Action brought on 3 October 2014 – Tri-Ocean Trading v Council

(Case T-709/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tri-Ocean Trading (George Town, Cayman Islands) (represented by: P. Saini, QC, B. Kennelly, Barrister, and N. Sheikh, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/488/CFSP of 22 July 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 793/2014 of 22 July 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria insofar as they apply to the Applicant; and

order the Defendant 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.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to fulfil the criterion for listing, namely that the person concerned was “responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria”, or a person “benefiting from or supporting the regime”, or a person associated with any such person. The Council failed to establish that the reasons relied on against the entity concerned were well founded.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the applicant’s rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection. The applicant has at no stage been given “serious and credible evidence” or “concrete evidence and information” in support of a case which would justify restrictive measures against it, as required by the case law of the Court.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for his inclusion.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council severely infringed the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and reputation. The restrictive measures were imposed without proper safeguards enabling the applicant to put his case effectively to the Council. The Council has not demonstrated that the very significant interference with the applicant’s property rights is justified and proportionate. The interference with the applicant extends beyond a financial impact, and has also resulted in damage to its reputation.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment. Contrary to the sole reason for his inclusion, there is no information or evidence available that the applicant has in fact provided “support to the Syrian regime” and to have benefited from the regime.