# C_2012157EN.01000803.xml

| 2.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/8

---

Action brought on 21 March 2012 — HTTS v Council

(Case T-128/12)

2012/C 157/15

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Kienzle and M. Schlingmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2012 of 23 January 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (2) in so far as they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2012 of 23 January 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (2) in so far as they concern the applicant;

1

2

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings, in particular the applicant’s expenses. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings, in particular the applicant’s expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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 infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence






  — | The applicant submits in this context that the Council infringed the applicant’s right to effective legal protection and, in particular, the obligation to state reasons by failing to supply sufficient grounds for the renewed inclusion of the applicant in the lists of persons, bodies and entities subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Articles 19 and 20 of Decision 2010/413/CFSP (3) and with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 961/2010. (4) |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence

—

The applicant submits in this context that the Council infringed the applicant’s right to effective legal protection and, in particular, the obligation to state reasons by failing to supply sufficient grounds for the renewed inclusion of the applicant in the lists of persons, bodies and entities subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Articles 19 and 20 of Decision 2010/413/CFSP (3) and with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 961/2010. (4)

3

4

| — | Furthermore the Council failed, in spite of the applicant’s request, to review its decision to renew the applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists. |
| --- | --- |

—

Furthermore the Council failed, in spite of the applicant’s request, to review its decision to renew the applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists.

| — | In addition the Council infringed the applicant’s right to be heard by not giving the applicant the opportunity to comment beforehand on its renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists and thereby to trigger a review by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

In addition the Council infringed the applicant’s right to be heard by not giving the applicant the opportunity to comment beforehand on its renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists and thereby to trigger a review by the Council.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the absence of any legal basis for the contested regulation
  In the applicant’s view, the contested implementing regulation has no legal basis as Regulation No 961/2010 was annulled by the General Court by its judgment of 7 December 2011 in Case T-562/10 in so far as it concerns the applicant; despite the fact that the effects of Regulation No 961/2010 were maintained for a period of two months, that regulation cannot, with regard to the applicant, constitute an effective legal basis for the adoption of an implementing regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the absence of any legal basis for the contested regulation

In the applicant’s view, the contested implementing regulation has no legal basis as Regulation No 961/2010 was annulled by the General Court by its judgment of 7 December 2011 in Case T-562/10 in so far as it concerns the applicant; despite the fact that the effects of Regulation No 961/2010 were maintained for a period of two months, that regulation cannot, with regard to the applicant, constitute an effective legal basis for the adoption of an implementing regulation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU
  The applicant further submits that the Council did not adopt any measures to give effect to the judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2011 in Case T-562/10; instead it renewed the applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists, contrary to the Court’s judgment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU

The applicant further submits that the Council did not adopt any measures to give effect to the judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2011 in Case T-562/10; instead it renewed the applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists, contrary to the Court’s judgment.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging the absence of any basis for the applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists
  The applicant submits, moreover, that the reasons given by the Council for the inclusion of the applicant in the sanctions lists are largely inapplicable and do not justify the applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging the absence of any basis for the applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists

The applicant submits, moreover, that the reasons given by the Council for the inclusion of the applicant in the sanctions lists are largely inapplicable and do not justify the applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental right to respect for property
  The applicant’s renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists represents unjustified interference with its fundamental right to property as the applicant cannot, given the Council’s inadequate reasoning, understand on what grounds it has been included in the sanctions lists. The applicant’s renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists is in addition based on a manifestly erroneous assessment by the Council of the applicant’s situation and of its activities and is, moreover, disproportionate. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental right to respect for property

The applicant’s renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists represents unjustified interference with its fundamental right to property as the applicant cannot, given the Council’s inadequate reasoning, understand on what grounds it has been included in the sanctions lists. The applicant’s renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists is in addition based on a manifestly erroneous assessment by the Council of the applicant’s situation and of its activities and is, moreover, disproportionate.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22).

1

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2012 of 23 January 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 1).

2

(3)  2010/413/CFSP: Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39).

3

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1).

4

---