CELEX: 62020TN0627
Language: en
Date: 2020-10-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-627/20: Action brought on 12 October 2020 — LAICO/Council

21.12.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 443/23
            
         
      Action brought on 12 October 2020 — LAICO/Council
      (Case T-627/20)
      (2020/C 443/27)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Libyan African Investment Co. (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) 2020/1137 of 30 July 2020 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1) in so far as it maintains the name of the applicant 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) 2020/1130 of 30 July 2020 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (3) and amending Annex III to 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 the applicant on the list of entities set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2016/44; and
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Council to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this 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 an infringement of Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 and Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 insofar as the cumulative conditions for listing entities according to recital 3 of Decision 2015/1333 are not met.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging an 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 manifest errors of assessment. In particular, the applicant claims that:
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              LAICO is a state-owned company, governed by the General Meeting of its Shareholders and its Board of Directors;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              the Board of Directors of LAICO is composed of highly skilled and experienced professionals; and
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              LAICO’s parent companies are not subject to the same type of restrictions.
                           
                        
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality.
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU and of the right to an effective remedy.
               
            
         (1)  OJ 2020 L 247, p. 40.
      
         (2)  OJ 2015 L 206, p. 34.
      
         (3)  OJ 2020 L 247, p. 14.
      
         (4)  OJ 2016 L 12, p. 1.