CELEX: 62020TN0296
Language: en
Date: 2020-05-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-296/20: Action brought on 12 May 2020 — Foz v Council

3.8.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 255/21
            
         
      Action brought on 12 May 2020 — Foz v Council
      (Case T-296/20)
      (2020/C 255/27)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Amer Foz (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: L. Cloquet, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: Council of the European Union
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/212 of 17 February 2020 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), as far as it applies to the applicant;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/211 of 17 February 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (2), as far as it applies to the applicant; and
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  sentence the Council to bear the full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those set forth by the applicant.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging a manifest error in assessing the facts.
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              The applicant puts forward that the Council made a manifest error in assessing the facts by considering that he is supporting and benefiting from the Assad regime.
                           
                        
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the general principle of proportionality.
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              The applicant puts forward that the economic consequences of the sanctions taken against him are disastrous and disproportionate compared to the purposes the contested acts.
                           
                        
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging a disproportionate infringement of the right of ownership and of exercise of a profession.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging an abuse of power.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons.
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the rights of defense and of the right to a fair trial.
               
            
         (1)  OJ 2020 L 43I, p. 6.
      
         (2)  OJ 2020 L 43I, p. 1.