This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0550
Case T-550/11: Action brought on 19 October 2011 — Assaad v Council
Case T-550/11: Action brought on 19 October 2011 — Assaad v Council
Case T-550/11: Action brought on 19 October 2011 — Assaad v Council
IO C 370, 17.12.2011, p. 27–27
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
17.12.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 370/27 |
Action brought on 19 October 2011 — Assaad v Council
(Case T-550/11)
2011/C 370/45
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Nizar Assaad (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: G. Martin, Solicitor, M. Lester and A. Sutton, Barristers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
— |
Annul Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 1) and Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, insofar as the name of the applicant has been added to the Annex to the Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 (1) and to Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 (2); |
— |
In the alternative, and without prejudice to the previous head of claim, the deletion of the words ‘finances Shabiha in the region of Latika’ inserted in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 and to Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP; and |
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the applicant’s basic fundamental human rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection, as:
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for his inclusion, as:
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed, without justification and proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property, to conduct his business, to reputation, and to private and family life, as:
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in deciding to apply these restrictive measures to the applicant, as:
|
(1) Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 11)
(2) Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 1).