to effective judicial protection.
Top