# C_2012039EN.01002002.xml

| 11.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/20

---

Action brought on 16 December 2011 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

(Case T-651/11)

(2012/C 39/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: J. Pujol, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

| — | consequently, annul Decision 2011/628/CFSP, and Regulation (EU) No 950/2011 (EU) and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul Decision 2011/628/CFSP, and Regulation (EU) No 950/2011 (EU) and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

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 six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law alleging an absence of a legal basis for Decision 2011/628/CFSP (1) due to the repeal of Decision 2011/273/CFSP (2) by Decision 2011/782/CFSP. (3) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law alleging an absence of a legal basis for Decision 2011/628/CFSP (1) due to the repeal of Decision 2011/273/CFSP (2) by Decision 2011/782/CFSP. (3)

| 2. | Second plea in law alleging an absence of a legal basis for Regulation No 950/2011 (4) due to the repeal of Decision 2011/273/CFSP. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law alleging an absence of a legal basis for Regulation No 950/2011 (4) due to the repeal of Decision 2011/273/CFSP.

| 3. | Third plea in law alleging that the contested measures are in breach of the rights of the defence and in particular the right to effective judicial protection provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), Article 215 TFEU and Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law alleging that the contested measures are in breach of the rights of the defence and in particular the right to effective judicial protection provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), Article 215 TFEU and Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law alleging that the defendant failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons, since the reasons provided do not satisfy the obligation imposed on the institutions of the European Union by Article 6 of the ECHR, Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law alleging that the defendant failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons, since the reasons provided do not satisfy the obligation imposed on the institutions of the European Union by Article 6 of the ECHR, Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law alleging that the contested measures impose unwarranted and unjustified restrictions on the applicant’s fundamental rights and in particular its property rights, provided for in Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the ECHR and in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the right to respect for its reputation, provided for in Articles 8 and 10(2) of the ECHR. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law alleging that the contested measures impose unwarranted and unjustified restrictions on the applicant’s fundamental rights and in particular its property rights, provided for in Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the ECHR and in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the right to respect for its reputation, provided for in Articles 8 and 10(2) of the ECHR.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law alleging an adverse effect on competition within the European Union in that the adopted measures will result in a distortion of the normal operation of the telecommunications market within the European Union and thereby adversely affect competition between European operators and in trade between the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law alleging an adverse effect on competition within the European Union in that the adopted measures will result in a distortion of the normal operation of the telecommunications market within the European Union and thereby adversely affect competition between European operators and in trade between the Member States.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 247, p. 17).

(2)  Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 11).

(3)  Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56).

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 950/2011 of 23 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 247, p. 3).

---