# C_2014071EN.01002701.xml

| 8.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/27

---

Action brought on 20 January 2014 — HTTS and Bateni v Council

(Case T-45/14)

(2014/C 71/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) and Naser Bateni (Hamburg) (represented by: M. Schlingmann and F. Lautenschlager, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The first applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it applies to the first applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it applies to the first applicant;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it applies to the first applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it applies to the first applicant;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings, in particular the costs incurred by the first applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings, in particular the costs incurred by the first applicant.

The second applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it applies to the second applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it applies to the second applicant;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it applies to the second applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it applies to the second applicant;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings, in particular the costs incurred by the second applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings, in particular the costs incurred by the second applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants put forward four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law: Unlawfulness and inapplicability of the amended version of Decision 2010/413/CFSP and of Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, (1) pursuant to Article 277 TFEU
  In this context, the applicants submit, inter alia, that the Council altered the legal basis for their inclusion in the sanctions lists in order to be able to impose sanctions on them. The Council therefore manifestly misused its discretionary power by altering the legal basis. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: Unlawfulness and inapplicability of the amended version of Decision 2010/413/CFSP and of Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, (1) pursuant to Article 277 TFEU

In this context, the applicants submit, inter alia, that the Council altered the legal basis for their inclusion in the sanctions lists in order to be able to impose sanctions on them. The Council therefore manifestly misused its discretionary power by altering the legal basis.

| 2. | Second plea in law: Infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and of the requirement to state reasons
  In this regard, the applicants submit in essence that the Council provided insufficient grounds for their inclusion in the sanctions lists. There is a total lack of any statement of reasons for essential factors on which the Commission relies in its decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: Infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and of the requirement to state reasons

In this regard, the applicants submit in essence that the Council provided insufficient grounds for their inclusion in the sanctions lists. There is a total lack of any statement of reasons for essential factors on which the Commission relies in its decision.

| 3. | Third plea in law: Lack of a basis for the applicants’ inclusion in the sanctions lists
  By this plea in law, the applicants submit that the Council’s statement of reasons cannot in substance justify the applicants’ renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: Lack of a basis for the applicants’ inclusion in the sanctions lists

By this plea in law, the applicants submit that the Council’s statement of reasons cannot in substance justify the applicants’ renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: Infringement of the right to property, the right freely to conduct business, the right to respect for family life and the principle of proportionality
  Finally, the applicants submit that their renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists infringes their right to property and to conduct business freely, as well as the second applicant’s right to respect for family life. The applicants are of the view that their inclusion in the sanctions lists constitutes a disproportionate interference, is manifestly inappropriate to realise the objectives pursued by the contested legal acts and in any event goes beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: Infringement of the right to property, the right freely to conduct business, the right to respect for family life and the principle of proportionality

Finally, the applicants submit that their renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists infringes their right to property and to conduct business freely, as well as the second applicant’s right to respect for family life. The applicants are of the view that their inclusion in the sanctions lists constitutes a disproportionate interference, is manifestly inappropriate to realise the objectives pursued by the contested legal acts and in any event goes beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

---