do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-285/15: Action brought on 29 May 2015 — Syria Steel and Al Buroj Trading/Conseil
Date: 2015-05-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, damage, economic sanctions, human rights, international sanctions, ownership, right of establishment, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2015302EN.01005601.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/56





Action brought on 29 May 2015 — Syria Steel and Al Buroj Trading/Conseil
(Case T-285/15)
(2015/C 302/72)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Syria Steel SA (Homs, Syria); and Al Buroj Trading (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: V. Davies, Solicitor, and T. Eicke, QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14), as amended, and/or Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 41), in so far as they relate to the applicants;










—


annul Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), as amended, and/or Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 10), in so far as they relate to the applicants;










—


order the European Union to compensate the applicants,










—


order the council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that there is an absence of legal basis for restrictive measures against the applicants and/or a manifest error of assessment, on the basis that there is no rational connection between the applicants and the persons or entities sought to be targeted by the restrictive measures adopted by the Union, namely those who are benefiting from or supporting the Syrian regime.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Council decisions and regulations amount to a breach of the applicants’ fundamental rights as protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and/or the European Convention of Human Rights, including the applicants’ right to a good administration, their right of defence, the duty to give reason and the presumption of innocence, the right to an effective remedy and fair trial, the freedom to conduct a business, and the right to property.
Case C-250/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 29 May 2015 — Vivium SA v Belgische Staat
Date: 2015-05-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, appeal to an administrative authority, constitutional court, infringement of EU law, judgment of the Court (EU)








C_2015262EN.01000901.xml










10.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 29 May 2015 — Vivium SA v Belgische Staat
(Case C-250/15)
(2015/C 262/12)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vivium SA

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Does EU law, and in particular the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, preclude the application of legislation of a Member State on the basis of which the administrative or judicial remedies which are available against acts and regulations of administrative authorities based on a national-law provision are not made available in the case where a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, delivered pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (ex Article 234 EC), rules that a national-law provision is incompatible with EU law, whereas every interested party can bring an action for annulment of a national-law provision before the national Constitutional Court in the case where a judgment of the Constitutional Court, concerning a preliminary issue referred by a national court, has determined that that national-law provision is unconstitutional, and the annulling judgment of the Constitutional Court delivered in that action makes available the administrative or judicial remedies that are available to challenge acts and regulations of administrative authorities based on that national-law provision which has been annulled?