- 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-181/08: Action brought on 16 May 2008 — Tay Za v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0181
62008TN0181
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
5.7.2008
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 171/46
(Case T-181/08)
(2008/C 171/87)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Pye Phyo Tay Za (Yangoon, Myanmar) (represented by: D. Anderson QC, M. Lester, Barrister and G. Martin, Solicitor)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
—The annulment of Regulation 194/2008 of 25 February 2008, as a whole or in so far as it concerns the applicant; and
—order that the Council pays the applicant's costs for this action.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant seeks annulment of Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 in so far as it applies to him for four reasons:
First, the applicant contends that the regulation has no proper legal basis. He submits to this end that neither Article 60 EC nor Article 301 EC gives the Council the power to freeze the entirety of a person's funds who is not connected with the military regime of Burma/Myanmar. Second, the applicant claims that the regulation infringes the obligation to state reasons on the basis of Article 253 EC. Namely, the applicant claims that the regulation does not provide any reasons why the applicant has been included in Part J of Annex VI of the said regulation which lists members of the Burmese government and people associated with it. Also, the Common Position No 2006/318/CFSP requiring Member States to prevent the applicant form entering into and transiting through their territories does allegedly not provide any reasons either for the applicant's inclusion in the list, but simply includes him in a list under a heading ‘Persons who benefit from Government Economic Policies’. Third, the applicant submits that the regulation infringes his fundamental rights, since it allegedly interferes in a disproportionate manner with his rights to peaceful enjoyment of his property, to a fair hearing and to effective legal protection. Fourth, according to the applicant the regulation infringes the principle of proportionality.
Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 of 25 February 2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar and repealing Regulation (EC) No 817/2006 (OJ 2008 L 66, p. 1).
Council Common Position No 2006/318/CFSP of 27 April 2006 renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar (OJ 2006 L 116, p. 77) extended until 30 April 2009 by Council Common Position 2008/349/CFSP of 29 April 2008 (OJ 2008 L 116, p. 57).
* * *