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-306/10: Action brought on 23 July 2010 — Yusef v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0306

62010TN0306

July 23, 2010
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

25.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/20

(Case T-306/10)

()

2010/C 260/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hani El Sayyed Elsebai Yusef (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Grieves, Barrister and H. Miller, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

declare that the Commission’s failure to act and remove the applicant from annex 1 of Council Regulation (EC) 881/2002 was unlawful;

order immediately the Commission to remove the applicant from the said annex;

order that the Commission pays, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the applicant and any sums advanced by way of legal aid by the cashier of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant applies under Article 265 TFEU for the revocation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1629/2005 of 5 October 2005 amending for the 54th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al Qa’ida Network and the Taliban (1) as concerns him.

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

First, he submits that the Commission has failed to independently review the basis of the applicant’s inclusion in annex 1 at any point, or required any reasons for that inclusion.

Second, he claims that the Commission has failed to provide to the applicant any reasons justifying his inclusion in annex 1 in breach of his right to an effective judicial remedy, the right to defend himself and in breach of his rights to property under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Third, he contends that the Commission’s failure to remove the applicant from annex 1 is irrational as there are no reasons available which would satisfy the relevant criteria for inclusion in annex 1 and the United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office stances that the applicant no longer fulfils the relevant criteria.

(1) OJ 2005 L 260 p. 10

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