CELEX: 62019TN0157
Language: en
Date: 2019-03-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-157/19: Action brought on 8 March 2019 –Șanli v Council

20.5.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 172/36
            
         
      Action brought on 8 March 2019 –Șanli v Council
      (Case T-157/19)
      (2019/C 172/50)
      Language of the case: Dutch
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Dalokay Șanli (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Gürses, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: Council of the European Union
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the General Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/24 of 8 January 2019 and Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 of 8 January 2019, and
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Council to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law: the placing of the PKK on the list is no longer justified since the PKK is not a terrorist organisation.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law: the applicant’s name should not be included on the list since he has never been convicted of terrorism offences or accused of such acts.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law: there is no evidence that the applicant has carried out terrorist activities or that he can be linked to such activities. There is no evidence behind the allegation that he carried out recruiting and financing activities.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law: the fundamental rights of defence of the applicant and the right to effective judicial protection have been breached in so far as he has not been able to defend himself against the allegations made against him.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law: the Council measures at issue are insufficiently reasoned considering that supporting evidence for the imposition of a sanction is lacking.
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  Sixth plea in law: Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP has been infringed in so far as no precise information or material in the relevant file indicating that a decision was taken by a competent authority within the meaning of that article has been produced.