# C_2011290EN.01001402.xml

| 1.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/14

---

Action brought on 3 August 2011 — Afriqiyah Airways v Council

(Case T-436/11)

2011/C 290/20

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Afriqiyah Airways (Tripoli, Libya) (represented by: B. Sarfati, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

Annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2011/300/CFSP of 23 May 2011 implementing Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 85), together with Annex II to that decision;

Order that the Council pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the procedure for adopting the measure was irregular. The applicant pleads that the procedure concerning the adoption of the contested decision provided for by Article 8(2) of Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2011 L 58, p. 53) was irregular, and relies on breach of the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the procedure for adopting the measure was irregular. The applicant pleads that the procedure concerning the adoption of the contested decision provided for by Article 8(2) of Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2011 L 58, p. 53) was irregular, and relies on breach of the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state the reasons for the decision. The applicant criticises the Council for providing a stereotype statement of reasons, which did not enable the addressee of the decision to understand the reasons for its adoption, nor the General Court to exercise its judicial review of the measure’s legality. The ground that the applicant is a subsidiary of and owned by the Libyan African Investment Portfolio, an entity itself covered by the restrictive measures, is insufficient. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state the reasons for the decision. The applicant criticises the Council for providing a stereotype statement of reasons, which did not enable the addressee of the decision to understand the reasons for its adoption, nor the General Court to exercise its judicial review of the measure’s legality. The ground that the applicant is a subsidiary of and owned by the Libyan African Investment Portfolio, an entity itself covered by the restrictive measures, is insufficient.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence on the ground that it was not established that the rights of the defence were respected or that the applicant was put in a position to assert its rights prior to its inclusion on the list. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence on the ground that it was not established that the rights of the defence were respected or that the applicant was put in a position to assert its rights prior to its inclusion on the list.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 27 TEU. The applicant claims that Decision 2011/137/CFSP referred to in paragraph 2 and Council Decision 2011/178/CFSP of 23 March 2011 amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2011 L 78, p. 24), were adopted in breach of Article 27(1) TEU. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 27 TEU. The applicant claims that Decision 2011/137/CFSP referred to in paragraph 2 and Council Decision 2011/178/CFSP of 23 March 2011 amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2011 L 78, p. 24), were adopted in breach of Article 27(1) TEU.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging error of law and manifest error of assessment on the ground that the applicant is a civil airline carrying passengers and freight, whereas the contested decision has the effect of freezing the applicant’s assets on the sole ground that it is the property of the Libyan State, through an investment fund. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging error of law and manifest error of assessment on the ground that the applicant is a civil airline carrying passengers and freight, whereas the contested decision has the effect of freezing the applicant’s assets on the sole ground that it is the property of the Libyan State, through an investment fund.

---