# C_2011282EN.01004401.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/44

---

Action brought on 6 August 2011 — Qualitest FZE v Council

(Case T-421/11)

2011/C 282/81

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Qualitest FZE (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: M. Catrain González, lawyer, E. Wright and H. Zhu, Barristers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26) and Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65), so far as they apply to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26) and Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65), so far as they apply to the applicant; and

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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 that the defendant has breached the obligation imposed upon it by Article 296 TFEU to state the reasons for including the applicant in the contested measures. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has breached the obligation imposed upon it by Article 296 TFEU to state the reasons for including the applicant in the contested measures.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that by failing to include any statement of reasons in the contested measures, the defendant has infringed the applicant’s right of defence, as:






  — | The absence of any justification prevents the applicant to effectively make known his view on the information or material against it; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that by failing to include any statement of reasons in the contested measures, the defendant has infringed the applicant’s right of defence, as:

—

The absence of any justification prevents the applicant to effectively make known his view on the information or material against it; and

| — | These failures constitute a fundamental breach of the defendant’s obligations in relation to the contested measures and render such invalid in so far as they apply to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

These failures constitute a fundamental breach of the defendant’s obligations in relation to the contested measures and render such invalid in so far as they apply to the applicant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the applicant was involved in the procurement of components for Iranian nuclear programme and that the legal conditions for its inclusion have been fulfilled. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the applicant was involved in the procurement of components for Iranian nuclear programme and that the legal conditions for its inclusion have been fulfilled.

---