7.9.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/71


Action brought on 29 May 2015 — Hmicho/Conseil

(Case T-275/15)

(2015/C 294/86)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Samir Hmicho (Poole, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. Davies, Solicitor, and T. Eicke, QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims 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), and/or Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 41), and/or Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/784 of 19 May 2015, implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 124, p. 13), in so far as they relate to the Applicant;

annul Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), 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 124, p. 1), and/or Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/780 of 19 May 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 Applicant;

annul the decision of the Council, contained in its letter of 20 May 2015, reference SGS15/06024, confirming the designation of the Applicant and ‘altering the information concerning [the Applicant] as set out in Council Implementing Decision and Regulation’;

order the European Union to compensate the Applicant;

order the Council to pay 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 that there is an absence of legal basis for restrictive measures against him and/or a 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 benefiting from or supporting Syrian regime.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council Decisions 2013/255/CFSP, 2015/383 and 2015/784, the Council Regulations No 36/2012, No 2015/375 and no 2015/780, and/or the Decision dated 20 may 2015 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 good administration, including the right of defence, the duty to give reasons and the presumption of innocence, right to an effective remedy and a fair trial, right to respect for his private and family life, freedom to conduct a business, and his right to property.