CELEX: 62012CN0239
Language: en
Date: 2012-05-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-239/12 P: Appeal brought on 18 May 2012 by Abdulbasit Abdulrahim against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2012 in Case T-127/09: Abdulbasit Abdulrahim v Council of the European Union, European Commission

7.7.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 200/8
            
         Appeal brought on 18 May 2012 by Abdulbasit Abdulrahim against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2012 in Case T-127/09: Abdulbasit Abdulrahim v Council of the European Union, European Commission
   (Case C-239/12 P)
   2012/C 200/14
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Abdulbasit Abdulrahim (represented by: H.A.S. Miller, Solicitor, E. Grieves, Barrister)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant seeks the following order if successful on both pleas:
   
               —
            
            
               the Order of the General Court dated 28.2.12 is quashed
            
         
               —
            
            
               it is declared that the action for annulment is not devoid of purpose
            
         
               —
            
            
               the matter be remitted back to the General Court for it to determine the annulment application
            
         
               —
            
            
               the Commission do pay the costs of this appeal and the costs in the General Court below, including those of making representations upon the Court's invitation.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The Appellant bases his appeal on the following two pleas in law:
   
               —
            
            
               that the General Court erred when it failed to:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           hear from the Advocate-General, and/or;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           invite representations from the appellant as to whether the application for annulment was devoid of purpose, and/or;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           open the oral procedure on the question of whether the application for annulment was devoid of purpose.
                        
                     
         
               —
            
            
               the General Court erred in finding that the action for annulment was not capable of conferring material advantage upon the appellant.