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 62017TN0455

Case T-455/17: Action brought on 14 July 2017 — Bateni v Council

IO C 300, 11.9.2017, pp. 36–37 (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:
14/07/2017
Date lodged:
14/07/2017
Author:
Cúirt Ghinearálta
Form:
Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
Authentic language:
Gearmáinis
Type of procedure:
Caingean chun cúiteamh a ghnóthú

11.9.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/36

Action brought on 14 July 2017 — Bateni v Council

(Case T-455/17)

(2017/C 300/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Naser Bateni (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Schlingmann and M. Bever, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

1.

order the European Union, represented by the Council, to pay to the applicant damages in the amount of EUR 250 000 for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of:

—

inclusion in Table III of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP by 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) and inclusion in Table III of Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11);

—

inclusion in Table III of Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1);

—

inclusion in Table III of the Annex to Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18) and in Table III of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3);

2.

order the European Union, represented by the Council, to pay default interest calculated at the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations, plus two percentage points, from 24 March 2017 until payment in full of the sum set out in 1.;

3.

order the European Union, represented by the Council, to pay the costs of the proceedings, in particular those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.

1.

First plea in law: by adopting the restrictive measures against the applicant, the Council seriously infringed provisions of law protecting the applicant. The applicant thereby suffered significant non-material damage, for which he must receive compensation.

—

The applicant brought successful actions for annulment against his inclusion in the sanctions lists. The General Court annulled those legal acts by final judgments of 6 September 2013 in Cases T-42/12 and T-181/12 and of 16 September 2015 in Case T-45/14, insofar as they concerned the applicant. The General Court thereby found that the Council had in each case failed to establish any grounds that could have justified the applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists and therefore committed manifest errors of assessment and failed to comply with its duty of diligence.

—

According to the case-law of the General Court (Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. v Council, Case T-384/11, judgment of 25 November 2014), which the Court of Justice has since confirmed (Case C-45/15 P, judgment of 30 May 2017), this constitutes a serious infringement both of the substantive, protective provisions of the respective enabling bases and also of the fundamental rights of the person concerned, in particular the right to effective legal protection.

—

Annulment alone of the legal acts in question does not constitute sufficient compensation. The far-reaching social, professional and private consequences of the unlawful listings of the applicant over the years can be offset only through the payment of compensation.
Top