# C_2012098EN.01002302.xml

| 31.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/23 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Action brought on 1 February 2012 — Bateni v Council

(Case T-42/12)

2012/C 98/39

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Naser Bateni (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Kienzle and M. Schlingmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran( 1 ) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran;( 2 ) |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs, including those of the applicant. |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of the defence
—
The Council infringed the applicant’s right to effective legal protection and in particular the duty to state reasons, by failing to provide an adequate justification for including the applicant in the annex to the contested decision and the contested regulation; —
The Council failed, although called upon expressly by the applicant to do so, to indicate reasons or factors and to supply relevant proof which would justify his inclusion in the annex to the contested decision and the contested regulation; —
The Council infringed the applicant’s right to a hearing by not providing it with the opportunity, conferred by Article 23(3) and 23(4) of the contested decision and Article 36(3) and (4) of the contested regulation, to present observations on its inclusion in the sanctions list and thus to cause the Council to carry out a review. | — | The Council infringed the applicant’s right to effective legal protection and in particular the duty to state reasons, by failing to provide an adequate justification for including the applicant in the annex to the contested decision and the contested regulation; | — | The Council failed, although called upon expressly by the applicant to do so, to indicate reasons or factors and to supply relevant proof which would justify his inclusion in the annex to the contested decision and the contested regulation; | — | The Council infringed the applicant’s right to a hearing by not providing it with the opportunity, conferred by Article 23(3) and 23(4) of the contested decision and Article 36(3) and (4) of the contested regulation, to present observations on its inclusion in the sanctions list and thus to cause the Council to carry out a review. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The Council infringed the applicant’s right to effective legal protection and in particular the duty to state reasons, by failing to provide an adequate justification for including the applicant in the annex to the contested decision and the contested regulation; | | | | | | |
| — | The Council failed, although called upon expressly by the applicant to do so, to indicate reasons or factors and to supply relevant proof which would justify his inclusion in the annex to the contested decision and the contested regulation; | | | | | | |
| — | The Council infringed the applicant’s right to a hearing by not providing it with the opportunity, conferred by Article 23(3) and 23(4) of the contested decision and Article 36(3) and (4) of the contested regulation, to present observations on its inclusion in the sanctions list and thus to cause the Council to carry out a review. | | | | | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that there was no basis for including the applicant in the sanctions lists
—
The reasons given for including the applicant in the sanctions lists did not make it possible to identify the precise legal basis on which the Council acted; —
An activity carried out by the applicant until only March 2008 cannot justify his inclusion in the sanctions lists in December 2011; —
The applicant’s activity as manager of the Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping (HTTS) GmbH does not justify his inclusion in the lists of sanctions, in particular because the General Court of the European Union annulled Regulation (EU) No 961/2010( 3 ) to the extent that it concerned HTTS GmbH; —
The mere fact that the applicant was manager of an English company which has since been dissolved cannot constitute a reason under Article 20(1) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP( 4 ) and/or Article 16(2) of Regulation No 961/2010 for including the applicant in the sanctions lists. | — | The reasons given for including the applicant in the sanctions lists did not make it possible to identify the precise legal basis on which the Council acted; | — | An activity carried out by the applicant until only March 2008 cannot justify his inclusion in the sanctions lists in December 2011; | — | The applicant’s activity as manager of the Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping (HTTS) GmbH does not justify his inclusion in the lists of sanctions, in particular because the General Court of the European Union annulled Regulation (EU) No 961/2010( 3 ) to the extent that it concerned HTTS GmbH; | — | The mere fact that the applicant was manager of an English company which has since been dissolved cannot constitute a reason under Article 20(1) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP( 4 ) and/or Article 16(2) of Regulation No 961/2010 for including the applicant in the sanctions lists. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The reasons given for including the applicant in the sanctions lists did not make it possible to identify the precise legal basis on which the Council acted; | | | | | | | | |
| — | An activity carried out by the applicant until only March 2008 cannot justify his inclusion in the sanctions lists in December 2011; | | | | | | | | |
| — | The applicant’s activity as manager of the Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping (HTTS) GmbH does not justify his inclusion in the lists of sanctions, in particular because the General Court of the European Union annulled Regulation (EU) No 961/2010( 3 ) to the extent that it concerned HTTS GmbH; | | | | | | | | |
| — | The mere fact that the applicant was manager of an English company which has since been dissolved cannot constitute a reason under Article 20(1) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP( 4 ) and/or Article 16(2) of Regulation No 961/2010 for including the applicant in the sanctions lists. | | | | | | | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental right to property
—
The applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists constitutes an unjustified interference with his fundamental right to property, since the applicant — because of the inadequate reasons given by the Council — is unable to understand the reasons why he was included in the list of persons affected by the sanctions; —
The applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists is obviously inappropriate for the pursuit of the goals of Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Regulation No 961/2010 and also constitutes a disproportionate interference with his property rights. | — | The applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists constitutes an unjustified interference with his fundamental right to property, since the applicant — because of the inadequate reasons given by the Council — is unable to understand the reasons why he was included in the list of persons affected by the sanctions; | — | The applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists is obviously inappropriate for the pursuit of the goals of Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Regulation No 961/2010 and also constitutes a disproportionate interference with his property rights. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists constitutes an unjustified interference with his fundamental right to property, since the applicant — because of the inadequate reasons given by the Council — is unable to understand the reasons why he was included in the list of persons affected by the sanctions; | | | | |
| — | The applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists is obviously inappropriate for the pursuit of the goals of Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Regulation No 961/2010 and also constitutes a disproportionate interference with his property rights. | | | | |

---

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

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

( 3 )  Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1).

( 4 )  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39).

---