Appeal brought on by George Haswani against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 22 March 2017 in Case v

(Case P)

Language of the case:

Parties

Appellant: (represented by: )

Other parties to the proceedings: of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

annul paragraphs 39 to 47 of the judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2017 (Case T-231/15), which declare the application for annulment of Council Decision (PESC) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016, amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria ¹ and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria ² , to be inadmissible, and annul provisions 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the operative part of that judgment;

consequently, order that Mr George Haswani’s name be removed from the annexes to the above-mentioned acts;

disposing of the case, annul Decision 2015/1836 ³ and Implementing Regulation 2015/1828 ⁴ ;

disposing of the case, order the Council to pay EUR 700 000 in damages to compensate all forms of loss suffered;

set aside provisions 4 and 5 of the operative part and paragraphs 91 to 93 of the judgment under appeal in so far as it orders Mr George Haswani to bear two thirds of the costs incurred by the Council as well as the costs related to his own applications;

order the Council to pay the entirety of the costs in accordance with subparagraph 4 of Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law in that, in paragraphs 39 to 47 of its judgment, the General Court declares that, in the light of the requirements of Article 86(4) of its Rules of Procedure, the forms of order seeking the annulment of Decision 2016/850 and of Implementing Regulation 2016/840, submitted by Mr Haswani in his second statement of modification, are inadmissible. That error of law is particularly noticeable in paragraph 45 of the judgment under appeal.

The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law in that, in paragraphs 39 to 47 of its judgment — in particular paragraph 47 — the General Court held that, where the requirements referred to in Article 86(4) of its Rules of Procedure are omitted, it could reject as inadmissible the forms of order sought in the statement of modification, without even considering whether or not the applicant had received a request for rectification of the defects from the Registrar.

The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law in paragraphs 39 to 47 of the judgment under appeal, and more specifically in paragraph 46, in that the General Court considered that it was necessary for Mr Haswani to include in his statement of modification, in addition to the modified forms of order sought, a new presentation of the modified pleas in law.

Fourth, in the context of its power of dispose of the case, the Court can only find that the decision and the 2015 Implementing Regulation (2015/1836 and 2015/1828) are unlawful, according to which funds and economic resources belonging to influential businessmen and women carrying out their activities in Syria are frozen.

____________

¹ OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125.

² OJ 2016 L 141, p. 30.

³ OJ 2015 L 266, p. 75.

⁴ OJ 2015 L 266, p. 1.