(a) "funds" means financial assets and benefits of every kind, including but not limited to: (i) cash, cheques, claims on money, drafts, money orders and other payment instruments; (ii) deposits with financial institutions or other entities, balances on accounts, debts and debt obligations; (iii) publicly and privately traded securities and debt instruments, including stocks and shares, certificates representing securities, bonds, notes, warrants, debentures and derivatives contracts; (iv) interest, dividends or other income on or value accruing from or generated by assets; (v) credit, right of set-off, guarantees, performance bonds or other financial commitments; (vi) letters of credit, bills of lading and bills of sale; (vii) documents evidencing an interest in funds or financial resources;
(b) "freezing of funds" means preventing any move, transfer, alteration, use of, access to, or dealing with funds in any way that would result in any change in their volume, amount, location, ownership, possession, character, destination or other change that would enable the funds to be used, including portfolio management; (c) "economic resources" means assets of every kind, whether tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, which are not funds but may be used to obtain funds, goods or services; (d) "freezing of economic resources" means preventing their use to obtain funds, goods or services in any way, including, but not limited to, by selling, hiring or mortgaging them; (e) "territory of the Union" means the territories of the Member States to which the Treaty is applicable, under the conditions laid down in the Treaty, including their airspace.
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
Modified by
- Council Regulation (EU) No 1099/2012of 26 November 2012amending Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt, 32012R1099, November 27, 2012
- Council Regulation (EU) No 517/2013of 13 May 2013adapting certain regulations and decisions in the fields of free movement of goods, freedom of movement for persons, company law, competition policy, agriculture, food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary policy, transport policy, energy, taxation, statistics, trans-European networks, judiciary and fundamental rights, justice, freedom and security, environment, customs union, external relations, foreign, security and defence policy and institutions, by reason of the accession of the Republic of Croatia, 32013R0517, June 10, 2013
- Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/490of 21 March 2017implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt, 32017R0490, March 22, 2017
- Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/491of 21 March 2017implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt, 32017R0491, March 22, 2017
- Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/465of 21 March 2018implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt, 32018R0465, March 21, 2018
- Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/459of 21 March 2019implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt, 32019R0459, March 22, 2019
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1163of 5 July 2019amending and setting out a single list for the Annexes containing contact details of Member States competent authorities and address for notifications to the European Commission to certain Regulations concerning restrictive measures, 32019R1163, July 8, 2019
- Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/416of 19 March 2020implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt, 32020R0416, March 20, 2020
(a) necessary to satisfy the basic needs of natural persons listed in Annex I and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges; (b) intended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees or the reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services; (c) intended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources; or (d) necessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that the Member State concerned has notified all other Member States and the Commission of the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted, at least 2 weeks prior to the authorisation.
(a) the funds or economic resources are the subject of an arbitral decision rendered prior to the date on which the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in Article 2 was listed in Annex I, or of a judicial or administrative decision rendered in the Union, or a judicial decision enforceable in the Member State concerned, prior to or after that date; (b) the funds or economic resources will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a decision or recognised as valid in such a decision, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims; (c) the decision is not for the benefit of a natural or legal person, entity or body listed in Annex I; and (d) recognising the decision is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned.
(a) interest or other earnings on those accounts; or (b) payments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose before the date on which the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in Article 2 has been listed in Annex I; or (c) payments due under judicial, administrative or arbitral decisions rendered in the Union or enforceable in the Member State concerned,
(a) the competent authority concerned has determined that: (i) the funds or economic resources shall be used for a payment by a person, entity or body listed in Annex I; and (ii) the payment is not in breach of Article 2(2);
(b) the Member State concerned has, at least 2 weeks prior to the grant of the authorisation, notified the other Member States and the Commission of that determination and its intention to grant an authorisation.
(a) supply immediately any information which would facilitate compliance with this Regulation, such as accounts and amounts frozen in accordance with Article 2(1), to the competent authority in the Member State where they are resident or located, as indicated on the websites listed in Annex II, and shall transmit such information, either directly or through the Member States, to the Commission; and (b) cooperate with that competent authority in any verification of this information.
