CELEX: 62019TN0058
Language: en
Date: 2019-01-31 00:00:00
Title: Case T-58/19: Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Othman v Council

15.4.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 139/62
            
         
      Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Othman v Council
      (Case T-58/19)
      (2019/C 139/65)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Razan Othman (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;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  as a consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation for all of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant at an amount to be fixed equitably by the Court;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  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 one main plea and one alternative plea, alleging the harm that she has allegedly suffered and for which the Council of the European Union is liable.
      The main plea alleges that the restrictive measures at issue, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, they infringe the obligation to state reasons as laid down in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, second, they infringe the applicant’s right to property and the right to respect for her reputation. That infringement was the direct cause of significant material and non-material damage to her, consisting respectively of damage to her reputation, on the one hand, and breach of contracts, loss of material and loss of income, on the other, for which she claims to be entitled to compensation.
      The alternative plea is based on the existence of a strict liability regime in the European Union.