—

annul, on the basis of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

—

order the defendant to pay all costs

1.

First plea in law, alleging a breach of the obligation to state reasons and failure to comply with the criteria for the designation of persons affected by the restrictive measures at issue. By this plea, the applicant complains that the Council based its listing on the allegations against Sapang Shipping Inc. and the ship ARGENT, without setting out the separate offences committed by the applicant. The Council incorrectly treated the purely administrative function of ‘authorised agent’ in Mauritian law as a form of operational participation or active support, in disregard of the criteria of Article 3(1)(k) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard, the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection. By this plea, the applicant complains that the Council (i) did not communicate the file WK 7656/25 to the applicant before its listing, (ii) failed to examine the observations and supporting documents submitted, and (iii) overlooked essential evidence demonstrating the absence of any link with Sapang Shipping Inc.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the facts of the case, on the ground that there is no proof establishing that the applicant possessed, controlled or operated a ship, or gave any material, technical, or financial support to any activity linked to the Russian Federation. The listing is based on the automatic and unfounded equating of the applicant with Sapang Shipping Inc.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property. By this plea, the applicant complains that the Council infringed its right to property on account of the unlawful inclusion of its name on the list. The freezing of assets of the applicant, a Mauritian company without any link to Russia, constitutes a serious and unjustified interference with its fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), and by Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality, on the ground that the designation of the applicant is neither necessary nor proportionate to the objectives of the sanctions regime in so far as the company did not play any role in the alleged activities of Sapang Shipping Inc. and that measures which were less detrimental to the applicant’s rights could have been adopted.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of international law, in so far as the designation of the applicant, a third country company with no territorial or economic link to the European Union, equates to an extraterritorial sanction contrary to the principles of territoriality and of non-interference laid out by the Charter of the United Nations.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers, in so far as the Council used the restrictive measures regime not to meet the objectives laid down in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, but to indistinctly target foreign intermediaries without any real link to the sanctioned activities, which constitutes a misuse of purpose.

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation of professional secrecy. By this plea, the applicant complains that the Council wrongly sent the reconsideration decision relating to the applicant to unauthorised third-party lawyers, thus infringing Articles 7 and 47 of the Charter and Article 339 TFEU. The applicant maintains that this disclosure of confidential information undermined its procedural rights.