Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62015TN0231

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

OJ C 213, 29.6.2015, p. 40–40 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

29.6.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/40

Action brought on 5 May 2015 — Haswani v Council

(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 7 00  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.
Top