Action brought on 29 May 2015 – Syria Steel and Al Buroj Trading/Conseil

(Case T-285/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Syria Steel SA (Homs, Syria); and Al Buroj Trading (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: V. Davies, Solicitor, and T. Eicke, QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

annul Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14), as amended, and/or Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 64, p. 41), in so far as they relate to the applicants;

annul Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), as amended, and/or Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 10), in so far as they relate to the applicants;

order the European Union to compensate the applicants,

order the council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that there is an absence of legal basis for restrictive measures against the applicants and/or a manifest error of assessment, on the basis that there is no rational connection between the applicants and the persons or entities sought to be targeted by the restrictive measures adopted by the Union, namely those who are benefiting from or supporting the Syrian regime.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Council decisions and regulations amount to a breach of the applicants’ fundamental rights as protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and/or the European Convention of Human Rights, including the applicants’ right to a good administration, their right of defence, the duty to give reason and the presumption of innocence, the right to an effective remedy and fair trial, the freedom to conduct a business, and the right to property.

____________