—

find the disputed acts unlawful, namely paragraphs (2)(b) and (3) of Article 27 and Article 28 of Decision 2013/255, as amended by Decision 2015/1836, and paragraph 1a(b) of Article 15 of Regulation No 36/2012, and declare them inapplicable vis-à-vis the applicant, in so far as those provisions concern him;

—

annul, in so far as those acts concern the applicant,

—

order the Council to pay EUR 10 000 in damages to compensate all forms of loss;

—

order the Council to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant, of which supporting evidence can be shown during the proceedings.

1.

First plea in law based on a plea of illegality directed against the listing criterion concerning persons related to members of the Assad or Makhlouf families referred to in paragraph 2(b) of Article 27 and Article 28 of Decision 2013/255, as amended by Decision 2015/1836 and paragraph 1a(b) of Article 15 of Regulation No 36/2012. The applicant notes that his name has been maintained on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures which appears in Annex I to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2023/1035, and Annex II of Council Regulation (EU) 36/2102, implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1027, concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, on the grounds that he is: ‘related to a member of the Makhlouf family (brother-in-law of [Mr] Rami Makhlouf)’. He therefore maintains that those provisions constitute the legal basis of the disputed acts and that there is a direct link between the former acts of general application, which adversely affect the applicant, and the latter, which constitute the disputed acts.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the lack of a sufficient factual basis and a manifest error of assessment. The applicant alleges that the Council maintained his name on the lists at issue by reference to a person whose change of situation is, however, notorious and known to all. He considers that, by making his fate depend on that of Mr Rami Makhlouf, whose situation the Council has chosen not to review or update according to the evolution of the context in Syria, the Council is seriously harming his interests. The applicant also maintains that the Council does not really take account of his personal situation. The applicant asserts that he severed all association with the activities alleged against him, with the result that, in the absence of any evidence or body of evidence making the existence of a grievance against him reasonably credible, other than the circumstance of a family link with a member of the Makhlouf family, the maintenance of his name on the lists of the disputed acts is not justified.