CELEX: 62009TN0145
Language: en
Date: 2009-04-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-145/09: Action brought on 6 April 2009 — Bredenkamp and Others v Commission

20.6.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 141/51
            
         Action brought on 6 April 2009 — Bredenkamp and Others v Commission
   (Case T-145/09)
   2009/C 141/105
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: John Arnold Bredenkamp, Alpha International (PTV) Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom), Breco (Asia Pacific) Ltd. (Douglas, Isle of Man, United Kingdom), Breco (Eastern Europe) Ltd. (Douglas, Isle of Man, United Kingdom), Breco (South Africa) Ltd. (Douglas, Isle of Man, United Kingdom), Breco (UK) Ltd. (Ascot, United Kingdom), Breco Group, Breco International (St. Helier, Jersey, United Kingdom), Breco Nominees Ltd. (Ascot, United Kingdom), Breco Services Ltd. (Ascot, United Kingdom), Corybantes Ltd. (Ascot, United Kingdom), Echo Delta Holdings (Reading, United Kingdom), Masters International Ltd. (Ascot, United Kingdom), Piedmont (UK) Ltd. (Ascot, United Kingdom), Raceview Enterprises (Private) Limited, Scottlee Holdings (PTV) Ltd., Scottlee Resorts Ltd., Timpani Exports Ltd. (Douglas, Isle of Man, United Kingdom), Tremalt Ltd. (represented by: D. Vaughan, QC, P. Moser, Barrister and R. Khan, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the Europrean Communities
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 77/2009 of 26 January 2009 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe, insofar as it concerns the applicants and each of them;
            
         
               —
            
            
               further or alternatively, annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 77/2009 insofar as it concerns the first applicant and any entity in Annex III said to be “owned” by the first applicant by deletion of entry of the first applicant and all the entries of those entities from Annex III;
            
         
               —
            
            
               consequently, a declaration that the Commission’s said decision of 26 January 2009 is inapplicable in respect of the applicants;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order that the Commission pay the applicants’ costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In the present case the applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission Regulation No 77/2009 of 26 January 2009 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (1) insofar as the applicants are included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision.
   The applicants put forward five pleas in law in support of their claims.
   First, the applicants submit that the contested regulation is devoid of any legal basis.
   Second, they argue that the Commission failed to provide compelling reasons for funds freeze against the applicants, in violation of its obligation as resulting from the established case law.
   Third, the applicants claim that the contested regulation violates their right of defence, both the right to be heard and to effective judicial protection as, in the applicants’ opinion, it was adopted without any guarantee being given as to the communication of any inculpatory evidence against them or as to them being heard in relation to such evidence, nor as to their own, exculpatory evidence.
   Fourth, the applicants contend that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of Protocol 1 Article 1 ECHR and violates their fundamental rights to property.
   Fifth, they state that the contested regulation is based on a manifest error of facts insofar as it affects them. They further argue that the Commission failed to establish the alleged reasons to prove that freezing of the applicants’ funds is legally justified, in the light of relevant legislation and to provide precise information and serious and credible evidence as basis to its decision thus failing to meet the requisite burden of proof.
   
      (1)  OJ 2009 L 23, p. 5