Action brought on 2 July 2012 - Syria International Islamic Bank v Council
(Case T-293/12)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Syria International Islamic Bank Public Joint-Stock Company (Damas, Syria) (represented by: G. Laguesse and J.-P. Buyle, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
Annul Regulation 2012/544/CFSP implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, as regards the applicant;
Annul Implementing Decision 2012/335/CFSP implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, as regards the applicant;
Order the Council to pay the applicant the provisional amount of EUR 10 000 000 in compensation, without prejudice to any later increase or decrease in that amount;
Order the Council to pay all the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.
1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing, since it was not possible for the applicant to be heard prior to the adoption of the sanctions and the Council refused to give the applicant the opportunity of submitting its arguments in the light of the specific evidence allegedly held by the Council, despite the applicant having asked to do so.
2. Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error in assessment of the facts, since the applicant has not, to its knowledge, following internals checks and inquiries, committed the infringements alleged in the contested measures.
3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, since the consequence of the measures adopted by the Council was the closure of the applicant's financial system representing 90% of its transactions in euros. That made a number of contracts ineffective, made the applicant liable and prevented thousands of Syrian citizens from carrying out different banking and financial transactions.
4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a disproportionate infringement of the right to property and the right to engage in an occupation.
5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are unlawful, since the requirements of Article 23 of Decision 2011/782/CFSP
2 and Articles 14 and 26 of Regulation No 36/2012 were not met in that the applicant did not knowingly and voluntarily participate in any attempts to evade the sanctions.
6. Sixth plea in law, alleging an abuse of power, since the facts of the case lead the applicant to believe that the measures were adopted on grounds other than those stated in the contested measures.
7. Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons, since the reasons given for the contested measures are elliptical and do not refer to specific evidence or to dates which would enable the applicant to identify the financial transactions which it is alleged to have carried out.
____________1 - Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ L 319, p. 56).2 - 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 L 16, p. 1).