header-logo header-logo

27 September 2013
Issue: 7577 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

EU

Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG v Council of the European Union T-434/11, [2013] All ER (D) 126 (Sep)

Articles 20(1)(b) of Art 20(1)(b) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2010/413 (concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP) and reg 23(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EU) 267/2012 (concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010) required the cuncil to freeze the funds and economic resources of an entity that had assisted a listed person, entity or body to evade or violate the provisions of those acts or the UNSC Resolutions. The council would assess case-by-case whether the entity in question had provided such assistance to a designated person, entity or body. Further, the council was required to make a case-by-case assessment in order to determine whether such assistance had been provided; and (ii) non-designated credit and financial institutions had to exercise vigilance and, therefore, fully satisfy themselves as to compliance with the restrictive measures taken against designated entities.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll