28.4.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/23

(Case T-110/12)

2012/C 126/45

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul Article 1 of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP in so far as it concerns it and remove its name from the annex thereto;

—annul Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 in so far as it concerns it and remove its name from the annex thereto;

—order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present proceedings have been brought against Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as the applicant's name has been added to the list of addressees of the measures laid down therein.

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

1.First plea in law: failure to comply with the duty to state reasons, since the contested acts contain erroneous grounds which are unfounded in respect of the applicant.

2.Second plea in law: infringement of the right to effective judicial protection in relation to the grounds on which the acts are based, since the duty to state reasons was not complied with.

3.Third plea in law: infringement of the right to property, since that right was restricted without valid justification.

4.Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principle of equal treatment, as the applicant was treated in the same way as the undertakings which actually participated in Iran's nuclear proliferation, which unjustly relegates it to an inferior competitive position compared with the other national and foreign entities which compete with it on various markets.

5.Fifth plea in law: misuse of powers, since objective, precise and consistent evidence exists to show that, in adopting the fund-freezing measure, aims have been pursued which are different from those claimed by the Council.