Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/411 of 18 March 2016 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt

Versions

1. 2016-03-18

Cited by

• Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Mubarak and others v Council (Case T-275/16) Notice · Grade B

  annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/411 of 18 March 2016 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2016 L 74, p. 40), insofar as it applies to the applicants;

• Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Mubarak and others v Council (Case T-275/16) Notice · Grade B

  declare that Article 1(1) of 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 2011 L 76, p. 63) and Article 2(1) of 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 2011 L 76, p. 4) are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the applicants, and, as a consequence, annul the Decision (CFSP) 2016/411, insofar as it applies to the applicants,

• Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Mubarak and others v Council (Case T-275/16) Notice · Grade B

  First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to identify a proper legal base for Article 1(1) of Decision 2011/172/CFSP (the Decision) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 (the Regulation). There is no evidence that the Council undertook any review of the legal basis of Article 1(1) of the Decision in adopting Decision (CFSP) 2016/411 (the Contested Decision), notwithstanding the express obligation to do so under Article 5 of the Decision. The fact that Article 1(1) may have had a valid legal basis when it was first adopted on 21 March 2011 does not provide the provision

• Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Saleh Thabet v Council (Case T-274/16) Notice · Grade B

  annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/411 of 18 March 2016 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2016 L 74, p. 40), insofar as it applies to the applicant;

• Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Saleh Thabet v Council (Case T-274/16) Notice · Grade B

  declare that Article 1(1) of 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 2011 L 76, p. 63) and Article 2(1) of 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 2011 L 76, p. 4) are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the applicant, and, as a consequence, annul the Decision (CFSP) 2016/411, insofar as it applies to the applicant,

• Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Saleh Thabet v Council (Case T-274/16) Notice · Grade B

  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including her right to protection of property and reputation. The impact of the Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/411 on the applicant is far-reaching, both as regards to her property, and to her reputation worldwide. The Council has failed to demonstrate that the freezing of the applicant’s assets and economic resources is related to, or justified by, any legitimate aim, still less that it is proportionate to such an aim.

• Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 December 2020 – Saleh Thabet and Others v Council (Joined Cases C‑72/19 P and C‑145/19 P) Judgment · Grade B

  Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 22 November 2018, Saleh Thabet and Others v Council (T‑274/16 and T‑275/16, not published, EU:T:2018:826), in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court dismissed the actions seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/411 of 18 March 2016 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt, and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/496 of 21 March 2017 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures di

• Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 December 2020 — Suzanne Saleh Thabet, Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, Heddy Mohamed Magdy Hussein Rassekh, Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal v Council of the European Union (Joined Cases C-72/19 P and C-145/19 P) Notice · Grade B

  Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 22 November 2018, Saleh Thabet and Others v Council (T-274/16 and T-275/16, not published, EU:T:2018:826), in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court dismissed the actions seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/411 of 18 March 2016 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/496 of 21 March 2017 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures dir

• Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) 27 September 2018 Judgment · Grade B

  In Case T‑288/15, Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, residing in Giza (Egypt), Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed Salama, residing in Cairo (Egypt), Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin, residing in Giza, Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar, residing in Giza, Represented initially by J. Lewis, B. Kennelly, QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, J. Binns, S. Rowe, Solicitors, and J.-F. Bellis, lawyer, and subsequently by B. Kennelly, J. Pobjoy, S. Rowe and H. de Charette, lawyer, applicants,v Council of the European Union, represented by M. Bishop and I. Gurov, acting as Agents, defendant, APPLICATION pursuant to Article 263

• Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) 27 September 2018 Judgment · Grade B

  The second paragraph of Article 5 of Decision 2011/172, in its original version, provided that that decision was applicable until 22 March 2012. The third paragraph of Article 5 of that decision provides that that decision is to be kept under constant review and is to be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met. Pursuant to the latter provision, the Council renewed that decision several times for a period of one year by adopting, successively, Decision 2012/159/CFSP of 19 March 2012 (OJ 2012 L 80, p. 18), Decision 2013/144/CFSP of 21 March

• Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) 27 September 2018 Judgment · Grade B

  By application registered at the Court Registry on 26 May 2016, registered at the Court Registry under number T‑269/16, the first applicant brought an action against Decision 2016/411, in so far as that decision concerns him. By separate application, registered on the same day at the Court Registry under number T‑269/16, the second, third and fourth applicants brought an action against Decision 2016/411, in so far as that decision concerns them.

• Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) 27 September 2018 Judgment · Grade B

  On 12 September 2016, the General Court, by order, dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the applicants’ actions referred to in paragraph 16 above on the ground of lis pendens in relation to the lodging of the applicants’ statement of modification in the present action against Decision 2016/411, which is referred to in paragraph 22 below (orders of 12 September 2016, Ezz v Council, T‑268/16, not published, EU:T:2016:606, paragraph 15, and of 12 September 2016, Salama and Others v Council, T‑269/16, not published, EU:T:2016:607, paragraph 15).

• Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) 27 September 2018 Judgment · Grade B

  On 25 May 2016, on the basis of Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure, the applicants lodged a statement of modification in which they claim that the Court should: annul Decision 2016/411, in so far as that decision relates to the applicants; order the Council to pay the costs.

• Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) 27 September 2018 Judgment · Grade B

  In the present action, the applicants seek the annulment of the Council decisions by which, in the context of adopting Decision 2015/486, Decision 2016/411 and Decision 2017/496, their designation in the annex to Decision 2011/172 was renewed, respectively, in 2015, 2016 and 2017 (the contested decisions). In support of those claims, the applicants put forward five pleas in law. In the first plea, they rely on a plea of illegality in respect of Article 1(1) of Decision 2011/172, as renewed by Decisions 2015/486, 2016/411 and 2017/496, and in respect of Article 2(1) of Regulation No 270/2011, a

• Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) 27 September 2018 Judgment · Grade B

  Finally, the additional documents concerning the general situation of the rule of law and fundamental rights produced by the applicants in 2016 and 2017 do not justify a different analysis with regard to Decision 2016/411 and Decision 2017/496.

• Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) 27 September 2018 Judgment · Grade B

  The evidence submitted by the applicants prior to the adoption of Decision 2016/411 and Decision 2017/496 was not such as to justify that, in 2016 and 2017, the Council would change its position as to the renewal of that designation.

• Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) 27 September 2018 Judgment · Grade B

  As regards the second factor, namely the total duration of the prison sentences imposed on the first applicant, assuming that that factor is relevant to assessing whether there has been an infringement of the first applicant’s right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence, it is not apparent from the documents in the case file that this was submitted to the Council prior to the adoption of Decision 2016/411. In any event, it suffices to note that the judgment of the ECtHR of 9 July 2013, Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom (CE:ECHR:2013:0709JUD006606909), cited by the applicants i

• Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) 27 September 2018 Judgment · Grade B

  It should be noted at the outset that the documents originally transmitted by the Egyptian authorities to the Council, annexed to the application, referred only, in respect of the first applicant, to one criminal case against him in Case No 38 of 2011. However, as noted in paragraph 83 above, the updated information provided by the Egyptian authorities in 2014 and 2015 referred to seven sets of criminal proceedings (Cases Nos 38, 107, 291, 457, 541 of 2011 and 156 and 376 of 2013). Finally, as indicated in paragraph 88 above, the information submitted by the Egyptian authorities prior to the a

• Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) 27 September 2018 Judgment · Grade B

  As to the applicants’ claim that only four of the cases referred to in the Egyptian authorities’ letter of 2 January 2016 concerned ongoing judicial proceedings, this is irrelevant since, for the same reasons as those set out in paragraphs 261 and 262 above, the Council could continue to rely on Cases Nos 38, 107 and 291 of 2011 to find that, on the date of adoption of Decision 2016/411, there were ongoing judicial proceedings relating to the misappropriation of state funds by the first applicant.

• Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) 27 September 2018 Judgment · Grade B

  In the third place, with regard to the arguments presented in the first statement of modification relating to the information concerning the second to fourth applicants that the Council had at its disposal before adopting Decision 2016/411, the applicants do not dispute that, by letter dated 7 March 2016, the Egyptian authorities informed the Council that all of those persons continued to be the subject of three freezing orders in four sets of criminal proceedings against the first applicant in Cases Nos 38, 107 and 291 of 2011 and that the second and third applicants were also subject to an a