CELEX: 62017TN0582
Language: en
Date: 2017-11-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-582/17: Action brought on 22 August 2017 — Boshab and Others v Council

6.11.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 374/41
            
         Action brought on 22 August 2017 — Boshab and Others v Council
   (Case T-582/17)
   (2017/C 374/62)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Évariste Boshab (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo) and 7 other applicants (represented by: P. Chansay-Wilmotte, A. Kalambay Ndaya and P. Okito Omole, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare the restrictive measures at issue to be null and void, namely,
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/904 of 29 May 2017 implementing Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/905 of 29 May 2017 implementing Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo;
                        
                     
         
               —
            
            
               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicants rely, in essence, on a single plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are vaguely reasoned and significantly vitiated by manifest errors of assessment. According to the applicants, the restrictive measures adopted by the Council against them are unfounded in both fact and law. Moreover, the Council committed several irregularities, each capable of justifying the annulment of the contested acts.