Official Journal of the European Union

EN

Series C

C/2023/57

(Case T-490/23)

(C/2023/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Shahla Makhlouf (Fairfax, Virginia, United States) (represented by: G. Karouni and K. Assogba, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul, in so far as those acts concern the applicant,

—Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1035 of 25 May 2023 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria;

—Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1027 of 25 May 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria;

—order the Council to pay EUR 30 000 in damages to compensate all forms of loss;

—order the Council to bear its own costs and pay 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 breach of the rights of defence and to a fair trial. The applicant claims that the Council infringed her rights of defence, in particular, her right to be heard before the inclusion of her name in the disputed lists.

2.Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and a lack of proof. The applicant argues that the Council’s submissions with respect to the existence of an ‘inherent risk that the inherited assets will be used to support the activities of the Syrian regime and will flow directly into the regime’s possession, potentially contributing to the regime’s violent repression of the civilian population’ must be definitively rejected as they are unfounded and lack any factual basis to support them.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in the interference with fundamental rights. The applicant submits that the disputed measure is disproportionate in so far as it concerns all of her assets without any distinction.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to property. The applicant maintains that the disputed measures cause an unjustified interference with the right to property of the applicant in that they include, without distinction, the assets that may be inherited by the applicant as well as personal assets.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/57/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)