Case T-479/21: Action brought on 7 August 2021 — Haswani v Conseil
Date: 2021-08-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2021412EN.01002001.xml










11.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 412/20






Action brought on 7 August 2021 — Haswani v Conseil
(Case T-479/21)
(2021/C 412/21)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: George Haswani (Yabroud, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, in so far as these acts affect the applicant:






—


Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/855 of 27 May 2021 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP;










—


Council Implementing regulation (EU) 2021/848 of 27 May 2021 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria;




consequently,










—


order the removal of Mr. George Haswani’s name from the annexes to the abovementioned acts;










—


order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 100 000 in respect of the applicant’s non-pecuniary harm;










—


under Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, pursuant to which the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs, Mr. Haswani requests that the Council bear its own costs and those incurred by him, of which supporting evidence can be shown during the proceedings.





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 the infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair trial. The applicant complains that the Council of the European Union infringed his rights of defence and in particular the right to be heard before the decision maintaining his name on the sanctions lists.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of the obligation to state reasons. The applicant complains that the Council merely set out vague and general considerations and failed to state specific and concrete reasons for its view, in the exercise of its discretionary assessment, that the applicant must be subject to the restrictive measures at issue.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of proportionality in the infringement of fundamental rights. The applicant is of the view in that regard that the measure taken against him is disproportionate in the light of the objective stated and that it constitutes excessive interference with the freedom to conduct business and the right to property, on the ground that that measure covers all influential economic activity without any other criterion.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and a lack of evidence. The applicant claims that, according to consistent case-law, the effectiveness of judicial review requires that, in order to review the legality of the grounds on which the decision to list or maintain the name of a particular person on the lists of persons subject to sanctions, the Courts of the European Union must satisfy themselves that that decision has a sufficiently sound factual basis. However, the Council’s allegations concerning both the ‘close ties with the regime’ and a supposed role as an intermediary in oil transactions between the regime and ISIL are entirely unfounded and should therefore be definitively rejected.










5.


Fifth plea in law, concerning the claim for compensation for the loss suffered.