- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-56/12: Action brought on 9 February 2012 — IRISL Maritime Training Institute and Others v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0056
62012TN0056
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
14.4.2012
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 109/22
(Case T-56/12)
2012/C 109/48
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: IRISL Maritime Training Institute (Tehran, Iran), Kara Shipping and Chartering GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany), Kheibar Co. (Tehran, Iran), Kish Shipping Line Manning Co. (Kish Island, Iran), Fairway Shipping Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and IRISL Multimodal Transport Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: F. Randolph and M. Lester, Barristers, and M. Taher, Solicitor)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
—Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11), insofar as they concern the applicants;
—Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of their action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law, alleging that in including their names in the lists enclosed to the contested Decision and Regulation, the Council has:
—failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons;
—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;
—failed to safeguard the applicants’ rights of defence and right to effective judicial review; and
—infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to protection of their property, business, and reputation.