# C_2011130EN.01002001.xml

| 30.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 130/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/20

---

Action brought on 7 March 2011 — Gossio v Council

(Case T-130/11)

2011/C 130/38

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Marcel Gossio (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: G. Collard, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Marcel GOSSIO, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Marcel GOSSIO, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact,

| — | consequently,






  — | annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

consequently,

—

annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011;

| — | alternatively, order that the name of Mr Marcel GOSSIO be removed from the lists annexed to that regulation and to that decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, order that the name of Mr Marcel GOSSIO be removed from the lists annexed to that regulation and to that decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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 a breach of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the grounds for including the applicant on the list of persons and entities to which the restrictive measures apply are stereotyped without any specific factual element making it possible to assess the relevance of that inclusion being mentioned. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law alleging a breach of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the grounds for including the applicant on the list of persons and entities to which the restrictive measures apply are stereotyped without any specific factual element making it possible to assess the relevance of that inclusion being mentioned.

| 2. | Second plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment, in so far as the applicant, being part of the administration, does not have, in view of his duties, power to recognise the authority of a specific president, but must perform his duties in the continuation of the administration to which he belongs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment, in so far as the applicant, being part of the administration, does not have, in view of his duties, power to recognise the authority of a specific president, but must perform his duties in the continuation of the administration to which he belongs.

---