# C_2019172EN.01003602.xml

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/36

---

Action brought on 8 March 2019 –Șanli v Council

(Case T-157/19)

(2019/C 172/50)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Dalokay Șanli (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Gürses, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/24 of 8 January 2019 and Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 of 8 January 2019, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/24 of 8 January 2019 and Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 of 8 January 2019, and

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: the placing of the PKK on the list is no longer justified since the PKK is not a terrorist organisation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: the placing of the PKK on the list is no longer justified since the PKK is not a terrorist organisation.

| 2. | Second plea in law: the applicant’s name should not be included on the list since he has never been convicted of terrorism offences or accused of such acts. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: the applicant’s name should not be included on the list since he has never been convicted of terrorism offences or accused of such acts.

| 3. | Third plea in law: there is no evidence that the applicant has carried out terrorist activities or that he can be linked to such activities. There is no evidence behind the allegation that he carried out recruiting and financing activities. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: there is no evidence that the applicant has carried out terrorist activities or that he can be linked to such activities. There is no evidence behind the allegation that he carried out recruiting and financing activities.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: the fundamental rights of defence of the applicant and the right to effective judicial protection have been breached in so far as he has not been able to defend himself against the allegations made against him. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: the fundamental rights of defence of the applicant and the right to effective judicial protection have been breached in so far as he has not been able to defend himself against the allegations made against him.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law: the Council measures at issue are insufficiently reasoned considering that supporting evidence for the imposition of a sanction is lacking. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law: the Council measures at issue are insufficiently reasoned considering that supporting evidence for the imposition of a sanction is lacking.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law: Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP has been infringed in so far as no precise information or material in the relevant file indicating that a decision was taken by a competent authority within the meaning of that article has been produced. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law: Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP has been infringed in so far as no precise information or material in the relevant file indicating that a decision was taken by a competent authority within the meaning of that article has been produced.

---