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-370/14: Action brought on 23 May 2014 — Petropars and Others v Council

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0370

62014TN0370

May 23, 2014
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

11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/33

(Case T-370/14)

2014/C 261/58

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Petropars Ltd (Teheran, Iran); Petropars International FZE (Dubai, United Arab Emirates); and Petropars UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and Z. Burbeza, Solicitors, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

annul the March 2014 Decision;

annul the March 2014 Notice insofar as it applies to the applicants; and

order the Council to pay the applicants’ costs of this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the criteria for listing set out in Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation No 267/2012 or Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413 are not satisfied and that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that the criteria were met and remain met because the applicants are not owned or controlled by the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC).

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the criteria for listing are not met because the Council has not proved that NIOC financially supports the Iranian government.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the maintenance of the designation of the applicants is in any event in violation of their fundamental rights and freedoms, including their right to trade and to carry out their businesses and to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and/or is in violation of the principle of proportionality. The applicants further allege that the continued listing represents a breach of the precautionary principle and of the principles of environmental protection and the protection of human health and safety, as it is likely to cause significant damage to the health and safety of ordinary Iranian workers and the environment.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council breached the applicants’ rights of defence by failing to conduct a full and adequate review of the applicants’ designation and properly to consider the observations presented to it.

Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39).

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