# C_2015236EN.01004202.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/42

---

Action brought on 10 April 2015 — Mabrouk/Council

(Case T-175/15)

(2015/C 236/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mohamed Marouen Ben Ali Bel Ben Mohamed Mabrouk (Tunis, Tunisia) (represented by: J.-R. Farthouat, J.-P. Mignard and N. Boulay, lawyers, S. Crosby, Solicitor)

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 (CFSP) 2015/157 (OJ 2015 L 26/29) amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 28/62) insofar as they apply to the applicant, these restrictive measures being the freezing of assets in the EU; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/157 (OJ 2015 L 26/29) amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 28/62) insofar as they apply to the applicant, these restrictive measures being the freezing of assets in the EU; and

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

—

order the defendant 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 six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that by their nature, substance and duration, the proceedings against the applicant do not provide the Council with a sufficient basis for the contested act. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that by their nature, substance and duration, the proceedings against the applicant do not provide the Council with a sufficient basis for the contested act.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested act is incompatible with article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Right because it was adopted in breach of the principle of reasonable time within the meaning of said article 47. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested act is incompatible with article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Right because it was adopted in breach of the principle of reasonable time within the meaning of said article 47.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that Tunisia has successfully completed the transition to democracy, as acknowledged by inter alia the Council itself, so that the contested act is devoid of purpose and hence illegal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that Tunisia has successfully completed the transition to democracy, as acknowledged by inter alia the Council itself, so that the contested act is devoid of purpose and hence illegal.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the presumption of innocence and an ongoing infringement of the principle of good administration in which context the contested act infringes this principle and is illegal. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the presumption of innocence and an ongoing infringement of the principle of good administration in which context the contested act infringes this principle and is illegal.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in that the contested act was adopted by reference only to the Council’s foreign policy and security policy objectives to the exclusion of the criminal aspects of the matter and in particular to the facts of the case. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in that the contested act was adopted by reference only to the Council’s foreign policy and security policy objectives to the exclusion of the criminal aspects of the matter and in particular to the facts of the case.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to property. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to property.

---