30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/59

(Case T-552/15)

(2015/C 398/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bank Refah Kargaran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should declare:

—that by adopting and maintaining the restrictive measure adopted by the Council of the European Union against BRK, which was annulled by judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 (Case T-25/11), the Council of the European Union incurred the non-contractual liability of the European Union;

—that, consequently, the European Union must compensate the applicant for the damage suffered;

—that the material damage amounts to EUR 686 513 18, to which statutory interest must be added, plus any other justified amount;

—that the non-material damage amounts to EUR 525 474 15, to which statutory interest must be added, plus any other justified amount;

—in the alternative, that all or part of the amounts claimed in respect of non-material damage be considered to relate to material damage and be taken into account as such; and

—that the Council must be ordered to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law, two of which relate to the question of the European Union’s non-contractual liability and three to the damage resulting from the unlawful act committed by the Council of the European Union.

As regards the question of the European Union’s non-contractual liability

1.First plea in law, alleging that the conduct of which the Council is accused (adoption and maintenance of measure freezing the applicant’s funds) is unlawful, as established by judgment of 6 September 2013 in Bank Refah Kargaran v Council, T-24/11, ECR, EU:T:2013:403.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the unlawful act committed by the Council is a sufficiently serious breach of rules of law intended to confer rights on individuals.

As regards the damage resulting from the unlawful act committed by the Council of the European Union

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s business with institutions situated in the European Union ceased as a result of the freezing of its funds.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging loss of earnings following the blocking of credit lines.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging non-material damage.