Action brought on 14 March 2013 - First Islamic Investment Bank v Council

(Case T-161/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: First Islamic Investment Bank Ltd (Labuan, Malaysia) (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 paragraph I.I.10 of the Annex to Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71) in so far as the applicant is concerned;

-    Annul paragraph I.I.10 of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55) in so far as the applicant is concerned;

-    Order the defendant 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 three pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that the applicant does not assist designated entities to violate the provisions of EU regulation on Iran and does not provide financial support to the government of Iran. It is neither being used to channel Iranian oil-related payment. Accordingly, the substantive criteria for designation under the challenged Annexes of the Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 are not met in respect of the applicant 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.

Second plea in law, alleging the Council breaches the procedural requirements to give the adequate reasons in the Annexes of Decision 2012/829/CFSP and the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 and to respect the rights of defense and the right to effective judicial protection.

Third plea in law, alleging that the designation of the applicant violates the principle of proportionality.

____________