EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-423/13: Action brought on 16 August 2013 — Good Luck Shipping v Council

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0423

62013TN0423

August 16, 2013
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/35

(Case T-423/13)

2013/C 325/59

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Good Luck Shipping LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: F. Randolph, QC, 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 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 10) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 3), in so far as they relate to the applicant; and

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to fulfill the criteria for listing, and/or committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that those criteria were satisfied in relation to the applicant and/or included the applicant without an adequate legal basis for doing so.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial review.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business, and reputation.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia