EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-490/18: Action brought on 16 August 2018 — Neda Industrial Group/Council

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TN0490

62018TN0490

August 16, 2018
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

5.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/38

(Case T-490/18)

(2018/C 399/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Neda Industrial Group (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: L. Vidal, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

cancel the decision taken by the Council of the European Union on 6 June 2018 to maintain the sanctions against the applicant; and

order the Council to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks the annulment of the Council’s decision of 6 June 2018 to maintain the applicant on the list of persons and entities set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) and Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012 (2).

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful due to an error of law.

In this regard, the applicant submits that the Council fails to demonstrate that the applicant provides an intentional support for Iran’s proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities, which allegedly is the legal ground for the applicant’s enlisting in Annex IX of Regulation No 267/2012.

The applicant further claims that the lack of communication of any supporting evidence by the Council to the applicant constitutes a violation of the principle of effective judicial protection.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful due to an error of fact.

In this regard, the applicant submits that considering its activities and the services it provides, it is unrelated to sanctioned entities or to any nuclear activities whatsoever.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful because it infringes the general principle of proportionality.

In this regard, the applicant claims that its inclusion in the list of entities subject to restrictive measures and the refusal to withdraw the applicant from that list are neither appropriate nor necessary to reach the objectives pursued by Regulation No 267/2012, and have caused disproportionate damages to the applicant.

Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (1) OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p. 39.

Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (2) OJ L 88, 24.3.2012, p. 1.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia