Regulation No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 does not contain any provision obliging the Council to indicate, at the time of communication via the publication of a notice in the Official Journal, the legal remedies available or the conditions under which they may be exercised. In particular, Article 46(3) of the regulation, which deals with communication of the grounds for adopting restrictive measures to the persons and entities concerned does not contain any obligation to that effect.

In the absence of express provisions of EU law, the EU institutions cannot be placed under a general obligation to inform individuals of the remedies available or of the conditions under which they may exercise them.

In that regard, the fact that such a notice does not contain any indication as to the possibility for the persons and entities covered by the restrictive measures to bring proceedings before the Court under the second paragraph of Article 275 TFEU and the fourth and sixth paragraphs of Article 263 TFEU is not capable of affecting the finding that that publication enabled the applicant to be aware of the substance of the reasons for its inclusion in the list of persons and entities covered by restrictive measures against Iran.

Concerning restrictive measures against Iran, the Council is not free arbitrarily to choose the method of communicating its decisions to the persons concerned. It is only where it is impossible to communicate individually to the person concerned the act by which restrictive measures against him are adopted or maintained that the publication of a notice in the Official Journal causes the period for bringing an action to begin to run.

Concerning restrictive measures against Iran, the Council may be considered to be unable to communicate individually to a natural or legal person or to an entity an act incorporating restrictive measures relating to that person or entity either when the latter’s address is not published and has not been supplied to the Council or when the communication sent to the address which the Council does have has failed, in spite of the steps which it has taken, with all necessary diligence, in order to effect such communication.

The Council is in the situation of being unable to carry out individual communication, similar to the situation it would have been in if it had not known the address of the entity concerned, where it has sent an entity a letter with a form for acknowledgement of receipt, informing it of its inclusion in the list of persons and entities covered by restrictive measures against Iran and that letter is returned to the Council with ‘not at this address’ stamped on it by the Iranian postal services. That statement is true even if the address was correct.

In the first place, that standard of delivery of a letter is known to the authorities responsible for the postal service in Iran. In addition, it constitutes a suitable means of individual communication since notification by registered letter with a signed acknowledgment of receipt is a method which enables the date from which time begins to run to be determined with certainty.

Thus, the Council, which has only limited resources in Iran to research the private addresses of all those individuals and entities affected by the restrictive measures regime, must be regarded as having shown the requisite diligence in respect of its obligation to communicate to the applicant the restrictive measures taken against it.

Consequently, the Council may legitimately rely on the indication given by the Iranian postal services that the applicant has changed address, without there being any need to repeat the communication in a fresh attempt either by post or by other means.

(see paras 44, 47-51)