(a) within the territory of the Union; (b) on board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State; (c) to any person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State; (d) to any legal person, entity or body which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State; (e) to any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union.
| Identifying information | Grounds for designation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak | Person (deceased) whose activities are subject to judicial proceedings or an asset recovery process by the Egyptian authorities following a final court ruling in respect of the misappropriation of State Funds on the basis of the United Nations Convention against corruption. | |
| 2. | Suzanne Saleh Thabet | Associated with Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, who is subject to judicial proceedings or an asset recovery process by the Egyptian authorities following a final court ruling in respect of the misappropriation of State Funds on the basis of the United Nations Convention against corruption. | |
| 3. | Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak | Person subject to judicial proceedings or an asset recovery process by the Egyptian authorities following a final court ruling in respect of the misappropriation of State Funds on the basis of the United Nations Convention against corruption. | |
| 4. | Person subject to judicial proceedings or an asset recovery process by the Egyptian authorities following a final court ruling in respect of the misappropriation of State Funds on the basis of the United Nations Convention against corruption, and associated with Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak. | ||
| 5. | Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak | Person subject to judicial proceedings or an asset recovery process by the Egyptian authorities following a final court ruling in respect of the misappropriation of State Funds on the basis of the United Nations Convention against corruption. | |
| 6. | Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal | Person subject to judicial proceedings or an asset recovery process by the Egyptian authorities following a final court ruling in respect of the misappropriation of State Funds on the basis of the United Nations Convention against corruption, and associated with Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak. | |
| 15. | Mohamed Zohir Mohamed Wahed Garrana | 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. | |
| 18. | Habib Ibrahim Habib Eladli | 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. | |
| 19. | Elham Sayed Salem Sharshar | Person subject to judicial proceedings in respect of the misappropriation of State Funds on the basis of the United Nations Convention against corruption, and associated with Habib Ibrahim Eladli. |
to any individual suspected of or charged with a criminal offence: 1. the right to judicial review of any act or administrative decision; 2. the right to defend himself/herself in person or through legal assistance of his/her own choosing or, if he/she has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
to any individual charged with a criminal offence: 1. the right to be informed promptly, in a language which he/she understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him/her; 2. the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his/her defence; 3. the right to examine or have examined witnesses against him/her and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his/her behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him/her; 4. the right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he/she cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
1. Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak The information on the Council’s file shows that the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection of Mr Mubarak were respected in the criminal proceedings on which the Council relied. This is demonstrated in particular as follows: Case On 27 June 2013 , Mr Mubarak was charged together with two other individuals with misappropriation of public funds and proceedings were initiated before the Cairo Criminal Court on17 November 2013 . On21 May 2014 , that Court convicted the three defendants. The defendants challenged this judgment before the Court of Cassation. On13 January 2015 , the Court of Cassation quashed the verdict and ordered a retrial. On retrial, on4 and29 April 2015 , verbal and written pleadings of the parties were presented. On9 May 2015 , the Cairo Criminal Court convicted the defendants, ordered the restitution of the misappropriated funds and ordered the payment of a fine. On24 May 2015 , an appeal was lodged with the Court of Cassation. On9 January 2016 , the Court of Cassation upheld the convictions. On8 March 2016 , the defendants reached a settlement within the Experts Committee set up by Prime Ministerial Decree No 2873 of 2015. That settlement was approved by the Cabinet of Ministers on9 March 2016 . That settlement was not submitted to the Court of Cassation for final approval by the Prosecutor General because the Experts Committee was not the competent committee. It is open to the defendants to submit a request for settlement to the competent committee, the National Committee for Recovery of Assets Located Abroad (NCRAA). In March 2019, the amount of the fine was recovered. The restitution sum is in the course of being recovered through mutual legal assistance requests addressed by the Egyptian authorities to two third countries.2. Suzanne Saleh Thabet The information on the Council’s file shows that the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection of Ms Thabet were respected in the criminal proceedings on which the Council relied. This is demonstrated in particular as follows: Freezing order On 28 February 2011 , the Prosecutor General issued an order prohibiting Ms Thabet and other individuals from disposing of their assets and funds in accordance with Article 208 bis/a of the Egypt Criminal Procedures Act, which allows the Prosecutor General to prohibit the defendant, his wife and his children from disposing of their assets if there are any doubts that such assets are the illegal proceeds of the crimes committed by that defendant. On8 March 2011 , the competent criminal Court upheld the prohibition order. Pursuant to the laws of the Arab Republic of Egypt, defendants have the right to challenge the court ruling on the prohibition order before the same court. Ms Thabet has not challenged the ruling of8 March 2011 .3. Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak The information on the Council’s file shows that the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection of Mr Alaa Mubarak were respected in the criminal proceedings on which the Council relied. This is demonstrated in particular as follows: Freezing order On 28 February 2011 , the Prosecutor General issued an order prohibiting Mr Alaa Mubarak and other individuals from disposing of their assets and funds in accordance with Article 208 bis/a of the Egypt Criminal Procedures Act, which allows the Prosecutor General to prohibit the defendant, his wife and his children from disposing of their assets if there are any doubts that such assets are the illegal proceeds of the crimes committed by that defendant. On8 March 2011 , the competent Criminal Court upheld the prohibition order. Pursuant to the laws of the Arab Republic of Egypt, defendants have the right to challenge the court ruling on the prohibition order before the same court. Mr Alaa Mubarak has not challenged the ruling of8 March 2011 .First case The defendant was referred together with another individual to the trial court (Cairo Criminal Court) on 30 May 2012 . On6 June 2013 , the Court returned the case to the public prosecution for further investigations. After the conclusion of the investigations, the case was referred again to the Court. On15 September 2018 , the Cairo Criminal Court delivered a judgment by which: (i) it requested the expert committee it had appointed to complement the expert report it had submitted to the court in July 2018; (ii) ordered the arrest of the defendants; and (iii) asked to refer the defendants to the National Committee for Recovery of Assets Located Abroad (NCRAA) with a view to a possible reconciliation. The defendants successfully challenged the order of arrest and, following a motion of recusal of the judicial panel, the case was referred to another circuit of the criminal court to review the merits, which acquitted him on22 February 2020 . This ruling is not final and can still be appealed by the Public Prosecution.Second case On 27 June 2013 , Mr Alaa Mubarak was charged together with two other individuals with misappropriation of public funds and proceedings were initiated before the Cairo Criminal Court on17 November 2013 . On21 May 2014 , that Court convicted the three defendants. The defendants challenged this judgment before the Court of Cassation. On13 January 2015 , the Court of Cassation quashed the verdict and ordered a retrial. On retrial, on4 and29 April 2015 , verbal and written pleadings of the parties were presented. On9 May 2015 , the Cairo Criminal Court convicted the defendants, ordered the restitution of the misappropriated funds and ordered the payment of a fine. On24 May 2015 , an appeal was lodged with the Court of Cassation. On9 January 2016 , the Court of Cassation upheld the convictions. On8 March 2016 , the defendants reached a settlement within the Experts Committee set up by Prime Ministerial Decree No 2873 of 2015. That settlement was approved by the Cabinet of Ministers on9 March 2016 . That settlement was not submitted to the Court of Cassation for final approval by the Prosecutor General because the Experts Committee was not the competent committee. It is open to the defendants to submit a request for settlement to the competent committee, the National Committee for Recovery of Assets Located Abroad (NCRAA). In March 2019, the amount of the fine was recovered. The restitution sum is in the course of being recovered through mutual legal assistance requests addressed by the Egyptian authorities to two third countries.4. Heidy Mahmoud Magdy Hussein Rasekh The information on the Council’s file shows that the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection of Ms Rasekh were respected in the criminal proceedings on which the Council relied. This is demonstrated in particular as follows: Freezing order On 28 February 2011 , the Prosecutor General issued an order prohibiting Ms Rasekh and other individuals from disposing of their assets and funds in accordance with Article 208 bis/a of the Egypt Criminal Procedures Act, which allows the Prosecutor General to prohibit the defendant, his wife and his children from disposing of their assets if there are any doubts that such assets are the illegal proceeds of the crimes committed by that defendant. On8 March 2011 , the competent Criminal Court upheld the prohibition order. Pursuant to the laws of the Arab Republic of Egypt, defendants have the right to challenge the court ruling on the prohibition order before the same court. Ms Rasekh has not challenged the ruling of8 March 2011 .5. Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak The information on the Council’s file shows that the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection of Mr Gamal Mubarak were respected in the criminal proceedings on which the Council relied. This is demonstrated in particular as follows: Freezing order On 28 February 2011 , the Prosecutor General issued an order prohibiting Mr Gamal Mubarak and other individuals from disposing of their assets and funds in accordance with Article 208 bis/a of the Egypt Criminal Procedures Act, which allows the Prosecutor General to prohibit the defendant, his wife and his children from disposing of their assets if there are any doubts that such assets are the illegal proceeds of the crimes committed by that defendant. On8 March 2011 , the competent criminal Court upheld the prohibition order. Pursuant to the laws of the Arab Republic of Egypt, defendants have the right to challenge the court ruling on the prohibition order before the same court. Mr Gamal Mubarak has not challenged the ruling of8 March 2011 .First case Mr Gamal Mubarak and another individual were referred to the trial court (Cairo Criminal Court) on 30 May 2012 . On6 June 2013 , the Court returned the case to the public prosecution for further investigations. After the conclusion of the investigations, the case was referred again to the court. On15 September 2018 , the Cairo Criminal Court delivered a judgment by which: (i) it requested the expert committee it had