CELEX: 62015TN0533
Language: en
Date: 2015-09-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-533/15: Action brought on 11 September 2015 — Korea National Insurance Corporation Zweigniederlassung Deutschland a.o. v Council and Commission

16.11.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 381/49
            
         Action brought on 11 September 2015 — Korea National Insurance Corporation Zweigniederlassung Deutschland a.o. v Council and Commission
   (Case T-533/15)
   (2015/C 381/60)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Korea National Insurance Corporation Zweigniederlassung Deutschland (Hamburg, Germany), Kim Il Su (Pyongyang, République de Corée), Kang Song Sam (Hamburg), Choe Chun Sik (Pyongyang), Sin Kyu Nam (Pyongyang), Pak Chun San (Pyongyang), So Tong Myong (Pyongyang) (represented by: M. Lester and S. Midwinter, Barristers, T. Brentnall and A. Stevenson, Solicitors)
   
      Defendants: European Commission and Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1066 of 2 July 2015 amending Decision 2013/183/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ L 174, p. 25) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1062 of 2 July 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ L 174, p. 16) in so far as those measures purport to include them in Annex V;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendants to pay the applicants’ 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 that the defendants have failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicants.
            
         
               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 applicants’ case, there is no factual basis for their 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 applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to protection of its property, business and reputation.