Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in respect of Case T-676/24, Action brought on 23 December 2024 – Iran Air v Council (OJ C, C/2025/1542, 17.3.2025)
Date: 2025-04-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, abuse of power, economic sanctions, evidence, international sanctions, legal person, rights of the defence








C_202590031EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/90031


7.4.2025






Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in respect of Case T-676/24, Action brought on 23 December 2024 – Iran Air v Council

(
Official Journal of the European Union C, C/2025/1542, 17 March 2025
)


The notice in the Official Journal in respect of Case T-676/24, Iran Air v Council, should read as follows:





Action brought on 23 December 2024 – Iran Air v Council


(Case T-676/24)

(C/2025/1542)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Iran Air – The Airline of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran Air) (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: D. Rahimi Moghaddam and T. Wülfing)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant seeks the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2698 of 14 October 2024 amending Decision (CFSP) 2023/1532 concerning restrictive measures in view of Iran’s military support to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and to armed groups and entities in the Middle East and the Red Sea region (1) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2697 of 14 October 2024 implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1529 concerning restrictive measures in view of Iran’s military support to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and to armed groups and entities in the Middle East and the Red Sea region, (2) in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard
The defendant infringed the right of the applicant to be heard before individual and adverse legal measures are adopted, as provided for under Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. (3) The applicant was not heard.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection
The defendant infringed its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and therefore the applicant’s rights of the defence and its right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union read in conjunction with Article 6(3)(a) and (b), Article 13 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The defendant did not state the individual reasons for the legal measures. A wording in identical and general terms was used to describe each sanctioned airline, which made considerably more difficult the defence against the allegations within the time limits prescribed under the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and Article 60 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. (4)











3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to have access to the file, the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection
The defendant infringed its obligation to provide access to the file under Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and accordingly further infringed the applicant’s rights of the defence as well as its right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union read in conjunction with Article 6(3)(a) and (b), Article 13 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Further to the application for access to the file made by the applicant’s legal representatives, the defendant sent the applicant the compiled evidence, of which 7 of 22 documents did not, however, concern the applicant. Nevertheless, the applicant’s legal representatives had to deal with those documents which represented an infringement of the principle of the clarity of the file and accordingly an infringement of the right to effective judicial protection.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to the impartial gathering of evidence
The defendant infringed the right provided for under Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to the impartial gathering of evidence. The evidence concerning the applicant solely represented newspaper reports in respect of alleged evidence in the hands of third parties adversely affecting the applicant. The defendant blindly relied on those newspaper reports and did not conduct its own research, in particular it failed to search for evidence also in favour of the applicant.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to impartial assessment of the evidence
The defendant also infringed the applicant’s right provided for also under Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union concerning relevant evidence that is impartial and fair in accordance with the conditions laid down by the defendant in order to be classified as a sanction. According to the applicant, a properly conducted classification under the conditions laid down by the defendant would not lead to the conclusion, to which the defendant has been led, as the newspaper reports that were compiled provide no information as to the participation of the applicant with regard to the allegation made against it of having transported militarily relevant goods.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers
The defendant in all likelihood or at least predominantly pursued a purpose other than that officially provided in respect of the legal measures. Upon adopting the legal measures, the defendant itself started from the premise that the applicant was not guilty of the accusations made against it, that one could not thus seriously make an individual accusation against it, but rather that it should be considered in terms of politically motivated collective responsibility.










(1)  OJ L, 2024/2698.

(2)  OJ L, 2024/2697.

(3)  
            OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391.

(4)  
            OJ 2015 L 105, p. 1, consolidated version.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1542/corrigendum/2025-04-07/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)