Case T-384/24: Action brought on 26 July 2024 – Sharif v Council
Date: 2024-07-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, damages, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_202405642EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5642


30.9.2024






Action brought on 26 July 2024 – Sharif v Council


(Case T-384/24)

(C/2024/5642)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ammar Sharif (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: G. Karouni, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


find the contested acts, namely Article 27(2)(b) and (3) and Article 28 of Decision 2013/255, as amended by Decision 2015/1836, and Article 15(1a)(b) of Regulation No 36/2012, unlawful, and declare them inapplicable vis-à-vis the applicant, in so far as those provisions concern him;










—


annul, in so far as they concern the applicant:






—


Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/1510 (1) of 27 May 2024 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and Annex I thereto;










—


Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1517 (2) of 27 May 2024 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and Annex II thereto;














—


order the Council to pay EUR 10 000 in damages to compensate all forms of loss;










—


under Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is ordered to pay the costs;










—


order the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, 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 four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of defence and the right to a fair trial. The applicant complains that the Council breached his right rights of defence, in particular his right to be heard before the decision was taken to include his name in the disputed lists.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment and a lack of evidence. The Council’s allegations with respect to the existence of an ‘inherent risk that the inherited assets will be used to support the activities of the Syrian regime and will flow directly into the regime’s possession, potentially contributing to the regime’s violent repression of the civilian population’ must be definitively rejected on the ground that they are unfounded and lack any factual basis to support them. The Council did not carry out an objective examination of the situation of the applicant, who has broken his ties with the denounced context.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in the interference with fundamental rights. The contested measure should be declared invalid on the ground that it is disproportionate in the light of the objective pursued by the acts at issue. The disproportion stems in particular from the fact that all the applicant’s assets are concerned, without any distinction.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property. The contested acts unjustifiably interfere with the applicant’s right to property in so far as they include, without distinction, the assets that may be inherited by the applicant as well as personal assets.






(1)  OJ L 2024/1510.

(2)  OJ L 2024/1517.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5642/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)