—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

—

annul 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;

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/907 of 29 May 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria;

—

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/1245 of 10 July 2017 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1241 of 10 July 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria;

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/774 of 28 May 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria;

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 of 17 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria;

—

consequently,

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons flowing from the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. The applicant criticises the Council of the European Union on the ground that it merely set out vague and general considerations and failed to state specific and concrete reasons for its view, in the exercise of its discretionary assessment, that the applicant must be subjected to the restrictive measures at issue. Thus, the Council raised no specific and objective factor against the applicant which could justify the measures at issue.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in the interference with fundamental rights. The applicant maintains that the disputed measure must be invalidated inasmuch as it is disproportionate in the light of the objective stated and constitutes excessive interference in the freedom to conduct business and the right to property, enshrined in Articles 16 and 17 respectively of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The disproportion arises from the fact that the measure covers all influential economic activity without any other criterion.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and a lack of evidence. According to settled case-law, the effectiveness of the judicial review, guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter, requires, inter alia, that, as part of the review of the lawfulness of the grounds which form the basis of the decision to list or to maintain the listing of a given person on the lists of persons subject to the sanctions, the Courts of the European Union must ensure that that decision is taken on a sufficiently solid factual basis. In the applicant’s view, the Council’s allegations concerning both the ‘close ties with the regime’ and a supposed role as an intermediary in oil transactions between the regime and ISIL, must be definitively rejected on the ground that they are entirely unfounded and lack any factual basis to substantiate them.

4.

Fourth plea in law, concerning the claim for compensation, in that the imputation of certain serious unproven matters places the applicant and his family in danger, a fact which illustrates the extent of the loss suffered justifying his claim for compensation.