Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62012TN0329

    Case T-329/12: Action brought on 23 July 2012 — Al-Tabbaa v Council

    OJ C 273, 8.9.2012, p. 22–22 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    8.9.2012   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 273/22

    Action brought on 23 July 2012 — Al-Tabbaa v Council

    (Case T-329/12)

    2012/C 273/37

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Mazen Al-Tabbaa (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister and G. Martin, Solicitor)

    Defendant: Council of the European Union

    Form of order sought

    —

    Annul Council implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 126, p. 9), insofar as it concerns the applicant;

    —

    Annul Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (JO L 126, p. 3), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

    —

    Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, alleging that the Council, in including the name of the applicant in the lists annexed to the contested measures, has:

    —

    committed a manifest error of fact and assessment in deciding to apply restrictive measures in question to the applicant and considering that any of the criteria for listing were fulfilled;

    —

    failed to give the applicant sufficient or adequate reasons for his inclusion in the lists;

    —

    violated the applicant’s basic fundamental rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection; and

    —

    infringed without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property, to conduct his business, to reputation and to private and family life.
    Top