- 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 C-248/17 P: Appeal brought on 11 May 2017 by Bank Tejarat against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2017 in Case T-346/15: Bank Tejarat v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CN0248
62017CN0248
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
31.7.2017
Official Journal of the European Union
C 249/19
—
(Case C-248/17 P)
(2017/C 249/30)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Bank Tejarat (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, A. Meskarian, Solicitors, M. Brindle QC, T. Otty, R. Blakeley, Barristers)
Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—allow this appeal and set aside paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Court's order contained in the second judgment;
—allow the Bank's re-listing application;
—annul the contested measures insofar as they apply to the Bank; and
—order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The General Court erred in law in that it wrongly attributed no and/or insufficient weight to the evidence adduced by the Bank and thereby distorted the key evidence relevant to the question as to whether the allegations in the contested reasons were substantiated by the Council.
Regardless of the outcome of the first ground of appeal, the General Court erred in law in that it distorted the key evidence relevant to the question as to whether the allegations in the contested reasons were substantiated by the Council and/or erroneously placed the burden of proof of the Bank.
In respect of both the first and second grounds of appeal, had the General Court applied the correct principles and/or had it not distorted the evidence referred to above, it would have annulled the contested measures.
The General Court erred in law in holding that the Council was entitled to re-list the Bank on the basis of reasons that could and should have been advanced prior to the first judgment and that the Council’s conduct did not violate Article 266 TFEU as well as the principles of res judicata and/or legal certainty and/or finality and/or effectiveness and/or the right to effective judicial protection and/or the Bank’s rights under Article 47 of the EU Charter and/or under Article 6 and Article 13 ECHR and/or its rights to good administration and/or the principle of proportionality.
—