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 62012TN0182

Case T-182/12: Action brought on 26 April 2012 — HTTS v Council

IO C 174, 16.6.2012, p. 29–29 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
26/04/2012
Date lodged:
26/04/2012
Author:
Cúirt Ghinearálta
Form:
Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
Authentic language:
Gearmáinis
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Case affecting:
Link

16.6.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/29

Action brought on 26 April 2012 — HTTS v Council

(Case T-182/12)

2012/C 174/47

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Kienzle and M. Schlingmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

—

Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

—

Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings, in particular the applicant’s expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence

—

In the applicant’s submission, the Council infringed the applicant’s right to effective legal protection and, in particular, the obligation to state reasons by failing to supply sufficient grounds for the applicant’s renewed inclusion in the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Article 23 of the contested regulation.

—

The Council infringed the applicant’s right to be heard by not giving the applicant the opportunity to comment beforehand on its renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists and thereby to trigger a review by the Council.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the absence of any basis for the applicant’s renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists

—

According to the applicant, the reasons stated by the Council for the applicant’s renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists do not support its renewed inclusion and are substantively inaccurate. In particular, the applicant is not controlled by IRISL.

—

The applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists is based on a manifestly erroneous assessment by the Council of the applicant’s situation and of its activities.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental right to respect for property

—

In the applicant’s submission, its renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists represents unjustified interference with its fundamental right to property as the applicant cannot, given the Council’s inadequate reasoning, understand on what grounds it has been included in the lists of persons affected by the sanctions.

—

The applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists represents disproportionate interference with its property rights and is manifestly inappropriate to the fulfilment of the objectives pursued by the contested regulation. In any event, it exceeds that which is necessary for the attainment of those objectives.
Top