# C_2012109EN.01002402.xml

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/24

---

Action brought on 13 February 2012 — Sedghi and Azizi v Council

(Case T-66/12)

2012/C 109/52

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Ali Sedghi (Tehran, Iran) and Ahmad Azizi (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Gadhia and S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC (Queen’s Counsel), and M. Lester, Barrister)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul 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) and 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), insofar as they concern the applicants; and that the decision to that effect would take immediate effect, without suspension; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul 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) and 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), insofar as they concern the applicants; and that the decision to that effect would take immediate effect, without suspension;

| — | Declare inapplicability of Article 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010, as regards the second applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare inapplicability of Article 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010, as regards the second applicant;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging






  — | that none of the legal criteria for listing the applicants is fulfilled, and there is no valid legal or factual basis for their listing; the Council has manifestly erred in assessing that the applicants’ listing is justified; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging

—

that none of the legal criteria for listing the applicants is fulfilled, and there is no valid legal or factual basis for their listing; the Council has manifestly erred in assessing that the applicants’ listing is justified;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging






  — | that the contested Decision and Regulation impose unjustified and disproportionate restrictions on the applicants’ fundamental rights; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging

—

that the contested Decision and Regulation impose unjustified and disproportionate restrictions on the applicants’ fundamental rights;

The second applicant relies on two additional pleas in law, alleging that:

| — | the contested Decision and Regulation constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on his rights of free movement in the European Union; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the contested Decision and Regulation constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on his rights of free movement in the European Union; and

| — | the Council lacked the competence to include the second applicant under the Common Foreign and Security Policy, because this is a situation which is purely internal to the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Council lacked the competence to include the second applicant under the Common Foreign and Security Policy, because this is a situation which is purely internal to the European Union.

---