EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TN0373
Case T-373/14: Action brought on 26 May 2014 — Petro Suisse Intertrade v Council
Case T-373/14: Action brought on 26 May 2014 — Petro Suisse Intertrade v Council
Case T-373/14: Action brought on 26 May 2014 — Petro Suisse Intertrade v Council
OJ C 261, 11.8.2014, p. 36–36
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
11.8.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 261/36 |
Action brought on 26 May 2014 — Petro Suisse Intertrade v Council
(Case T-373/14)
2014/C 261/61
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Petro Suisse Intertrade Co. SA (Pully, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, D. Sellers and N. Pilkington, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the Council decision contained in the letter of 14 March 2014, addressed to the lawyers of the applicant, concerning review of the list of designated persons and entities in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as amended by Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012, and in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012, in so far as the contested decision constitutes a refusal to remove the applicant from the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures; |
|
— |
join the present proceedings with the case T-156/13 in accordance with Article 50(1) of the Rules of Procedure; |
|
— |
order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, alleging that the statement of grounds was insufficient and that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment.
The applicant argues that although it is a subsidiary of the listed company National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), the Council has not substantiated that this entails any economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the objective pursued by the contested measures.