CELEX: 62014TN0592
Language: en
Date: 2014-08-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-592/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Makhlouf v Council

13.10.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 361/16
            
         Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-592/14)
   2014/C 361/22
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation of EUR 10  000 for all the damage suffered by the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      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 contested measures are unlawful, in so far as they (i) infringe the obligation to state reasons laid down by Articles 296 TFEU and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and (ii) infringe the applicant’s right to property laid down by Article 1 of the Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and infringe the right to respect for his good name and reputation, provided for in Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant has suffered damage as a direct causal link to the measures taken by the Council of the European Union.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that a European Union regime of strict liability exists.