Action brought on 24 January 2023 – Noyan Abr Arvan v Council

(Case T-23/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Noyan Abr Arvan Private JC (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and P. Billiet, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2231 of 14 November 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran ¹ , in so far as it concerns the applicant’s inclusion in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011;

declare inapplicable 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 ¹ (“Regulation 359/2011”), in so far as it concerns the applicant’s inclusion in Annex I to Regulation 359/2011; and

order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest misstatement of the facts and manifest error in the application of Articles 263 TFEU and Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 12.2 of Regulation 359/2011.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed its duty to give (adequate) reasons and to give reasons that meet applicable quality standards (in particular regarding the objectivity of applied criteria, the taking into account of the applicant’s interests, the proportionate character of decision making, the taking into account of EU suppliers interests, the equal treatment of the applicant, respect to the non-discrimination principle, avoidance of an arbitrary character in decision making and avoidance of an abuse of power in decision making), contrary to Articles 263 and 296 TFEU and Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 12.2 of Regulation 359/2011.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council infringes the applicant’s right of defence, in particular the right to be heard and the right to effective judicial review, contrary to Articles 296 TFEU and Article 12.2 of Regulation 359/2011.

____________

¹ OJ 2022, L 293I, p. 16.

¹ OJ 2011, L 100, p. 1.