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-231/15: Action brought on 5 May 2015 — Haswani v Council

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0231

62015TN0231

May 5, 2015
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

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/40

(Case T-231/15)

(2015/C 213/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: George Haswani (Yabroud, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria insofar as it concerns the applicant;

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria insofar as it concerns the applicant;

order, as a result, that Mr George Haswani’s name be removed from the annexes to the above-mentioned acts;

order the Council to pay EUR 700,000 in damages to compensate all forms of loss suffered;

order the Council to pay its own costs and the costs of the applicant, which he reserves the right to justify during the course of 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: the Council violated the applicant’s right of defence, right to a hearing and right to a fair trial.

2.Second plea in law: the Council failed to state reasons to the extent that the reasoning of the contested acts is insufficient and imprecise.

3.Third plea in law: the Council committed a manifest error of assessment and failed to provide evidence to the extent that there are no genuine and reasonable grounds for the restrictive measures taken against the applicant.

4.Fourth plea in law: the Council infringed the general principle of proportionality.

5.Fifth plea in law: the Council should compensate the applicant.

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