CELEX: 62009TB0102
Language: en
Date: 2011-09-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-102/09: Order of the General Court of 1 September 2011 — Elosta v Commission (Action for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Out of time — No force majeure — No excusable error — Inadmissibility)

29.10.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 319/20
            
         Order of the General Court of 1 September 2011 — Elosta v Commission
   (Case T-102/09) (1)
   
   (Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Out of time - No force majeure - No excusable error - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 319/41
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Abdelrazag Elosta (Pinner, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Grieves and A. McMurdie, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Paasivirta and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)
   
      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Szostak, G. Étienne, M.-M. Josephides and E. Finnegan, Agents
   
      Re:
   
   Application for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 of 22 December 2008 amending for the 103rd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2002 L 345, p. 60), in so far as it concerns the applicant.
   
      Operative part of the order
   
   
               1.
            
            
               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Abdelrazag Elosta is ordered to pay his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               The Council of the European Union is ordered to pay its own costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.