Action brought on 28 October 2011 - Anbouba v Council

(Case T-563/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Issam Anbouba (Homs, Syria) (represented by: M.-A. Bastin and J.-M. Salva, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

Declare this application admissible in all its elements;

Declare it well founded in all its pleas in law;

State that the contested acts may be annulled in part since the part of the acts which is to be annulled can be separated from the act as a whole;

Accordingly

Annul in part Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011, Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Regulation No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria by deleting the listing of Mr Issam Anbouba and references to him as supporting the current regime in Syria;

Failing that, annul Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011, Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Regulation No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria;

Failing that, declare those decisions and the regulation inapplicable as regards Issam Anbouba and order the removal of his name and references from the list of persons who are the object of sanctions by the European Union;

Order the Council provisionally to pay one euro in damages as compensation for the non-pecuniary and pecuniary harm suffered by reason of the designation of Mr Issam Anbouba as a supporter of the current regime in Syria;

Order the Council to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging:

firstly, infringement of the principle of the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and by Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and

secondly, a manifest error of assessment, since the accusations against the applicant do not rest on objective facts but on mere allegations connected with his social status as a businessman.

Second plea in law, divided into four parts, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing, of the duty to state reasons, of the right to a private life and the right to freedom of religion, since:

the applicant has not been sent any evidence or serious indications which could have led to his inclusion in the list of persons subject to sanction and was not heard before the adoption of the contested acts;

the defendant merely used a very general form of words in the contested acts, in particular without stating reasons, when drawing up the restrictive measures against the applicant;

the adoption of restrictive measures against the applicant has given rise to strong reactions and threats from persons or groups which are victims of the Syrian repression with which the applicant has been associated following the contested acts;

the true reason for the adoption of the restrictive measures against the applicant is religious in nature.

____________