This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0384
Case T-384/16: Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Tri-Ocean Trading/Council
Case T-384/16: Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Tri-Ocean Trading/Council
Case T-384/16: Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Tri-Ocean Trading/Council
OJ C 326, 5.9.2016, p. 30–31
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
5.9.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 326/30 |
Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Tri-Ocean Trading/Council
(Case T-384/16)
(2016/C 326/53)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Tri-Ocean Trading (George Town, Cayman Islands) (represented by: P. Saini, QC, R. Mehta, Barrister, and N. Sheikh, Solicitor)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul, insofar as it applies to the applicant, Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125), |
— |
annul, insofar as it applies to the applicant, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 30), and |
— |
order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the ground for inclusion in the annex to the challenged decision and regulation as specified by Article 28(1) of Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (the ‘original decision’) and by Article 15(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (the ‘original regulation’). |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of rights of defence and right to effective judicial protection. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons, in both the challenged decision and the challenged regulation. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s right to property and reputation. |
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. |