# C_2013086EN.01002801.xml

| 23.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/28

---

Action brought on 7 February 2013 — Al-Tabbaa v Council

(Case T-74/13)

2013/C 86/47

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mazen Al-Tabbaa (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister, and G. Martin, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21), insofar as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21), insofar as it concerns the applicant;

| — | Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1117/2012 of 29 November 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 9), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1117/2012 of 29 November 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 9), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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 that the defendant committed a manifest error of fact and assessment in deciding to apply these restrictive measures to the applicant and in considering that any of the criteria for listing were fulfilled. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of fact and assessment in deciding to apply these restrictive measures to the applicant and in considering that any of the criteria for listing were fulfilled.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to give the applicant sufficient or adequate reasons for his inclusion in the contested measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to give the applicant sufficient or adequate reasons for his inclusion in the contested measures.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the applicant’s basic fundamental rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the applicant’s basic fundamental rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property, to conduct his business, to reputation, and to private and family life. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property, to conduct his business, to reputation, and to private and family life.

---