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-218/11: Action brought on 21 April 2011 — Dagher v Council

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0218

62011TN0218

April 21, 2011
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

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/19

(Case T-218/11)

2011/C 179/33

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Habib Roland Dagher (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: J.-Y. Dupeux and F. Dressen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 85/2011 of 31 January 2011, in so far as that act relates to him;

annul Council Decision 2011/71/CFSP of 31 January 2011, in so far as that act relates to him;

order the Council to pay the applicant EUR 40 000 as damages to make good the non-material loss and other damage suffered by the applicant;

order the Council to pay the entirety of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea divided into three parts and alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.

By the first part of the plea, the applicant argues that the procedure followed by the Council was not of an adversarial nature, in so far as the Council failed to provide, as soon as possible after the publication of the contested measures, information permitting the applicant to understand the reasons for the measures taken in his regard and, later refused the applicant’s subsequent requests for information, which meant that the applicant was deprived of his right to exercise usefully any action of an administrative nature seeking to have those measures lifted;

By the second part of the plea, the applicant alleges failure to state reasons, since the grounds set out in the restrictive measures taken against him are unclear and brief, which prevents him from examining the substance of the complaints underlying the sanctions in question;

By the third part of the plea, the applicant claims an infringement of the right to effective judicial protection.

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