Order — ECLI:EU:T:2013:120
Date: 2013-03-11
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: President of the Chamber
Subject matter: External relations;Common foreign and security policy
Procedure: Action for annulment;Application for interim measures - unfounded

Action brought on 21 December 2012 - North Drilling v Council (Case T-552/12) Language of the case: Spanish Parties Applicant: North Drilling Co. (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers) Defendant: Council of the European Union Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul Article 2 of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it concerns it and remove its name from the annex thereto; annul Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012, implementing Regulation (EU) 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it concerns it and remove its name from the annex thereto, and order the Council to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging manifest error The first plea alleges a manifest error of assessment of the facts on which the contested provisions are based, as they lack any real factual and evidential basis. Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons The second plea alleges a breach of the duty to state reasons, as the contested provisions are vitiated in relation to NDC by a statement of reasons which is inadequate, general and stereotypical. Third plea in law, alleging disregard for the right to judicial protection The third plea alleges infringement of the right to effective judicial protection with regard to the statement of reasons for the measures, the lack of evidence in relation to the reasons stated and the rights of the defence and the right to property, given that the requirement to state reasons has not been fulfilled, which has an impact on the other rights. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property The fourth plea is based on infringement of the right to property, since that right was restricted without valid justification. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment The fifth plea is based on infringement of the principle of equal treatment, since the relative position of the applicant has been prejudiced without reason. Sixth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers The sixth plea in law is based on misuse of powers, since there is objective, precise and consistent evidence which supports the argument that the sanction was adopted for purposes other than those put forward by the Council. ____________