- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-643/16: Action brought on 11 September 2016 — Gamaa Islamya Egypte v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0643
62016TN0643
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
14.11.2016
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 419/50
(Case T-643/16)
(2016/C 419/66)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Gamaa Islamya Egypte (Egypt) (represented by: L. Glock, lawyer)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1136 of 12 July 2016 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) 2015/2430 (OJ L 188, 13.7.2016, p. 21), in so far as it concerns Gamaa Islamya Egypte;
—annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1127 of 12 July 2016 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2425 (OJ L 188, 13.7.2016, p. 1) in so far as it concerns Gamaa Islamya Egypte;
—order the Council to pay all the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four plea(s) in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(5) of Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (2001/931/CFSP; OJ 2001, L 344, p. 93; ‘Common Position 2001/931’).
2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Council committed errors as to the accuracy of the allegations made against the applicant.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council committed an error of assessment as to whether the applicant is a ‘terrorist group’.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(6) of Common Position 2001/931.
6.Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons
7.Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection.
8.Eighth plea in law, alleging a failure to authenticate the statement of reasons.