# C_2016270EN.01005701.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/57

---

Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Mubarak and others v Council

(Case T-275/16)

(2016/C 270/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak (Cairo, Egypt), Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak (Cairo), Heidy Mahmoud Magdy Hussein Rasekh (Cairo), Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal (Cairo) (represented by B. Kennelly and J. Pobjoy, Barristers, and by G. Martin and M. Rushton, Solicitors)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/411 of 18 March 2016 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2016 L 74, p. 40), insofar as it applies to the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/411 of 18 March 2016 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2016 L 74, p. 40), insofar as it applies to the applicants;

| — | declare that Article 1(1) of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 63) and Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 4) are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the applicants, and, as a consequence, annul the Decision (CFSP) 2016/411, insofar as it applies to the applicants, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that Article 1(1) of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 63) and Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 4) are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the applicants, and, as a consequence, annul the Decision (CFSP) 2016/411, insofar as it applies to the applicants,

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

—

order the Council to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to identify a proper legal base for Article 1(1) of Decision 2011/172/CFSP (the ‘Decision’) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 (the ‘Regulation’). There is no evidence that the Council undertook any review of the legal basis of Article 1(1) of the Decision in adopting Decision (CFSP) 2016/411 (the ‘Contested Decision’), notwithstanding the express obligation to do so under Article 5 of the Decision. The fact that Article 1(1) may have had a valid legal basis when it was first adopted on 21 March 2011 does not provide the provision with an enduring legal basis until 2016 or later. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to identify a proper legal base for Article 1(1) of Decision 2011/172/CFSP (the ‘Decision’) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 (the ‘Regulation’). There is no evidence that the Council undertook any review of the legal basis of Article 1(1) of the Decision in adopting Decision (CFSP) 2016/411 (the ‘Contested Decision’), notwithstanding the express obligation to do so under Article 5 of the Decision. The fact that Article 1(1) may have had a valid legal basis when it was first adopted on 21 March 2011 does not provide the provision with an enduring legal basis until 2016 or later.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 6, read with Articles 2 and 3, TEU and Articles 47 and 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights by the Council’s assumption that the judicial proceedings in Egypt complied with fundamental human rights. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 6, read with Articles 2 and 3, TEU and Articles 47 and 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights by the Council’s assumption that the judicial proceedings in Egypt complied with fundamental human rights.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has made manifest errors of assessment in considering that the criterion for listing the applicants in Article 1(1) of the Decision and Article 2(1) of the Regulation was satisfied. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has made manifest errors of assessment in considering that the criterion for listing the applicants in Article 1(1) of the Decision and Article 2(1) of the Regulation was satisfied.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to provide adequate reasons for re-designating the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to provide adequate reasons for re-designating the applicants.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated the applicants’ right of defence and the right to good administration and effective judicial review. In particular, the Council failed to carefully and impartially examine whether the alleged reasons said to justify re-designation were well founded in light of the representations made by the applicants prior to re-designation. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated the applicants’ right of defence and the right to good administration and effective judicial review. In particular, the Council failed to carefully and impartially examine whether the alleged reasons said to justify re-designation were well founded in light of the representations made by the applicants prior to re-designation.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to protection of property and reputation. The impact of the Contested Decision on the applicants is far-reaching, both as regards to their property, and to their reputation worldwide. The Council has failed to demonstrate that the freezing of the applicants’ assets and economic resources is related to, or justified by, any legitimate aim, still less that it is proportionate to such an aim. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to protection of property and reputation. The impact of the Contested Decision on the applicants is far-reaching, both as regards to their property, and to their reputation worldwide. The Council has failed to demonstrate that the freezing of the applicants’ assets and economic resources is related to, or justified by, any legitimate aim, still less that it is proportionate to such an aim.

---