# C_2014112EN.01004701.xml

| 14.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/47

---

Action brought on 24 January 2014 — Bredenkamp and others v Council and Commission

(Case T-66/14)

2014/C 112/60

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: John Arnold Bredenkamp (Harare, Zimbabwe); Echo Delta (Holdings) PCC Ltd (Castletown, Ile de Man); Scottlee Holdings (Private) Ltd (Harare); and Fodya (Private) Ltd (Harare) (represented by: P. Moser, QC (Queen's Counsel) and G. Martin, Solicitor)

Applicants:

Defendants: European Commission and Council of the European Union

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Adopt a measure of organisation of procedure to order the defendants to produce all information or evidence, which may be in the possession of those institutions concerning the listing of the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

Adopt a measure of organisation of procedure to order the defendants to produce all information or evidence, which may be in the possession of those institutions concerning the listing of the applicants;

| — | Order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the applicants damages for non-material and material losses suffered due to the unlawful imposition of EU sanctions on the applicants by adding (and then maintaining until 2012) the applicants’ names in the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 by, respectively: Council Common Position 2009/68/CFSP and Commission Regulation (EC) No 77/2009; Council Decision 2010/92/CFSP and Commission Regulation (EU) No 173/2010, and Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP and Commission Regulation (EU) No 174/2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the applicants damages for non-material and material losses suffered due to the unlawful imposition of EU sanctions on the applicants by adding (and then maintaining until 2012) the applicants’ names in the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 by, respectively: Council Common Position 2009/68/CFSP and Commission Regulation (EC) No 77/2009; Council Decision 2010/92/CFSP and Commission Regulation (EU) No 173/2010, and Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP and Commission Regulation (EU) No 174/2011;

| — | Order that compound interest at the rate of Euribor + 2 % (or such other interest rate as may be ordered) is to be paid on the amount payable from the defendants to the applicants as from the date of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that compound interest at the rate of Euribor + 2 % (or such other interest rate as may be ordered) is to be paid on the amount payable from the defendants to the applicants as from the date of the judgment;

| — | Order the defendants to pay the applicants’ costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendants to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the acts in question lacked any proper legal basis, being promulgated on the basis of Articles 60 and 301 EC only, which concern exclusively provisions vis-à-vis third countries, not private individuals and companies. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the acts in question lacked any proper legal basis, being promulgated on the basis of Articles 60 and 301 EC only, which concern exclusively provisions vis-à-vis third countries, not private individuals and companies.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the acts in question disclosed manifest errors of fact in failing to show any strong ties to the Government of Zimbabwe or financial or other support for the regime, thereby failing to satisfy the defendants’ burden of proof and resulting in an unlawful decision making process. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the acts in question disclosed manifest errors of fact in failing to show any strong ties to the Government of Zimbabwe or financial or other support for the regime, thereby failing to satisfy the defendants’ burden of proof and resulting in an unlawful decision making process.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the acts in question violated essential procedural requirements by failing to give any or sufficient reasons, and failing to give the applicants the opportunity to be heard or make exculpatory submissions. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the acts in question violated essential procedural requirements by failing to give any or sufficient reasons, and failing to give the applicants the opportunity to be heard or make exculpatory submissions.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the acts in question violated fundamental principles of EU law as also enshrined in Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), by unlawfully restricting the Applicants’ rights to their own property. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the acts in question violated fundamental principles of EU law as also enshrined in Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), by unlawfully restricting the Applicants’ rights to their own property.

---