# C_2017239EN.01007102.xml

| 24.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/71

---

Action brought on 31 May 2017 — Mubarak/Council

(Case T-358/17)

(2017/C 239/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: B. Kennelly, QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, G. Martin, M. Rushton and C. Enderby Smith, Solicitors)

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) 2017/496 of 21 March 2017 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (the ‘Contested Decision’; OJ 2017, L 76, p. 22), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/491 of 21 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (the ‘Contested Regulation’; OJ 2017, L 76, p. 10), insofar as they apply to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/496 of 21 March 2017 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (the ‘Contested Decision’; OJ 2017, L 76, p. 22), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/491 of 21 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (the ‘Contested Regulation’; OJ 2017, L 76, p. 10), insofar as they apply to the applicant;

| — | 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 (the ‘Decision’; 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 (the ‘Regulation’; 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 applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

—

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 (the ‘Decision’; 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 (the ‘Regulation’; 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 applicant, and

| — | 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 applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Article 1(1) of the Decision and Article 2(1) of the Regulation are illegal because (a) they lack a valid legal basis and/or (b) they breach the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Article 1(1) of the Decision and Article 2(1) of the Regulation are illegal because (a) they lack a valid legal basis and/or (b) they breach the principle of proportionality.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the violation of the applicant’s 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 applicant’s 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 errors of assessment in considering that the criterion for listing the Applicant 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 errors of assessment in considering that the criterion for listing the Applicant 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 violated the applicant’s 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 Applicant prior to re-designation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated the applicant’s 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 Applicant prior to re-designation.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including his right to protection of property and reputation. The impact of the Contested Decision and Contested Regulation on the applicant is far-reaching, both as regards to his property, and to his reputation worldwide. The Council has failed to demonstrate that the freezing of the applicant’s assets and economic resources is related to, or justified by, any legitimate aim, still less that it is proportionate to such an aim. |
| --- | --- |

5.

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

---