- 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-580/19: Action brought on 20 August 2019 – Borborudi v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TN0580
62019TN0580
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
21.10.2019
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 357/40
—
(Case T-580/19)
(2019/C 357/49)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Sayed Shamsuddin Borborudi (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 on 27 May 2019, pursuant to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/855, to maintain the applicant on the Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No. 267/2012;
—order the Council to remove the applicant from the Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No. 267/2012;
—order the Council to pay all of the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the Council has not respected the standard of proof to sanction persons and entities in adopting and maintaining the applicant on the EU sanctions lists as the contested measures are not supported by any legitimate ground.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has committed an error of fact as Mr. Borborudi does not work for the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran anymore (the ‘AEOI’), as the AEOI is not a UN sanctioned entity anymore and that the AMAD plan was halted in 2003.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has committed an error in law as it has not qualified the quantitative or qualitative significance of the alleged support of Mr. Borborudi to the Iranian nuclear program.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated its obligation to substantiate the restrictive measure it has adopted against the applicant as it has not communicated the elements that would prove the ground on which he has been sanctioned.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated its obligation to communicate the documents supporting the motive, even after the applicant had asked for them.
6.Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed the principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles the European Union must abide to.
—