CELEX: 62015TN0708
Language: en
Date: 2015-12-03 00:00:00
Title: Case T-708/15: Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Cham and Bena Properties v Council

15.2.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 59/31
            
         Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Cham and Bena Properties v Council
   (Case T-708/15)
   (2016/C 059/34)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Cham Holding Co. SA (Damascus, Syria), and Bena Properties Co. SA (Damascus) (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 action admissible and well founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               as a consequence, order the European Union to repair all of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant at an amount to be fixed equitably by the Court;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order an expert to be appointed in order to establish the total extent of the harm suffered by 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 their action, the applicants rely on three principal pleas and a subsidiary plea, alleging that they have suffered harm for which the Council of the European Union is liable.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea, alleging the unlawfulness of the measures adopted by the Council, in that the Council has failed to fulfil its duty of care and diligence by basing its decisions to include the applicants on vague and imprecise grounds, notwithstanding the case-law requiring it to justify precisely its decisions, and by overlooking its obligation to have a hearing prior to maintaining the applicants in the lists of sanctions. Moreover, the restrictive measures adopted against the applicants are of an unjustified and disproportionate nature and infringe their right to reputation and their right to property.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea, alleging the non-material harm which the applicants have suffered, in that their inclusion in the lists of sanctions has undermined their reputation.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea, alleging material harm suffered by the applicants because of their inclusion in the lists of persons and entities covered by restrictive measures, in that by that fact they have lost many contracts and many sources of revenue.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea, put forward in the alternative, alleging the strict liability of the European Union for the harm caused to the applicants following their inclusion in the lists of persons and entities covered by the sanctions against Syria.