CELEX: 62012TN0336
Language: en
Date: 2012-08-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-336/12: Action brought on 1 August 2012 — Klizli v Council

22.9.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 287/37
            
         Action brought on 1 August 2012 — Klizli v Council
   (Case T-336/12)
   2012/C 287/67
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Yousef Klizli (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: Z. Garkova-Lyutskanova, lawyer)
   
      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 two pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           that the applicant was wrongfully enlisted as a person who provides financial support to the regime.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           that the contested Council’s acts were issued in the absence of any legal basis and infringe the duty to state reasons, the right to a fair hearing, the right to an effective judicial protection and the right to property; further they are in breach of the principle of proportionality and violate the applicant’s good name.