Case C-637/24 P: Appeal brought on 27 September 2024 by Ghada Mhana against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 17 July 2024 in Case T-207/22, Mhana v Council
Date: 2024-09-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, damages, economic sanctions, family, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy








C_202500249EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/249


20.1.2025






Appeal brought on 27 September 2024 by Ghada Mhana against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 17 July 2024 in Case T-207/22, Mhana v Council


(Case C-637/24 P)

(C/2025/249)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Ghada Mhana (represented by: T. Bontinck, M. Brésart, G. Karouni, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 17 July 2024 (T-207/22, EU:T:2024:496) (‘the judgment under appeal’), including in so far as it ordered the appellant to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council;










—


dispose of the action on the merits and annul the contested decisions in so far as they include and maintain the appellant on the lists annexed to those acts, namely:







a)




Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/242 of 21 February 2022 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2022 L 40, p. 26) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/237 of 21 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2022 L 40, p. 6), and












b)




Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1035 of 25 May 2023 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2023 L 139, p. 49) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1027 of 25 May 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2023 L 139, p. 1);















—


order, under Article 268 TFEU, compensation for the damage suffered by the appellant as a result of the adoption of those acts;










—


order the Council to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of her appeal, the appellant puts forward the following grounds of appeal:
In the first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in interpreting and applying the family membership criterion set out in Article 27(2)(b) and Article 28(2)(b) of Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1) and Article 15(1a)(b) of 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, (2) by finding that that criterion is not limited to influential members of the relevant families.
In the first part of the first ground of appeal, the appellant argues that the interpretation thus adopted misconstrues the legislature’s intention and the preamble to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1836 of 12 October 2015 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (3) which established the abovementioned family membership criterion.
In the second part of the first ground of appeal, the appellant also submits that that interpretation fails to observe the principle of proportionality.
In the second ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in interpreting and applying the rebuttal of the presumption established by the family membership criterion.
In the first part of the second ground of appeal, the appellant argues that the General Court’s interpretation makes it impossible to rebut the presumption established by the abovementioned family membership criterion.
In the second part of the second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court’s interpretation constitutes a breach of her right to family life.


(1)  
            OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14.

(2)  
            OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1.

(3)  
            OJ 2015 L 266, p. 75.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/249/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)