Case T-383/11: Action brought on 21 July 2011 — Makhlouf v Council
Date: 2011-07-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, import restriction, international sanctions, judicial proceedings








C_2011282EN.01003002.xml










24.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/30





Action brought on 21 July 2011 — Makhlouf v Council
(Case T-383/11)
2011/C 282/62
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Eyad Makhlouf (Damas, Syria) (represented by: P. Grollet and G. Karouni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul Council Implementing Decision 2011/302/CFSP of 23 May 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, to the extent that it affects the applicant in that it infringes fundamental rights;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing. The applicant submits that his rights of the defence have been infringed since the sanctions at issue have been applied to him, without his having previously been heard, having the opportunity of defending himself or having any knowledge of the basis on which those measures have been taken.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. The applicant complains that the Council has taken restrictive measures affecting him, without having informed him of the grounds thereof in order to enable him to defend himself. The applicant argues that the defendant gave information merely in a general and stereotypical manner without giving precise details the factual and legal elements which form the legal justification for its decision or the considerations which led it to adopt that decision.










3.


Third plea in law, concerning the merits of the reasoning. The applicant submits that the Council relied on a manifestly incorrect reasoning and that it used a synthesis thereof, such that it could not be regarded as adequate in law.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the guarantee in respect of the right to effective legal protection. The applicant submits that not only was he unable effectively to make his views known to the Council, but, in the absence of any indication in the contested decision of specific and concrete grounds justifying that decision, nor was he in a position to avail himself of a right of action before the General Court.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of proportionality.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of property, since the restrictive measures and, more precisely, the measure freezing funds, disproportionately affecting the applicant’s fundamental right to use his assets as he sees fit.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of privacy, since the measures freezing funds and restricting his freedom from restraint also disproportionately affect the applicant’s fundamental right.