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 62012TN0336

Case T-336/12: Action brought on 1 August 2012 — Klizli v Council

OJ C 287, 22.9.2012, p. 37–37 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

22.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/37

Action brought on 1 August 2012 — Klizli v Council

(Case T-336/12)

2012/C 287/67

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Yousef Klizli (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: Z. Garkova-Lyutskanova, lawyer)

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 two pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging

—

that the applicant was wrongfully enlisted as a person who provides financial support to the regime.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging

—

that the contested Council’s acts were issued in the absence of any legal basis and infringe the duty to state reasons, the right to a fair hearing, the right to an effective judicial protection and the right to property; further they are in breach of the principle of proportionality and violate the applicant’s good name.
Top