Case C-72/19 P: Appeal brought on 30 January 2019 by Suzanne Saleh Thabet, Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Heidy Mahmoud Magdy Hussein Rasekh, Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 22 November 2018 in Joined Cases T-274/16 and T-275/16: Saleh Thabet and Others v Council
Date: 2019-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Egypt, fundamental rights, international sanctions, judicial proceedings, natural person, rule of law








C_2019155EN.01002301.xml










6.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/23






Appeal brought on 30 January 2019 by Suzanne Saleh Thabet, Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Heidy Mahmoud Magdy Hussein Rasekh, Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 22 November 2018 in Joined Cases T-274/16 and T-275/16: Saleh Thabet and Others v Council
(Case C-72/19 P)
(2019/C 155/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Suzanne Saleh Thabet, Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Heidy Mahmoud Magdy Hussein Rasekh, Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal (represented by: D. Anderson QC, B. Kennelly QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, G. Martin, C. Enderby Smith, F. Holmey, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the decision under appeal;










—


itself give final judgment in this case, annulling the contested acts in so far as they concern the appellants;










—


in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment, in line with the legal assessment of the Court of Justice; and










—


order the Council to pay the appellants’ costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the Council was not required to verify that the Egyptian authorities had respected the appellants’ fundamental EU rights.
Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the Council was not required to verify that the judicial proceedings and investigations involving the appellants concern acts that are such as to undermine the rule of law in Egypt.
Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the Council had not made a manifest error of assessment in relying on Case No. 10427 (Al Watany Bank Allegations).
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the Council had not made a manifest error of assessment in relying on Case No. 8897 (Private Villa Refurbishment Case).
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the Council had not made a manifest error of assessment in relying on Case No. 756 (Al-Ahram Establishment Gifts Allegation) and Case No. 53 (Dar El Tahrir Gifts Allegation)
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the Council had not made a manifest error of assessment in relying on Case No. 144 (Money Laundering Allegation).