Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62019TN0327

Case T-327/19: Action brought on 30 May 2019 — Mubarak v Council

OJ C 255, 29.7.2019, p. 46–46 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
30/05/2019
Date lodged:
30/05/2019
Author:
General Court
Form:
Judicial information
Authentic language:
English
Type of procedure:
Action for annulment
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Case affecting:
Instruments cited in case law:
Link

29.7.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/46

Action brought on 30 May 2019 — Mubarak v Council

(Case T-327/19)

(2019/C 255/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: B. Kennelly QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, G. Martin, C. Enderby Smith and F. Holmey, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/468 of 21 March 2019 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/459 of 21 March 2019 (2), insofar as they apply to the applicant; and

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant had failed to verify that the Egyptian authorities would have respected the applicant’s fundamental European Union rights, including Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the context of the proceedings and investigations relied upon by the defendant.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant made errors of assessment in considering that the criterion for listing the applicant in Article 1 of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP (3) and Article 2 of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 (4) would have been satisfied.

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/468 of 21 March 2019 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ L 80, 22.3.2019, p. 40).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/459 of 21 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ L 80, 22.3.2019, p. 1).

(3)  Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 63).

(4)  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 L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 4).

Top