# C_2012109EN.01002202.xml

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/22

---

Action brought on 9 February 2012 — IRISL Maritime Training Institute and Others v Council

(Case T-56/12)

2012/C 109/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: IRISL Maritime Training Institute (Tehran, Iran), Kara Shipping and Chartering GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany), Kheibar Co. (Tehran, Iran), Kish Shipping Line Manning Co. (Kish Island, Iran), Fairway Shipping Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and IRISL Multimodal Transport Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: F. Randolph and M. Lester, Barristers, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11), insofar as they concern the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11), insofar as they concern the applicants;

| — | 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 their action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law, alleging that in including their names in the lists enclosed to the contested Decision and Regulation, the Council has:

| — | failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons; |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons;

| — | failed to fulfil the criteria for listing, and/or committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that those criteria were satisfied in relation to the applicants and/or included the applicants without an adequate legal basis for doing so; |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to fulfil the criteria for listing, and/or committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that those criteria were satisfied in relation to the applicants and/or included the applicants without an adequate legal basis for doing so;

| — | failed to safeguard the applicants’ rights of defence and right to effective judicial review; and |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to safeguard the applicants’ rights of defence and right to effective judicial review; and

| — | infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to protection of their property, business, and reputation. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to protection of their property, business, and reputation.

---