CELEX: 62013TN0158
Language: en
Date: 2013-03-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-158/13: Action brought on 15 March 2013 — Iralco v Council

25.5.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 147/24
            
         Action brought on 15 March 2013 — Iralco v Council
   (Case T-158/13)
   2013/C 147/43
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Iranian Aluminum Co. (Iralco) (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Millar and S. Ashley, Solicitors, and M. Lester, Barrister)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as the contested acts include the applicant; and,
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Council to bear 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 failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for designating the applicant.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and to effective judicial review.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council erred manifestly in considering that any of the criteria for listing were fulfilled.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council’s decision to designate the applicant has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business and reputation.