# C_2019246EN.01003801.xml

| 22.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/38

---

Action brought on 27 May 2019 — El-Qaddafi v Council

(Case T-322/19)

(2019/C 246/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aisha Muammer Mohamed El-Qaddafi (Muscat, Oman) (represented by: S. Bafadhel, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision 2017/497/CFSP of 21 March 2017 amending Decision 2015/1333 CFSP 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 I and III to Council Decision 2015/1333/CFSP of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2017/497/CFSP of 21 March 2017 amending Decision 2015/1333 CFSP 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 I and III 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) No 2017/489 of 21 March 2019 implementing Article 21(5) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name on the list in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2017/489 of 21 March 2019 implementing Article 21(5) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name on the list in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya; and

| — | order the Council of the European Union 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 Council of the European Union 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 four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council of the European Union failed to act in a timely manner concerning the notification of the contested measures in relation to the applicant. This amounted to a violation of an essential procedural requirement related to the right to effective judicial protection which occasioned prejudice to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council of the European Union failed to act in a timely manner concerning the notification of the contested measures in relation to the applicant. This amounted to a violation of an essential procedural requirement related to the right to effective judicial protection which occasioned prejudice to the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council’s decision to relist the applicant is based on identical reasons as concern restrictive measures previously annulled by judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2017 in Case T-681/14, in breach of the principles of res judicata and legal certainty and of the right to an effective remedy. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council’s decision to relist the applicant is based on identical reasons as concern restrictive measures previously annulled by judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2017 in Case T-681/14, in breach of the principles of res judicata and legal certainty and of the right to an effective remedy.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested acts fail to disclose a lawful basis for maintaining the applicant’s listing, notwithstanding the fundamental change in circumstances in Libya. The Council has failed to provide individual, specific and concrete reasons for the contested measures which are not well-founded in any supporting material. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested acts fail to disclose a lawful basis for maintaining the applicant’s listing, notwithstanding the fundamental change in circumstances in Libya. The Council has failed to provide individual, specific and concrete reasons for the contested measures which are not well-founded in any supporting material.

| 4. | Fourth 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 defence as safeguarded by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth 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 defence as safeguarded by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---