do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-123/19: Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Kanyama v Council
Date: 2019-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, arms control, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019139EN.01010101.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/101






Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Kanyama v Council
(Case T-123/19)
(2019/C 139/103)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Célestin Kanyama (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 4 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 4 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;










—


rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.
Case T-121/19: Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Ruhorimbere v Council
Date: 2019-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, arms control, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019139EN.01009902.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/99






Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Ruhorimbere v Council
(Case T-121/19)
(2019/C 139/101)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Éric Ruhorimbere (Mbuji-Mayi, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 12 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 12 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;










—


rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.
Case C-136/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 20 February 2019 — B.M.M., B.M. v État belge
Date: 2019-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age of majority, dependant, family migration, foreign national, infancy, residence permit, rights of the defence








C_2019164EN.01002102.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 20 February 2019 — B.M.M., B.M. v État belge
(Case C-136/19)
(2019/C 164/24)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: B.M.M., B.M.

Defendant: État belge

Questions referred







1.


In order to ensure the effectiveness of EU law and not to render it impossible to benefit from the right to family reunification which, in the second applicant’s submission, is conferred on her by Article 4 of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, (1) must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the sponsor’s child may enjoy the right to family reunification when he attains his majority during the judicial proceedings against the decision which refuses him that right and which was taken when he was still a minor?










2.


Must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 18 of Directive 2003/86/EC be interpreted as precluding an action for annulment, brought against the refusal of a right to family reunification of a minor child, being held to be inadmissible on the ground that the child has attained his majority during the judicial proceedings, since he would be deprived of the possibility of securing a determination of his action against that decision and there would be a breach of his right to an effective remedy?






(1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.
Case C-145/19 P: Appeal brought on 20 February 2019 by Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-358/17: Mubarak v Council
Date: 2019-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Egypt, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019148EN.01002601.xml










29.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/26






Appeal brought on 20 February 2019 by Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-358/17: Mubarak v Council
(Case C-145/19 P)
(2019/C 148/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak (represented by: D. Anderson QC, B. Kennelly QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, G. Martin, C. Enderby Smith, F. Holmey, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






1.


set aside the decision under appeal;










2.


itself give final judgment in this case, annulling the contested acts in so far as they concern the appellant;










3.


in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment, in line with the legal assessment of the Court of Justice; and










4.


order the Council to pay the appellant’s costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the Council was not required to verify that the Egyptian authorities had respected the appellant’s fundamental EU rights.
Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the Council was not required to verify that the judicial proceedings and investigations involving the appellant concern acts that are such as to undermine the rule of law in Egypt.
Third plea of law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the Council had not made a manifest error of assessment in relying on Case No. 8897 (Private Villa Refurbishment Case).
Fourth plea of law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the Council had not made a manifest error of assessment in relying on Case No. 756 (Al-Ahram Establishment Gifts Allegation) and Case No. 53 (Dar El Tahrir Gifts Allegation).