CELEX: 62016TN0461
Language: en
Date: 2016-08-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-461/16: Action brought on 19 August 2016 — Kaddour v Council

17.10.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 383/19
            
         Action brought on 19 August 2016 — Kaddour v Council
   (Case T-461/16)
   (2016/C 383/26)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Khaled Kaddour (Damas, Syrie) (represented by: V. Davies and V. Wilkinson, Solicitors and R. Blakeley, Barrister)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as they relate and/or refer to the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Council to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the contested measures (i) are an abuse of process and so a misuse of powers; and (ii) amount to a breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights as protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or the European Convention of Human Rights in regard to the applicant’s right to good administration and right to an effective remedy and a fair trial.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 66 TFUE.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures amount to a breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights as protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or the European Convention of Human Rights in regard to the applicant’s rights to respect for his reputation and peaceful enjoyment of his property and the principle of proportionality.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures violate the principle of non-discrimination.