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 62015TN0706

    Case T-706/15: Action brought on 2 December 2015 — Makhlouf v Council

    IO C 38, 1.2.2016, p. 73–73 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    1.2.2016   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 38/73

    Action brought on 2 December 2015 — Makhlouf v Council

    (Case T-706/15)

    (2016/C 038/98)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

    Defendant: Council of the European Union

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the General Court should:

    —

    declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

    —

    as a consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation for all the damage suffered by the applicant in an amount to be determined by the Court on an equitable basis;

    —

    order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, claiming that he has suffered damage for which the Council of the European Union is liable. The plea in law relied on is divided into three parts.

    —

    First part, alleging that the measures taken by the Council are unlawful in that, first, the restrictive measures are unjustified and disproportionate and, secondly, they infringe the applicant’s rights to good administration and reputation, and his right to property.

    —

    Second part, claiming that the applicant has suffered non-material damage because of his inclusion on the list of persons and entities covered by the sanctions against Syria.

    —

    Third part, claiming strict liability on the part of the European Union in so far as the measures adopted against the applicant abnormally restrict his fundamental rights.
    Top