Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62017TN0742

Case T-742/17: Action brought on 9 November 2017 — Kim and Others v Council

OJ C 13, 15.1.2018, p. 28–29 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

15.1.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/28

Action brought on 9 November 2017 — Kim and Others v Council

(Case T-742/17)

(2018/C 013/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Il-Su Kim (Pyongyang, North Korea), Song-Sam Kang (Hamburg, Germany), Chun-Sik Choe (Pyongyang), Kyu-Nam Sin (Pyongyang) and Chun-San Pak (Pyongyang) (represented by: M. Lester, QC, S. Midwinter, QC, T. Brentnall and A. Stevenson, solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

annul Council Regulation 2017/1509 of 30 August 2017 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and repealing Regulation (EC) No 329/2007, insofar as it applies to them;

—

order the Defendant to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Defendant has failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the Applicants.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Defendant has manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the Applicants’ case; there is no factual basis for their inclusion.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Defendant has breached the Applicants’ right to equal treatment.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Defendant has breached the Applicants’ rights of defence by failing to provide them with the evidence on which the Defendant relies before re-listing the Applicants.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Defendant has breached data protection law.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Defendant has infringed, without justification or proportion, the Applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to protection of his property, business, and reputation.
Top