# C_2013147EN.01002501.xml

| 25.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 147/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 147/25

---

Action brought on 15 March 2013 — Bank Mellat v Council

(Case T-160/13)

2013/C 147/45

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bank Mellat (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Article 1(15) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 (1); and/or |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article 1(15) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 (1); and/or

1

| — | Annul Article 1(15) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 in so far as it applies to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article 1(15) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 in so far as it applies to the applicant; and

| — | Declare Article 1(6) of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP (2) inapplicable to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 1(6) of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP (2) inapplicable to the applicant; and

2

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of this application. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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 Financial Embargo is not a ‘necessary measure’ and so lacks any legal basis under Article 215 TFEU in that it is not rationally connected with the relevant foreign policy aim. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Financial Embargo is not a ‘necessary measure’ and so lacks any legal basis under Article 215 TFEU in that it is not rationally connected with the relevant foreign policy aim.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Financial Embargo is in any event disproportionate to the foreign policy aim allegedly pursued and accordingly lacks any legal basis under Article 215 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Financial Embargo is in any event disproportionate to the foreign policy aim allegedly pursued and accordingly lacks any legal basis under Article 215 TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Financial Embargo is contrary to the general principles of EU law and Article 215(3) TFEU in particular, it is contrary to the principles of proportionality, legal certainty, non–arbitrariness and the requirement that sanctions contain necessary legal safeguards. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Financial Embargo is contrary to the general principles of EU law and Article 215(3) TFEU in particular, it is contrary to the principles of proportionality, legal certainty, non–arbitrariness and the requirement that sanctions contain necessary legal safeguards.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Financial Embargo violates the applicant’s property rights, rights to trade and rights to free movement of capital and the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Financial Embargo violates the applicant’s property rights, rights to trade and rights to free movement of capital and the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 34)

1

(2)  Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58)

2

---