CELEX: 62016TN0384
Language: en
Date: 2016-07-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-384/16: Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Tri-Ocean Trading/Council

5.9.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 326/30
            
         Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Tri-Ocean Trading/Council
   (Case T-384/16)
   (2016/C 326/53)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Tri-Ocean Trading (George Town, Cayman Islands) (represented by: P. Saini, QC, R. Mehta, Barrister, and N. Sheikh, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul, insofar as it applies to the applicant, Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125),
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul, insofar as it applies to the applicant, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 30), and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.
            
         
      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 failure to fulfil the ground for inclusion in the annex to the challenged decision and regulation as specified by Article 28(1) of Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (the ‘original decision’) and by Article 15(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (the ‘original regulation’).
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of rights of defence and right to effective judicial protection.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons, in both the challenged decision and the challenged regulation.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s right to property and reputation.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.