# C_2020201EN.01004501.xml

| 15.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/45

---

Action brought on 18 April 2020 — Al-Imam v Council

(Case T-203/20)

(2020/C 201/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maher Al-Imam (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: M. Brillat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | admit the applicant’s action; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit the applicant’s action;

| — | declare unlawful Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, in so far as concerns the applicant; Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as concerns the applicant; Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/211 of 17 February 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as concerns the applicant; Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/212 of 17 February 2020 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare unlawful Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, in so far as concerns the applicant; Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as concerns the applicant; Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/211 of 17 February 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as concerns the applicant; Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/212 of 17 February 2020 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as concerns the applicant;

| — | consequently, annul Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, in so far as it concerns the applicant; Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as concerns the applicant; Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/211 of 17 February 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as concerns the applicant; Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/212 of 17 February 2020 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, in so far as it concerns the applicant; Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as concerns the applicant; Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/211 of 17 February 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as concerns the applicant; Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/212 of 17 February 2020 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as concerns the applicant;

| — | order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 per week from 18 February 2020 to the applicant as compensation for the material damage suffered as a result of the adoption of the contested measures; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 per week from 18 February 2020 to the applicant as compensation for the material damage suffered as a result of the adoption of the contested measures;

| — | order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 15 000 per week from 18 February 2020 to the applicant as compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the adoption of the contested measures; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 15 000 per week from 18 February 2020 to the applicant as compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the adoption of the contested measures;

| — | order the Council to make good any future damage which the applicant will suffer as a result of the adoption of the contested decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to make good any future damage which the applicant will suffer as a result of the adoption of the contested decisions;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs and expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | The first plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights during the procedure for the adoption of the contested acts. That plea is divided into two parts:






  — | First part, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence, that is to say, the right to be heard and the audi alteram partem rule. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The first plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights during the procedure for the adoption of the contested acts. That plea is divided into two parts:

—

First part, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence, that is to say, the right to be heard and the audi alteram partem rule.

| — | Second part, alleging an infringement of the right to an effective judicial remedy. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second part, alleging an infringement of the right to an effective judicial remedy.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the adoption of the contested acts. That plea is divided into two parts:






  — | First part, alleging that there is insufficient evidence to justify the inclusion of the applicant on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the adoption of the contested acts. That plea is divided into two parts:

—

First part, alleging that there is insufficient evidence to justify the inclusion of the applicant on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures.

| — | Second part, alleging distortion of the facts. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second part, alleging distortion of the facts.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging unlawful and disproportionate interference with the applicant’s fundamental rights by reason of the content of the contested acts. That plea is divided into two parts:






  — | First part, alleging an infringement of the right to property. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging unlawful and disproportionate interference with the applicant’s fundamental rights by reason of the content of the contested acts. That plea is divided into two parts:

—

First part, alleging an infringement of the right to property.

| — | Second part, alleging an infringement of the right to private and family life. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second part, alleging an infringement of the right to private and family life.

---