C 451/20
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
28.11.2022
Plea in law Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Action brought on 10 October 2022 — LAICO v Council (Case T-629/22) (2022/C 451/24) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: Libyan African Investment Company (LAICO) (Tripoli, Libya) (represented by: A. Bahrami and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers) Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: — annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/1315 of 26 July 2022 amending Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1) in so far as it maintains the name of Libyan African Investment Company (LAICO) on the list of entities set out in Annex IV to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP (2); — annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1308 of 26 July 2022 (3) implementing Article 21(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 (4) in so far as it maintains the name of LAICO on the list of entities set out in Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44; — order the Council to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the application.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law. 1.
First plea in law, alleging infringement of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 of 31 July 2015 and Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016. 2.
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation of the Council to keep all restrictive measures under review to ensure that they continue to contribute towards achieving their stated objectives. 3.
Third plea in law, alleging error of assessment or alternatively manifest error of assessment committed when maintaining the applicant’s name on the list of entities subject to restrictive measures.
The reason for maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists at issue is at odds with the general listing criterion.
The Council failed to comply with its obligation to ensure that the reason for maintaining the applicant’s name on the list of entities subject to restrictive measures complied with the general listing criterion laid down in Article 9(2)(b) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333. 4.
Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment. 5.
Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.