# C_2014135EN.01004301.xml

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/43

---

Action brought on 28 January 2014 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council

(Case T-65/14)

2014/C 135/55

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bank Refah Kargaran (Tehran, Iran) represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | declare Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 inapplicable to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 inapplicable to the applicant;

| — | declare decision 2010/413 CFSP inapplicable to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare decision 2010/413 CFSP inapplicable to the applicant;

| — | in the alternative, annul the implementing regulation and the decision mentioned in the first two indents of the present form of order, as from 20 January 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the implementing regulation and the decision mentioned in the first two indents of the present form of order, as from 20 January 2014;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law alleging failure to state reasons in breach of Article 296 TFEU, in so far as the implementing regulation which includes the applicant on the list of persons and entities covered by the restrictive measures does not specifically indicate the legal basis on which it was taken. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law alleging failure to state reasons in breach of Article 296 TFEU, in so far as the implementing regulation which includes the applicant on the list of persons and entities covered by the restrictive measures does not specifically indicate the legal basis on which it was taken.

| 2. | Second plea in law alleging an absence of a legal basis, in so far as the legal basis of the implementing regulation in dispute is Regulation No 267/2012, (1) which ought to be held to be inapplicable to the applicant in that, first, it was taken in breach of the obligation to state reasons set by Article 296 TFEU and in breach of Article 215 TFEU and, second, Article 23(2)(d) of it, which constitutes the legal basis for including the applicant in the list in Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012, infringes the treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law alleging an absence of a legal basis, in so far as the legal basis of the implementing regulation in dispute is Regulation No 267/2012, (1) which ought to be held to be inapplicable to the applicant in that, first, it was taken in breach of the obligation to state reasons set by Article 296 TFEU and in breach of Article 215 TFEU and, second, Article 23(2)(d) of it, which constitutes the legal basis for including the applicant in the list in Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012, infringes the treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

1

| 3. | Third, fourth, fifth and six pleas in law alleging, respectively, (i) an error of law; (ii) an error of fact and a manifest error of assessment, (iii) an infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to effective legal protection and (iv) infringement of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third, fourth, fifth and six pleas in law alleging, respectively, (i) an error of law; (ii) an error of fact and a manifest error of assessment, (iii) an infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to effective legal protection and (iv) infringement of the principle of proportionality.

| 4. | Seventh plea in law alleging that Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413 (2), which constitutes the legal basis of the penalty which is imposed on the applicant must be declared to be inapplicable to it as that provision is contrary to the treaties, to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and to the principle of proportionality. The applicant claims that the decision to include it in the list of persons and entities covered by the restrictive measures must therefore be annulled. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Seventh plea in law alleging that Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413 (2), which constitutes the legal basis of the penalty which is imposed on the applicant must be declared to be inapplicable to it as that provision is contrary to the treaties, to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and to the principle of proportionality. The applicant claims that the decision to include it in the list of persons and entities covered by the restrictive measures must therefore be annulled.

2

| 5. | Eighth plea in law alleging that the disputed sanction became unlawful as from 20 January 2014 since the Council recognised on that date that Iran no longer pursued nuclear activities which are the cause of the sanction. The applicant claims that the sanction therefore loses its objective. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Eighth plea in law alleging that the disputed sanction became unlawful as from 20 January 2014 since the Council recognised on that date that Iran no longer pursued nuclear activities which are the cause of the sanction. The applicant claims that the sanction therefore loses its objective.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

1

(2)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39).

2

---