Appeal brought on 4 August 2022 by Amer Foz against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 18 May 2022 in Case T-296/20, Foz v Council

(Case C-524/22 P)

(2022/C 398/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Amer Foz (represented by: L. Cloquet, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— partly annul the judgement under appeal as far as it has dismissed the appellant’s action for annulment related to the 2021 maintaining acts, as defined therein;

— as a consequence, annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/855 of 27 May 2021 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), as far as it applies to the appellant;

— as a consequence, annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/848 of 27 May 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (2), as far as it applies to the appellant;

— as consequence, order the Council to withdraw the appellant’s name from the annexes to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (3) and to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (4); and

— therefore, sentence the Council to bear the full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those set forth by the appellant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on eight pleas in law:

First, a distortion of the evidence and of the factual circumstances in relation to the Pro-Justice Blog evidence.

Second, a distortion of the evidence and the factual circumstances in relation to the Syria Report evidence.

Third, a distortion of the evidence and of the factual circumstances in relation to the Reuters press article evidence.

Fourth, a distortion of the evidence and of the factual circumstances in relation the ASM International General Trading LLC evidence (the websites Arab News and Al Arabiya).

Fifth, an error in law in the form of a wrong application by the General Court of the Anbouba case-law (judgments of 21 April 2015, Anbouba v Council, C-630/13 P, EU:C:2015:247, and of 21 April 2015, Anbouba v Council, C-605/13 P, EU:C:2015:248) and in particular of the criterion of the set of indicia that are sufficiently specific, precise and consistent.

Sixth, an error in law in the form of a wrong application by the General Court of Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2015/1836 (5) in fine and of Article 15 of Regulation No 36/2012 as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/1828 (6).

Seventh, a distortion of the factual circumstances in relation to the absence of link between the appellant and Mr Samer Foz.

Eighth, an error in law in the form of a wrong application by the General Court of the rules governing the burden of the proof.

(1) OJ 2021 L 188, p. 90.

(2) OJ 2021 L 188, p. 18.

(3) OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14.

(4) OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1.

(5) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1836 of 12 October 2015 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 266, p. 75).

(6) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1828 of 12 October 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 266, p. 1).