EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-74/13: Action brought on 7 February 2013 — Al-Tabbaa v Council

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0074

62013TN0074

February 7, 2013
With Google you find a lot.
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

23.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/28

(Case T-74/13)

2013/C 86/47

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mazen Al-Tabbaa (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister, and G. Martin, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21), insofar as it concerns the applicant;

Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1117/2012 of 29 November 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 9), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

Order the defendant to pay 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 the defendant committed a manifest error of fact and assessment in deciding to apply these restrictive measures to the applicant and in considering that any of the criteria for listing were fulfilled.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to give the applicant sufficient or adequate reasons for his inclusion in the contested measures.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the applicant’s basic fundamental rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property, to conduct his business, to reputation, and to private and family life.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia