- 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-418/14: Action brought on 25 May 2014 — Sina Bank v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0418
62014TN0418
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
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 282/40
(Case T-418/14)
2014/C 282/53
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Sina Bank (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: B. Mettetal and C. Wucher-North, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Annul Council’s decision after review contained in the Notice of 15 March 2014 for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) and in Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ C 77, p. 1), which states that Council decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 continue to affect directly the applicant;
—Annul annex IX Point I.B.8 to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 as it continues to affect directly the applicant as stated in the Notice of 15 March 2014;
—Order the Council to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the applicant.
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 decision after review contained in the Notice of 15 March 2014 has breached the procedural requirements to give adequate reasons and to respect the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Bank is not linked to the interest of the ‘Daftar’ and does not contribute to the financing of the state’s so called strategic interests nor its nuclear program. Accordingly, the substantive criteria for designation under the challenged acts are not met in respect of the Bank and/or the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met. The Council also failed to apply the correct test.
(1) Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ L 195, p. 39)
(2) Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ L 88, p. 1)