- 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-384/11: Action brought on 22 July 2011 — Safa Nicu Sepahan v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0384
62011TN0384
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
24.9.2011
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 282/31
(Case T-384/11)
2011/C 282/63
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Safa Nicu Sepahan (Isfahan, Iran) (represented by: A. Bahrami, lawyer)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
—Declare that entry No. 19 of Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), as amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26), is null and void;
—Declare that the defendant has violated Article 265 TFEU by failing to examine the applicant’s request dated 7 June 2011 for reconsideration of entry No 19;
—Order removal of the name of the applicant from EU list of sanctions;
—Award the applicant compensation, for an amount to be determined in the course of the present proceedings, but not less than EUR 2 000 000,00; and
—Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of appreciation as the inclusion of the name of the applicant on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures is erroneous, misleading, unspecific, incomplete and, therefore, plainly illegal.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly failed to state the reasons for the inclusion of the name of the applicant on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures.