12.6.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/36

(Case T-178/23)

(2023/C 205/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Halima Bent Zine El Abidine Ben Haj Hamda Ben Ali (Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: É. Deprez, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—declare the applicant’s requests in the present application admissible;

—annul the Annex to Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 on restrictive measures to the extent that it concerns the applicant, in so far as that annex was extended by Council Decision 2023/159 of 23 January 2023 and its effects;

—order the Council to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 20 000 to meet the costs of her defence;

—order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the applicant was a minor at the time of the alleged facts relied upon in support of her inclusion on the sanctions list.

2.Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment on the part of the Council. The applicant submits in that regard that, before relying on a decision of an authority in a third State, the Council must verify whether that decision was adopted in compliance with the rights of the defence. According to the applicant, it is apparent from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Tunis of 30 September 2021 that the applicant’s rights of defence were not respected by the court of first instance.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the presumption of innocence, on the ground that no final conviction has been handed down against her.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the freedom to conduct a business, on the ground that the contested measure may have substantial negative consequences for the applicant’s professional life.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to engage in work, in so far as the contested decision places the applicant in a situation that prevents her from working.