# C_2014071EN.01002601.xml

| 8.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/26

---

Action brought on 6 January 2014 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others/Council

(Case T-14/14)

(2014/C 71/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (Tehran, Iran), Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL) (Tehran), Khazar Shipping Lines (Anzali Free Zone, Iran), IRISL Europe GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), IRISL Marine Services and Engineering Co. (Qeshm Island, Iran), Irano — Misr Shipping Co. (Tehran), Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines (SAPID) (Tehran), Shipping Computer Services Co. (Tehran), Soroush Sarzamin Asatir Ship Management (Tehran), South Way Shipping Agency Co. Ltd (Tehran); and Valfajr 8th Shipping Line Co. (Tehran) (represented by: F. Randolph, QC, M. Lester, Barrister, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Annul Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 46) and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013, amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 46) and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013, amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 1);

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that there is no proper legal basis for the contested measures, which include as listing criteria a connection with the first applicant (IRISL), shortly after the latter succeeded in its application for annulment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that there is no proper legal basis for the contested measures, which include as listing criteria a connection with the first applicant (IRISL), shortly after the latter succeeded in its application for annulment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicants’ legitimate expectations and the principles of finality, legal certainty, non bis in idem, res judicata and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicants’ legitimate expectations and the principles of finality, legal certainty, non bis in idem, res judicata and non-discrimination.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicants’ rights of defence by not informing IRISL or the other applicants that it intended to enact the contested measures and not giving the applicants a chance to make observations. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicants’ rights of defence by not informing IRISL or the other applicants that it intended to enact the contested measures and not giving the applicants a chance to make observations.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures violate the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to respect for their reputation and property. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures violate the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to respect for their reputation and property.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has abused its powers by enacting the contested measures; targeting IRISL and connected companies in circumvention of a Court judgment is not a proper use of its powers. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has abused its powers by enacting the contested measures; targeting IRISL and connected companies in circumvention of a Court judgment is not a proper use of its powers.

---