# C_2022294EN.01003201.xml

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/32

---

Action brought on 11 May 2022 — Cham Wings Airlines v Council

(Case T-255/22)

(2022/C 294/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cham Wings Airlines LLC (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 Decision (CFSP) 2022/307 of 24 February 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (1), as far as it applies to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/307 of 24 February 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (1), as far as it applies to the applicant;

| — | Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/300 of 24 February 2022 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (2), as far as it applies to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/300 of 24 February 2022 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (2), as far as it applies to the applicant; and

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

—

Order the Council to pay all the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the facts by the defendant in that it took the view that the applicant contributes to activities by the Lukashenka regime that facilitate the illegal crossing of the external borders of the Union, while such view is plainly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the facts by the defendant in that it took the view that the applicant contributes to activities by the Lukashenka regime that facilitate the illegal crossing of the external borders of the Union, while such view is plainly unfounded.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the general principle of proportionality, in that the economic consequences of the restrictive measures made against the applicant are disastrous and disproportionate compared to the purposes the contested acts are supposed to reach, which they fail to do. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the general principle of proportionality, in that the economic consequences of the restrictive measures made against the applicant are disastrous and disproportionate compared to the purposes the contested acts are supposed to reach, which they fail to do.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, in that the reasoning given for the contested acts is purely a formality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, in that the reasoning given for the contested acts is purely a formality.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right of defence and right to a fair trial in that the applicant was never able to secure a hearing prior to the imposing of the disputed restrictive measures, and in that it was unable to exercise correctly his right of defence, including its right to a fair trial, notably guaranteed by virtue of article 6 § 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights and article 48 § 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If such prior hearing had taken place in a timely fashion, the applicant would have been able to inform the Council of its communication of 13 November 2021 to the EU Commission and of the shutdown of its activities in Minsk. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right of defence and right to a fair trial in that the applicant was never able to secure a hearing prior to the imposing of the disputed restrictive measures, and in that it was unable to exercise correctly his right of defence, including its right to a fair trial, notably guaranteed by virtue of article 6 § 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights and article 48 § 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If such prior hearing had taken place in a timely fashion, the applicant would have been able to inform the Council of its communication of 13 November 2021 to the EU Commission and of the shutdown of its activities in Minsk.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 46, p. 97.

(2)  OJ 2022, L 46, p. 3.

---