Action brought on 13 April 2012 - Georgias and Others v Council and Commission

(Case T-168/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Aguy Clement Georgias (Harare, Zimbabwe); Trinity Engineering (Private) Ltd (Harare); and Georgiadis Trucking (Private) Ltd (Harare) (represented by: M. Robson and E. Goulder, Solicitors, and H. Mercer, Barrister)

Defendants: European Commission and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

Order that the EU and the Commission and/or the Council make good the damage caused, resulting from the application of certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe, by compensating the applicants on the basis of Articles 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU in the following amounts or any other amounts that the Court shall decide:

(i) 469,520.24 euros (EUR) or equivalent to Trinity;

(ii) 5,627,020 euros (EUR) or equivalent to Georgiadis;

(iii) 374,986.57 euros (EUR) or equivalent to Senator Georgias;

(iv) any sum that the Court deems appropriate to compensate Senator Georgias for the non-pecuniary damage claimed;

(v) interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the above sums or any other rate that this Court may award;

Order an inquiry into the level of damage suffered by the applicants, if and to the extend that the Court finds it necessary;

Order the Commission and/or the Council to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the present action, by which damages against the EU for non-contractual liability are claimed, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging

following unlawful actions in the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) 412/2007 of 16 April 2007 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (JO L 101, p. 6):

(i) manifest error of assessment of the facts combined with breaches of the rights of the defence and to an effective judicial remedy;

(ii) misuse of power;

(iii) breach of rights of the defence with regard to the renewals of the asset-freezing measures.

Second plea in law, alleging

that the damage incurred includes:

(i) the loss of specific business opportunities through the extra-territorial application of the asset-freezing measures to all persons concerned doing business in the EU;

(ii) personal stress due to the eventual loss of business in the EU;

(iii) losses arising from the application of the said Regulation to Senator Georgias in May 2007 and upon renewal thereof and leading to pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in consequence of him being excluded from the EU territory and subjected to asset-freezing.

____________