Case T-187/13: Action brought on 2 April 2013 — Jannatian v Council
Date: 2013-04-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, nuclear non-proliferation, principle of proportionality








C_2013171EN.01002901.xml










15.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/29





Action brought on 2 April 2013 — Jannatian v Council
(Case T-187/13)
2013/C 171/56
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mahmoud Jannatian (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: E. Rosenfeld and S. Monnerville, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul in so far as they concern the applicant : (i) Council Common Position 2008/479/CFSP of 23 June 2008 amending Common Position 2007/140/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1); (ii) Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No. 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (2);(iii) Council Common Position 2008/652/CFSP of 7 August 2008 amending Common Position 2007/140/CFSP 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (3);(iv) Council Decision 2009/840/CFSP of 17 November 2009 implementing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (4);(v) Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (5);(vi) Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 423/2007 (6); (vii) Council Regulation (EC) No. 1100/2009 of 17 November 2009 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No. 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Decision 2008/475/EC (7); (viii) Council Regulation (EU) No. 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 423/2007 (8); and (ix) (EU) Regulation No. 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Council Regulation (EU) No. 961/2010 (9) and










—


Order the Council to pay all of the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging lack of authority of the Council






—


The applicant states that pursuant to Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, restrictive measures can only be adopted by a joint initiative of the Commission and the High Representative. The Contested Decisions and Regulations were adopted by the Council acting alone. They are thus vitiated by lack of authority.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging violation to the obligation to state reasons






—


The applicant submits that the reason stated for Mr Jannatian’s listing in Annex II is too imprecise to meet the requirements set by the case law as regards the obligation to state the reasons. In order to comply with the obligation to state the grounds, the Council should have established the concrete and specific elements characterizing the existence of an effective support provided by the applicant to the Government of Iran or to Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities. The Contested Decisions and Regulations are thus vitiated by a failure to state the grounds.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights






—


The applicant states that: firstly, insofar as, they fail to state the grounds, the Contested Decisions and Regulations thus infringe the applicant’s rights of defence; secondly, the illegality of the Contested Decisions and Regulations affects these proceedings since on the one hand it hampers the possibility for the applicant to present a defence and, on the other hand, the Court’s ability to carry out the review of the lawfulness of the Contested Decisions and Regulations is impaired. It follows that the rights of the applicant to an effective judicial remedy are violated; and lastly, insofar as the applicant has been deprived of his rights of defence and since the Court’s ability to carry out the review of the lawfulness of the Contested Decisions and Regulations relating to fund freezing measures - which are by their very nature ‘particularly oppressive’ - is undermined, the applicant was imposed an unjustified restriction of his right to property.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of evidence against the applicant






—


The applicant submits that the Council failed to adduce the elements of evidence and information it relied on when it adopted the Contested Decisions and Regulations.














5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging factual inaccuracy






—


The applicant submits that contrary to what is stated in the contested Decisions and Regulations, the applicant was no longer Deputy Head of the Atomic Energy Organization at the respective dates of his listing among the persons and entities falling within the ambit of restrictive measures. The Council therefore erred in fact when it listed the applicant for the sole reason that, at the date of the various Contested Decisions and Regulations, he was the Deputy Head of the Atomic Energy Organization.














6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging error of law






—


The applicant states that subparagraph b) of Article 20 is not meant to apply per se to individuals who hold managerial positions in an entity listed in Annex VIII. In addition, Article 20 b) provides for this listing of individuals ‘that

are

engaged in, directly associated with, or

providing

support for, Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities.’ By listing the applicant on Annex II without adducing any evidence that the applicant was providing an active and effective support to Iranian nuclear activities at the time of his listing in Annex II, the Council erred in law.














7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging manifest error in the assessment of the facts and violation of the proportionality principle






—


The applicant states that in the case at hand no objective of general interest might justify that such stringent measures be imposed on individuals having held even for a brief period a managing position with the AEOI. Furthermore, even if the measures were considered as being justified by an objective of general interest, they would still be open to criticism by failing to respect a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved.










(1)  Official Journal of the European Union, 24 June 2008, No. L 163/43.

(2)  Journal of the European Union, 24 June 2008, No. L 163/29.

(3)  Official Journal of the European Union, 8 August 2008, No. L 213/58.

(4)  Official Journal of the European Union, 18 November 2009, No. L 303/64.

(5)  Official Journal of the European Union, 27 July 2010, L 195/39.

(6)  Official Journal of the European Union, 27 October 2010, L 281/81.

(7)  Official Journal of the European Union, 18 November 2009, No. L 303/31.

(8)  Official Journal of the European Union, 27 October 2010, L 281/1.

(9)  Official Journal of the European Union, 24 March 2012, L 88/1.