Action brought on 27 February 2012 - Elegant Target Development and Others v Council
(Case T-90/12)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Elegant Target Development Ltd (Hong Kong, China); Eternal Expert Ltd (Hong Kong); Giant King Ltd (Hong Kong); Golden Charter Development Ltd (Hong Kong); Golden Summit Investments Ltd (Hong Kong); Golden Wagon Development Ltd (Hong Kong); Grand Trinity Ltd (Hong Kong); Great Equity Investments Ltd (Hong Kong); Great Prospect International Ltd (Hong Kong); Harvest Supreme Ltd (Hong Kong); Key Charter Development Ltd (Hong Kong); King Prosper Investments Ltd (Hong Kong); Master Supreme International Ltd (Hong Kong); Metro Supreme International Ltd (Hong Kong); Modern Elegant Development Ltd (Hong Kong); Prosper Metro Investments Ltd (Hong Kong); Silver Universe International Ltd (Hong Kong); and Sparkle Brilliant Development Ltd (Hong Kong) (represented by: F. Randolph, M. Lester, Barristers, and M. Taher, Solicitor)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP
2 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011, in so far as the names of the applicants were added to the list of persons and entities to which restrictive measures apply;
Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for the inclusion of the names of the applicants in the list of persons and entities to which restrictive measures apply.
Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to fulfil the criteria for listing, and/or committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that those criteria were satisfied in relation to the applicants and/or included the applicants without an adequate legal basis for doing so.
Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to safeguard the applicants' rights of defence and right to effective judicial review.
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants' fundamental rights, including their right to protection of their property, business, and reputation.
____________1 - Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71)2 - Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11)