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 62011TN0024

    Case T-24/11: Action brought on 19 January 2011 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council

    IO C 80, 12.3.2011, p. 23–23 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    19/01/2011
    Author:
    Cúirt Ghinearálta
    Form:
    Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
    Authentic language:
    Fraincis
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Case affecting:
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    12.3.2011   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 80/23

    Action brought on 19 January 2011 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council

    (Case T-24/11)

    2011/C 80/44

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: Bank Refah Kargaran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

    Defendant: Council of the European Union

    Form of order sought

    —

    Annul Decision 2010/644/CSFP of 26 October 2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

    —

    Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

    —

    Declare that Decision 2010/413/CSFP does not apply to the applicant;

    —

    Order the Council to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The pleas in law and principal arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-4/11 Export Development Bank of Iran v Council.

    Top