CELEX: 62012TN0058
Language: en
Date: 2012-02-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-58/12: Action brought on 9 February 2012 — Nabipour and Others v Council

14.4.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 109/23
            
         Action brought on 9 February 2012 — Nabipour and Others v Council
   (Case T-58/12)
   2012/C 109/50
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Ghasem Nabipour (Tehran, Iran), Mansour Eslami (Madliena, Malta), Mohamad Talai (Hamburg, Germany), Mohammad Moghaddami Fard (Tehran), Alireza Ghezelayagh (Singapore, Singapore), Gholam Hossein Golparvar (Tehran), Hassan Jalil Zadeh (Tehran), Mohammad Hadi Pajand (London, the United Kingdom), Ahmad Sarkandi (United Arab Emirates), Seyed Alaeddin Sadat Rasool (Tehran) and Ahmad Tafazoly (Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China) (represented by: S. Kentridge, QC (Queen’s Counsel), M. Lester, Barrister, and M. Taher, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11), insofar as they concern the applicants;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Declare that a travel ban does not apply to any of them; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of their action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law, alleging that by including their names in the lists enclosed to the contested Decision and Regulation, the Council has:
   
               —
            
            
               failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons;
            
         
               —
            
            
               failed to fulfil the criteria for listing, and/or committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that those criteria were satisfied in relation to the conduct of the applicants;
            
         
               —
            
            
               infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to protection of their property, business, and reputation, as well as of private and family life; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               failed to safeguard the applicants’ rights of defence and right to effective judicial review.