—

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/1315 of 26 July 2022 amending Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1) in so far as it maintains the name of Libyan African Investment Company (LAICO) 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) 2022/1308 of 26 July 2022 (3) implementing Article 21(2) of 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 LAICO on the list of entities set out in Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44;

—

order the Council to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the application.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 of 31 July 2015 and Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging 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 error of assessment or alternatively manifest error of assessment committed when maintaining the applicant’s name on the list of entities subject to restrictive measures. The reason for maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists at issue is at odds with the general listing criterion. The Council failed to comply with its obligation to ensure that the reason for maintaining the applicant’s name on the list of entities subject to restrictive measures complied with the general listing criterion laid down in Article 9(2)(b) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging insufficient and contradicting change of motivation: infringement of the obligation to state reasons, infringement of article 296 of the TFEU infringement of an essential procedural requirement and of the right to an effective remedy.