# C_2022463EN.01006001.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/60

---

Action brought on 14 October 2022 — Shammout v Council

(Case T-649/22)

(2022/C 463/88)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Issam Shammout (Damascus, Syria) (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) 2022/1277 of 21 July 2022 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), as far as it applies to the applicant, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/1277 of 21 July 2022 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), as far as it applies to the applicant,

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1275 of 21 July 2022 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, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1275 of 21 July 2022 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,

| — | 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 five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging manifest error in assessing the facts. The Council made a manifest error in assessing the facts by considering that the applicant is a ‘leading business person operating in Syria’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error in assessing the facts. The Council made a manifest error in assessing the facts by considering that the applicant is a ‘leading business person operating in Syria’.

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

2.

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

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

3.

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

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons provided in Article 296(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons provided in Article 296(2) TFEU.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of defence and of the right to a fair trial. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of defence and of the right to a fair trial.

---

(1)  Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/1277 of 21 July 2022 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2022 L 194, p. 15).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1275 of 21 July 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (JO 2022 L 194, p. 8).

---