28.7.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/25

—

declare the action admissible and well-founded;

—

annul Decision 2014/153, in so far as it extends until 22 March 2015 the restrictive measures directed against the applicant in Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt;

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1 of Decision 2011/172 (1), in that the applicant herself was not found to be, nor even identified as, responsible for misappropriation of State funds, but is subject to restrictive measures merely because she is the spouse of Mr Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz (‘Mr Ezz’).

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6 TEU, read in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 TEU and Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that Decision 2014/153 (2) is wrongly based on the irrebuttable presumption that there is no risk of infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights in the proceedings brought against her in Egypt.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 7, 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that Decision 2014/153 creates disproportionate restrictions on the applicant’s right to privacy, right to property and freedom to conduct a business.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 41, 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that Decision 2014/153 does not provide adequate and sufficient reasons and was adopted in breach of the applicant’s right to be heard.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, in that (i) the applicant was never subject to any judicial investigation for misappropriation of State funds; (ii) the behaviour of Mr Ezz constitutes normal activities in the course of trade and therefore cannot be regarded as misappropriation of State funds; and (iii) at the time of the adoption of Decision 2014/153, the Council did not take account of the fact that, three years after the adoption of the first measures, Mr Ezz’s legal position remains, at the very least, uncertain.