CELEX: 62011TN0188
Language: en
Date: 2011-04-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-188/11: Action brought on 1 April 2011 — Chiboub v Council

14.5.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 145/38
            
         Action brought on 1 April 2011 — Chiboub v Council
   (Case T-188/11)
   2011/C 145/64
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Mohamed Slim Ben Mohamed Hassen Ben Salah Chiboub (Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Perrot, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011, in so far as it adversely affects Mr CHIBOUB;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 adopted on the basis of Council Implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011, in so far as it adversely affects Mr CHIBOUB;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 of 4 February 2011, adopted on the basis of Council Implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011, in so far as it adversely affects Mr CHIBOUB;
            
         
               —
            
            
               declare in consequence that the Council is to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               The first plea in law alleges an infringement of fundamental rights and in particular the rights of the defence, in so far as Decision 2011/72/CFSP imposes sanctions and causes considerable damage to the applicant without his having first been heard and without his even having been able to make his point of view effectively known thereafter.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The second plea in law alleges infringement of the duty to state reasons, of the right to effective judicial protection and of the presumption of innocence, since the applicant was included in the disputed list without first being heard and without indicating the factual or legal grounds which justified such inclusion.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               The third plea in law alleges a manifest error of assessment, it not being possible to accuse the applicant of misappropriation of funds for the purposes of money laundering, since those funds originated from FIFA by whom the applicant was remunerated from 2006 to 2010 under various contracts.