CELEX: 62017TN0506
Language: en
Date: 2017-08-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-506/17: Action brought on 8 August 2017 — Makhlouf v Council

16.10.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 347/38
            
         Action brought on 8 August 2017 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-506/17)
   (2017/C 347/49)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               In consequence, annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 and its subsequent implementing acts, insofar as they concern the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
            
         
      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 that the contested acts infringe the applicant’s rights of the defence, in particular his right to effective judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Article 215 TFEU and Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed the obligation to state reasons, since the reasoning provided does not satisfy the obligation on the EU institutions under Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 296 TFEU and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment committed by the Council as regards the involvement of the applicant in the financing of the Syrian regime.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested acts place an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the fundamental rights of the applicant, in particular on his right to property, enshrined in Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to respect for his reputation, under Articles 8 and 10(2) of the ECHR, to a presumption of innocence, enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and his freedom of movement, guaranteed in Article 2(2) of Protocol No 4 to the ECHR.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the guidelines on implementation and evaluation of restrictive measures (sanctions) in the context of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (Council Document 15114/05 of 2 December 2005).