# C_2016402EN.01004701.xml

| 31.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/47

---

Action brought on 12 July 2016 — Gaki v Europol

(Case T-366/16)

(2016/C 402/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Anastasia-Soultana Gaki (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: G. Keisers, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | what are the circumstances of the alleged act which the applicant is supposed to have committed according to the terms of the European Arrest Warrant which Greece issued and pursuant to which she has, with the support of Europol, been unlawfully wanted for arrest in the European Union since 2011? The applicant claims a reasoned statement of position; |
| --- | --- |

—

what are the circumstances of the alleged act which the applicant is supposed to have committed according to the terms of the European Arrest Warrant which Greece issued and pursuant to which she has, with the support of Europol, been unlawfully wanted for arrest in the European Union since 2011? The applicant claims a reasoned statement of position;

| — | order the unlawful and incorrect storage of data against her in the Europol information system by the Joint Supervisory Body of Europol (‘the JSB’) to be blocked; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the unlawful and incorrect storage of data against her in the Europol information system by the Joint Supervisory Body of Europol (‘the JSB’) to be blocked;

| — | order the JSB, by exercising its right to access and consult data entered into the SIS II, to review whether, according to the terms of the European Arrest Warrant (‘EAW’), the interference with the applicant’s freedom is permitted; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the JSB, by exercising its right to access and consult data entered into the SIS II, to review whether, according to the terms of the European Arrest Warrant (‘EAW’), the interference with the applicant’s freedom is permitted;

| — | require Europol to ask the Greek State Prosecutor at the Court of Appeal of Athens which State Prosecutor ordered the prolongation of the EAW and hence the arbitrary deprivation of the applicant’s liberty from 23 May 2016, and which of the two national warrants (the EAW is a copy of both) is operative. He must also answer how it is possible that the applicant’s address in Germany appears in the EAW, yet both national warrants (the EAW is a copy of both) were issued against the applicant because the applicant’s address was allegedly unknown to the Greek judicial authorities; |
| --- | --- |

—

require Europol to ask the Greek State Prosecutor at the Court of Appeal of Athens which State Prosecutor ordered the prolongation of the EAW and hence the arbitrary deprivation of the applicant’s liberty from 23 May 2016, and which of the two national warrants (the EAW is a copy of both) is operative. He must also answer how it is possible that the applicant’s address in Germany appears in the EAW, yet both national warrants (the EAW is a copy of both) were issued against the applicant because the applicant’s address was allegedly unknown to the Greek judicial authorities;

| — | the JSB must provide a reasoned answer as to what action Europol undertook after Europol became aware that a criminal complaint had been laid with the Principal Public Prosecutor for Düsseldorf against the Greek State Prosecutor at the Court of Appeal who had issued the EAW against the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

the JSB must provide a reasoned answer as to what action Europol undertook after Europol became aware that a criminal complaint had been laid with the Principal Public Prosecutor for Düsseldorf against the Greek State Prosecutor at the Court of Appeal who had issued the EAW against the applicant;

| — | award her damages in the amount of EUR 3 000 000. |
| --- | --- |

—

award her damages in the amount of EUR 3 000 000.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: infringement of Article 41 of Decision 2007/533/JHA (1) in conjunction with Article 30(7) and Article 31 and 52 of Decision 2009/371/JHA. (2) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: infringement of Article 41 of Decision 2007/533/JHA (1) in conjunction with Article 30(7) and Article 31 and 52 of Decision 2009/371/JHA. (2)

1

2

| 2. | Second plea in law: infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Articles 1, 9 and 23 of Act No 29/2009 of the JSB. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Articles 1, 9 and 23 of Act No 29/2009 of the JSB.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (OJ 2007 L 205, p. 63).

1

(2)  Council Decision of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office (Europol) (OJ 2009 L 121, p. 37).

2

---