CELEX: 62014CN0220
Language: en
Date: 2014-05-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-220/14 P: Appeal brought on 5 May 2014 by Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin, Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 February 2014 in Case T-256/11: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin, Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar v Council of the European Union

21.7.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 235/6
            
         Appeal brought on 5 May 2014 by Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin, Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 February 2014 in Case T-256/11: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin, Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-220/14 P)
   2014/C 235/09
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellants: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin, Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar (represented by: I. Burton, J. Binns, Solicitors, J. Lewis QC, B. Kennelly, J. Pobjoy, Barristers)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union,
   European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2014, in Case T-256/11;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul Decision 2011/172/CFSP (1) of 21 March 2011 and Regulation No 270/2011 (2) of 21 March 2011, in so far as those acts apply to the Appellants;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order that the Council pay the costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Take any other measures that this Court considers appropriate.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   On 20 May 2011, the Appellants applied to the General Court to annul the Decision and the Regulation in so far as those acts apply to the Appellants (‘Application’). The General Court rejected that Application. The Appellants maintained that, in doing so, the General Court erred in law for the following reasons:
   
               1)
            
            
               First Plea: The General Court erred in finding that the Decision was lawfully adopted on the basis of Article 29 TEU.
            
         
               2)
            
            
               Second Plea: The General Court erred in finding that the Ground for imposing restrictive measures against each of the Appellants was substantiated and/or satisfied the legal criteria for listing set out in Article 1(1) of the Decision and Article 2(1) of the Regulation.
            
         
               3)
            
            
               Third Plea: The General Court erred in its finding that the Council had complied with its obligation to state reasons.
            
         
               4)
            
            
               Fourth Plea: The General Court erred in its examination of the Appellant’s pleas in respect of infringement of the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.
            
         
               5)
            
            
               Fifth Plea: The General Court erred in finding that the interference with the Appellants’ property and/or freedom to conduct a business was proportionate.
            
         
               6)
            
            
               Sixth Plea: The General Court erred in finding that there was no ‘manifest error of assessment’ by the Council.
            
         
      (1)  OJ L 76, p. 63
   
   
      (2)  OJ L 76, p. 4