CELEX: 62019CN0261
Language: en
Date: 2019-03-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-261/19P: Appeal brought on 26 March 2019 by Cham Holding Co. SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 January 2019 in Case T-413/16 Cham v Council

3.6.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 187/50
            
         
      Appeal brought on 26 March 2019 by Cham Holding Co. SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 January 2019 in Case T-413/16 Cham v Council
      (Case C-261/19P)
      (2019/C 187/54)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: Cham Holding Co. SA (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)
      
         Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellant submits that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  Declare the appeal admissible and well founded;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 16 January 2019, Cham v Council, T-413/16;
               
            And, giving judgment itself,
      
                  —
               
               
                  Annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and its subsequent implementing acts, in so far as they concern the appellant;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.
               
            
         Grounds of appeal and main arguments
      
      The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law in that the General Court disregarded the applicant’s right, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be heard prior to the adoption of new restrictive measures.
      The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law and distortion of the facts in that the General Court disregarded the items submitted by the applicant in support of its action for annulment to demonstrate that it did not support the Syrian regime.
      The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law in so far as the General Court did not hold that Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, according to which membership of the Al-Assad or Makhlouf families constitutes an autonomous criterion justifying the imposition of sanctions, were illegal and in so far as it, on the same occasion, reversed the burden of proof.