CELEX: 62012TN0057
Language: en
Date: 2012-02-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-57/12: Action brought on 9 February 2012 — Good Luck Shipping v Council

14.4.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 109/23
            
         Action brought on 9 February 2012 — Good Luck Shipping v Council
   (Case T-57/12)
   2012/C 109/49
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Good Luck Shipping LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: F. Randolph and M. Lester, Barristers, and M. Taher, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11), insofar as they concern the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, alleging that by including his name in the lists enclosed to the contested Decision and Regulation, the Council has:
   
               —
            
            
               failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons;
            
         
               —
            
            
               failed to fulfil 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;
            
         
               —
            
            
               failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial review; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including his right to protection of his property, business, and reputation.