# C_2016350EN.01001801.xml

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/18

---

Appeal brought on 1 August 2016 by HX against the judgment delivered on 2 June 2016 in Case T-723/14 HX v Council

(Case C-423/16P)

(2016/C 350/23)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: HX (represented by: S. Koev)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present appeal to be admissible and well-founded, and hold all the pleas it contains to be well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present appeal to be admissible and well-founded, and hold all the pleas it contains to be well-founded;

| — | declare that the contested legal act can be partially annulled; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested legal act can be partially annulled;

| — | annul the part of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 2 June 2016 in Case T-723/14 HX v Council of the European Union in which HX’s claim was rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the part of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 2 June 2016 in Case T-723/14 HX v Council of the European Union in which HX’s claim was rejected;

HX

Council of the European Union

| — | annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 amending Decision 2013/255 (OJ 2015 L 132, p. 82), by which the Council extended the validity of Decision 2013/255 until 1 June 2016, in so far as it concerns HX; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 amending Decision 2013/255 (OJ 2015 L 132, p. 82), by which the Council extended the validity of Decision 2013/255 until 1 June 2016, in so far as it concerns HX;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs, expenses and fees etc incurred by the appellant in connection with its legal representation. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs, expenses and fees etc incurred by the appellant in connection with its legal representation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | Error in the application of the law, resulting in an infringement of EU law: since the decision, in relation to which the claim was rejected, was not personally served on the appellant, although the Council was aware of his address, it is to be accepted that the modification of the claims in connection with those legal acts is admissible and took place within that time-limit. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Error in the application of the law, resulting in an infringement of EU law: since the decision, in relation to which the claim was rejected, was not personally served on the appellant, although the Council was aware of his address, it is to be accepted that the modification of the claims in connection with those legal acts is admissible and took place within that time-limit.

| 2. | Error in the application of the law, resulting in an infringement of the rules of procedure which adversely affects the interests of the appellant in the following ways:






  — | The absence of a separate written claim does not infringe the rights of the opposing party or render the Court’s work more difficult; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Error in the application of the law, resulting in an infringement of the rules of procedure which adversely affects the interests of the appellant in the following ways:

—

The absence of a separate written claim does not infringe the rights of the opposing party or render the Court’s work more difficult;

| — | The Court failed to take account of the language of the case, since the Bulgarian version of the Rules of Procedure does not necessarily require a separate document. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Court failed to take account of the language of the case, since the Bulgarian version of the Rules of Procedure does not necessarily require a separate document.

| — | Infringement of the adversarial principle set out in Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure, since the Court did not give the appellant the opportunity to familiarise itself with the decision of the Council itself or with the other language versions of the Rules of Procedure, so as to be in a position to prepare its claim in accordance with the linguistic knowledge and expectations of the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the adversarial principle set out in Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure, since the Court did not give the appellant the opportunity to familiarise itself with the decision of the Council itself or with the other language versions of the Rules of Procedure, so as to be in a position to prepare its claim in accordance with the linguistic knowledge and expectations of the Court.

| — | The Court failed to comply with its obligations under Article 86(4) of the Rules of Procedure, which required the provision of a possibility, and where necessary an additional deadline, for the presentation of a copy of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 justifying the modification of the claim. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Court failed to comply with its obligations under Article 86(4) of the Rules of Procedure, which required the provision of a possibility, and where necessary an additional deadline, for the presentation of a copy of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 justifying the modification of the claim.

| — | The Court infringed Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure by failing to fully examine the circumstances of the case in its preliminary report. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Court infringed Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure by failing to fully examine the circumstances of the case in its preliminary report.

---