EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014TN0200

Case T-200/14: Action brought on 27 March 2014  — Ben Ali v Council

OJ C 202, 30.6.2014, p. 23–24 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

30.6.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/23


Action brought on 27 March 2014 — Ben Ali v Council

(Case T-200/14)

2014/C 202/30

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali (Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, France) (represented by: A. de Saint Remy, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

Adopt a measure of organisation of procedure under Article 64 of the General Court’s Rules of Procedure, to ensure that the Commission disclose ‘all documents relating to the adoption’ of the contested regulation;

Annul, firstly, Council Decision 2014/49/CFSP of 30 January 2014 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia and, secondly, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 81/2014 of 30 January 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia;

order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant an overall sum of EUR 1 00  000 in compensation for all forms of damage;

order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 30  000 for legal expenses in support of the application and, in addition, in accordance with Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure for recoverable costs incurred;

order the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-301/11 Ben Ali v Council. (1)


(1)  OJ 2011, C 226, p. 29.


Top