Action brought on 15 April 2019 — Aman Dimashq v Council

(Case T-259/19)

(2019/C 238/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aman Dimashq JSC (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: L. Cloquet and J. Buyle, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 (1), as far as it applies to the applicant;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 (2), as far as it applies to the applicant; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that a manifest error of assessment of the facts was committed by the defendant stating that the applicant would be supporting the Syrian regime and would be benefiting from it, while such view would be plainly unfounded.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that an infringement of the general principle of proportionality was committed and the measures taken in the contested acts would have such effects that they should be regarded as disproportionate in themselves. The economic consequences of the sanctions made against the applicant would be disastrous and disproportionate compared to the purposes the contested acts would be supposed to reach.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that a disproportionate infringement of the right to property and the right to exercise an economic activity was committed, in that the disputed measures would prevent the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of his property and his economic freedom by way of infringing the first additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers. The contested acts would have been adopted with the aim of achieving objectives other than those stated herein, namely targeting the applicant itself instead of the regime for reasons that would be unknown to it, and so they would be vitiated by a misuse of powers.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that an infringement of the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296, paragraph 2, of TFEU was committed. The reasoning given for the contested acts would be, in reality, purely a formality and probably would have not been thought through by the defendant.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that an infringement of the rights of defence and right to a fair trial was committed. The applicant would have never been able to secure a hearing prior imposing the disputed restrictive measures, and since it would have been unable to exercise correctly his rights of defence, including its right to a fair trial, notably guaranteed by Article 6, paragraph 3, of the European Convention of Human Rights and Article 48, paragraph 2, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 18I, 21.1.2019, p. 13).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ L 18I, 21.1.2019, p. 4).