Case T-830/14: Action brought on 29 December 2014 — Farahat v Council
Date: 2014-12-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, private property, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2015096EN.01002201.xml










23.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 96/22





Action brought on 29 December 2014 — Farahat v Council
(Case T-830/14)
(2015/C 096/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mohamed Farahat (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: P. Saini, QC, B. Kennelly, Barrister, and N. Sheikh, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Decision (EU) No 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 (1) implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measure against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 (2) implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria insofar as they apply to the applicant; and










—


order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to fulfil the ground for inclusion in the Annex of the Decision and Regulation. The applicant submits that:






—


the Council alleges the applicant is Vice-president of Finance and Administration at Tri Ocean Energy and that in view of his position he is responsible for the activities of the entity in supplying oil to the regime,










—


there is no evidence to substantiate that allegation and none has been produced by the Council.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated the applicant's rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection given that the contested measures were adopted without including procedural safeguards to ensure that the applicant was given a full statement of reasons and a guarantee that he would be properly heard.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for his inclusion. The applicant states that the reason is insufficient to enable him to mount an effective challenge to the allegations made against him, or to enable a court to review the lawfulness of the contested decision.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and reputation. The applicant considers that the Council has not demonstrated that the very significant interference with the applicant’s property rights is justified and proportionate.










5.


Fifth plea in law, the Council made a manifest error of assessment in listing the applicant. The applicant contends that:






—


there is no information or evidence available to substantiate that Tri Ocean Energy has in fact provided support to the Syrian regime,










—


there is no information or evidence to suggest that merely by virtue of his role the applicant was responsible for the alleged actions of Tri Ocean Energy.










(1)  Council Implementing Decision 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2014, L 301, p. 36).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2014, L 301, p. 7).