Order — ECLI:EU:T:2026:264
Date: 2026-04-14
Language of the case: French

Action brought on 28 March 2025 – Trabelsi v Council (Case T-207/25) Language of the case: French Parties Applicant: Belhassen Ben Mohamed Ben Rhouma Trabelsi (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi, lawyer) Defendant: Council of the European Union Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: declare admissible the requests of Mr Belhassen Ben Mohamed Ben Rhouma Trabelsi; annul the decision of the [Council of the European Union] of 28 January 2025 concerning the restrictive measures to which the applicant is subject; order the Council to pay the applicant EUR 20 000 to cover the payment of his defence costs; order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the audi alteram partem rule and of Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (‘TEU’). The applicant submits that the audi alteram partem rule means that parties to legal proceedings have the right to be notified of and comment on every document submitted in the course of proceedings. That rule applies to all stages of the proceedings. The applicant claims, in addition, that Article 47 of the Charter states that ‘every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially [and] fairly … by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union’. The significance of that results, in particular, in recognition of the Charter as having binding legal force. In that regard, the applicant claims that the Council has systematically renewed restrictive measures in contravention of EU law. The applicant argues that the decision of 28 January 2025 is a political decision by the Council the object of which is unrelated to supporting ‘[Tunisia] and its people in their efforts to establish a stable democracy, the rule of law … and full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms’. Second plea in law, alleging failure to protect judges from pressure from the executive. The applicant submits, on this point, that the right to a fair hearing requires that the courts be independent and impartial. Independence, he argues, requires, in particular, that every judge be protected from undue influence from inside or outside the judicature. The applicant argues that, notwithstanding the fact that European institutions have stated that the Tunisian courts do not meet the requirement of impartiality and independence, the Council did not examine whether the justice system and rule of law in Tunisia met the requirements and objectives of the European Union in its relations with the wider world as established by Article 3 TEU. Consequently, the applicant argues, the Council could not rely on a decision delivered in 2018 by a Tunisian court in order to renew restrictive measures taken against the applicant without undermining the principles on which the European Union is founded. ____________