CELEX: 62015CN0136
Language: en
Date: 2015-03-20 00:00:00
Title: Case C-136/15 P: Appeal brought on 20 March 2015 by Mohammad Makhlouf against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 21 January 2015 in Case T-509/11 Makhlouf v Council

21.9.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 311/14
            
         Appeal brought on 20 March 2015 by Mohammad Makhlouf against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 21 January 2015 in Case T-509/11 Makhlouf v Council
   (Case C-136/15 P)
   (2015/C 311/19)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Mohammad Makhlouf (represented by: G. Karouni, avocat)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Set aside the judgment under appeal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               state that the decisions and regulations of the Council of the European Union which are at issue in the present action are null and void in so far as they concern the appellant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Council to pay the appellant’s costs relating the present appeal and to the proceedings before the General Court.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of his appeal, the appellant puts forward a single plea in law alleging an error of law by the General Court in the application of the rules relating to the obligation imposed on the Council.
   More specifically, the appellant alleges that the General Court relied on the Council’s reasoning which is incomplete and unsubstantiated, which prevented him from identifying the actual and specific reasons for his listing. As a consequence, the appellant was not in a position to ensure an adequate defence, since he was unaware of the acts which were alleged against him concerning the repression of demonstrators, or the provision of support to the regime, or benefiting from the regime.
   In addition, the General Court manifestly misstated its obligation to provide reasons by trying to mitigate the Council’s failure to act, by relying, wrongly and for the first time in its judgment, on the fact that the appellant ‘benefits from … the …regime’.
   The fact that the Council’s statement of reasons did not set out clearly and explicitly the acts with which he is charged and which gave rise to the restrictive measure, seriously prejudiced the exercise of the appellant’s rights of defence.