# C_2011186EN.01002902.xml

| 25.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/29

---

Action brought on 20 April 2011 — Rautenbach v Council and Commission

(Case T-222/11)

2011/C 186/55

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Muller Conrad Rautenbach (Harare, Zimbabwe) (represented by: S. Smith QC, M. Lester, Barristers, and W. Osmond, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP of 15 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against Zimbabwe (OJ 2011 L 42, p. 6) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 174/2011 of 23 February 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (OJ 2011 L 49, p. 23), insofar as they apply to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP of 15 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against Zimbabwe (OJ 2011 L 42, p. 6) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 174/2011 of 23 February 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (OJ 2011 L 49, p. 23), insofar as they apply to the applicant; and

| — | Order the defendants to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that neither Commission Regulation (EU) No 174/2011 nor Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP has a valid legal basis since the institutions concerned acted beyond the ambit of their powers. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that neither Commission Regulation (EU) No 174/2011 nor Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP has a valid legal basis since the institutions concerned acted beyond the ambit of their powers.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendants do not have the power to impose these restrictive measures on the applicant; alternatively, his inclusion is based on a manifest error of assessment, as the defendants erred in concluding that the restrictive measures were justified as regards the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendants do not have the power to impose these restrictive measures on the applicant; alternatively, his inclusion is based on a manifest error of assessment, as the defendants erred in concluding that the restrictive measures were justified as regards the applicant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures violate the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial review. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures violate the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial review.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have breached their duty to give reasons, as the statement of reasons given does not comply with such obligation incumbent upon EU institutions. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have breached their duty to give reasons, as the statement of reasons given does not comply with such obligation incumbent upon EU institutions.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures impose an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s fundamental rights, specifically on his property rights, freedom to conduct his business and the right to respect for his reputation and family life. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures impose an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s fundamental rights, specifically on his property rights, freedom to conduct his business and the right to respect for his reputation and family life.

---