do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-654/11: Action brought on 26 December 2011 — Kaddour v Council
Date: 2011-12-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2012058EN.01001301.xml










25.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/13





Action brought on 26 December 2011 — Kaddour v Council
(Case T-654/11)
2012/C 58/24
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Khaled Kaddour (Damas, Syria) (represented by: M. Ponsard, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Admit this action to be examined under the accelerated procedure;










—


Annul, in so far as those acts refer to the applicant:






—


Decision 2011/273/CFSP as completed and amended to date, including all decisions cited in Chapter 13 of the application;










—


Regulation No 442/2011 as completed and amended to date, including all regulations cited in Chapter 14 of the application;










—


Decision 2011/782/CFSP as completed and amended to date;














—


Order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-653/11 Jaber v Council.
Case T-653/11: Action brought on 26 December 2011 — Jaber v Council
Date: 2011-12-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2012058EN.01001202.xml










25.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/12





Action brought on 26 December 2011 — Jaber v Council
(Case T-653/11)
2012/C 58/23
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Jaber (Lattakia, Syria) (represented by: M. Ponsard, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


admit this action applying an accelerated procedure;










—


annul, in so far as those acts concern the applicant;






—


Decision 2011/273/CFSP as amended and supplemented up to now, including all the decisions cited in Chapter 12 of the application;










—


Regulation No 442/2011 as amended and supplemented up to now, including all the regulations cited in Chapter 13 of the application;










—


Decision 2011/782/CFSP as amended and supplemented up to now;














—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two plea(s) in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of fundamental rights and procedural guarantees, in particular the right to be heard, rights of defence, the obligation to state reasons and the principle of effective judicial protection, in so far as the applicant has not received formal notification of his inclusion on the list of persons sanctioned and in so far as the defendant has not responded to the applicant’s questions and has not explained on what grounds the applicant’s name was added to the lists at issue.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property and the principle of economic freedom, as the contested measures adversely affect the applicant’s commercial activities.