16.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/34

(Case T-477/17)

(2017/C 347/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: George Haswani (Yabroud, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

—Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

—Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria;

—Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

—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;

—Annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/1245 of 10 July 2017 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

—Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1241 of 10 July 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria;

Consequently,

—Order the removal of Mr George Haswani’s name from the annexes to the abovementioned acts;

—Order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 in respect of the applicant’s non-pecuniary harm;

—Order the Council to bear its own costs and to those incurred by the applicant, of which supporting evidence can be shown during the proceedings.

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 infringement of the obligation to state reasons flowing from paragraph 2 of Article 296 TFEU. The applicant complains that the Council of the European Union merely set out vague and general considerations and failed to state specific and concrete reasons for its view, in the exercise of its discretionary assessment, that the applicant must be subjected to the restrictive measures at issue. Thus no specific and objective factor has been raised against the applicant which could justify the measures at issue.

2.Second plea in law, based on the requirement for proportionality in the infringement of fundamental rights. The applicant is of the view that the disputed measures ought to be invalidated since they are disproportionate in the light of the objective stated and they constitute excessive interference in the freedom to conduct business and the right to property, enshrined in Articles 16 and 17 respectively of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The disproportion lies in the fact that the measures cover all influential economic activity without any other criterion.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and a lack of proof, in that the Council took as the basis for its successive reasoning in support of the restrictive measures elements which clearly lack any basis in fact, the facts relied on being without any serious foundation.

4.Fourth plea in law, concerning the claim for compensation, in that the imputation of certain serious unproven allegations places the applicant and his family in danger, which illustrates the extent of the loss suffered justifying his claim for compensation.