23.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/28

(Case T-80/13)

2013/C 86/48

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank S.A.L. (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: P. Vanderveeren, L. Defalque and T. Bontinck, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

—Annul Article 25 of Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 and Annex I.b thereto in so far as the applicant appears at No 34 of that annex;

—Annul Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1117/2012 of 29 November 2012 in so far as it has the consequence of maintaining the applicant’s listing in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 by application of Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation No 55/2012 of 23 January 2012 and paragraph 27 of the annex to that regulation;

—Annul, in so far as necessary, the Council’s decision letter of 30 November 2012;

—Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging a lack of sufficient and precise reasons, since the Council merely set out vague and general considerations without indicating the specific and concrete reasons for its belief that the applicant must be made subject to restrictive measures.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, the right to a fair hearing and to effective judicial protection, since the applicant was not heard during the procedure of adoption of the contested acts and because of the Council’s implied refusal to produce the evidence justifying the nature and scope of the penalty.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment as regards the implication of the applicant in the financing of the Syrian regime, since the Council has shown no proof, either before or after adoption of the contested acts, of the applicant’s participation in the financing of that regime.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging defects in the examination carried out by the Council, tainting by illegality the restrictive measures applied by the Council since the Council failed to examine the relevance and basis of the information and evidence on which restrictive measures may be based before adopting them.