Case T-70/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Divandari v Council
Date: 2012-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, equal treatment, financing, fundamental rights, international sanctions, nuclear policy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2012109EN.01002701.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/27





Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Divandari v Council
(Case T-70/12)
2012/C 109/56
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ali Divandari (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, M. Brindle, QC (Queen's Counsel), and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 (2) in so far as they apply to the applicant; and










—


Declare Articles 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (3) and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (4) inapplicable to the applicant;










—


Order that Article 60(2) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union has no application to the annulment of the applicant’s designation; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the application.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the applicant is not chairman of Bank Mellat, as wrongly alleged by the defendant.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the substantive criteria for designation under Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 are not met in respect of the applicant and/or the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met when reviewing the applicant’s designation.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the substantive criteria for Bank Mellat’s designation are not met and/or the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met when reviewing the applicant’s designation.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the continued designation of the applicant is in violation of his human and fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that in continuing the applicant’s designation, the defendant has breached the procedural requirement: (i) to give adequate reasons; and (ii) to respect the right of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that in so far as the applicant’s application in case T-497/10 Divandari Bank v Council is successful, or Bank Mellat succeeds in its application in case T-496/10 Bank Mellat v Council, this application must also succeed.






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

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

(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)

(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)