# C_2015089EN.01003901.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/39

---

Action brought on 14 January 2015 — Alkarim for Trade and Industry v Council

(Case T-35/15)

(2015/C 089/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alkarim for Trade and Industry LLC (Tal Kurdi, Syria) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, as regards the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, as regards the applicant;

| — | annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, as regards the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, as regards the applicant;

| — | order the Council to pay all the costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay all the costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing, since it was not possible for the applicant to be heard prior to the adoption of the sanctions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing, since it was not possible for the applicant to be heard prior to the adoption of the sanctions.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error in assessment of the facts. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error in assessment of the facts.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a disproportionate infringement of the right to property and the right to engage in an occupation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a disproportionate infringement of the right to property and the right to engage in an occupation.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are unlawful, since the requirements of Article 32 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP (1) and Articles 14 and 26 of Regulation No 36/2012 (2) are not met in that the applicant did not knowingly and voluntarily participate in any attempts to evade the European or international sanctions. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are unlawful, since the requirements of Article 32 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP (1) and Articles 14 and 26 of Regulation No 36/2012 (2) are not met in that the applicant did not knowingly and voluntarily participate in any attempts to evade the European or international sanctions.

1

2

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging misuse of power, since there is reason to believe, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence, that the dispute measures have been taken with the main purpose of achieving ends other than those stated (market exclusion — favouring other players). |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging misuse of power, since there is reason to believe, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence, that the dispute measures have been taken with the main purpose of achieving ends other than those stated (market exclusion — favouring other players).

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

7.

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

---

(1)  Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14).

1

(2)  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 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1).

2

---