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-157/19: Action brought on 8 March 2019 –Șanli v Council

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TN0157

62019TN0157

March 8, 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 172/36

(Case T-157/19)

(2019/C 172/50)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Dalokay Șanli (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Gürses, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/24 of 8 January 2019 and Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 of 8 January 2019, and

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law: the placing of the PKK on the list is no longer justified since the PKK is not a terrorist organisation.

2.Second plea in law: the applicant’s name should not be included on the list since he has never been convicted of terrorism offences or accused of such acts.

3.Third plea in law: there is no evidence that the applicant has carried out terrorist activities or that he can be linked to such activities. There is no evidence behind the allegation that he carried out recruiting and financing activities.

4.Fourth plea in law: the fundamental rights of defence of the applicant and the right to effective judicial protection have been breached in so far as he has not been able to defend himself against the allegations made against him.

5.Fifth plea in law: the Council measures at issue are insufficiently reasoned considering that supporting evidence for the imposition of a sanction is lacking.

6.Sixth plea in law: Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP has been infringed in so far as no precise information or material in the relevant file indicating that a decision was taken by a competent authority within the meaning of that article has been produced.

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