CELEX: 62017TN0667
Language: en
Date: 2017-09-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-667/17: Action brought on 21 September 2017 — Alkarim for Trade and Industry v Council

18.12.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 437/33
            
         Action brought on 21 September 2017 — Alkarim for Trade and Industry v Council
   (Case T-667/17)
   (2017/C 437/41)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Alkarim for Trade and Industry LLC (Tal Kurdi, Syria) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul Decision (CFSP) 2017/1245 of 10 July 2017 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, as far as concerns the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1241 of 10 July 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, as far as concerns the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Council to pay all the costs of the action, including those incurred by the applicant.
            
         
      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 a manifest error of assessment of the facts in so far as the Council has not adduced any evidence proving that the applicant is an internationally recognised Syrian conglomerate.
               According to the applicant, that contention is completely flawed and is indicative of the numerous substantive inaccuracies in the Council’s approach.
               In addition, the applicant considers that it has demonstrated that it is not a large company but that it qualifies as a small or medium-sized company under EU law and has no international reputation.
               It is also of the opinion that the Council failed to take into consideration both the judgment of 6 April 2017, Alkarim for Trade and Industry v Council (T-35/15, not published, EU:T:2017:262) and that of 11 May 2017, Abdulkarim v Council (T-304/15, not published, EU:T:2017:327), in which the General Court annulled the sanctions imposed, respectively, against the applicant and Mr Wael Abdulkarim as a result of manifest errors of assessment by the Council.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of proportionality, in so far as:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           the contested measures allegedly result in international trade being closed to the applicant since the latter carries out a substantial part of its activities with European suppliers and customers;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           the contested measures are also allegedly such as to render numerous existing, current contracts inoperative and give rise to the applicant’s contractual and quasidelictual liability with regard to its customers and contracting parties, in an unjustified manner. The applicant regards that sanction as completely disproportionate.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging disproportionate infringement of the right to property and the right to pursue an occupation since, by adopting those sanctions, the Council inevitably infringed the applicant’s right to property and its right to pursue an economic activity, in breach of the First Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The applicant is of the opinion that it cannot be prevented from peacefully enjoying its property and economic freedom, which therefore justifies the annulment of the contested decisions in so far as they concern the applicant.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of power in so far as the measures adopted by the Council have no effect at all on the Syrian regime and in so far as the applicant remained at all times independent of the power in place. Thus, according to the applicant, the sanctions imposed by the Council are unfounded and unsubstantiated, and their intended subject is not the Syrian regime but the applicant alone, for reasons unknown to it.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). In that respect, the applicant claims that the Council’s statement of reasons in support of the contested measures is cryptic and makes no reference to any relevant concrete evidence enabling it to identify the reason for which it is considered to be ‘an internationally recognised Syrian conglomerate associated with Wael Abdulkarim, who is listed as a leading businessperson operating in Syria’.