# C_2011282EN.01004801.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/48

---

Action brought on 3 August 2011 — Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank v Council

(Case T-434/11)

2011/C 282/88

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Gadhia and S. Ashley, Solicitors, H. Hohmann, lawyer, D. Wyatt, Queen's Counsel, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul paragraph 1 of Table B of Annex I to Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP (1), in so far as it relates to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul paragraph 1 of Table B of Annex I to Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP (1), in so far as it relates to the applicant;

1

| — | Annul paragraph 1 of Table B of Annex I to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 (2), in so far as it relates to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul paragraph 1 of Table B of Annex I to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 (2), in so far as it relates to the applicant;

2

| — | Declare Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (3) inapplicable to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (3) inapplicable to the applicant;

3

| — | Declare Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (4) inapplicable to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (4) inapplicable to the applicant; and

4

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached procedural requirements, as:






  — | it did not give adequate, precise and sufficient reasons, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached procedural requirements, as:

—

it did not give adequate, precise and sufficient reasons, and

| — | it failed to respect the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection. |
| --- | --- |

—

it failed to respect the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not the criteria for designation of the applicant under the contested measures were met, as the transactions in respect of which the applicant has apparently been designated were either authorised or in conformity with the rulings and guidance of the competent national authority (the German Central Bank). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not the criteria for designation of the applicant under the contested measures were met, as the transactions in respect of which the applicant has apparently been designated were either authorised or in conformity with the rulings and guidance of the competent national authority (the German Central Bank).

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has breached the applicant’s legitimate expectations that it would not be sanctioned by imposing restrictive measures based on conduct that was authorised by the competent national authority. Alternatively, to sanction the applicant in such circumstances breached the principles of legal certainty and the applicant’s right to good administration. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has breached the applicant’s legitimate expectations that it would not be sanctioned by imposing restrictive measures based on conduct that was authorised by the competent national authority. Alternatively, to sanction the applicant in such circumstances breached the principles of legal certainty and the applicant’s right to good administration.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the designation of the applicant is in violation of its property rights and/or the right to conduct its business and is in manifest violation of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the designation of the applicant is in violation of its property rights and/or the right to conduct its business and is in manifest violation of the principle of proportionality.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that if the power under which the defendant appears to have acted is mandatory, it is unlawful as being contrary to the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that if the power under which the defendant appears to have acted is mandatory, it is unlawful as being contrary to the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65)

1

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26)

2

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

3

(4)  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)

4

---