# C_2015294EN.01007601.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/76

---

Action brought on 16 June 2015 — Ocean Capital Administration a.O. v Conseil

(Case T-332/15)

(2015/C 294/91)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Ocean Capital Administration GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), First Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), First Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Second Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Second Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Third Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Third Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Fourth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Fourth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Fifth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Fifth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Sixth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Sixth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Seventh Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Seventh Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Eighth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Eighth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Ninth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Ninth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Tenth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Tenth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Eleventh Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Eleventh Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Twelfth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Twelfth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg), Thirteenth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Fourteenth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Fifteenth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), Sixteenth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg), IRISL Maritime Training Institute (Tehran, Iran), Kheibar Co. (Tehran), Kish Shipping Line Manning Co. (Kish Island, Iran) (represented by: P. Moser, QC, E. Metcalfe, Barrister, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

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

—

declare inapplicable Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ L 272, p. 1) concerning restrictive measures against Iran, on the basis of the objection of illegality;

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/556 of 7 April 2015 amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (JO L 92, p. 101) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/549 of 7 April 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ L 92, p. 12) concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as they apply to the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/556 of 7 April 2015 amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (JO L 92, p. 101) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/549 of 7 April 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ L 92, p. 12) concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as they apply to the applicants;

| — | order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, being a plea of illegality under Article 277 TFUE, seeking a declaration of inapplicability of Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ L 272, p. 1) concerning restrictive measures against Iran.
  The applicants bring forward that the criteria adopted by the said Decision and Regulation, first, lack an adequate legal basis, second, lack an adequate factual basis, in that the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (‘IRISL’) has been found by the General Court in its judgment in Case T-489/10, IRISL v Council, ECLI:EU:T:2013:453, not to have breached the restrictive measures imposed by the Security Council, third, breach the applicants’ right to an effective remedy and the principles of ne bis in idem and res judicata, fourth, discriminate against entities alleged to be owned or controlled by IRISL without justification or proportionality, fifth, violate the applicants’ right of defence, sixth, violate, without justification or proportion, other of the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to property, to conduct a business and to respect for their reputation, and, seventh, entail an abuse of power by the Council, in that it has simply re-applied the same restrictive measures to the applicants in circumvention of a binding judgment of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, being a plea of illegality under Article 277 TFUE, seeking a declaration of inapplicability of Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ L 272, p. 1) concerning restrictive measures against Iran.

The applicants bring forward that the criteria adopted by the said Decision and Regulation, first, lack an adequate legal basis, second, lack an adequate factual basis, in that the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (‘IRISL’) has been found by the General Court in its judgment in Case T-489/10, IRISL v Council, ECLI:EU:T:2013:453, not to have breached the restrictive measures imposed by the Security Council, third, breach the applicants’ right to an effective remedy and the principles of ne bis in idem and res judicata, fourth, discriminate against entities alleged to be owned or controlled by IRISL without justification or proportionality, fifth, violate the applicants’ right of defence, sixth, violate, without justification or proportion, other of the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to property, to conduct a business and to respect for their reputation, and, seventh, entail an abuse of power by the Council, in that it has simply re-applied the same restrictive measures to the applicants in circumvention of a binding judgment of the General Court.

IRISL

Council,

ne bis in idem

res judicata

| 2. | Second plea in law, being a plea for annulment under Article 263 TFUE, seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/556 of 7 April 2015 amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (JO L 92, p. 101) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/549 of 7 April 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ L 92, p. 12) concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as they apply to the applicants.
  The applicants bring forward that the said Decision and Implementing Regulation, first, lack an adequate legal basis, second, involve manifest errors of assessment, third, lack a sufficient factual basis, fourth, breach the applicant’s rights of defence and their entitlement to reasons, fifth, breach the applicant’s rights to an effective remedy, the principle of ne bis in idem and the general principle of legitimate expectation, and, sixth, violate without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular their rights to property and to conduct a business. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, being a plea for annulment under Article 263 TFUE, seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/556 of 7 April 2015 amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (JO L 92, p. 101) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/549 of 7 April 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ L 92, p. 12) concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as they apply to the applicants.

The applicants bring forward that the said Decision and Implementing Regulation, first, lack an adequate legal basis, second, involve manifest errors of assessment, third, lack a sufficient factual basis, fourth, breach the applicant’s rights of defence and their entitlement to reasons, fifth, breach the applicant’s rights to an effective remedy, the principle of ne bis in idem and the general principle of legitimate expectation, and, sixth, violate without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular their rights to property and to conduct a business.

ne bis in idem

---