CELEX: 62015TN0619
Language: en
Date: 2015-11-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-619/15: Action brought on 6 November 2015 — Badica and Kardiam v Council

25.1.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 27/68
            
         Action brought on 6 November 2015 — Badica and Kardiam v Council
   (Case T-619/15)
   (2016/C 027/86)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Bureau d’achat de diamant Centrafrique (Badica) (Bangui, Central African Republic), Kardiam (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: D. Luff and L. Defalque, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1485 of 2 September 2015 and point B 1 of the Annex to that regulation in so far as the applicants are added to Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 of 10 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Central African Republic;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Council to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing and to effective judicial protection. This plea is expressed in two parts:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           first part, alleging a failure on the part of the Council to notify the applicants individually of the decision to freeze funds;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           second part, alleging a failure to disclose the evidence and the file, and infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem and of transparency.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment of the facts relating to the applicants’ activities resulting in an error of law.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging defects in the examination carried out by the Council.