Action brought on 10 February 2012 - Sina Bank v Council

(Case T-67/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sina Bank (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: B. Mettetal and C. Wucher-North, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

Annul point 8 of table B of Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) 961/2010 amended, as set out in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation 1245/2011² insofar as the applicant is concerned;

Annul point 8 of table B of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP amended, as set out in the Annex to Council Decision 783/2011/CFSP, insofar as it relates to the applicant;

Annul Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) 961/2010 that Regulation 1245/2011 implements, insofar as the applicant is concerned;

Annul Article 19(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP that Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends, insofar as the applicant is concerned;

Annul the letter - decision dated 5 December 2011; and

Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the present action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging

that the applicant is not linked to the interests of the " Daftar " and does not contribute to the financing of the so-called " regime's " strategic interests, nor its alleged nuclear programme. Accordingly, the substantive criteria for designation under Decision 2010/413/CFSP, which Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends and by which the Council maintains the name of the applicant on those lists, are not met in respect of the applicant, thus the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met. Furthermore, the Council also failed to apply the relevant test correctly;

Second plea in law, alleging

that the designation of the applicant on the list breaches the fundamental principle of equal treatment;

Third plea in law, alleging

that by maintaining the applicant's name on the list, the Council has breached the procedural requirements to give adequate reasons provided by Decision 2010/413/CFSP, which Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends and Regulation 1245/2011 implements, and by virtue of which the applicant remains on the lists; and further to respect the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection;

Fourth plea in law, alleging

that the designation of the applicant violates the applicant's property rights and the principle of proportionality.

____________

¹ - Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L319, 2.12.2011, p. 11)

² - Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L319, 2.12.2011, p. 71)