# C_2019337EN.01000901.xml

| 7.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/9

---

Action brought on 30 July 2019 — Sharif v Council

(Case T-540/19)

(2019/C 337/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ammar Sharif (Damascus, Syria) (represented by J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 of 17 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 of 17 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging manifest error in the assessment of the facts. The applicant takes the view that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment by justifying the measures taken against him on the ground that he is allegedly ‘a leading businessman operating in Syria’ within the meaning of Article 27.2(a) and Article 28.2(a) of Decision 2013/255/CFSP. The applicant disputes that categorisation of ‘leading businessman’ and the rebuttable presumption of association with the Syrian regime which arises from the contested measures. The applicant maintains that he has not connection with the Syrian regime.
  Furthermore, in accordance with Article 27.3 and Article 28.3 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, the applicant rebuts the rebuttable presumption laid down in Article 27.2(a) and Article 28.2(a) of that decision by voluntarily demonstrating that he (i) is not, or is no longer, associated with the Syrian regime, (ii) does not exercise any influence on it, and (iii) does not pose any real risk of circumvention of the restrictive measures taken by the Council in view of the situation in Syria.
  In the applicant’s view, by failing to take into account the rebuttal of that presumption, the Council continues to commit a manifest error of assessment of the facts. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error in the assessment of the facts. The applicant takes the view that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment by justifying the measures taken against him on the ground that he is allegedly ‘a leading businessman operating in Syria’ within the meaning of Article 27.2(a) and Article 28.2(a) of Decision 2013/255/CFSP. The applicant disputes that categorisation of ‘leading businessman’ and the rebuttable presumption of association with the Syrian regime which arises from the contested measures. The applicant maintains that he has not connection with the Syrian regime.

Furthermore, in accordance with Article 27.3 and Article 28.3 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, the applicant rebuts the rebuttable presumption laid down in Article 27.2(a) and Article 28.2(a) of that decision by voluntarily demonstrating that he (i) is not, or is no longer, associated with the Syrian regime, (ii) does not exercise any influence on it, and (iii) does not pose any real risk of circumvention of the restrictive measures taken by the Council in view of the situation in Syria.

In the applicant’s view, by failing to take into account the rebuttal of that presumption, the Council continues to commit a manifest error of assessment of the facts.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging disproportionate infringement of the right of ownership and of the right to carry out a professional activity. The applicant takes the view that, by the sanctions adopted, the Council has inevitably infringed the applicant’s right of ownership, as well as his right to carry out his professional activity, in breach of the first additional protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. According to the applicant, he cannot be prevented from peacefully enjoying his assets and economic freedom, for which reason the contested measures should be annulled in so far as they concern him. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging disproportionate infringement of the right of ownership and of the right to carry out a professional activity. The applicant takes the view that, by the sanctions adopted, the Council has inevitably infringed the applicant’s right of ownership, as well as his right to carry out his professional activity, in breach of the first additional protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. According to the applicant, he cannot be prevented from peacefully enjoying his assets and economic freedom, for which reason the contested measures should be annulled in so far as they concern him.

---