CELEX: C2006/048/65
Language: en
Date: 2006-02-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-299/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  18 November 2005  — Selmani v Council and Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Council common positions — Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Action for annulment — Manifest lack of jurisdiction — Time-limits — Admissibility)

25.2.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 48/33
            
         Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 November 2005 — Selmani v Council and Commission
   (Case T-299/04) (1)
   
   (Common foreign and security policy - Council common positions - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Action for annulment - Manifest lack of jurisdiction - Time-limits - Admissibility)
   (2006/C 48/65)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant(s): Abdelghani Selmani (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: C. Ó Briain, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant(s): Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan and D. Canga Fano, Agents) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and C. Brown, Agents)
   Application for
   primarily, annulment of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restricted measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70) and Article 1 of Council Decision 2004/306/EC of 2 April 2004 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2003/902/EC (OJ 2004 L 99, p. 28) and all decisions adopted by the Council on the basis of Regulation No 2580/2001 and having the same effect as Decision 2004/306, in so far as those measures apply to the applicant,
   Operative part of the Order
   
               1.
            
            
               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The applicant shall pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.