# C_2019406EN.01004101.xml

| 2.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/41

---

Action brought on 11 October 2019 – Al-Gaoud v Conseil

(Case T-700/19)

(2019/C 406/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Abdel Majid Al-Gaoud (Giza, Egypt) (represented by: S. Bafadhel, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/1299 of 31 July 2019 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya in so far as it maintains the Applicant’s name on the list in Annexes II and IV to Council Decision 2015/1333/CFSP of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/1299 of 31 July 2019 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya in so far as it maintains the Applicant’s name on the list in Annexes II and IV to Council Decision 2015/1333/CFSP of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1292 of 31 July 2019 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya in so far as it maintain the Applicant’s name on the list in Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1292 of 31 July 2019 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya in so far as it maintain the Applicant’s name on the list in Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs incurred in relation to the proceedings before the General Court in accordance with the Rules of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs incurred in relation to the proceedings before the General Court in accordance with the Rules of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/1299 of 31 July 2019 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 and the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1292 of 31 July 2019 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 fail to disclose a lawful basis for maintaining the applicant’s listing, notwithstanding the fundamental change in circumstances in Libya. The Council has allegedly failed to provide individual, specific and concrete reasons for the Contested Measures which are not well-founded in any supporting material. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/1299 of 31 July 2019 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 and the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1292 of 31 July 2019 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 fail to disclose a lawful basis for maintaining the applicant’s listing, notwithstanding the fundamental change in circumstances in Libya. The Council has allegedly failed to provide individual, specific and concrete reasons for the Contested Measures which are not well-founded in any supporting material.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures violate the applicant’s fundamental rights including the right to health, the right to family life, the right to property, and the right to effective defense as safeguarded by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Contested Measures are neither necessary nor appropriate for any legitimate aim and constitute an indefinite and disproportionate interference with the Applicant’s fundamental rights. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures violate the applicant’s fundamental rights including the right to health, the right to family life, the right to property, and the right to effective defense as safeguarded by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Contested Measures are neither necessary nor appropriate for any legitimate aim and constitute an indefinite and disproportionate interference with the Applicant’s fundamental rights.

---