# C_2019319EN.01002501.xml

| 23.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/25

---

Appeal brought on 2 July 2019 by Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL), Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines (SAPID), Khazar Sea Shipping Lines Co., Rahbaran Omid Darya Ship Management Co., Irinvestship Ltd and IRISL Europe GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 May 2019 in Case T-434/15: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines e.a. v Council

(Case C-506/19 P)

(2019/C 319/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL), Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines (SAPID), Khazar Sea Shipping Lines Co., Rahbaran Omid Darya Ship Management Co., Irinvestship Ltd and IRISL Europe GmbH (represented by: M. Taher, Solicitor, R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court;

| — | hold that the Council committed a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals by way of the Designation of the Appellants; |
| --- | --- |

—

hold that the Council committed a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals by way of the Designation of the Appellants;

| — | remit the case to the General Court to determine the contingent application for measures of inquiry contained in the application, and then (subsequently) to determine the issues of causation and quantum; and |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the case to the General Court to determine the contingent application for measures of inquiry contained in the application, and then (subsequently) to determine the issues of causation and quantum; and

| — | order the Council to pay the appellants’ costs of the appeal and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court so far. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the appellants’ costs of the appeal and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court so far.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court committed five errors of law on the basis of which the judgment should be set aside:

| 1. | error in the application of the conclusion that the Council had no discretion; |
| --- | --- |

1.

error in the application of the conclusion that the Council had no discretion;

| 2. | error in the application of the reasoning in the IRISL Annulment Judgment [2013] to the test for sufficiently serious breach; |
| --- | --- |

2.

error in the application of the reasoning in the IRISL Annulment Judgment [2013] to the test for sufficiently serious breach;

| 3. | no basis in law for the ‘no evidence’/‘inadequate evidence’ distinction, which was inapplicable in any event; |
| --- | --- |

3.

no basis in law for the ‘no evidence’/‘inadequate evidence’ distinction, which was inapplicable in any event;

| 4. | error in law in purporting to rely on evidence not before the Court; and |
| --- | --- |

4.

error in law in purporting to rely on evidence not before the Court; and

| 5. | error in law in applying HTTS as an issue estoppel/res judicata. |
| --- | --- |

5.

error in law in applying HTTS as an issue estoppel/res judicata.

---