# C_2015171EN.01002601.xml

| 26.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/26

---

Action brought on 25 February 2015 — Uganda Commercial Impex v Council

(Case T-107/15)

(2015/C 171/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Uganda Commercial Impex Ltd (Kampala, Uganda) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, K. Mittal and Z. Burbeza, Solicitors, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/862/CFSP (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1275/2014 (2) insofar as they apply to the applicant (including the entry of the applicant in entry b) 9 of the Annex to Decision 2014/862/CFSP); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/862/CFSP (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1275/2014 (2) insofar as they apply to the applicant (including the entry of the applicant in entry b) 9 of the Annex to Decision 2014/862/CFSP);

1

2

| — | insofar as necessary to declare Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 (as amended) inapplicable to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

insofar as necessary to declare Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 (as amended) inapplicable to the applicant; and

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

—

order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs of this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to undertake any or any adequate independent assessment of the applicant’s designation, as it was required to do, and has erred in law in following the decision of the UN Sanctions Committee without undertaking any EU-level assessment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to undertake any or any adequate independent assessment of the applicant’s designation, as it was required to do, and has erred in law in following the decision of the UN Sanctions Committee without undertaking any EU-level assessment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment and/or the applicant’s designation is unlawful because the criteria for designation are not met in the applicant’s case. In particular, there is no basis for alleging that the applicant has breached the arms embargo and the Council cannot and/or has failed to establish any relevant matters set out in its statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment and/or the applicant’s designation is unlawful because the criteria for designation are not met in the applicant’s case. In particular, there is no basis for alleging that the applicant has breached the arms embargo and the Council cannot and/or has failed to establish any relevant matters set out in its statement of reasons.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the applicant’s procedural rights and in particular its rights of defence and rights to effective judicial protection, by inter alia failing to provide the applicant with the material on which its designation was maintained prior to the passing of Council Implementing Decision 2014/862/CFSP and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1275/2014, and by failing to give adequate reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the applicant’s procedural rights and in particular its rights of defence and rights to effective judicial protection, by inter alia failing to provide the applicant with the material on which its designation was maintained prior to the passing of Council Implementing Decision 2014/862/CFSP and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1275/2014, and by failing to give adequate reasons.

inter alia

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s designation is in any event in breach with its fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s designation is in any event in breach with its fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  Council Implementing Decision 2014/862/CFSP of 1 December 2014 implementing Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ L 346, p. 36).

1

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1275/2014 of 1 December 2014 implementing Article 9(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ L 346, p. 3).

2

---