CELEX: 62011TN0579
Language: en
Date: 2011-11-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-579/11: Action brought on 11 November 2011 — Akhras v Council

7.1.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 6/23
            
         Action brought on 11 November 2011 — Akhras v Council
   (Case T-579/11)
   2012/C 6/43
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Tarif Akhras (Homs, Syria) (represented by: S. Ashley and S. Millar, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul paragraph 3 of table A of the Annex to Council decision 2011/522/CFSP insofar as it relates to the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul paragraph 3 of table A of Annex I to Council regulation (EU) no 878/2011 insofar as it relates to the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul paragraph 2 of the table in Annex II to Council decision 2011/628/CFSP insofar as it relates to the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul paragraph 2 of the table in Annex II to Council regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 insofar as it relates to the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Declare Article 4(1) of Council decision 2011/273/CFSP (as amended) inapplicable to the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Declare Article 5(1) of Council regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (as amended) inapplicable to the applicant; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Council to pay the costs of the application.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The substantive criteria for the designation of the applicant are not met and/or the Council designated the applicant on the basis of insufficient evidence to establish that the criteria were met and/or the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not the criteria were met. In particular, the applicant is not responsible for violent repression against the civilian population in Syria, and he has not supported or benefited from the Syrian regime and he is not associated with anyone that is responsible for the violent repression or who has supported or benefited from the Syrian regime. The only allegation made against the applicant is that he has provided economic support for the Syrian regime. This is false.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The designation of the applicant is in manifest violation of his human rights and fundamental freedoms, including his right to respect for his private and family life, to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and ultimately his right to life and/or is in violation of the principle of proportionality.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The Council has in any event breached the procedural requirements: (a) to give the applicant individual notification of his designation, (b) to give adequate and sufficient reasons and (c) to respect the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.