This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012TN0070
Case T-70/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Divandari v Council
Case T-70/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Divandari v Council
Case T-70/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Divandari v Council
OJ C 109, 14.4.2012, p. 27–28
(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 109/27 |
Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Divandari v Council
(Case T-70/12)
2012/C 109/56
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Ali Divandari (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, M. Brindle, QC (Queen's Counsel), and R. Blakeley, Barrister)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
— |
Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 (2) in so far as they apply to the applicant; and |
— |
Declare Articles 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (3) and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (4) inapplicable to the applicant; |
— |
Order that Article 60(2) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union has no application to the annulment of the applicant’s designation; and |
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs of the application. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the applicant is not chairman of Bank Mellat, as wrongly alleged by the defendant. |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the substantive criteria for designation under Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 are not met in respect of the applicant and/or the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met when reviewing the applicant’s designation. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the substantive criteria for Bank Mellat’s designation are not met and/or the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met when reviewing the applicant’s designation. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the continued designation of the applicant is in violation of his human and fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality. |
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that in continuing the applicant’s designation, the defendant has breached the procedural requirement: (i) to give adequate reasons; and (ii) to respect the right of defence and the right to effective judicial protection. |
6. |
Sixth plea in law, alleging that in so far as the applicant’s application in case T-497/10 Divandari Bank v Council is successful, or Bank Mellat succeeds in its application in case T-496/10 Bank Mellat v Council, this application must also succeed. |
(1) Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71)
(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11)
(3) Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39)
(4) Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1)