- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-439/13: Action brought on 20 August 2013 — Fard and Sarkandi v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0439
62013TN0439
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
14.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 367/31
(Case T-439/13)
2013/C 367/54
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Mohammad Moghaddami Fard (Tehran, Iran); and Ahmad Sarkandi (United Arab Emirates) (represented by: M. Taher, Solicitor, M. Lester, Barrister, and S. Kentridge, QC)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—Annul Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 156, p.10) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 156, p.3);
—Order that the Council pays the applicants’ costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the Council erred manifestly in its assessment that any of the listing criteria has been fulfilled as regards either of the applicants, and that there is no valid legal basis for the applicants’ designation.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has purported to impose a travel ban on the applicants without a proper legal basis.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicants in the contested measures.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the applicants’ rights of defence and to effective judicial review,
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council’s decision to designate the applicants has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to protection of their property, family life, business, and reputation.