# C_2012109EN.01002602.xml

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/26

---

Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Zavvar v Council

(Case T-69/12)

2012/C 109/55

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Seyed Hadi Zavvar (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC (Queen’s Counsel), and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul paragraph 22 of table A of Annex to Decision 2011/783/CFSP (1), insofar as it relates to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul paragraph 22 of table A of Annex to Decision 2011/783/CFSP (1), insofar as it relates to the applicant;

1

| — | Annul paragraph 22 of table A of Annex to Regulation 1245/2011 (2), insofar as it relates to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul paragraph 22 of table A of Annex to Regulation 1245/2011 (2), insofar as it relates to the applicant;

2

| — | Declare Article 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2011/783/CFSP, inapplicable to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2011/783/CFSP, inapplicable to the applicant;

| — | Declare Article 16(2) of Regulation 961/2010, as implemented by Regulation 1245/2011, inapplicable to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 16(2) of Regulation 961/2010, as implemented by Regulation 1245/2011, inapplicable to the applicant; and

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the present action. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the present action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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 criteria for designation under Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Regulation 961/2010 are not met in the applicant’s case; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging

—

that the criteria for designation under Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Regulation 961/2010 are not met in the applicant’s case;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging






  — | that the imposition of restrictive measures on the applicant is in manifest violation of the applicant’s human an fundamental rights and is contrary to the principle of proportionality; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging

—

that the imposition of restrictive measures on the applicant is in manifest violation of the applicant’s human an fundamental rights and is contrary to the principle of proportionality;

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging






  — | that restrictive measures were imposed on the applicant by the Council in violation of the Council’s procedural obligations and the applicant’s right of defence; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging

—

that restrictive measures were imposed on the applicant by the Council in violation of the Council’s procedural obligations and the applicant’s right of defence;

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging






  — | that insofar as the listed banks’ respective applications for annulment of their respective designations are successful, the applicant’s own designation must be annulled. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging

—

that insofar as the listed banks’ respective applications for annulment of their respective designations are successful, the applicant’s own designation must be annulled.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71)

1

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11)

2

---