CELEX: 62011TN0433
Language: en
Date: 2011-08-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-433/11: Action brought on 2 August 2011 — Makhlouf v Council

1.10.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 290/14
            
         Action brought on 2 August 2011 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-433/11)
   2011/C 290/19
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 and the subsequent measures implementing that decision (and, in particular, Council Decision 2011/302/CFSP of 23 May 2011, which provides for the applicant to be included on the list of persons covered by the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/273/CFSP, and Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 and the subsequent measures implementing it (namely, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 504/2011 of 23 May 2011 and the corrigendum thereto), in so far as they relate to 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: infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’), and by Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the applicant complains that the Council’s reasoning does not meet the obligation on the institutions of the European Union laid down in Article 6 of the ECHR, Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law: the contested measures restrict the applicant’s fundamental rights in an unjustified and disproportionate manner, in particular his right to property, provided for in Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, his right to respect for his good name and reputation, provided for in Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR, his freedom to engage in work and conduct his business provided for in Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, lastly, the principle of the presumption of innocence provided for in Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union