CELEX: 62015TN0176
Language: en
Date: 2015-04-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-176/15: Action brought on 10 April 2015 — Golparvar/Council

6.7.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 221/22
            
         Action brought on 10 April 2015 — Golparvar/Council
   (Case T-176/15)
   (2015/C 221/32)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Gholam Hossein Golparvar (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: M. Taher, Solicitor, T. de la Mare and R. Blakeley, Barristers)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/236 of 12 February 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran insofar as it applies to the applicant,
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/230 of 12 February 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 26712012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran insofar as it applies to the applicant,
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Council to pay the applicant the sum of Euro 50  000 in damages, and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs of the application.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           Due to his complete retirement (which is uncontradicted) the applicant does not satisfy any of the criteria for listing, and the Council’s statement of reasons (which does not dispute his retirement) is factually erroneous, with the result that the council has committed a manifest error of assessment in relisting the applicant.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the applicant’s procedural rights and rights of defence
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The Council breached the applicant’s procedural rights and rights of defence by failing to take into account the observations and evidence submitted by the applicant that clearly establish his complete retirement from work.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of article 266 TFEU
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The Council has sought to re-list the applicant on the basis of substantially the same legal methodology and the same evidence as it did by way of the initial listing, which action was annulled by the General Court.
                        
                     
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of res judicata
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The re-listing of the applicant is an abuse of process and violates the principles of res judicata and/or legal certainty and/or finality.
                        
                     
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of, inter alia, the principle of effectiveness and the right to effective judicial protection
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The re-listing of the applicant violates the principle of effectiveness, the right to effective judicial protection, his rights under Article 47 of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’) and/or Article 6 and Article 13 ECHR.
                        
                     
         
               6.
            
            
               Sixth plea in law, alleging a violation of the right to good administration
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The re-listing of the applicant is a misuse of power and/or violates his rights to good administration, as protected by Article 41 of the Charter.
                        
                     
         
               7.
            
            
               Seventh plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 7 and 17 of the Charter and/or Article 8 ECHR and Article 1 of the 1st Protocol to the ECHR and/or the principle of proportionality.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The re-listing of the applicant violates his fundamental rights to respect for his reputation and peaceful enjoyment of his property and the principle of proportionality
                        
                     
         
               8.
            
            
               Eighth plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of the re-listing of the applicant
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The re-listing of the applicant is in any event based on the assumed legality of the restrictive measures imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping lines, but such IRISL measures are unlawful (for the reasons advanced by IRISL, which reasons are incorporated by reference herein) with the result that the measures taken against the applicant must be annulled.