Action brought on 8 June 2012 - Vakili v Council

(Case T-255/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bahman Vakili (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

Annul the Council's decision to include the applicant in the list of persons subject to sanctions which follows from Decision 2011/783/CFSP, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2001 of 1 December 2011 and the Council's letter of 23 March 2012;

Annul Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010, in so far as it includes the applicant in the list of persons subject to sanctions;

Order the Council to pay the costs.

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 a failure to state reasons, since the statement of reasons for the penalty affecting the applicant does not contain any specific and concrete reason to justify that sanction.

2.    Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection, since the applicant was not heard in the proceedings which led to a penalty being imposed on him, as the Council did not send him the evidence against him and as the applicant was not in a position effectively to make known his view in that regard.

3.    Third plea in law, alleging an error of law, since the Council was not empowered to penalise a person on the sole basis that he is president of the board of directors and chief executive of an entity also subject to sanctions.

4.    Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of fact, since the applicant cannot be held liable for what was allegedly done by the Export Development Bank of Iran before the applicant took up his duties with that company. In addition, the applicant disputes the existence of the alleged actions of the company which he directs.

5.    Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, since the penalty imposed is not such as to achieve the objectives which it is intended to pursue.

6.    Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to respect for property, since the applicant has not been in a position effectively to defend his rights and was penalised on the basis of non-existent legal bases.

____________