- 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-175/15: Action brought on 10 April 2015 — Mabrouk/Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0175
62015TN0175
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
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 236/42
(Case T-175/15)
(2015/C 236/57)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Mohamed Marouen Ben Ali Bel Ben Mohamed Mabrouk (Tunis, Tunisia) (represented by: J.-R. Farthouat, J.-P. Mignard and N. Boulay, lawyers, S. Crosby, Solicitor)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/157 (OJ 2015 L 26/29) amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 28/62) insofar as they apply to the applicant, these restrictive measures being the freezing of assets in the EU; and
—order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that by their nature, substance and duration, the proceedings against the applicant do not provide the Council with a sufficient basis for the contested act.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the contested act is incompatible with article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Right because it was adopted in breach of the principle of reasonable time within the meaning of said article 47.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that Tunisia has successfully completed the transition to democracy, as acknowledged by inter alia the Council itself, so that the contested act is devoid of purpose and hence illegal.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the presumption of innocence and an ongoing infringement of the principle of good administration in which context the contested act infringes this principle and is illegal.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in that the contested act was adopted by reference only to the Council’s foreign policy and security policy objectives to the exclusion of the criminal aspects of the matter and in particular to the facts of the case.
6.Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to property.