EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/25

(Case T-176/12)

2012/C 174/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bank Tejarat (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

—Annul paragraph 2 of table I.B. of Annex I to Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 19, p. 22), insofar as it relates to the applicant;

—Annul paragraph 2 of table I.B. of Annex I to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2012 of 23 January 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 19, p. 1), insofar as it relates to the applicant;

—Annul paragraph 105 of table B of Annex IX to 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), insofar as it relates to the applicant;

—Declare Article 20(1) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP inapplicable to the applicant;

—Declare Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 inapplicable to the applicant;

—Declare that the annulment of paragraph 2 of table I.B. of Annex I to Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2012 and paragraph 105 of table B of Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 has immediate effects; and

—Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging

—that the substantive criteria for designation under the contested measures are not met in the applicant’s case and there is no legal or factual basis for its designation; and/or that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not the criteria had been met; and

—that the Council designated the applicant on the basis of insufficient evidence to establish that the criteria had been met and thereby committed a (further) manifest error of assessment, since the applicant does not satisfy any of the five criteria for designation provided for in Article 23(2) of Regulation No 267/2012; and that the Council has provided no evidence as to the contrary.

Second plea in law, alleging

—that the designation of the applicant is in violation of its fundamental rights and freedoms, including its right to trade and carry out its business activities and to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions and/or is in violation of the principle of proportionality.

Third plea in law, alleging

—that the Council has in any event breached the procedural requirements: (a) to notify the applicant individually of its designation, (b) to give adequate and sufficient reasons and (c) to respect the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial remedies.