28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/54

(Case T-572/11)

(2012/C 25/106)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Samir Hassan (Damas, Syria) (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

—Annul, on the basis of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU):

—Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, insofar as it adds Mr Samir Hassan to the list in the annex to Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

—Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 of 23 August 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, insofar as it adds Mr Samir Hassan to the list in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria;

—Compensate Mr Hassan, on the basis of Articles 268 and 340 TFEU, for the loss caused to him by the adoption against him of the restrictive measures referred to above, as follows:

—Hold that the Council of the European Union is non-contractually liable for the pecuniary harm suffered and which will be suffered in the future and for the non-pecuniary harm;

—Award Mr Hassan the sum of EUR 250 000 per month, with effect from 1 September 2011, in order to compensate him for the pecuniary loss suffered;

—Award Mr Hassan the symbolic sum of EUR 1 in respect of the non-pecuniary loss suffered, and

—Order the Council of the European Union to pay compensation for future non-pecuniary loss;

—In any event, order the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging a manifest error by the Council in its assessment of the facts and an error in law resulting therefrom.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons, of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective legal protection.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property and the principle of proportionality.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the presumption of the applicant’s innocence.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement by the Council of its own guidelines on the implementation and evaluation of restrictive measures in the context of common foreign and security policy.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging a misuse of power by the Council.

7.Seventh plea in law, claiming compensation for the loss caused by the unlawful measures adopted by the Council.