# C_2012080EN.01002502.xml

| 17.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/25 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Action brought on 30 January 2012 — Hamcho and Hamcho International v Council

(Case T-43/12)

2012/C 80/43

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Mohamad Hamcho (Damascus, Syria) and Hamcho International (Damascus) (represented by: M. Ponsard, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | allow the present action to be dealt with under an expedited procedure; |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | annul, in so far as these measures relate to the applicants:
—
Decision 2011/273/CFSP, as supplemented and amended to date, including all the decisions cited at point 17 above; —
Regulation No 442/2011, as supplemented and amended to date, including all the regulations cited at point 18 above; —
Decision 2011/782/CFSP, as supplemented and amended to date, in particular by Implementing Decision 2012/37/CFSP, in accordance with point 19 above; —
Regulation No 36/2012, as supplemented and amended to date, in particular by Implementing Regulation No 55/2012, in accordance with point 20 above; | — | Decision 2011/273/CFSP, as supplemented and amended to date, including all the decisions cited at point 17 above; | — | Regulation No 442/2011, as supplemented and amended to date, including all the regulations cited at point 18 above; | — | Decision 2011/782/CFSP, as supplemented and amended to date, in particular by Implementing Decision 2012/37/CFSP, in accordance with point 19 above; | — | Regulation No 36/2012, as supplemented and amended to date, in particular by Implementing Regulation No 55/2012, in accordance with point 20 above; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | Decision 2011/273/CFSP, as supplemented and amended to date, including all the decisions cited at point 17 above; | | | | | | | | |
| — | Regulation No 442/2011, as supplemented and amended to date, including all the regulations cited at point 18 above; | | | | | | | | |
| — | Decision 2011/782/CFSP, as supplemented and amended to date, in particular by Implementing Decision 2012/37/CFSP, in accordance with point 19 above; | | | | | | | | |
| — | Regulation No 36/2012, as supplemented and amended to date, in particular by Implementing Regulation No 55/2012, in accordance with point 20 above; | | | | | | | | |

| — | annul the Council’s decision contained in its letter to the applicants of 21 December 2011, in so far as it maintains their inclusion in the lists at issue; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| - | ----------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-653/11 Jaber v Council.

---