Order — ECLI:EU:T:2017:128
Date: 2017-02-28
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber, Extended Composition
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible;Application to intervene - decision unnecessary
Origin: Greece

Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NF v European Council (Case T-192/16) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: NF (Lesbos Island, Greece) (represented by: B. Burns, Solicitor) Defendant: European Council Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul the agreement between the European Council and Turkey dated 18th March 2016 entitled « EU-Turkey statement, 18th March 2016 »; order that the applicant’s legal costs are paid. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging that the agreement between the European Council and Turkey dated 18th March 2016 entitled « EU-Turkey statement, 18th March 2016 », is incompatible with EU fundamental rights, particularly Articles 1, 18 and 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Second plea in law, alleging that Turkey is not a safe third country in the sense of Article 36 of Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13-34). Third plea in law, alleging that Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (OJ L 212, 7.8.2001, p. 12-23) should have been implemented. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the challenging agreement is in reality a binding Treaty or “act” having legal effects for the Applicant and that the failure to comply with Article 218 TFUE and/or Article 78.3 TFUE, either together or separately, render the challenged agreement invalid. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the prohibition of collective expulsion in the sense of Article 19.1 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union is breached. ____________