# C_2023189EN.01004102.xml

| 30.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/41

---

Action brought on 17 April 2023 — CRA v Council

(Case T-201/23)

(2023/C 189/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Communications Regulatory Authority (CRA) (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: T. Clay, T. Zahedi Vafa and K. Mehtiyeva, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Implementing Regulation 2023/152 (1) of 23 January 2023, as being contrary to EU law, in the part which included the applicant in Annex I to Regulation No 359/2011. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Implementing Regulation 2023/152 (1) of 23 January 2023, as being contrary to EU law, in the part which included the applicant in Annex I to Regulation No 359/2011.

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 misuse of powers by the Council of the European Union. The applicant submits that by including it on the list of entities subject to the restrictive measures, the Council exceeded its powers, on the ground that the decision was taken solely due to the existence of a statutory relationship between the applicant and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by the Council of the European Union. The applicant submits that by including it on the list of entities subject to the restrictive measures, the Council exceeded its powers, on the ground that the decision was taken solely due to the existence of a statutory relationship between the applicant and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons for the contested measure. According to the applicant, the reasons set out as the basis for the decision of the Council are merely factual presumptions whose erroneous nature vitiates the validity of the statement of reasons. That purely formal statement of reasons for the decision implies a reversal of the burden of proof, requiring the applicant to prove a negative fact in order to challenge its inclusion in the list of entities subject to the restrictive measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons for the contested measure. According to the applicant, the reasons set out as the basis for the decision of the Council are merely factual presumptions whose erroneous nature vitiates the validity of the statement of reasons. That purely formal statement of reasons for the decision implies a reversal of the burden of proof, requiring the applicant to prove a negative fact in order to challenge its inclusion in the list of entities subject to the restrictive measures.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging error of assessment of the facts. The applicant submits that the Council, first, made a manifest error of assessment, and, second, that it was wrong to include the applicant in the list of entities subject to the restrictive measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging error of assessment of the facts. The applicant submits that the Council, first, made a manifest error of assessment, and, second, that it was wrong to include the applicant in the list of entities subject to the restrictive measures.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. The applicant submits that the sanctions imposed on Iran have resulted in the withholding of tools particularly useful for the applicant, one of which is used to prevent the overlap of Iranian frequencies with those of neighbouring States and the other, the Location Based System, for the precise location of connected devices. Furthermore, the disproportionate nature of the Council’s decision is demonstrated by the extent of the consequences of the measures taken against the applicant in that the applicant’s capacity to perform its public interest mission is seriously affected. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. The applicant submits that the sanctions imposed on Iran have resulted in the withholding of tools particularly useful for the applicant, one of which is used to prevent the overlap of Iranian frequencies with those of neighbouring States and the other, the Location Based System, for the precise location of connected devices. Furthermore, the disproportionate nature of the Council’s decision is demonstrated by the extent of the consequences of the measures taken against the applicant in that the applicant’s capacity to perform its public interest mission is seriously affected.

---

(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/152, of 23 January 2023, implementing Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures against certain persons, entities and organisations regarding the situation in Iran (OJ 2023 L 20 I, p. 1).

---