# C_2013325EN.01003501.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/35

---

Action brought on 16 August 2013 — Good Luck Shipping v Council

(Case T-423/13)

2013/C 325/59

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Good Luck Shipping LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: F. Randolph, QC, M. Lester, Barrister, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

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 Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 10) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 3), in so far as they relate to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 10) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 3), in so far as they relate to the applicant; and

| — | 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 four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to fulfill the criteria for listing, and/or committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that those criteria were satisfied in relation to the applicant and/or included the applicant without an adequate legal basis for doing so. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to fulfill the criteria for listing, and/or committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that those criteria were satisfied in relation to the applicant and/or included the applicant without an adequate legal basis for doing so.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial review. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial review.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business, and reputation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business, and reputation.

---