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 62017TN0568

    Case T-568/17: Action brought on 18 August 2017 — Korea National Insurance Corporation v Council and Commission

    IO C 338, 9.10.2017, p. 19–20 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    18/08/2017
    Date lodged:
    18/08/2017
    Author:
    Cúirt Ghinearálta
    Form:
    Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
    Authentic language:
    Béarla
    Type of procedure:
    Caingean le haghaidh neamhniú
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Case affecting:
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    9.10.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 338/19

    Action brought on 18 August 2017 — Korea National Insurance Corporation v Council and Commission

    (Case T-568/17)

    (2017/C 338/22)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Korea National Insurance Corporation (Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Lester and S. Midwinter, QC, T. Brentnall and A. Stevenson, Solicitors)

    Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/993 of 12 June 2017 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 149, p. 67) , Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/994 of 12 June 2017 amending Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 149, p. 75), Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/1459 of 10 August 2017 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 208, p. 38), and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1457 of 10 August 2017 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 208, p. 33), insofar as those acts include the applicant in the list of entities subject to restrictive measures.

    —

    order the defendants to pay the applicant’s 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, alleging that the defendants have failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the defendants have manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the applicant’s case; there is no factual basis for its inclusion.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging that the defendants failed to give the applicant the evidence purportedly in support of their decision to relist the applicant before it was relisted, or in support of the EU implementation of its UN listing, in breach of the applicant’s rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have failed to discharge their obligations when deciding to list the applicant following its UN designation.

    5.

    Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have misused their powers by attempting to render ineffective and thereby evade the applicant’s right to an effective remedy in relation to its listing pursuant to Article 230 TFEU and/or they have breached the applicant’s right to equal treatment.

    6.

    Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have breached data protection law.

    7.

    Seventh plea in law, alleging that the defendants have infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business, and reputation.
    Top