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-349/16: Action brought on 30 June 2016 — Bank Saderat Iran v Council

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0349

62016TN0349

June 30, 2016
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

22.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/48

(Case T-349/16)

(2016/C 305/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bank Saderat Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: T. de la Mare, QC, R. Blakeley, Barrister and S. Jeffrey, S. Ashley and A. Irvine, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/603 of 18 April 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2016 L 104, p. 8), and Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/609 of 18 April 2016, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP, concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2016 L 104, p. 19), insofar as they apply to the applicant, and

order the Council pay the applicant’s 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 applicant’s re-designation in April 2016 is (i) an abuse of process and as such a misuse of powers, (ii) contrary to the Applicant’s rights to good administration and (iii) contrary to the principles of res judicata, legal certainty and finality.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s re-designation in April 2016 is in violation of Article 266 Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s re-designation in April 2016 is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that applicant’s re-designation in April 2016 violates the applicant’s fundamental rights to respect for its reputation and peaceful enjoyment of its property and the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s re-designation in April 2016 is not required by and is contrary to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

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