9.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/19

(Case T-568/17)

(2017/C 338/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Korea National Insurance Corporation (Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Lester and S. Midwinter, QC, T. Brentnall and A. Stevenson, Solicitors)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/993 of 12 June 2017 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 149, p. 67), Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/994 of 12 June 2017 amending Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 149, p. 75), Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/1459 of 10 August 2017 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 208, p. 38), and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1457 of 10 August 2017 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 208, p. 33), insofar as those acts include the applicant in the list of entities subject to restrictive measures.

—order the defendants to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the defendants have failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the defendants have manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the applicant’s case; there is no factual basis for its inclusion.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the defendants failed to give the applicant the evidence purportedly in support of their decision to relist the applicant before it was relisted, or in support of the EU implementation of its UN listing, in breach of the applicant’s rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have failed to discharge their obligations when deciding to list the applicant following its UN designation.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have misused their powers by attempting to render ineffective and thereby evade the applicant’s right to an effective remedy in relation to its listing pursuant to Article 230 TFEU and/or they have breached the applicant’s right to equal treatment.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have breached data protection law.

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