EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-296/20: Action brought on 12 May 2020 — Foz v Council

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TN0296

62020TN0296

May 12, 2020
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/21

(Case T-296/20)

(2020/C 255/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Amer Foz (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: L. Cloquet, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/212 of 17 February 2020 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), as far as it applies to the applicant;

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/211 of 17 February 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (2), as far as it applies to the applicant; and

sentence the Council to bear the full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those set forth by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging a manifest error in assessing the facts.

The applicant puts forward that the Council made a manifest error in assessing the facts by considering that he is supporting and benefiting from the Assad regime.

2.Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the general principle of proportionality.

The applicant puts forward that the economic consequences of the sanctions taken against him are disastrous and disproportionate compared to the purposes the contested acts.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a disproportionate infringement of the right of ownership and of exercise of a profession.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging an abuse of power.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the rights of defense and of the right to a fair trial.

(1)

OJ 2020 L 43I, p. 6.

(2)

OJ 2020 L 43I, p. 1.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia