# C_2012273EN.01002201.xml

| 8.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/22

---

Action brought on 23 July 2012 — Al-Tabbaa v Council

(Case T-329/12)

2012/C 273/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mazen Al-Tabbaa (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister and G. Martin, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 126, p. 9), insofar as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 126, p. 9), insofar as it concerns the applicant;

| — | Annul Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (JO L 126, p. 3), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (JO L 126, p. 3), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, alleging that the Council, in including the name of the applicant in the lists annexed to the contested measures, has:

| — | committed a manifest error of fact and assessment in deciding to apply restrictive measures in question to the applicant and considering that any of the criteria for listing were fulfilled; |
| --- | --- |

—

committed a manifest error of fact and assessment in deciding to apply restrictive measures in question to the applicant and considering that any of the criteria for listing were fulfilled;

| — | failed to give the applicant sufficient or adequate reasons for his inclusion in the lists; |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to give the applicant sufficient or adequate reasons for his inclusion in the lists;

| — | violated the applicant’s basic fundamental rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection; and |
| --- | --- |

—

violated the applicant’s basic fundamental rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection; and

| — | infringed without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property, to conduct his business, to reputation and to private and family life. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringed without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property, to conduct his business, to reputation and to private and family life.

---