- 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-285/11: Action brought on 6 June 2011 — Gooré v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0285
62011TN0285
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
13.8.2011
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 238/21
(Case T-285/11)
2011/C 238/38
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Charles Kader Gooré (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: F.L. Meynot, lawyer)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul in part Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, as regards the inclusion of the name of Mr Charles Kader Gooré in the list in Annex II thereto (and declare that it is inapplicable to him);
—order the Council of the European Union to pay damages to Mr Charles Kader Gooré in the amount of fifty thousand euros (EUR 50 000) by way of compensation for the harm suffered;
—order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of his action:
1.The first plea in law alleges infringement of essential procedural requirements. The applicant criticises the Council of the European Union, first, of failing to provide a statement of reasons and, second, of infringing the principle of proportionality, in that the restrictive measures go beyond what is necessary for achieving the objectives pursued by the Council of the European Union.
2.The second plea in law alleges infringement of the treaties. The applicant criticises the Council of the European Union, first, of infringing the rights of the defence in that all of the evidence in support of a measure were never communicated to the applicant and, second, of infringing the right to property.