Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62014TN0539

    Case T-539/14: Action brought on 16 July 2014  — North Drilling v Council

    OJ C 303, 8.9.2014, p. 55–56 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    8.9.2014   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 303/55

    Action brought on 16 July 2014 — North Drilling v Council

    (Case T-539/14)

    2014/C 303/66

    Language of the case: Spanish

    Parties

    Applicant: North Drilling Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

    Defendant: Council of the European Union

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the General Court should:

    —

    annul Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/222/CFSP of 16 April 2014, in so far as it refers to the applicant, and remove the applicant’s name from the annex thereto;

    —

    annul Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 397/2014 of 16 April 2014, in so far as it refers to the applicant, and remove the applicant’s name from the annex thereto; and

    —

    order the Council to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law: a manifest error in the assessment of the facts on which the contested measures are based, in that they lack any factual or evidential basis.

    2.

    Second plea in law: breach of the obligation to state reasons, since the reasons stated for the contested measures, as regards the applicant, lack any real basis and are imprecise, unspecific and generic, making it impossible for the applicant adequately to prepare its defence.

    3.

    Third plea in law: infringement of the right to effective judicial protection as regards the reasons stated for the measures, the lack of evidence for the reasons stated and the rights of defence and of property, since the requirements to state reasons and to provide actual evidence were not met, which affects the other rights.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law: misuse of power, since there is objective, specific and consistent evidence that, in adopting the penalties, the Council pursued aims different from those it claimed to pursue, thus misusing its power in a fraudulent manner.

    5.

    Fifth plea in law: misinterpretation of the legal rules intended to be applied, in that they are interpreted and applied in an incorrect and extensive manner, which is inadmissible in relation to penalties.

    6.

    Sixth plea in law: infringement of the right to property, in that the applicant’s right to property was limited without any real justification and without respecting the principle of proportionality.

    7.

    Seventh plea in law: breach of the principle of equal treatment, since the applicant’s competitive position was damaged, without there being any justification for such treatment.
    Top