ASK date "Recours du ...? (insérer la date)" \* CHARFORMAT ASK requerante "Nom du requérant?" \* CHARFORMAT ASK defenderesse "Nom de la partie défendéresse" \* CHARFORMAT ASK numaff "affaire (T-...)?" \* CHARFORMAT ASK ldp"Langue de procédure" \* CHARFORMAT ASK domicilereq " établie à...? insérer le domicile de la partie requérante (ville, pays)" ASK avocatreq "le requérant est représenté par...(nom, profession)? " \* CHARFORMAT ASK avocatdef "la partie défenderesse est représenté par...(nom, profession)? " \* CHARFORMAT Error! Reference source not found.
Action brought on 25 June 2008 - Melli Bank v Council
(Case T-246/08)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Melli Bank plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Gordon, QC, J. Stratford, Barrister, R. Gwynne and T. Din, Solicitors)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
Annul paragraph 4, section B, of the annex to Council Decision 2008/475/EC concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it relates to Melli Bank plc;
Grant such further or other relief as may seem just and appropriate in the circumstances;
Order that the Council pay the Bank's costs of this application.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In the present case the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008
1 implementing Article 7(2) of Council Regulation No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran
2 in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision.
The applicant seeks the annulment of paragraph 4, section B, of the Annexe, in so far as it relates to the applicant, on the grounds that it is unlawful in two respects.
First, the applicant claims that the contested decision is disproportionate in that freezing the funds and economic assets of the applicant (i) has no rational relationship with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation or its funding and (ii) it is not the least restrictive mean of exercising vigilance against the applicant or of pursuing the aim of preventing the funding of nuclear proliferation.
Second, the applicant claims that the contested decision violates the principle of non-discrimination in that, on one hand, the applicant is in the same position to other UK subsidiaries of the Iranian banks, and is in materially comparable position to other UK banks including UK banks trading with Iran, but has been treated in a different manner and, on the other hand, is in a significantly different position to another bank designated by the United Nations Security Council but has been treated in the same manner.
____________1 - OJ 2008 L 163, p. 292 - Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007, (OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1)