Action brought on 29 January 2014 – Good Luck Shipping v Council

(Case T-64/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Good Luck Shipping LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: F. Randolph, QC (Queen's Counsel), M. Lester, Barrister and M. Taher, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3) ;

Declare inapplicable, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP¹ of 10 October 2013 and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013² of 10 October 2013 (“the October Measures”);

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that the October Measures should be declared inapplicable in so far as they apply to the applicant, and they have no proper legal basis.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicant’s legitimate expectations and the principles of finality, legal certainty, non bis in idem, res judicata, and non-discrimination.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached its duty to give reasons.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicant’s rights of defence.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly erred in its assessment that any of the listing criteria are fulfilled as regards the applicant, and has failed to provide any evidence justifying the applicant’s designation.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures violate the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to respect for reputation and property.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Council has abused its powers by enacting the contested measures; targeting the applicant in circumvention of a Court judgment is not a proper use of its powers.

____________

¹ Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 46)

² Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 1)