Case T-274/13: Action brought on 17 May 2013 — Emadi v Council
Date: 2013-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, United Kingdom, broadcasting, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, freedom of the press, international sanctions, ownership, rights of the defence








C_2013207EN.01004802.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/48





Action brought on 17 May 2013 — Emadi v Council
(Case T-274/13)
2013/C 207/80
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hamid Reza Emadi (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: T. Walter, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul Council 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 affects Mr Hamid Reza Emadi;










—


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, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence






—


The Council infringed the applicant’s right to effective legal protection and in particular the obligation to state reasons because it failed to provide sufficient reasons for including the applicant in the annex to the contested implementing regulation;










—


The Council infringed the applicant’s right to a hearing by denying him the possibility which is provided for in Article 12(2) of Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 (1) to present observations regarding inclusion in the sanctions list and thereby to have the Council review its decision.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging the lack of any basis for the applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions list






—


The reasons given by the Council for the applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions list do not reveal upon what legal basis the Council actually relied in that respect;










—


The Council clearly misinterpreted the facts by including the applicant in the list in the annex to the implementing regulation in question;










—


In particular, the one specific reason given by the Council in the sanctions list cannot justify including the applicant in that list.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the prohibition on double jeopardy (ne bis in idem)






—


The one specific reason given by the Council for the applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions list has already been the subject of a sanction by the UK media supervisory authority;










—


The Council does not claim that notwithstanding that sanction or following its imposition other infringements occurred which would justify inclusion in the sanctions list.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights to freedom of reporting by broadcasts or freedom of opinion, freedom of movement and property






—


The applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions list represents an unjustified and disproportionate infringement of his right to freedom of reporting by media and freedom of opinion and aims in particular to create obstacles for him or the broadcaster for which he works in reporting from and to Europe;










—


The applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions list is an unjustified and disproportionate infringement of further protected fundamental rights (right to property, right to exercise a profession, right to 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).