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 62019TN0056

    Case T-56/19: Action brought on 30 January 2019 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

    OJ C 139, 15.4.2019, p. 61–61 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    15.4.2019   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 139/61

    Action brought on 30 January 2019 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

    (Case T-56/19)

    (2019/C 139/63)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

    Defendant: Council of the European Union

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the General Court should:

    —

    Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

    —

    Accordingly, order the European Union to pay compensation in respect of all of the harm suffered by the applicant, in the amount determined, in equity, by the General Court;

    —

    In the alternative, order the appointment of an expert with a view to establishing the scale of the harm suffered by the applicant;

    —

    Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea in law and a plea in the alternative, alleging harm suffered by the applicant for which liability rests with the Council of the European Union.

    The main plea alleges that the disputed restrictive measures, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, it is claimed that those measures infringe the obligation to state reasons as provided in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union; and, second, that they infringe the applicant’s right to property and its right to respect for its reputation. It is claimed that that infringement has directly caused significant non-material and material harm to the applicant consisting, respectively, in (i) damage to its reputation and (ii) breach of contract, loss of equipment and loss of revenue, in respect of which it is entitled to compensation.

    The plea in the alternative alleges the existence of a system of strict liability under EU law.

    Top