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 C-593/10 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2010 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2010 in Case T-85/09: Yassin Abdullah Kadi v European Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010CN0593

62010CN0593

December 16, 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

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/9

(Case C-593/10 P)

2011/C 72/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop, E. Finnegan and R. Szostak, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Yassin Abdullah Kadi, European Commission, French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Set aside the judgment of the General Court in case T-85/09;

Dismiss the respondent's application for the annulment of Commission Regulation 1190/2008 (1) in so far as it concerns him, as unfounded;

Order the respondent to bear the costs of proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this Appeal the Council seeks to challenge several determinations of the General Court. The Council argues that:

The General Court erred in law in considering that the Contested Regulation did not benefit from an immunity of jurisdiction;

In the alternative, the Council argues that:

The General Court misconstrued and misapplied the case-law of the Court of Justice in considering that the review to be carried out should be ‘full and rigorous’ and in requiring the transmission of underlying evidence to the designated person or entity as well as to the Union judicature in order to ensure respect for that person or entity's rights of defence; and

The General Court erred in law in failing to give due regard to the creation by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1904(2009) of the Office of the Ombudsperson.

(1) OJ L 322, p. 25

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