EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/59

(Case T-206/22)

(2022/C 237/77)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Sara Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (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 Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/242 of 21 February 2022 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its Annex I;

—Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/237 of 21 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and its Annex II;

—order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 in damages to compensate all forms of loss;

—under Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is ordered to pay the costs. Ms Sara Makhlouf requests that the Council be ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by her, 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 five 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. According to the applicant, the disputed measure must be invalidated, as it is disproportionate in the light of the objective pursued by the contested acts. The disproportion stems, in particular, from the fact that all the assets of the applicant are concerned 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.

5.Fifth plea in law concerning the claim for compensation for the loss suffered.