# C_2020255EN.01002101.xml

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/21

---

Action brought on 12 May 2020 — Foz v Council

(Case T-296/20)

(2020/C 255/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Amer Foz (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: L. Cloquet, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/212 of 17 February 2020 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), as far as it applies to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/212 of 17 February 2020 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), as far as it applies to the applicant;

| — | annul 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 (2), as far as it applies to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul 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 (2), as far as it applies to the applicant; and

| — | sentence the Council to bear the full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those set forth by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

sentence the Council to bear the full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those set forth by the applicant.

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 a manifest error in assessing the facts.






  — | The applicant puts forward that the Council made a manifest error in assessing the facts by considering that he is supporting and benefiting from the Assad regime. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error in assessing the facts.

—

The applicant puts forward that the Council made a manifest error in assessing the facts by considering that he is supporting and benefiting from the Assad regime.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the general principle of proportionality.






  — | The applicant puts forward that the economic consequences of the sanctions taken against him are disastrous and disproportionate compared to the purposes the contested acts. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the general principle of proportionality.

—

The applicant puts forward that the economic consequences of the sanctions taken against him are disastrous and disproportionate compared to the purposes the contested acts.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a disproportionate infringement of the right of ownership and of exercise of a profession. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a disproportionate infringement of the right of ownership and of exercise of a profession.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an abuse of power. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an abuse of power.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the rights of defense and of the right to a fair trial. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the rights of defense and of the right to a fair trial.

---

(1)  OJ 2020 L 43I, p. 6.

(2)  OJ 2020 L 43I, p. 1.

---