# C_2012089EN.01002901.xml

| 24.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/29

---

Action brought on 12 February 2012 — CF Sharp Shipping Agencies Pte v Council

(Case T-53/12)

2012/C 89/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CF Sharp Shipping Agencies Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: S. Drury, Solicitor, K. Adamantopoulos and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 (1) and Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (2)
  ab initio and with immediate effect insofar as it concerns applicant’s inclusion in Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 (1) and Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (2)
  ab initio and with immediate effect insofar as it concerns applicant’s inclusion in Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010; and

1

2

ab initio

| — | 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 by stating that the applicant is an Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines front company, owned or controlled by the latter, the defendant has manifestly misstated the facts and committed a manifest error in the application of Article 16 (2) (d) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 by including the applicant in Annex VIII to the said Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that by stating that the applicant is an Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines front company, owned or controlled by the latter, the defendant has manifestly misstated the facts and committed a manifest error in the application of Article 16 (2) (d) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 by including the applicant in Annex VIII to the said Regulation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed its obligations to give reasons contained in Article 296 TFEU and Article 36 (3) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed its obligations to give reasons contained in Article 296 TFEU and Article 36 (3) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the defendant’s failure to state reasons has resulted in the infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard and the right to an effective judicial review. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the defendant’s failure to state reasons has resulted in the infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard and the right to an effective judicial review.

---

(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11)

1

(2)  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)

2

---