Case T-256/11: Action brought on 20 May 2011 — Ezz and Others/Council
Date: 2011-05-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Egypt, fraud, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2011204EN.01002801.xml










9.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 204/28





Action brought on 20 May 2011 — Ezz and Others/Council
(Case T-256/11)
2011/C 204/50
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz (Giza, Egypt), Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed (London, United Kingdom), Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin (London, United Kingdom) and Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar (Giza, Egypt) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister, and J. Binns, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul 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 (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 63) and 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 (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 4), insofar as they apply to the applicants.










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of their application the applicants seek, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment 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 and 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, insofar as they apply to the applicants.
In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the criterion for adopting restrictive measures against the applicants, as set out in Article 1 of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and in Article 2 of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011, is not fulfilled. In addition, it is being alleged that the grounds used by the defendant as justification for the adoption of restrictive measures against the applicants are entirely vague, non-specific, unsubstantiated, unjustified, and insufficient to justify the application of such measures.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has violated the applicants’ rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection, as:






—


The restrictive measures provide no procedure for communicating to the applicants the evidence on which the decision to freeze their assets was based, or for enabling them to comment meaningfully on that evidence;










—


The reasons given in the contested measures contain a general, unsupported, vague allegation of judicial proceedings; and










—


The defendant has not given sufficient information to enable the applicants effectively to make known their views in response, which does not permit a Court to assess whether the Council’s decision and assessment was well founded and based on compelling evidence.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has failed to give the applicants sufficient reasons for their inclusion in the contested measures, in violation of its obligation to give a clear statement of the actual and specific reasons justifying its decision, including the specific individual reasons that led it to consider that the applicants were responsible for misappropriating Egyptian State funds.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ right to property and to reputation, as:






—


The asset freezing measures have a marked and long-lasting impact on their fundamental rights;










—


They are unjustified in their application to the applicants; and










—


The defendant has not demonstrated that a total asset freeze is the least onerous means of ensuring such an objective, nor that the very significant harm to the applicants is justified and proportionate.














5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that defendant’s inclusion of the applicants in the list of persons against whom restrictive measures will apply is based on a manifest error of assessment.