# C_2016371EN.01001301.xml

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/13

---

Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-410/16)

(2016/C 371/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

| — | consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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 infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’), in Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and in Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’), in Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and in Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the Council’s reasoning does not meet the obligation on the institutions of the European Union laid down in Article 6 of the ECHR, Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the Council’s reasoning does not meet the obligation on the institutions of the European Union laid down in Article 6 of the ECHR, Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment with regard to the involvement of the applicant in the financing of the Syrian regime; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment with regard to the involvement of the applicant in the financing of the Syrian regime;

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures impose an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property provided for in Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, his right to respect for his reputation provided for in Articles 8 and 10(2) of the ECHR, the principle of the presumption of innocence provided for in Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, his right to freedom of expression provided for in Article 10 of the ECHR and his right to freedom of movement provided for in Article 2(2) of Protocol No 4 to the ECHR. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures impose an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property provided for in Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, his right to respect for his reputation provided for in Articles 8 and 10(2) of the ECHR, the principle of the presumption of innocence provided for in Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, his right to freedom of expression provided for in Article 10 of the ECHR and his right to freedom of movement provided for in Article 2(2) of Protocol No 4 to the ECHR.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the Council’s Guidelines of 2 December 2005 on implementation and evaluation of restrictive measures (sanctions) in the framework of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (Council document 15114/05 of 2 December 2005). |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the Council’s Guidelines of 2 December 2005 on implementation and evaluation of restrictive measures (sanctions) in the framework of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (Council document 15114/05 of 2 December 2005).

---