16.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/43

(Case T-559/17)

(2017/C 347/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mouhamad Wael Abdulkarim (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

—Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, insofar as it concerns the applicant;

—Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/907 of 29 May 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, insofar as it concerns the applicant;

—Order the Council to pay all the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the facts by the defendant in that it took the view that the applicant has played a part in supporting the Syrian regime. Thus, the following arguments are put forward against the findings made in the contested acts:

—Mr Abdulkarim cannot be classified as an ‘influential businessman’;

—He is not connected with the regime, has no influence over it and does not pose a true risk of circumvention of the restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Syria;

—His past involvement in Alkarim For Trade and Industry L.L.C. or in other companies active in the Middle Eastern petroleum, industrial oils, lubricants and greases sector could not mean either that he should be classified as an ‘important businessman’;

—He does not reside and therefore does not carry on any activities in Syria.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of proportionality, in that the measures taken in the contested acts have such effects that they must be regarded as disproportionate in themselves.

3.Third plea in law, alleging disproportionate infringement of the right to property and the right to work, in that the disputed measures prevent the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of his property and his economic freedom.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers, in that the contested acts were adopted with the aim of achieving objectives other than those stated, namely to remove the applicant from the market in order to favour other operators on that market, and so are vitiated by a misuse of powers.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, in that the reasoning given for the contested acts is, in reality, purely a formality and probably was not thought through by the defendant.