CELEX: 62015TN0347
Language: en
Date: 2015-06-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-347/15: Action brought on 18 June 2015 — Uganda Commercial Impex v Council

20150731037616952015/C 270/503472015TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150618404121Case T-347/15: Action brought on 18 June 2015 — Uganda Commercial Impex v Council
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN4010120150618EN0050401412Action brought on 18 June 2015 — Uganda Commercial Impex v Council
   (Case T-347/15)2015/C 270/50Language of the case: English
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Uganda Commercial Impex (UCI) Ltd (Kampala, Uganda) (represented by: A. Meskarian, S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, K. Mittal, Solicitors, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
            —
         
         
            annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/620 (
                  1
               ) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/614 (
                  2
               ) insofar as they apply to UCI (including the entry of UCI in entry b) 9 of the Annex to the Decision and the Regulation);
         
      
            —
         
         
            insofar as necessary to declare Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 (as amended) inapplicable to UCI; and
         
      
            —
         
         
            order the Council to pay UCI’s costs of this application.
         
      
      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 has failed to undertake any or any adequate independent assessment of UCI’s designation, as it was required to do.
         
      
            2.
         
         
            Second plea in law, alleging that in any event, the Council committed a manifest error of assessment and/or UCI’s designation is unlawful because the criteria for designation are not met in UCI’s case.
         
      
            3.
         
         
            Third plea in law, alleging that UCI’s procedural rights, in particular its rights of defence and rights to effective judicial protection have been violated, and the Council has failed to give adequate reasons.
         
      
            4.
         
         
            Fourth plea in law, alleging that UCI’s designation is any event in breach of its fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality.
         
      (
         1
      )	Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/620 of 20 April 2015 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ L 102, 21.4.2015, p. 43).
   (
         2
      )	Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/614 of 20 April 2015 implementing Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ L 102, 21.4.2015, p. 10).