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 62014TN0089

Case T-89/14: Action brought on 10 February 2014  — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council

IO C 135, 5.5.2014, p. 49–49 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
10/02/2014
Date lodged:
10/02/2014
Author:
Cúirt Ghinearálta
Form:
Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
Authentic language:
Fraincis
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Case affecting:
Instruments cited in case law:
Link

5.5.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/49

Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council

(Case T-89/14)

2014/C 135/63

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Export Development Bank of Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

—

annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

—

declare Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 inapplicable to the applicant;

—

declare decision 2010/413 CFSP inapplicable to the applicant;

—

in the alternative, annul the implementing regulation and the decision mentioned in the first two indents of the present form of order, as from 20 January 2014;

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law of which eight are essentially identical or similar to those advanced in Case T-65/14 Bank Refah Kargaran v Council.

Furthermore the applicant relies on a plea in law alleging infringement of the principles of equality and of non-discrimination.

Top