EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/48

Action brought on 17 May 2013 — Sarafraz v Council

(Case T-273/13)

2013/C 207/79

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mohammad Sarafraz (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: T. Walter, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 206/2013 of 11 March 2013 implementing Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran in so far as it concerns Mr Mohammad Sarafraz;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law: infringement of the applicant’s rights of the defence — The Council infringed the applicant’s right to effective legal protection and, in particular, the requirement to state reasons by not providing a sufficient statement of reasons for the applicant’s inclusion in the Annex to the contested implementing regulation; — The Council infringed the applicant’s right to a fair hearing by not giving the applicant the opportunity, provided for in Article 12(2) of Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 (1), to present observations on his inclusion in the list of persons subject to sanctions and thereby to initiate a review by the Council.

2. Second plea in law: there is no basis for the applicant’s inclusion in the list of persons subject to sanctions — The reasons which the Council gave for the applicant’s inclusion in the list of persons subject to sanctions do not show precisely which legal basis the Council is relying on in this connection; — The Council obviously assessed the facts incorrectly by including the applicant in the list in the Annex to the contested implementing regulation; — In particular, the only actual reason given by the Council in the list of persons subject to sanctions cannot justify the applicant’s inclusion in that list.

3. Third plea in law: infringement of the ne bis in idem principle — The only actual reason given by the Council for the applicant’s inclusion in the list of persons subject to sanctions has already been the subject-matter of a sanction by the British media supervisory body; — The Council does not submit that further infringements of the law took place in spite of or after that sanction which would justify the applicant’s inclusion in the list of persons subject to sanctions.

4. Fourth plea in law: infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights to freedom of broadcasting or to hold opinions, freedom of movement and freedom of ownership — The applicant’s inclusion in the list of persons subject to sanctions constitutes an unjustified and disproportionate infringement of his media freedom and freedom to hold opinions, which is aimed in particular, at hindering the applicant or the broadcasting organisation of which he is in charge in reporting to and from Europe; — The applicant’s inclusion in the list of persons subject to sanctions constitutes an unjustified and disproportionate infringement of other protected fundamental rights (freedom of ownership, freedom of occupation, freedom of movement).

(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 of 12 April 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran (OJ 2011 L 100, p. 1).