Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/496 of 21 March 2017 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt

Versions

1. 2017-03-21

Cited by

• 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 – Saleh Thabet and Others v Council (Joined Cases C‑72/19 P and C‑145/19 P) Judgment · Grade B

  Annuls Decision 2017/496, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/491 of 21 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt, Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/466 of 21 March 2018 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/465 of 21 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures direct

• 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 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

  Annuls Decision 2017/496, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/491 of 21 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt, Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/466 of 21 March 2018 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/465 of 21 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures direct

• 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

  The applicants, Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohamed Fawzi Ali Ahmed Salama, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin and Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar, were designated since the adoption of Decision 2011/172, respectively, in the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth lines of the list in the annex to that decision. The identifying information relating to each of them, which appeared on that list, was, with respect to the first applicant, Former Member of Parliament; Date of birth: 12.01.1959; Male, in relation to the second applicant, Wife of Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz; Date of birth: 31.01.1963; Female,

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

  The ground for the designation of the applicants, as amended by the corrigendum to Decision 2011/172, was as follows: Person subject to judicial proceedings by the Egyptian authorities in respect of the misappropriation of state funds on the basis of the United Nations Convention against corruption. That ground has remained identical in successive renewals of that decision. In particular, the amendments relating to the ground for designation, introduced by Decision 2017/496, did not concern the applicants, but only other persons designated on the same list.

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

  On the basis of Article 215(2) TFEU and Decision 2011/172, the Council adopted 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). That regulation reproduces, in essence, the provisions of Decision 2011/172 and the list in Annex I thereto is identical to that in the annex to that decision. Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/491 of 21 March 2015 implementing Regulation No 270/2011 (OJ 2017 L 76, p. 10), made amendments to the list in Annex I to that regul

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

  On 26 May 2017, the applicants lodged a second statement of modification, in which they claim that the Court should annul, first, Decision 2017/496 and secondly, Implementing Regulation 2017/491, in so far as those acts concern them.

• 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

  Fourthly and finally, it is apparent from the documents of the case file that, prior to the renewal of the applicants’ designation in 2016 and in 2017, the Egyptian authorities provided updated information on the status of the judicial proceedings against the first applicant. In particular, that information showed, firstly, the closure of the investigations in Case No 156 of 2013 following the administrative settlement of the dispute and, secondly, the existence of three additional proceedings in Cases Nos 4 and 5482 of 2011 and No 244 of 2015 concerning, respectively, allegations of offences

• 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

  Secondly, with regard to the report of the International Commission of Jurists, dated September 2016, entitled Egypt’s judiciary: A Tool of Repression, Lack of Effective Guarantee of Independence and Accountability, it is not apparent from any of the evidence in the case file that the applicants communicated that report to the Council prior to the adoption of Decision 2017/496. Therefore, the Council cannot be accused of failing to take into account the evidence contained in that report in determining whether or not the renewal of Decision 2011/172 was consistent with the objectives of the pol

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

  In that regard, with regard, in particular, to the PGO memorandum of 9 February 2015, the applicants cannot argue that it is inadmissible in respect of the present plea in so far as it seeks the annulment of Decision 2015/486, since it is common ground that the Council was able to rely on its content in order to adopt that decision. Furthermore, as noted in paragraph 88 above, the content of that memorandum was taken up in the NCRAA memorandum of 5 December 2016, provided to the applicants prior to the adoption of Decision 2017/496. Furthermore, in its written response, dated 21 April 2017, to

• 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

  However, it should be noted that, in his letter of 7 March 2017 to the Council, the first applicant merely claimed that his remand in custody had, according to his legal representatives in Egypt, infringed his right to a fair trial, that he had already been detained for more than three years and that his convictions had been quashed by the Egyptian Court of Cassation. However, in that letter, the first applicant did not set out the evidence provided by the applicants before the General Court in support of their allegations of infringement of the provisions of Egyptian national law and safeguar

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

  Consequently, the legality of the renewal of the applicants’ designation in 2017 cannot be assessed in the light of the evidence which they submitted for the first time in the context of the second statement of modification, referred to in paragraphs 202 and 203 above. That evidence, in any event, cannot be validly relied on to demonstrate an error by the Council in the assessment of the evidence brought to its attention by the applicants prior to the adoption, in particular, of Decision 2017/496.

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

  In those circumstances, even assuming that the remand in custody of the first applicant is relevant in the assessment of any infringements of his right to a fair trial and of the presumption of innocence, the information provided to the Council on the date of adoption of Decision 2017/496 did not, in any event, allow one to draw a clear conclusion as to the existence or even likelihood of a serious infringement of the first applicant’s fundamental rights, such that the renewal of his designation would manifestly run counter to the objectives of Decision 2011/172.

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

  Secondly, it follows from paragraphs 204 to 208 above that the evidence provided by the applicants to the Council before the adoption of Decision 2017/496, which was insufficiently substantiated, was not, on its own, such as to raise legitimate questions as to the risk that the fundamental rights of the first applicant might have been infringed as a result of his alleged remand in custody and that the Council cannot be accused of failing to take into account the evidence which the applicants presented for the first time before the General Court in order to demonstrate the existence of such an