CELEX: 62012TN0174
Language: en
Date: 2012-04-17 00:00:00
Title: Case T-174/12: Action brought on 17 April 2012 — Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council

23.6.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 184/18
            
         Action brought on 17 April 2012 — Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council
   (Case T-174/12)
   2012/C 184/33
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank S.A. L. (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: P. Vanderveeren, L. Defalque and T. Bontinck, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation No 55/2012 of 23 January 2012 and point 27 of the annex to that regulation in so far as the applicant has been added to Annex II to Council Regulation 36/2012 of 18 January 2012;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul Article 1 of Implementing Decision 2012/37/CFSP and point 27 of the annex to that decision in so far as the applicant has been added to Annex II to Decision 2011/273;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul, in so far as necessary; the Council’s decision (in the form of a letter) of 24 January 2012;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Council to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               By its first plea in law, the applicant alleges a manifest error of assessment of its involvement in the financing of the Syrian Regime, since the Council failed to prove the applicant’s involvement in the financing of that regime, either prior to or since adopting the contested measures.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               By its second plea in law it alleges an infringement of the rights of the defence, of the right to a fair hearing and to effective judicial protection as a result of the failure to organise a hearing when adopting the contested measures, and by the Council’s implicit refusal to furnish evidence justifying the nature and severity of the sanction.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               The third plea in law alleges a lack of sufficient and precise reasoning, in that the Council merely provided vague and general considerations without stating the specific and concrete reasons why it considered that the applicant needed to be made subject to restrictive measures.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               By its fourth plea in law, the applicant claims that there were insufficiencies surrounding the adoption of the contested measures, in so far as the Council failed to set out therein the fundamental rights and principles which European Union law grants to the addresses of those measures, and in so far as those measures were adopted on the basis of Article 215 TFEU, which the applicant regards as devoid of any democratic guarantees.