Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2022 –Haikal v Council
(Case C‑113/21 P) (1)
(Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic – Measures directed against leading businesspersons operating in Syria – Lists of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Proof that the inclusion of the appellant’s name on those lists is well founded – Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)
1.      Appeal – Grounds – Lack of specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning – Failure to indicate the paragraphs of the judgment under appeal that are contested – Manifest inadmissibility
(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169(2))
(see paras 26-29, 32, 44, 45)
2.      Appeal – Grounds – Plea raised for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility
(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)
(see paras 30-32)
3.      Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the facts or evidence have been distorted – Failure to observe the rules of evidence – Question of law amenable to judicial review on appeal
(Art. 256(1), second subpara., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)
(see paras 33, 38-40)
4.      Judicial proceedings – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings – Conditions – Plea based on matters which have come to light in the course of the procedure – None – Inadmissibility
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 127(1) and 190(1))
(see para. 35)
5.      Appeal – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility
(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)
(see para. 37)
6.      Common foreign and security policy – Specific restrictive measures against certain persons and bodies in view of the situation in Syria – Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Regulation No 36/2012 – Presumption of support for the Syrian regime in the case of leading businesspersons operating in Syria – Whether permissible – Conditions
(Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2015/1836, Arts 27(2)(a) and 28(2)(a))
(see para. 41)
Operative part
1.
The appeal is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.
2.
Mr Maen Haikal shall pay, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union.
1 OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.