# C_2019172EN.01001202.xml

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/12

---

Appeal brought on 18 February 2019 by Bank Refah Kargaran against the judgment delivered on 10 December 2018 in Case T-552/15, Bank Refah Kargaran v Council

(Case C-134/19 P)

(2019/C 172/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bank Refah Kargaran (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | partially annul the judgment of 10 December 2018 of the Second Chamber of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-552/15; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul the judgment of 10 December 2018 of the Second Chamber of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-552/15;

| — | principally, grant the form of order sought by the appellant in the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union, namely, award damages for compensation in respect of material damage in the sum of EUR 68 651 319 and non-material damage in the sum of EUR 52 547 415; |
| --- | --- |

—

principally, grant the form of order sought by the appellant in the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union, namely, award damages for compensation in respect of material damage in the sum of EUR 68 651 319 and non-material damage in the sum of EUR 52 547 415;

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court;

| — | in both cases, order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of both instances. |
| --- | --- |

—

in both cases, order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on seven grounds of appeal.

| 1. | First ground of appeal alleging an error of law
  The General Court erred in law by stating that the inadequate reasoning in the contested decision is not a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of EU law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal alleging an error of law

The General Court erred in law by stating that the inadequate reasoning in the contested decision is not a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of EU law.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal alleging an error of law
  The General Court erred in law by holding that the fact that an applicant who has been the victim of an unlawful sanction adopted by the Council of the European Union has brought an action and has secured the annulment of that sanction renders nugatory the possibility of invoking a sufficiently serious breach of the right to effective judicial protection. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal alleging an error of law

The General Court erred in law by holding that the fact that an applicant who has been the victim of an unlawful sanction adopted by the Council of the European Union has brought an action and has secured the annulment of that sanction renders nugatory the possibility of invoking a sufficiently serious breach of the right to effective judicial protection.

| 3. | Third ground of appeal alleging an error of law
  The General Court erred in law by dismissing a plea, set out by the appellant in its reply, without determining, as required by the case-law, whether the plea set out in the reply is a result of the normal development of arguments stemming from the application in the legal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground of appeal alleging an error of law

The General Court erred in law by dismissing a plea, set out by the appellant in its reply, without determining, as required by the case-law, whether the plea set out in the reply is a result of the normal development of arguments stemming from the application in the legal proceedings.

| 4. | Fourth and Fifth grounds of appeal alleging an error of law
  The General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the judgment in Case T-24/11 (1), and by holding that the finding that the Council breached its obligation to disclose to the appellant the evidence adduced against it as regards the grounds for the measures relating to the freezing of funds does not amount to a sufficiently serious breach of EU law giving rise to the liability of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth and Fifth grounds of appeal alleging an error of law

The General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the judgment in Case T-24/11 (1), and by holding that the finding that the Council breached its obligation to disclose to the appellant the evidence adduced against it as regards the grounds for the measures relating to the freezing of funds does not amount to a sufficiently serious breach of EU law giving rise to the liability of the European Union.

| 5. | Sixth ground of appeal alleging distortion of the application
  The General Court, in order to find the appellant’s argument inadmissible, distorted the application by considering that the appellant did not, at the stage of its application, allege the unlawfulness of the fact that the grounds for the inclusion of its name on the list of persons targeted by the restrictive measures failed to comply with the criteria applied by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Sixth ground of appeal alleging distortion of the application

The General Court, in order to find the appellant’s argument inadmissible, distorted the application by considering that the appellant did not, at the stage of its application, allege the unlawfulness of the fact that the grounds for the inclusion of its name on the list of persons targeted by the restrictive measures failed to comply with the criteria applied by the Council.

| 6. | Seventh ground of appeal alleging distortion of the application
  The General Court distorted the application by restricting the grounds of illegality relied on by the appellant solely to a breach of the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Seventh ground of appeal alleging distortion of the application

The General Court distorted the application by restricting the grounds of illegality relied on by the appellant solely to a breach of the obligation to state reasons.

---

(1)  Judgment of 6 September 2013, Bank Refah Kargaran v Conseil (T-24/11, EU:T:2013:403).

---