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 C-506/19 P: Appeal brought on 2 July 2019 by Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL), Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines (SAPID), Khazar Sea Shipping Lines Co., Rahbaran Omid Darya Ship Management Co., Irinvestship Ltd and IRISL Europe GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 May 2019 in Case T-434/15: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines e.a. v Council

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CN0506

62019CN0506

July 2, 2019
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

23.9.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/25

(Case C-506/19 P)

(2019/C 319/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL), Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines (SAPID), Khazar Sea Shipping Lines Co., Rahbaran Omid Darya Ship Management Co., Irinvestship Ltd and IRISL Europe GmbH (represented by: M. Taher, Solicitor, R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

set aside the judgment of the General Court;

hold that the Council committed a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals by way of the Designation of the Appellants;

remit the case to the General Court to determine the contingent application for measures of inquiry contained in the application, and then (subsequently) to determine the issues of causation and quantum; and

order the Council to pay the appellants’ costs of the appeal and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court so far.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court committed five errors of law on the basis of which the judgment should be set aside:

1.error in the application of the conclusion that the Council had no discretion;

2.error in the application of the reasoning in the IRISL Annulment Judgment [2013] to the test for sufficiently serious breach;

3.no basis in law for the ‘no evidence’/‘inadequate evidence’ distinction, which was inapplicable in any event;

4.error in law in purporting to rely on evidence not before the Court; and

5.error in law in applying HTTS as an issue estoppel/res judicata.

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