CELEX: 62016TN0264
Language: en
Date: 2016-05-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-264/16: Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Korea National Insurance v Council and Commission

8.8.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 287/24
            
         Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Korea National Insurance v Council and Commission
   (Case T-264/16)
   (2016/C 287/30)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Korea National Insurance Corp. (Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Lester and S. Midwinter, Barristers, T. Brentnall and A. Stevenson, Solicitors)
   
      Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/475 of 31 March 2016 amending Decision 2013/183/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/659 of 27 April 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in so far as those measures purport to include the Applicant in Annex V to Council Regulation EC 329/2007 and in Annex II to Decision 2013/183/CFSP;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendants to pay the applicant’s costs.
            
         
      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 defendants have failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendants have manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the applicant’s case and that there is no factual basis for its inclusion.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendants have breached data protection principles.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business and reputation.