EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/31

(Case T-681/14)

(2014/C 431/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aisha Muammer Mohamed El-Qaddafi (Muscat, Oman) (represented by: J. Jones, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—adopt a measure of organisation of procedure under Article 64 of its Rules of Procedure, requiring the Council to disclose all the information supporting the applicant’s listing in the contested measures;

—annul in whole or in part Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, as amended by Council Decision 2014/380/CFSP of 23 June 2014, insofar as it concerns the applicant;

—annul in whole or in part Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of 2 March 2011, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2014 of 23 June 2014 implementing Article 16(2) of regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, insofar as it concerns the applicant;

—order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the General Court has competence to review the lawfulness of restrictive measures imposed against the applicant by the Council of the European Union which were adopted in order to give effect to the sanctions regime imposed by the United Nations Security Council in relation to Libya. The applicant submits that the EU measures implementing restrictive measures decided at international level do not enjoy immunity from jurisdiction on the grounds that they give effect to resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII of the United Nations Chapter.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court has competence to engage in a full and substantive review of the lawfulness of the contested EU measures giving effect to the United Nations Security Council resolutions imposing restrictive measures against the applicant. This includes whether the reasons relied on by the Council in its decision to confirm the applicant’s listing are well founded and sufficiently detailed and specific.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the contested EU measures violate the applicant’s rights of the defence and its right to effective judicial protection. The applicant argues that the Council failed to provide it with reasons or any specific evidence that would justify its continued listing.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested EU measures violate the principle of proportionality and the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to property and to respect for private and family life.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s listing is unfounded, inaccurate, unjustified and insufficiently detailed as the applicant does not pose any threat to international peace and security. The applicant alleges that the continued listing on the sole ground of a family connection with the deceased leader of the ousted Gaddafi regime is contrary to EU law. The applicant further alleges that it has not been involved in any events in Libya that constitute a threat to international peace and security.