CELEX: 62017TN0564
Language: en
Date: 2017-08-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-564/17: Action brought on 18 August 2017 — Tong Myong/Council and Commission

9.10.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 338/19
            
         Action brought on 18 August 2017 — Tong Myong/Council and Commission
   (Case T-564/17)
   (2017/C 338/21)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: So Tong Myong (Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Lester and S. Midwinter, QC, T. Brentnall and A. Stevenson, Solicitors)
   
      Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/993 of 12 June 2017 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 149, p. 67) and Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/994 of 12 June 2017 amending Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 149, p. 75), insofar as those acts include the applicant in the list of entities subject to restrictive measures;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendants to pay the applicant’s costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six 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; there is no factual basis for its inclusion.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendants have misused their powers by attempting to render ineffective the applicant’s right to an effective remedy in relation to its listing pursuant to Article 230 TFEU and/or they have breached the applicant’s right to equal treatment.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have breached the applicant’s rights of defence by failing to provide him with the evidence on which they rely before re-listing the applicant.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have breached data protection law.
            
         
               6.
            
            
               Sixth 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.