# C_2011072EN.01002202.xml

| 5.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/22

---

Action brought on 7 January 2011 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council

(Case T-4/11)

2011/C 72/38

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Export Development Bank of Iran (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, avocat)

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 Regulation (EU) 961/2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Regulation (EU) 961/2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

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

—

declare Decision 2010/413/CFSP inapplicable to the applicant;

| — | annul Article 16(2)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EU) 961/2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 16(2)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EU) 961/2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | annul the decision taken by the Council to include the applicant on the list in Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) 961/2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision taken by the Council to include the applicant on the list in Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) 961/2010;

| — | 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

The applicant puts forward seven pleas in support of its action.

| 1. | First plea, alleging that there is no legal basis for Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (1) and/or Article 16(2)(a) and (b) thereof






  — | Under the first part of that plea, the applicant submits that Article 215 TFEU cannot serve as a legal basis for Regulation No 961/2010 since Decision 2010/413/CFSP does not make such provision; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging that there is no legal basis for Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (1) and/or Article 16(2)(a) and (b) thereof

1

—

Under the first part of that plea, the applicant submits that Article 215 TFEU cannot serve as a legal basis for Regulation No 961/2010 since Decision 2010/413/CFSP does not make such provision;

| — | Under the second part, the applicant claims that Article 215 TFEU cannot serve as a legal basis for Regulation No 961/2010 since Decision 2010/413/CFSP was not adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU. That decision should therefore be disregarded as inapplicable to the present case. |
| --- | --- |

—

Under the second part, the applicant claims that Article 215 TFEU cannot serve as a legal basis for Regulation No 961/2010 since Decision 2010/413/CFSP was not adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU. That decision should therefore be disregarded as inapplicable to the present case.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging infringement of international law by Article 16(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 961/2010, inasmuch as those provisions do not constitute implementation of a decision by the Security Council and infringe the principle of non-interference enshrined in international law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging infringement of international law by Article 16(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 961/2010, inasmuch as those provisions do not constitute implementation of a decision by the Security Council and infringe the principle of non-interference enshrined in international law.

| 3. | Third plea, alleging infringement of Article 215 TFEU, since the procedure for inclusion on the list of Annex VIII contradicts the procedure laid down in Article 215 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging infringement of Article 215 TFEU, since the procedure for inclusion on the list of Annex VIII contradicts the procedure laid down in Article 215 TFEU.

| 4. | Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, the right to sound administration and the right to effective legal protection, in so far as the Council did not respect the applicant's right to be heard, failed to provide a sufficient statement of reasons for its decisions and failed to give the applicant access to the documents in the case. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, the right to sound administration and the right to effective legal protection, in so far as the Council did not respect the applicant's right to be heard, failed to provide a sufficient statement of reasons for its decisions and failed to give the applicant access to the documents in the case.

| 5. | Fifth plea, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality






  — | The applicant submits first that the contested decisions are inappropriate, since the freezing of the funds and other funds managed by the applicant amounts to freezing funds and resources which are not at its free disposal and which belong to its clients. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality

—

The applicant submits first that the contested decisions are inappropriate, since the freezing of the funds and other funds managed by the applicant amounts to freezing funds and resources which are not at its free disposal and which belong to its clients.

| — | The applicant submits next that the sanction imposed on it is disproportionate in the light of the facts alleged against it and that the sanction is based on old and unsubstantiated facts. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant submits next that the sanction imposed on it is disproportionate in the light of the facts alleged against it and that the sanction is based on old and unsubstantiated facts.

| 6. | Sixth plea, alleging breach of the right to respect for property, since the restriction of its right to property is disproportionate in so far as its rights of defence were not respected during the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea, alleging breach of the right to respect for property, since the restriction of its right to property is disproportionate in so far as its rights of defence were not respected during the procedure.

| 7. | Seventh plea, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination in so far as the applicant was punished even though it has not been established that the applicant participated knowingly and deliberately in activities having as their object or effect the circumvention of the restrictive measures. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination in so far as the applicant was punished even though it has not been established that the applicant participated knowingly and deliberately in activities having as their object or effect the circumvention of the restrictive measures.

---

(1)  OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1.

1

---