CELEX: 62012TN0329
Language: en
Date: 2012-07-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-329/12: Action brought on 23 July 2012 — Al-Tabbaa v Council

8.9.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 273/22
            
         Action brought on 23 July 2012 — Al-Tabbaa v Council
   (Case T-329/12)
   2012/C 273/37
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Mazen Al-Tabbaa (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister and G. Martin, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul Council implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 126, p. 9), insofar as it concerns the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (JO L 126, p. 3), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, alleging that the Council, in including the name of the applicant in the lists annexed to the contested measures, has:
   
               —
            
            
               committed a manifest error of fact and assessment in deciding to apply restrictive measures in question to the applicant and considering that any of the criteria for listing were fulfilled;
            
         
               —
            
            
               failed to give the applicant sufficient or adequate reasons for his inclusion in the lists;
            
         
               —
            
            
               violated the applicant’s basic fundamental rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               infringed without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property, to conduct his business, to reputation and to private and family life.