NEWModern Legal Agent: describe your case, get an answer backed by case law and a draft filing.
Try it for free
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-329/12: Action brought on 23 July 2012 — Al-Tabbaa v Council

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0329

62012TN0329

July 23, 2012

8.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/22

(Case T-329/12)

2012/C 273/37

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

—Annul Council implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 126, p. 9), insofar as it concerns the applicant;

—Annul Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (JO L 126, p. 3), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

—Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, alleging that the Council, in including the name of the applicant in the lists annexed to the contested measures, has:

—committed a manifest error of fact and assessment in deciding to apply restrictive measures in question to the applicant and considering that any of the criteria for listing were fulfilled;

—failed to give the applicant sufficient or adequate reasons for his inclusion in the lists;

—violated the applicant’s basic fundamental rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection; and

—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