Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2024/5832

7.10.2024

(Case T-412/24)

(C/2024/5832)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Hafez Makhlouf (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: T. Bontinck and G. Karouni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/1510 (1) of 27 May 2024 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name on the list in Annex I to Decision 2015/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013;

—annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1517 (2) of 27 May 2024 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name on the list in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012;

—declare that the Council has incurred non-contractual liability and order it to pay the sum of EUR 100 000;

—order the Council to pay the costs.

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 errors of assessment by the Council. The applicant claims that the Council made errors of assessment by maintaining him on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures on the basis of Article 28(2)(b) of Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Article 15(1a)(b) of Regulation (EU) 36/2012 (‘criterion b’), respectively, and on the basis of Article 28(2)(d) of Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Article 15(1a)(d) of Regulation (EU) 36/2012. As regards more specifically criterion b, the applicant seeks, in support of his plea alleging an error of assessment, an interpretation consistent with that criterion. Should the Court not adopt that consistent interpretation, he raises, in the alternative, a plea of illegality against that provision.

2.Second plea in law, alleging an infringement by the Council of its obligation of periodic review. The applicant claims that the Council failed to fulfil its obligation of periodic review by overlooking changes to his individual situation and to the general situation in Syria.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of fundamental rights. The applicant claims that the acts for which annulment is sought are inappropriate and excessive and he alleges a disproportionate interference with his fundamental rights.

(1) OJ L 2024/1510.

(2) OJ L 2024/1517.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5832/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

* * *

—