Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62012TN0067

    Case T-67/12: Action brought on 10 February 2012 — Sina Bank v Council

    OJ C 109, 14.4.2012, p. 25–26 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    14.4.2012   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 109/25

    Action brought on 10 February 2012 — Sina Bank v Council

    (Case T-67/12)

    2012/C 109/53

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Sina Bank (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: B. Mettetal and C. Wucher-North, lawyers)

    Defendant: Council of the European Union

    Form of order sought

    —

    Annul point 8 of table B of Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) 961/2010 amended, as set out in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation 1245/2011 (1) insofar as the applicant is concerned;

    —

    Annul point 8 of table B of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP amended, as set out in the Annex to Council Decision 783/2011/CFSP (2), insofar as it relates to the applicant;

    —

    Annul Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) 961/2010 that Regulation 1245/2011 implements, insofar as the applicant is concerned;

    —

    Annul Article 19(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP that Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends, insofar as the applicant is concerned;

    —

    Annul the letter — decision dated 5 December 2011; and

    —

    Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the present action.

    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 applicant is not linked to the interests of the ‘Daftar’ and does not contribute to the financing of the so-called ‘regime’s’ strategic interests, nor its alleged nuclear programme. Accordingly, the substantive criteria for designation under Decision 2010/413/CFSP, which Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends and by which the Council maintains the name of the applicant on those lists, are not met in respect of the applicant, thus the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met. Furthermore, the Council also failed to apply the relevant test correctly;

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging

    —

    that the designation of the applicant on the list breaches the fundamental principle of equal treatment;

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging

    —

    that by maintaining the applicant’s name on the list, the Council has breached the procedural requirements to give adequate reasons provided by Decision 2010/413/CFSP, which Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends and Regulation 1245/2011 implements, and by virtue of which the applicant remains on the lists; and further to respect the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection;

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging

    —

    that the designation of the applicant violates the applicant’s property rights and the principle of proportionality.

    (1)  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)

    (2)  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)

    Top