Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014TN0723

Case T-723/14: Action brought on 13 October 2014  — HX v Council

OJ C 462, 22.12.2014, p. 28–29 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

22.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/28


Action brought on 13 October 2014 — HX v Council

(Case T-723/14)

(2014/C 462/41)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: HX (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: Stanislav Koyev, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

hold the present action to be admissible and well-founded, and hold all the pleas it contains to be well-founded;

examine the present action under the accelerated procedure;

annul Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 and Council Implementing Decision 2014/488/CFSP of 22 July 2014 in so far as they add the applicant to the list in the annex to Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

annul Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 793/2014 of 22 July 2014 in so far as they add the applicant to the list in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

order the Council to pay the entirety of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to a fair trial:

the applicant was not informed about the contested measures, he was not provided with any credible evidence or indication justifying his inclusion on the list of persons sanctioned, although the Council must bear the burden of proof;

the accusations against the applicant, that he was ‘responsible for violent repression of the civilian population in Syria’ are neither clear nor complete and are based on conjecture.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement to provide reasons:

the contested measures contain only unreasoned allegations;

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to effective judicial protection:

as a result of the unlawful reversal of the burden of proof, the defendant had the possibility of correcting its wrongful and unlawful measures;

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a wrongful assessment of a range of factual errors committed by the Council.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to property, of the principle of proportionality and the freedom to conduct a business:

on the basis of the contested measures, the applicant is unlawfully deprived of the possibility of enjoying his property.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to a normal life because the measures imposed are not compatible with the prohibition on torture and inhumane and degrading punishment or treatment in Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging a serious infringement of the right to the protection of the reputation, provided for in Articles 8 and 10(2) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, because the inclusion of the applicant in the contested measures unlawfully adversely affects his standing in society and with his partners.


Top