- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-265/11: Action brought on 19 May 2011 — Elmaghraby v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0265
62011TN0265
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
23.7.2011
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 219/19
(Case T-265/11)
2011/C 219/30
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Ahmed Alaeldin Amin Abdelmaksoud Elmaghraby (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: D. Pannick, QC (Queen's Counsel), R. Lööf, Barrister, and M. O'Kane, Solicitor)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
—Annul, in so far as it concerns the applicant, Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 63);
—Annul, in so far as it concerns the applicant, Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 4), implementing Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP;
—Order the defendant to pay damages in sum of EUR 5 000; and
—Order the defendant to bear the applicant’s costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that Article 29 TEU is an erroneous and/or insufficient legal basis for Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP, as:
—The aforementioned Decision does not pursue a foreign policy objective;
—The adoption of such Decision (and of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011) constitutes an abuse of power; and
—The inclusion of the applicant in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP (and the corresponding Regulation) was irrational.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant within the ambit of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 violates his right to effective judicial protection.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant within the ambit of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 violates the principle of proportionality.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant has suffered damages as a direct result of the adoption of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011, which fall to be made good by the Union.