# C_2015337EN.01004101.xml

| 12.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/41

---

Action brought on 24 August 2015 — Alsharghawi v Council

(Case T-485/15)

(2015/C 337/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bashir Saleh Bashir Alsharghawi (Johannesburg, South Africa) (represented by: É. Moutet, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision 2015/1333/CFSP of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1323 of 31 July 2015 implementing Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2015/1333/CFSP of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1323 of 31 July 2015 implementing Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council does not have the competence to list the applicant on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures, his name being mentioned neither in United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1970 (2011) and 1973 (2011) nor in its amending Resolutions 2213 (2015) and 2214 (2015). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council does not have the competence to list the applicant on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures, his name being mentioned neither in United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1970 (2011) and 1973 (2011) nor in its amending Resolutions 2213 (2015) and 2214 (2015).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, divided into two parts:






  — | breach of the obligation to state reasons; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, divided into two parts:

—

breach of the obligation to state reasons;

| — | breach of the applicant’s rights of the defence on account of the lack of adversary proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of the applicant’s rights of the defence on account of the lack of adversary proceedings.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of rules of law relating to the application of the EU Treaties, divided into two parts:






  — | breach of the presumption of innocence; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of rules of law relating to the application of the EU Treaties, divided into two parts:

—

breach of the presumption of innocence;

| — | breach of fundamental rights, to the extent that, by imposing restrictive measures on the applicant, the Council undermined his freedom to come and go and his property rights. |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of fundamental rights, to the extent that, by imposing restrictive measures on the applicant, the Council undermined his freedom to come and go and his property rights.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are without merit, to the extent that there is no solid factual basis establishing their relevance. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are without merit, to the extent that there is no solid factual basis establishing their relevance.

---