Action brought on 24 May 2013 – Ezz and Others/Council

(Case T-279/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz (Giza, Egypt), Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed Salama (Cairo, Egypt), Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin (London, United Kingdom), Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar (Giza, Egypt) (represented by: J. Lewis, Queen's Counsel, B. Kennelly, Barrister, and J. Binns, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Annul Council Decision 2013/144/CFSP of 21 March 2013 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt amending Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP (OJ 2013 L 82, p. 54) 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) as continued by decision of the Council dated 21 March 2013, insofar as they apply to the applicants; and

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

1.    First plea in law, alleging that (a) Council Decision 2013/144/CFSP lacked a proper legal base since it did not satisfy the requirement of Article 29 TEU; and (b) Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 could not be continued since it did not satisfy the requirements of its purported legal base: Article 215(2) TFEU.

2.    Second plea in law, alleging that the criterion for adopting restrictive measures 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 defendant’s justification for the adoption of restrictive measures against the applicants is entirely vague, non-specific, unsubstantiated, unjustified, and insufficient to justify the application of such measures.

3.    Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has violated the applicants' rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection as (a) 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; (b) the reasons given contain a general, unsupported, vague allegation of judicial proceedings; and (c) 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.

4.    Fourth 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.

5.    Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants' right to property and to reputation.    

6.    Sixth 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.