EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/36

(Case T-834/16)

(2017/C 038/49)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: QC (Lesbos, Greece) (represented by: X. Ladis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Council

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—Annul the ‘EU — Turkey Statement’ of 18 March 2016 which was made public on the same date by means of Press Release 144/16;

—to declare invalid all its conclusions;

—apply the expedited procedure;·

—declare the immediate suspension of the Agreement.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law:

1.The first plea in law is based on the argument that that Agreement constitutes an infringement of essential procedural requirements and substantive law, and also an abuse of power.

2.The second plea in law is based on the official and reliable reports of Amnesty International, which confirm the abovementioned infringement and the humanitarian crisis that the Agreement has brought about.

—The implementation of the Agreement, which the applicant considers to be in reality an international treaty, has caused a systematic failure to apply rules relating to refuges and the direct infringement of the Geneva Convention.

3.The third plea in law is based on the information provided by the Members of the European Parliament constituting the Confederal Group of the European United Left.

—The Agreement commits and continues to commit a ‘serious and continuing infringement’ of the values of the European Union.

4.The fourth plea in law is based on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

—The action relies further on the internationally recognised fact that Turkey is not a ‘safe country’, given the use of torture and mass trials that are in breach of human rights.

5.The fifth plea in law is based on the FEU Treaty.

—It is submitted in the action that what is improperly called a Statement is a manifest infringement of Part Five, Title V of the FEU Treaty on ‘International Agreements’.

6.The sixth plea in law is based on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

—The Agreement is also contrary to international human rights law, including the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, having regard to human dignity and the expressly forbidden ‘mass returns’. Specifically, the action draws attention to the unconscious infringement of or conscious failure to implement the directives, expressly mentioned, on the required response of the EU in the face of the ‘mass influx’ of people to its borders, in particular when those people are vulnerable, and of the directives that regulate the procedure for ensuring international protection and the right of asylum.

7.The seventh plea in law is based on documents from professional and other credible bodies.

—The action also draws attention to the fact that the EU, by means of the agreement at issue, has caused, both in Greece and in Turkey, the formation of an enormous mass of people, who live in conditions of degradation and are completely without rights, where they have not already suffered mistreatment from the security forces.

—Last, the action is based on the claim that that the EU, faced with a human and social catastrophe, has manifestly failed to fulfil its legal, social and international obligations.