CELEX: 62011TN0550
Language: en
Date: 2011-10-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-550/11: Action brought on 19 October 2011 — Assaad v Council

17.12.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 370/27
            
         Action brought on 19 October 2011 — Assaad v Council
   (Case T-550/11)
   2011/C 370/45
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Nizar Assaad (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: G. Martin, Solicitor, M. Lester and A. Sutton, Barristers)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 1) and Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, insofar as the name of the applicant has been added to the Annex to the Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 (1) and to Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 (2);
            
         
               —
            
            
               In the alternative, and without prejudice to the previous head of claim, the deletion of the words ‘finances Shabiha in the region of Latika’ inserted in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 and to Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the applicant’s basic fundamental human rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection, as:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant was not informed in advance of his inclusion in the contested measures, and was not even informed when the contested measures were promulgated;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant had no notice of the allegations against him or of his proposed inclusion in these measures, and had no right to be heard in a process in which allegations against him could be properly put, responded to and rigorously tested; and
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           The contested measures provide no procedure for communicating to the applicant the evidence on which the decision to freeze the assets was based, or for enabling him to comment meaningfully on that evidence before a tribunal or court able to assess and test his comments and evidence against him.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for his inclusion, as:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant was given no reasons in advance of publication of the contested measures;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           The ‘grounds for listing’ do not provide the applicant with sufficient information to make it possible for him to know why the defendant considers that the applicant should be included; and
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           There is no indication at all of the respect in which the applicant is said to be responsible for the repression of civilians in Syria.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed, without justification and proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property, to conduct his business, to reputation, and to private and family life, as:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The contested measures have a marked and long-lasting impact on his fundamental rights; and
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           The contested measures are unjustified in their application to the applicant, and the defendant failed to demonstrate that a total asset freeze and travel ban is the least onerous means of ensuring any legitimate objective, nor that the harm to the applicant and his family is justified and proportionate.
                        
                     
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in deciding to apply these restrictive measures to the applicant, as:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           No evaluation has apparently been carried out by the defendant as regard the applicant as to whether he can actually be said to be ‘responsible’ for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           In the alternative, if any such assessment has been carried out, in so far as the applicant is able to comment on it at all, the defendant erred in concluding that there was justification for including the applicant in the restrictive measures.
                        
                     
         
      (1)  Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 11)
   
      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 1).