CELEX: 62014TN0798
Language: en
Date: 2014-12-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-798/14: Action brought on 5 December 2014 — DenizBank v Council

16.3.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 89/29
            
         Action brought on 5 December 2014 — DenizBank v Council
   (Case T-798/14)
   (2015/C 089/35)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: DenizBank A.Ș. (Esentepe, Turkey) (represented by: M. Lester and O. Jones, Barristers, R. Mattick and S. Utku, Solicitors)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (1) and Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (2) (together the contested measures) insofar as they apply to the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               declare the inapplicability pursuant to Article 277 TFEU as regards Article 1 of the 8 September Decision, and Article 1(5) of the 8 September Regulation; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Council to pay the costs.
            
         
      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 Council has breached its duty to give reasons for imposing the contested measures on the applicant. Further, the applicant contends that the Council has given it no reasons at all for imposing the contested measures on it, nor even informed it of its inclusion.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence, including its right to a fair hearing and to effective judicial review. The applicant submits that the Council has given the applicant no reasons or evidence for imposing the contested measures on it, no opportunity for it to comment on the case against it, and has thereby also impeded the Court from ‘exercising effective judicial review’.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that insofar as it has imposed the contested measures on the applicant, the Council has breached the Ankara Agreement between Turkey and the EU (and its Additional Protocol) in a number of respects.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality, and has imposed an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s fundamental rights.
            
         
      (1)  Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 271, p. 54).
   
      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 271, p. 3).