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 62016TN0349

Case T-349/16: Action brought on 30 June 2016 — Bank Saderat Iran v Council

OJ C 305, 22.8.2016, p. 48–49 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

22.8.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/48

Action brought on 30 June 2016 — Bank Saderat Iran v Council

(Case T-349/16)

(2016/C 305/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bank Saderat Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: T. de la Mare, QC, R. Blakeley, Barrister and S. Jeffrey, S. Ashley and A. Irvine, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/603 of 18 April 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2016 L 104, p. 8), and Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/609 of 18 April 2016, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP, concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2016 L 104, p. 19), insofar as they apply to the applicant, and

—

order the Council pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that applicant’s re-designation in April 2016 is (i) an abuse of process and as such a misuse of powers, (ii) contrary to the Applicant’s rights to good administration and (iii) contrary to the principles of res judicata, legal certainty and finality.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s re-designation in April 2016 is in violation of Article 266 Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s re-designation in April 2016 is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that applicant’s re-designation in April 2016 violates the applicant’s fundamental rights to respect for its reputation and peaceful enjoyment of its property and the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s re-designation in April 2016 is not required by and is contrary to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Top