Case C-581/11 P: Appeal brought on 22 November 2011 by Muhamad Mugraby against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2011 in Case T-292/09: Muhamad Mugraby v Council of the European Union, European Commission
Date: 2011-11-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU aid, Lebanon, association agreement (EU), fundamental rights, human rights, suspension of aid








C_2012025EN.01003702.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/37






Appeal brought on 22 November 2011 by Muhamad Mugraby against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2011 in Case T-292/09: Muhamad Mugraby v Council of the European Union, European Commission
(Case C-581/11 P)
(2012/C 25/72)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Muhamad Mugraby (represented by: S. Delhaye, Advocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






1.


find that the Commission has failed to act on:






i)


the Applicant's request that the commission submit a recommendation to the Council regarding the suspension of Community assistance for Lebanon as set forth in article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 (1), such measures being both required and available under said Regulation;










ii)


the Applicant's request that the Commission, as the agency directly responsible for implementing the various Union assistance programs for Lebanon, suspend the implementation of these programs pending the resolution of Lebanon's continuing violation of fundamental rights, more specifically those of Applicant;














2.


find that the Council, in its function as part of the EU-Lebanon Association Council, as failed to act on the Applicant's request to invite the Commission to recommend that the Council take specific and effective measures regarding Union assistance for Lebanon under the Association Agreement (2) between Lebanon and the Community, in order to fulfil the parties' obligations under the Agreement;










3.


Find that the EU, the Commission, in its function as guardian of the Treaties and as the agency directly responsible for implementing the various Union assistance programs for Lebanon, and the Council, in its function as part of the EU-Lebanon Association Council, have incurred non-contractual liability for damages suffered by Applicant as a result of their consistent failure from December 2002 onwards to effectively utilize the available resources and instruments towards effective enforcement of the human rights clause in the Association Agreement;










4.


Order the Commission, in part as reparation in kind, to propose to the Council the suspension of the EU-Lebanon Association Agreement, pending the resolution of Lebanon's failures to comply with article 2 of the Association Agreement with regard to Applicant;










5.


Order the Commission to limit the performance of current assistance programs (which are carried out and/or supervised by the Commission) to those programs that are aimed specifically at promoting fundamental rights and which do not constitute financial aid to the Lebanese authorities, pending the resolution of Lebanon's failure to comply with Article 2 of the Association Agreement with regard to Applicant;










6.


Order the Council to invite the Commission to make a recommendation as outlined under (4) above, and to act through the institutions of the Association Agreement to the same end;










7.


Order the EU, Council and Commission, Defendants in the First Instance, to compensate Applicant's material and moral damages, in an amount to be fixed ex aequo et bono at not less than EUR 5 000 000, and to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the contested order should be set aside on the following grounds:






 


The General Court erred in law:






—


In dismissing the application on the grounds of inadmissibility where no grounds for inadmissibility exist;










—


In violating the right of the applicant to name all the defendants;










—


In violating the applicant’s rights of defence by ignoring the arguments put forward by the applicant;










—


In omitting to rule on all of the requests for relief put forward by the applicant;










—


In ignoring EU law and the EU’s obligations under international law, and in basing the order on regulations issued by one of the EU institutions.














 


The applicant also submits that the General Court misinterpreted the EU-Lebanon Association Agreementand that it lacked a legal basis for its interpretation of ‘broad discretion’ and for its finding that it lacked the power to issue orders to the Council of the EU and to the European Commission.










 


As a consequence of the above, the applicant claims that the General Court has denied him justice.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
OJ L 310, p. 1

(2)  Interim agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, on the one part, and the Republic of Lebanon, on the other part (OJ 2002 L 262, p.2)