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 62015TN0552

    Case T-552/15: Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council

    IO C 398, 30.11.2015, p. 59–60 (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:
    25/09/2015
    Date lodged:
    25/09/2015
    Author:
    Cúirt Ghinearálta
    Form:
    Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
    Authentic language:
    Fraincis
    Type of procedure:
    Caingean chun cúiteamh a ghnóthú
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    30.11.2015   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 398/59

    Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council

    (Case T-552/15)

    (2015/C 398/74)

    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

    The applicant claims that the Court should declare:

    —

    that by adopting and maintaining the restrictive measure adopted by the Council of the European Union against BRK, which was annulled by judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 (Case T-25/11), the Council of the European Union incurred the non-contractual liability of the European Union;

    —

    that, consequently, the European Union must compensate the applicant for the damage suffered;

    —

    that the material damage amounts to EUR 6 8 6 51  318, to which statutory interest must be added, plus any other justified amount;

    —

    that the non-material damage amounts to EUR 5 2 5 47  415, to which statutory interest must be added, plus any other justified amount;

    —

    in the alternative, that all or part of the amounts claimed in respect of non-material damage be considered to relate to material damage and be taken into account as such; and

    —

    that the Council must be ordered to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law, two of which relate to the question of the European Union’s non-contractual liability and three to the damage resulting from the unlawful act committed by the Council of the European Union.

    —

    As regards the question of the European Union’s non-contractual liability

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that the conduct of which the Council is accused (adoption and maintenance of measure freezing the applicant’s funds) is unlawful, as established by judgment of 6 September 2013 in Bank Refah Kargaran v Council, T-24/11, ECR, EU:T:2013:403.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the unlawful act committed by the Council is a sufficiently serious breach of rules of law intended to confer rights on individuals.

    —

    As regards the damage resulting from the unlawful act committed by the Council of the European Union

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s business with institutions situated in the European Union ceased as a result of the freezing of its funds.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging loss of earnings following the blocking of credit lines.

    5.

    Fifth plea in law, alleging non-material damage.
    Top