Action brought on 27 July 2015 – Bank Saderat v Conseil

(Case T-433/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bank Saderat plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Jeffrey, S. Ashley and A. Irvine, Solicitors, and M-E. Demetriou and R. Blakeley, Barristers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

condemn the Council to pay the following sums to the applicant:€ 88,906,191 in re

S. Ashley and A. Irvine, Solicitors, and M-E. Demetriou and R. Blakeley, Bar

risters)Defendant: Council of the European Union Form of order soughtThe applicant claims that the Court should:condemn the Council to pay the following sums to the applicant:€ 88,906,191 in respect of material damage up until the date of this claim;€ 8,713,285 in respect of interest on the sum in sub-paragraph (1) above pl

us daily interest of € 10,377 until the date of judgment, in the alternative at the European Central B

aragraphs (1) to (6) above at the rate of 4.2601% per annum until the date of payment, in the alternative at the European Central Bank main refinancing rate + 2% per annum until the date of payment, in the further alternative at such rate and for such period as the Court thinks fit; andthe Bank’s costs of this application; conde

mn the Council to pay the applicant’s costs. Pleas in law and main argumentsThe applicant puts forward that the EU Council’s imposition of restrictive measures on the applicant was a sufficiently serious breach of obligations intended to confer rights upon the applicant and accordingly the non-contractual liability of the E

raph (3) above at the rate of 4.2601% per annum

until the date of judgment, in the alternative at the European Central Bank main refinancing rate + 2% per annum until the date of judgment, in the further alternative at such rate and for such period as the Court thinks fit;€ 32,964,320 in respect of material damage from the date of the end of the Claim Period;€ 1,000,000 in respect of non-material damage; post-judgment interest on the sums in sub-paragraphs (1) to (6) above at the rate of 4.2601% per annum until the date of payment, in the alternative at the European Central Bank main refinancing rate + 2% per annum until the date of payment, in the further alternative at such rate and for such period as the Court thinks fit; andthe Bank’s costs of this application; condemn the Council to pay the applicant’s costs. Pleas in law and main argumentsThe applicant puts forward that the EU Council’s imposition of restrictive measures on the applicant was a sufficiently serious breach of obligations intended to confer rights upon the applicant and accordingly the non-contractual liability of the EU is engaged.According to the app

licant, this breach was the direct caus

e of significant material and non-material harm to

the applicant for which it is en

titled to compensation.

____________