16.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/27

(Case T-178/12)

2012/C 174/45

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mahran Khwanda (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: S. Jeffrey and S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

—Annul paragraph 22 of the Annex to Council Implementing Decision 2012/37/CFSP of 23 January 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 19, p. 33), in so far as it relates to the applicant;

—Annul paragraph 22 of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 55/2012 of 23 January 2012 implementing Article 33(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ L 19, p. 6), in so far as it relates to the applicant;

—Declare Articles 18(1) and 19(1) of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP inapplicable to the applicant;

—Declare Articles 14(1) and 15(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 inapplicable to the applicant;

—Declare that the annulment of paragraph 22 of the Annex to Council Decision 2012/37/CFSP and paragraph 22 of the Annex to Council Regulation (EU) No 55/2012 has immediate effect; and

—Order the Council to pay the cost of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging

—that the substantive criteria for designation under the contested measures are not met in the applicant’s case since there is no legal or factual basis for his designation and that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in this respect; furthermore that the Council designated the applicant on the basis of insufficient evidence;

—that the applicant produced solid evidence in support of his positive claim and that he has in fact taken active steps to prevent pro-Government elements from accessing Kadmous Tansport’s fleet of buses. Whereas the Council failed to produce sufficient evidence to contest these statements.

2.Second plea in law, alleging

—that the designation of the applicant is in violation of his human rights and fundamental freedoms, including his right to respect for his private and family life and to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and/or in violation of the principle of proportionality.

3.Third plea in law, alleging

—that the Council has in any event breached the procedural requirements: (a) to inform the applicant of his designation individually; (b) to give adequate and sufficient reasons for his listing; (c) respect his rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

*

OJ L 319, p. 56

OJ L 16, p. 1