30.7.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/29

—

adopt a measure of organisation of procedure under Article 64 of the General Court’s Rules of Procedure, to ensure that the Commission disclose all documents relating to the adoption of the contested regulation;

—

annul Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 of 4 February 2011 [concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia] in so far as it concerns the applicant;

—

failing annulment, apply derogations in respect of financial assets serving basic needs, but also some extraordinary expenses assessed case by case;

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant an overall sum of EUR 50 000 in compensation for all forms of damage;

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 7 500 for legal expenses in support of the application;

—

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of sufficient legal basis since first, the measure is not aimed at the maintenance or restoration of peace and security and infringes the individual rights of the applicant, second, the statement of reasons for the decision contains inaccuracies and errors and, third the measure is disproportionate and unjustified.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to an effective legal remedy.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons in the measure where, first, the freezing of funds is a penalty decided upon by a political body, second, no procedure for removal from the list is mentioned in the contested regulation, third, the applicant’s fundamental rights have been infringed at every stage of the procedure and, fourth, the statement of reasons for the measures is general, without foundation, vague and imprecise.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error in assessment of the facts since the applicant’s participation in an unlawful act has not been proved.

5.

Fifth plea in law concerning the right to property to the extent that the measures are an unjustified restriction on the applicant’s right to property.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality.

7.

Seventh plea in law concerning the right to life since the effect of the freezing of assets should not to be to jeopardise the applicant’s means of support and right to life.