12.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/14

(Case T-562/10)

2011/C 46/28

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Kienzle and M. Schlingmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

—order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings, in particular those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant raises two pleas in law in support of its action.

1.First plea: infringement of the applicant's rights of defence.

—The applicant claims in this regard that the Council infringed its right to effective legal protection and in particular the requirement to state reasons, in that it did not provide sufficient reasons for including it in Annex VIII to the contested regulation.

—Next, the applicant claims that the Council failed, even though asked expressly, to provide grounds or points of view and the relevant evidence to justify the applicant's inclusion in Annex VIII to the contested regulation.

—Finally, the applicant complains in the context of its first plea that the Council infringed its right to be heard, in so far as it failed to provide the applicant with the opportunity laid down in Article 36(3) and (4) of the contested regulation to present observations on its inclusion on the list of sanctioned persons, which would then have required the Council to review the issue.

2.Second plea: infringement of the applicant's fundamental right to respect for property.

—The applicant submits in this regard that its inclusion in Annex VIII to the contested regulation constitutes an unjustified interference with its fundamental right to property, since it is not apparent from the insufficient reasoning provided by the Council why it was included on the list of persons sanctioned under Article 16(2) of the contested regulation.

—Next, the applicant submits that its inclusion in Annex VIII to the contested regulation is based on an obvious erroneous assessment of its situation and of its activities on the part of the Council.

—Finally, the applicant submits in the context of its second plea that its inclusion in Annex VIII to the contested regulation is incompatible with the aims pursued by the regulation and that it constitutes a disproportionate interference with its property rights.