Action brought on 15 March 2013 - HK Intertrade v Council

(Case T-159/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: HK Intertrade Co. Ltd (Wanchai, Hong-Kong) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, N. Pilkington and D. Sellers, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 (OJ 22.12.2012, L 356, p.71), amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 (OJ 22.12.2012, L 356, p.55), implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as the contested acts include the applicant; and,

Order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits five grounds of challenge concerning infringement of an essential procedural requirement, as well as infringement of the Treaties and of rules of law relating to their application: violation of the right of hearing, violation of the obligation to give notice, insufficient statement of reasons, violation of the right of defence, and manifest error of assessment.

The applicant finds that the Council failed to perform a hearing of the applicant and violated its obligation to give notice to the applicant. Furthermore, the Council failed to supply a sufficient statement of reasons, which failing has been compounded by the failure of the Council to reply to the applicant's requests for access to documents and for general disclosure. By these omissions, the Council violated the right of defence of the applicant, who was denied the possibility of effectively arguing against the findings of the Council, as these findings were withheld from the applicant. Contrary to the claim of the Council, the applicant is not a "front company" for National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), and in any case the Council has not substantiated that the mere fact that the applicant was established as a subsidiary of NIOC is sufficient to thereby entail an economic benefit for the Iranian State contrary to the aim of the contested measures. Further, the Council has clearly violated the right of defence of the applicant and lastly has made manifest errors of assessment.

____________