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 62012TN0262

    Case T-262/12: Action brought on 12 June 2012 — Central Bank of Iran v Council

    IO C 243, 11.8.2012, p. 27–27 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    11.8.2012   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 243/27

    Action brought on 12 June 2012 — Central Bank of Iran v Council

    (Case T-262/12)

    2012/C 243/48

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Central Bank of Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister)

    Defendant: Council of the European Union

    Form of order sought

    —

    Annul Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 (1) and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 (2), in so far as the measures adopted through such legal acts apply to the applicant;

    —

    Order the defendant to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that the defendant manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 were fulfilled.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant in the list of persons and entities to which the restrictive measures apply.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and to effective judicial review.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its rights to protection of its property and reputation.

    (1)  Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22)

    (2)  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)

    Top