do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-61/19: Action brought on 3 February 2019 — Drex Technologies v Council
Date: 2019-02-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, indemnification, international sanctions, legal person, ownership








C_2019139EN.01006401.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/64






Action brought on 3 February 2019 — Drex Technologies v Council
(Case T-61/19)
(2019/C 139/67)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Drex Technologies (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


Accordingly, order the European Union to pay compensation in respect of all of the harm suffered by the applicant, in the amount determined, in equity, by the General Court;










—


In the alternative, order the appointment of an expert with a view to establishing the scale of the harm suffered by the applicant;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea in law and a plea in the alternative, alleging harm suffered by the applicant for which liability rests with the Council of the European Union.
The main plea alleges that the disputed restrictive measures, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, it is claimed that those measures infringe the obligation to state reasons as provided in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union; and, second, that they in fringe the applicant’s right to property and its right to respect for its reputation. It is claimed that that infringement has directly caused significant non-material and material harm to the applicant consisting, respectively, in (i) damage to its reputation and (ii) breach of contract, loss of equipment and loss of revenue, in respect of which it is entitled to compensation.
The plea in the alternative alleges the existence of a system of strict liability under EU law.
Case T-62/19: Action brought on 3 February 2019 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council
Date: 2019-02-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, indemnification, international sanctions, legal person, ownership








C_2019139EN.01006501.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/65






Action brought on 3 February 2019 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council
(Case T-62/19)
(2019/C 139/68)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Almashreq Investment Fund (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


Accordingly, order the European Union to pay compensation in respect of all of the harm suffered by the applicant, in the amount determined, in equity, by the General Court;










—


In the alternative, order the appointment of an expert with a view to establishing the scale of the harm suffered by the applicant;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea in law and a plea in the alternative, alleging harm suffered by the applicant for which liability rests with the Council of the European Union.
The main plea alleges that the disputed restrictive measures, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, it is claimed that those measures infringe the obligation to state reasons as provided in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union; and, second, that they infringe the applicant’s right to property and its right to respect for its reputation. It is claimed that that infringement has directly caused significant non-material and material harm to the applicant consisting, respectively, in (i) damage to its reputation and (ii) breach of contract, loss of equipment and loss of revenue, in respect of which it is entitled to compensation.
The plea in the alternative alleges the existence of a system of strict liability under EU law.