# C_2012109EN.01002501.xml

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/25 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 10 February 2012 — Sina Bank v Council

(Case T-67/12)

2012/C 109/53

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul point 8 of table B of Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) 961/2010 amended, as set out in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation 1245/2011( 1 ) insofar as the applicant is concerned; |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Annul point 8 of table B of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP amended, as set out in the Annex to Council Decision 783/2011/CFSP( 2 ), insofar as it relates to the applicant; |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Annul Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) 961/2010 that Regulation 1245/2011 implements, insofar as the applicant is concerned; |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Annul Article 19(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP that Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends, insofar as the applicant is concerned; |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Annul the letter — decision dated 5 December 2011; and |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the present action. |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |

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 applicant is not linked to the interests of the ‘Daftar’ and does not contribute to the financing of the so-called ‘regime’s’ strategic interests, nor its alleged nuclear programme. Accordingly, the substantive criteria for designation under Decision 2010/413/CFSP, which Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends and by which the Council maintains the name of the applicant on those lists, are not met in respect of the applicant, thus the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met. Furthermore, the Council also failed to apply the relevant test correctly; | — | that the applicant is not linked to the interests of the ‘Daftar’ and does not contribute to the financing of the so-called ‘regime’s’ strategic interests, nor its alleged nuclear programme. Accordingly, the substantive criteria for designation under Decision 2010/413/CFSP, which Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends and by which the Council maintains the name of the applicant on those lists, are not met in respect of the applicant, thus the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met. Furthermore, the Council also failed to apply the relevant test correctly; |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the applicant is not linked to the interests of the ‘Daftar’ and does not contribute to the financing of the so-called ‘regime’s’ strategic interests, nor its alleged nuclear programme. Accordingly, the substantive criteria for designation under Decision 2010/413/CFSP, which Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends and by which the Council maintains the name of the applicant on those lists, are not met in respect of the applicant, thus the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met. Furthermore, the Council also failed to apply the relevant test correctly; | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging
—
that the designation of the applicant on the list breaches the fundamental principle of equal treatment; | — | that the designation of the applicant on the list breaches the fundamental principle of equal treatment; |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the designation of the applicant on the list breaches the fundamental principle of equal treatment; | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging
—
that by maintaining the applicant’s name on the list, the Council has breached the procedural requirements to give adequate reasons provided by Decision 2010/413/CFSP, which Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends and Regulation 1245/2011 implements, and by virtue of which the applicant remains on the lists; and further to respect the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection; | — | that by maintaining the applicant’s name on the list, the Council has breached the procedural requirements to give adequate reasons provided by Decision 2010/413/CFSP, which Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends and Regulation 1245/2011 implements, and by virtue of which the applicant remains on the lists; and further to respect the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection; |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that by maintaining the applicant’s name on the list, the Council has breached the procedural requirements to give adequate reasons provided by Decision 2010/413/CFSP, which Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends and Regulation 1245/2011 implements, and by virtue of which the applicant remains on the lists; and further to respect the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection; | | |

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging
—
that the designation of the applicant violates the applicant’s property rights and the principle of proportionality. | — | that the designation of the applicant violates the applicant’s property rights and the principle of proportionality. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the designation of the applicant violates the applicant’s property rights and the principle of proportionality. | | |

---

( 1 )  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11)

( 2 )  Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71)

---