appointed to complement the expert report it had submitted to the Court in July 2018; (ii) ordered the arrest of the defendants; and (iii) asked to refer the defendants to the National Committee for Recovery of Assets Located Abroad (NCRAA) with a view to a possible reconciliation. The defendants successfully challenged the order of arrest and, following a motion of recusal of the judicial panel, the case was referred to another circuit of the criminal court to review the merits, which acquitted him on22 February 2020 . This ruling is not final and can still be appealed by the Public Prosecution.Second case On 27 June 2013 , Mr Gamal Mubarak was charged together with two other individuals with misappropriation of public funds and proceedings were initiated before the Cairo Criminal Court on17 November 2013 . On21 May 2014 , that Court convicted the three defendants. The defendants challenged this judgment before the Court of Cassation. On13 January 2015 , the Court of Cassation quashed the verdict and ordered a retrial. On retrial, on4 and29 April 2015 , verbal and written pleadings of the parties were presented. On9 May 2015 , the Cairo Criminal Court convicted the defendants, ordered the restitution of the misappropriated funds and ordered the payment of a fine. On24 May 2015 , an appeal was lodged with the Court of Cassation. On9 January 2016 , the Court of Cassation upheld the convictions. On8 March 2016 , the defendants reached a settlement within the Experts Committee set up by Prime Ministerial Decree No 2873 of 2015. This settlement was approved by the Cabinet of Ministers on9 March 2016 . This settlement was not submitted to the Court of Cassation for final approval by the Prosecutor General because the Experts Committee was not the competent committee. It is open to the defendants to submit a request for settlement to the competent committee, the National Committee for Recovery of Assets Located Abroad (NCRAA). In March 2019, the amount of the fine was recovered. The restitution sum is in the course of being recovered through mutual legal assistance requests addressed by the Egyptian authorities to two third countries.6. Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal The information on the Council’s file shows that the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection of Ms El Gammal were respected in the criminal proceedings on which the Council relied. This is demonstrated in particular as follows: Freezing order On 28 February 2011 , the Prosecutor General issued an order prohibiting Ms Khadiga El Gammal and other individuals from disposing of their assets and funds in accordance with Article 208 bis/a of the Egypt Criminal Procedures Act, which allows the Prosecutor General to prohibit the defendant, his wife and his children from disposing of their assets if there are any doubts that such assets are the illegal proceeds of the crimes committed by that defendant. On8 March 2011 , the competent criminal court upheld the prohibition order. Pursuant to the laws of the Arab Republic of Egypt, defendants have the right to challenge the court ruling on the prohibition order before the same court. Ms El Gammal has not challenged the ruling of8 March 2011 .15. Mohamed Zohir Mohamed Wahed Garrana The information on the Council’s file shows that the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection of Mr Garrana were respected in the criminal proceedings on which the Council relied. This is demonstrated in particular as follows: Case The investigation relating to facts of misappropriation of public funds or assets is still ongoing. The Council has found no indication that the rights of defence or the right to effective judicial protection of Mr Garrana were not respected. 18. Habib Ibrahim Habib Eladli The information on the Council’s file shows that the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection of Mr Eladli were respected in the criminal proceedings on which the Council relied. This is demonstrated in particular as follows: Case Mr Eladli was referred by the investigating judge to the competent trial court on charges of misappropriation of public funds. On 7 February 2016 , that Court decided that the assets of Mr Eladli, his spouse and minor son should be frozen. Pursuant to that Court decision the Prosecutor General issued a freezing order on10 February 2016 in accordance with Article 208 bis/a of the Egypt Criminal Procedures Act, which allows the Prosecutor General to prohibit the defendant, his wife and his children from disposing of their assets if there are any doubts that such assets are the illegal proceeds of the crimes committed by that defendant. Pursuant to the laws of the Arab Republic of Egypt, defendants have the right to challenge the court ruling on the prohibition order before the same court. On15 April 2017 , the Court convicted the defendant. The defendant challenged this judgment before the Court of Cassation, which quashed the verdict on11 January 2018 and ordered a retrial. On retrial, he was sentenced to a fine on9 May 2019 . Both the Public Prosecution and Mr Eladli have brought an appeal against that ruling before the Court of Cassation. The case is still pending before that Court.19. Elham Sayed Salem Sharshar The information on the Council’s file shows that the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection of Ms Sharshar were respected in the criminal proceedings on which the Council relied. This is demonstrated in particular as follows: Freezing order The husband of Ms Sharshar was referred by the investigating judge to the competent trial court on charges of misappropriation of public funds. On 7 February 2016 that Court decided that the assets of her husband, her own and those of their minor son should be frozen. Pursuant to that Court decision the Prosecutor General issued a freezing order on10 February 2016 in accordance with Article 208 bis/a of the Egypt Criminal Procedures Act, which allows the Prosecutor General to prohibit the defendant, his wife and his children from disposing of their assets if there are any doubts that such assets are the illegal proceeds of the crimes committed by that defendant. Pursuant to the laws of the Arab Republic of Egypt, defendants have the right to challenge the court ruling on the prohibition order before the same court. Ms Sharshar has not challenged the Court ruling.
Loading ...