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-160/19: Action brought on 14 March 2019 — LTTE v Council

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TN0160

62019TN0160

March 14, 2019
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 155/54

(Case T-160/19)

(2019/C 155/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (Herning, Denmark) (represented by: A. van Eik and T. Buruma, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 (1) insofar as it concerns the applicant.

In the alternative, the applicant submits that a lesser measure than continued placement on the EU List of Terrorist Organizations is warranted in this case.

The applicant additionally seeks an award of costs interest to be paid with interest by the Council and which will be specified at a later stage.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant since the latter cannot be qualified as a terrorist organization as defined in Article 1(3) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. (2)

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant since no decision by a competent authority, as required by Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, has been taken.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant since the Council has not conducted any proper review as required by Article 1(6) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant as it does not comply with the requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant as it does not comply with the obligation to state reasons in conformity with Article 296 TFEU.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant since it infringes upon the applicant’s rights of defence and its right to effective judicial protection.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 of 8 January 2019 amending and updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2018/1084 (OJ L 6, 9.1.2019, p. 6).

(2) Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 93).

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