CELEX: 62012TN0120
Language: en
Date: 2012-03-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-120/12: Action brought on 9 March 2012 — Shahid Beheshti University v Council

9.6.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 165/22
            
         Action brought on 9 March 2012 — Shahid Beheshti University v Council
   (Case T-120/12)
   2012/C 165/38
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Shahid Beheshti University (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 in so far as it concerns the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               declare Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 inapplicable to the applicant pursuant to Article 277 TFEU;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               declare Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 inapplicable to the applicant pursuant to Article 277 TFEU;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 in so far as it concerns the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 in so far as it concerns the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the decision contained the Council’s letter of 5 December 2011 addressed to the applicant; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Council to pay 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 legal basis for Decision 2010/413/CFSP, which is the legal basis for Decision 2011/299/CFSP, and infringement of the Treaties and of international law. Decision 2010/413/CFSP should therefore be held to be inapplicable to the applicant.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging lack of legal basis for Regulation No 961/2010, which is the legal basis for Implementing Regulation No 503/2011. The applicant claims that Article 215 TFEU cannot be the legal basis for Regulation No 961/2010, since Decision 2010/413/CFSP, which it is intended to implement in the European Union internal legal order, was not adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU. Regulation No 261/2010 should accordingly be declared inapplicable to the applicant.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 215 TFEU in the procedure for listing the applicant in Annex VIII to Regulation No 961/2010 by Implementing Regulation No 503/2011.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement, by Decision 2011/29/CFSP and Implementing Regulation No 502/2011, of the rights of the defence, sound administration and the right to effective legal protection, since the Council did not observe the right to be heard, the obligation of notification and the obligation to state reasons.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.
            
         
               6.
            
            
               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to respect for property.
            
         
               7.
            
            
               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant on the list of sanctioned entities results from an error of fact, in that the applicant, as a public university having legal personality without representation of the Ministry of Defence and of the logistical support to the armed forces in its governing body, is not held or controlled by that minister or involved in scientific research relating to nuclear arms.