# C_2011072EN.01002601.xml

| 5.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/26 |
| -------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Action brought on 6 January 2011 — Sina Bank v Council

(Case T-15/11)

2011/C 72/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | annul point 8 of section B of Annex VIII to Regulation No 961/2010( 1 ) in so far as the applicant is concerned; |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | annul the letter-decision of the Council of 28 October 2010; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | declare inapplicable point 8 of section B of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran( 2 ) in so far as it relates to the applicant; |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | declare Article 16(2) of Council Regulation No 961/2010 inapplicable to the applicant; |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | declare Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP inapplicable to the applicant; |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order the Council 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 four pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the substantive criteria for designation under the challenged 2010 Regulation and Decision are not met in respect to the applicant and/or the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not the criteria were met. In consequence, the designation of the applicant is not justified. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s designation breaches the principle of equal treatment;
—
the applicant suffered an unequal treatment regarding the situation of other Iranian banks; —
the applicant suffered an unequal treatment regarding the situation of other Iranian banks included on the list, both in 2010 Regulation and Decision; —
the applicant suffered an unequal treatment regarding the situation of ‘Daftar’ and the Mostaz’afan Foundation. | — | the applicant suffered an unequal treatment regarding the situation of other Iranian banks; | — | the applicant suffered an unequal treatment regarding the situation of other Iranian banks included on the list, both in 2010 Regulation and Decision; | — | the applicant suffered an unequal treatment regarding the situation of ‘Daftar’ and the Mostaz’afan Foundation. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the applicant suffered an unequal treatment regarding the situation of other Iranian banks; | | | | | | |
| — | the applicant suffered an unequal treatment regarding the situation of other Iranian banks included on the list, both in 2010 Regulation and Decision; | | | | | | |
| — | the applicant suffered an unequal treatment regarding the situation of ‘Daftar’ and the Mostaz’afan Foundation. | | | | | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the rights of defence have not been observed and the requirement of a statement of the reason of sanctions has not been satisfied since:
—
the applicant did not receive any information from the Council to assert its position except a laconic motivation of two lines, general and inaccurate; —
despite the applicant having made detailed requests for information to the Council as regards its designation, the Council did not answer to the applicant nor to its counsels’ letters; —
this situation makes it impossible to determine whether the measure is well founded or whether it is vitiated by an error; —
any evidence adduced against the applicant should have been communicated to it, in so far as possible, either concomitantly with or as soon as may be after the adoption of an initial decision to freeze its funds. | — | the applicant did not receive any information from the Council to assert its position except a laconic motivation of two lines, general and inaccurate; | — | despite the applicant having made detailed requests for information to the Council as regards its designation, the Council did not answer to the applicant nor to its counsels’ letters; | — | this situation makes it impossible to determine whether the measure is well founded or whether it is vitiated by an error; | — | any evidence adduced against the applicant should have been communicated to it, in so far as possible, either concomitantly with or as soon as may be after the adoption of an initial decision to freeze its funds. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the applicant did not receive any information from the Council to assert its position except a laconic motivation of two lines, general and inaccurate; | | | | | | | | |
| — | despite the applicant having made detailed requests for information to the Council as regards its designation, the Council did not answer to the applicant nor to its counsels’ letters; | | | | | | | | |
| — | this situation makes it impossible to determine whether the measure is well founded or whether it is vitiated by an error; | | | | | | | | |
| — | any evidence adduced against the applicant should have been communicated to it, in so far as possible, either concomitantly with or as soon as may be after the adoption of an initial decision to freeze its funds. | | | | | | | | |

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures violate the applicant’s right of propriety and are not proportionate contrary to the European Union principle of proportionality of a decision since:
—
there is no link between the objective pursued by the Council and the restrictive measure imposed on the applicant; —
the Council has not identified any transaction in which the applicant would be involved; —
it exists other, more proportionate, measures possible against the risk of the alleged Iranian ‘nuclear activities’ and the funding of those activities. | — | there is no link between the objective pursued by the Council and the restrictive measure imposed on the applicant; | — | the Council has not identified any transaction in which the applicant would be involved; | — | it exists other, more proportionate, measures possible against the risk of the alleged Iranian ‘nuclear activities’ and the funding of those activities. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | there is no link between the objective pursued by the Council and the restrictive measure imposed on the applicant; | | | | | | |
| — | the Council has not identified any transaction in which the applicant would be involved; | | | | | | |
| — | it exists other, more proportionate, measures possible against the risk of the alleged Iranian ‘nuclear activities’ and the funding of those activities. | | | | | | |

---

( 1 )  Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007, OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1

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

---