Case T-189/19: Action brought on 3 April 2019 — Haykal v Council
Date: 2019-04-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legality, natural person, ownership, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2019187EN.01008202.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/82






Action brought on 3 April 2019 — Haykal v Council
(Case T-189/19)
(2019/C 187/89)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicant: Maen Haykal (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: Stanislav Koev, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present action to be admissible and well founded in its entirety and declare all the grounds of appeal set out in support of the present appeal to be well founded,










—


declare that the contested acts may be annulled in part,










—


annul in part Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it concerns Maen Haykal,










—


annul in part 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, in so far as it concerns Maen Haykal, and










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay all the applicant’s costs, expenses, fees and other expenditure linked to his defence.





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 failure on the part of the Council to fulfil its obligation to state reasons — Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties — Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection — Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR, Article 215 TFEU and Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment on the part of the Council.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property, of the principle of proportionality and of the freedom to conduct a business — Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a normal life — Articles 2 and 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 3 and 25 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging a serious infringement of the right to the protection of reputation — Article 8 and Article 10(2) of the ECHR.