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-86/11: Action brought on 14 February 2011 — Bamba v Council

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0086

62011TN0086

February 14, 2011
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

26.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/11

(Case T-86/11)

2011/C 95/18

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Nadiany Bamba (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: P. Haïk, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

declare Mrs Nadiany BAMBA’s action admissible;

annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire to the extent that it concerns the applicant;

annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire to the extent that it concerns the applicant;

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs in accordance with Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward two pleas in law.

1.First plea in law alleging an infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), in that the contested measures:

do not provide for a procedure allowing the applicant to be guaranteed effective exercise of his rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard and the right to the benefit of a procedure allowing her to effectively request her removal from the list of persons covered by the restrictive measures;

at no time provide for the communication of detailed reasons for the inclusion on the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures;

at no time provide for the interested person to be notified of the methods and time-limits of actions against the decision to include on the list.

2.Second plea in law alleging an infringement of the fundamental right to respect for property enshrined in Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

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