- 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-196/11: Action brought on 12 April 2012 — AX v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0196
62011TN0196
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 165/19
(Case T-196/11)
2012/C 165/34
Language in which the application was lodged: French
Parties
Applicant: AX (Polotsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
—The applicant claims that the General Court should:
—Annul Council Decision 2011/69/CFSP of 31 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus, in so far as concerns the applicant;
—Annul Council Regulation No 84/2011 of 31 January 2011 amending Regulation No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus, in so far as concerns the applicant;
—Annul Council Implementing Decision 2011/174/CFSP of 21 March 2011 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus, in so far as concerns the applicant;
—Annul Council Implementing Regulation No 271/2011 of 21 March 2011 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus, in so far as concerns the applicant;
—Order the Council to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant relies on three pleas in law in support of its action.
1.The first plea, alleging an insufficient statement of reasons and breach of the rights of the defence, since the reasons given for the contested measures do not enable the applicant to contest the validity of the measures before the General Court or the latter to review the lawfulness of the measures.
2.The second plea, alleging error of assessment, since there is no factual justification for the contested measures.
3.The third plea, alleging failure to have regard to the principle of proportionality, in particular with regard to the restriction on entry into and transit within the territory of the European Union.