# C_2013156EN.01004701.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/47

---

Action brought on 29 March 2013 — Sharif University of Technology v Council

(Case T-181/13)

2013/C 156/87

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sharif University of Technology (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: M. Happold, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Annex to Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 (1), Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 (2), the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 (3) and Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 (4), insofar as they concern the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Annex to Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 (1), Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 (2), the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 (3) and Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 (4), insofar as they concern the applicant; and

1

2

3

4

| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs of the application. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs of the application.

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 Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 were adopted in violation of the applicant's rights of the defence and its right to effective judicial protection. The Council has breached its obligation to give reasons since the reasons given by the Council are insufficient for the applicant to understand the basis on which it has been subjected to restrictive measures. The Council has violated the applicant’s rights of defence by reason of its failure to provide the applicant with access to the Council’s file on it and because that failure has had as a consequence that the applicant been unable to make known its views on the evidence adduced to justify the measures imposed on it. The failures of the Council to give reasons for its decision and provide the applicant with access to its file have also infringed the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 were adopted in violation of the applicant's rights of the defence and its right to effective judicial protection. The Council has breached its obligation to give reasons since the reasons given by the Council are insufficient for the applicant to understand the basis on which it has been subjected to restrictive measures. The Council has violated the applicant’s rights of defence by reason of its failure to provide the applicant with access to the Council’s file on it and because that failure has had as a consequence that the applicant been unable to make known its views on the evidence adduced to justify the measures imposed on it. The failures of the Council to give reasons for its decision and provide the applicant with access to its file have also infringed the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has made manifest errors of assessment as regards its adoption of restrictive measures against the applicant. The applicant denies the allegations made against it and puts the Council to strict proof of the facts alleged. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has made manifest errors of assessment as regards its adoption of restrictive measures against the applicant. The applicant denies the allegations made against it and puts the Council to strict proof of the facts alleged.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed on it violate its right to property and are disproportionate. The designation of the applicant did not take place under the conditions provided by law. Moreover, the Council failed entirely to take into account the fact that the applicant is not a commercial enterprise, but an institute of higher learning, and the consequent effects of its designation not only for itself but also for its students, faculty and collaborators. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed on it violate its right to property and are disproportionate. The designation of the applicant did not take place under the conditions provided by law. Moreover, the Council failed entirely to take into account the fact that the applicant is not a commercial enterprise, but an institute of higher learning, and the consequent effects of its designation not only for itself but also for its students, faculty and collaborators.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71)

1

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

2

(3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55)

3

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1)

4

---