Action brought on 27 December 2012 - Marouf v Council

(Case T-569/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Soulieman Marouf (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. Davies, Solicitor, T. Eicke, QC, A. Sander, Barrister, and R. Franklin, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (as amended) ("The Council Decision"), in so far as it relates to the applicant;

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 (as amended) and/or Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 944/2012 of 15 October 2012 and/or Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1117/2012 of 29 November 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria ("The Council Regulations"), in so far as they relate to the applicant;

Annul the decision of the Council contained in its letter of 30 November 2012 (Ref No SGS12/013373) "that the applicant should continue to be included in the list of persons and entities that appear in Annexes I and II to Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP and in Annex II and IIa to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 ..." ("the Decision");

Order the European Union to compensate the applicant; and,

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First, the applicant contends that there is an absence of legal basis for restrictive measures against him and/or manifest error of assessment on the basis that there is no rational connection between him and the individuals sought to be targeted by the restrictive measures adopted by the Union namely those who are responsible for the violent repression of the civilian population in Syria.

Second, the applicant claims that there is an absence of legal basis for Article 24 of Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP seeking to prevent his entry into, or transit through, the Member States on the basis of the applicant's rights as a citizen of the EU under Articles 20(2)(a) and 21 TFEU and Directive 2004/38/EC.

Third, that the Council decision and the Council Regulations amount to a breach of the applicant's fundamental rights as protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or the European Convention of human Rights including the applicant's right to human dignity, right to a good administration, right to an effective remedy and a fair trial, right to be presumed innocent and rights of defence, right to respect for his private and family life, home and communications, freedom to conduct a business, and his right to property.

____________