CELEX: 62018TN0585
Language: en
Date: 2018-09-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-585/18: Action brought on 27 September 2018 — Şanli v Council

3.12.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 436/59
            
         
      Action brought on 27 September 2018 — Şanli v Council
      (Case T-585/18)
      (2018/C 436/82)
      Language of the case: Dutch
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Dalokay Şanli (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 the decision of the Council of 31 July 2018;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  remove the applicant from the list referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001, and
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging breach of essential formal requirements and infringement of the Treaties.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that there has been no evidence submitted in the proceedings proving that the applicant has carried out terrorist act.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant was unable to defend himself adequately in the procedure that led to the contested decision.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision is inadequately reasoned.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision was adopted in infringement of the principles of subsidiarity and of proportionality.
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that Regulation No 2580/2001 is not applicable given that the PKK is not a terrorist organisation.
               
            
                  7.
               
               
                  Seventh plea in law, alleging that the adopted decision is contrary to the principle of proportionality.