# C_2012109EN.01002601.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 10 February 2012 — Hemmati v Council

(Case T-68/12)

2012/C 109/54

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Abdolnaser Hemmati (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: B. Mettetal and C. Wucher-North, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul point 7 of table A of Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) 961/2010 amended, as set out in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation 1245/2011 (1), insofar as the applicant is concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul point 7 of table A of Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) 961/2010 amended, as set out in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation 1245/2011 (1), insofar as the applicant is concerned;

1

| — | Annul point 7 of table A of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP amended, as set out in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP (2), insofar as it relates to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul point 7 of table A of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP amended, as set out in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP (2), insofar as it relates to the applicant;

2

| — | Annul Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) 961/2010 that Regulation 1245/2011 implements, insofar as the applicant is concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) 961/2010 that Regulation 1245/2011 implements, insofar as the applicant is concerned;

| — | Annul Article 19(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP that Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends, insofar as the applicant is concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article 19(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP that Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends, insofar as the applicant is concerned;

| — | Annul Article 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP that Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends, insofar as the applicant is concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP that Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends, insofar as the applicant is concerned;

| — | Annul the letter — decision dated 5 December 2011; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the letter — decision dated 5 December 2011; and

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

—

Order the defendant 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 three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging






  — | that the Council breached the procedural requirements to give adequate reasons in support of listing the applicant in the contested Regulation 1245/2011 and Decision 2011/783/CFSP; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging

—

that the Council breached the procedural requirements to give adequate reasons in support of listing the applicant in the contested Regulation 1245/2011 and Decision 2011/783/CFSP;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging






  — | that, even if the Court was to admit that the motivation given by the Council is sufficient, the Council committed a manifest error in the assessment of facts, since the applicant is not linked to the interests of the ‘Daftar’ and does not contribute to the financing of the so-called ‘regime’s’ strategic interests, nor its alleged nuclear programme. Accordingly, the substantive criteria for designation under Decision 2010/413/CFSP, that Decision 2011/783/CFSP amends, are not met in respect of the applicant, thus the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met. Furthermore, the Council also failed to apply the relevant test correctly; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging

—

that, even if the Court was to admit that the motivation given by the Council is sufficient, the Council committed a manifest error in the assessment of facts, since the applicant is not linked to the interests of the ‘Daftar’ and does not contribute to the financing of the so-called ‘regime’s’ strategic interests, nor its alleged nuclear programme. Accordingly, the substantive criteria for designation under Decision 2010/413/CFSP, that Decision 2011/783/CFSP amends, are not met in respect of the applicant, thus the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met. Furthermore, the Council also failed to apply the relevant test correctly;

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging






  — | that the designation of the applicant infringes his property rights and the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging

—

that the designation of the applicant infringes his property rights and the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  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)

1

(2)  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)

2

---