EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/27

Action brought on 26 March 2015 — Ben Ali v Council

(Case T-149/15)

(2015/C 262/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sirine (Cyrine) Bent Zine El Abidine Ben Haj Hamda Ben Ali (Tunis, Tunisia) (represented by: S. Maktouf, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ L 28, 2.2.2011, p. 62) and Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 of 4 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ L 31, 5.2.2011, p. 1) as periodically renewed (1) and amended (2) (‘the Impugned Decisions’), in so far as they designate the applicant,

— order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. The applicant contends that given the political changes which have taken place in Tunisia, the rationale for the sanctions is no longer valid.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment since the domestic criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant are being prosecuted in a dilatory manner such that it cannot be said that she is under ‘genuine’ investigation for the offences justifying the imposition of the sanctions.

Third plea in law, alleging insufficient statement of reasons since the one proffered by the Council for listing the applicant merely reiterates the underlying rationale for the sanctions.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of fundamental rights since the applicant has been subject to the arbitrary imposition of measures designed to facilitate the future confiscation of assets. Accordingly, the applicant’s right of property and presumption of innocence have been breached.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, since the statement of reasons proffered by the Council and the domestic legal provisions underpinning it do not conform to the rationale for the sanctions.

(1) Council Decision 2012/50/CFSP of 27 January 2012 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ L 27, 31.1.2012, p. 11) and Council Decision 2013/72/CFSP of 31 January 2013 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ L 32, 1.2.2013, p. 20).

(2) Council Decision 2014/49/CFSP of 30 January 2014 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ L 28, 31.1.2014, p. 38) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 81/2014 of 30 January 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ L 28, 31.1.2014, p. 2).