—

The applicant submits that pursuant to Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, restrictive measures can only be adopted by a joint initiative of the Commission and the High Representative. The Contested Decisions and Regulations were adopted by the Council acting alone. They are thus vitiated by lack of authority.

—

The applicant submits that the reason stated for his listing in Annex II are too imprecise to meet the requirements set by the case law as regards the obligation to state the reasons. In order to comply with the obligation to state the grounds, the Council should have established the concrete and specific elements characterizing the existence of an effective support provided by the applicant to the Government of Iran or to Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities. The Contested Decisions and Regulations are thus vitiated by a failure to state the grounds.

—

The applicant submits that, first, insofar as, they fail to state the grounds, the Contested Decisions and Regulations thus infringe the applicant’s rights of defence. Second, the illegality of the Contested Decisions and Regulations affects these proceedings since on the one hand it hampers the possibility for the applicant to present a defence and, on the other hand, the Court’s ability to carry out the review of the lawfulness of the Contested Decisions and Regulations is impaired. It follows that the rights of the applicant to an effective judicial remedy are violated. Third, insofar as the applicant has been deprived of his rights of defence and since the Court’s ability to carry out the review of the lawfulness of the Contested Decisions and Regulations relating to fund freezing measures — which are by their very nature ‘particularly oppressive’ — is undermined, the applicant was imposed an unjustified restriction of his right to property.

—

The applicant submits that the Council failed to adduce the elements of evidence and information it relied on when it adopted the Contested Decisions and Regulations.

—

The applicant submits that contrary to what is stated in the contested Decisions and Regulations, the applicant was no longer Deputy Head of the Atomic Energy Organization at the respective dates of his listing among the persons and entities falling within the ambit of restrictive measures. The Council therefore erred in fact when it listed the applicant for the sole reason that, at the date of the various Contested Decisions and Regulations, he was the Deputy Head of the Atomic Energy Organization.

—

The applicant submits that subparagraph b) of Article 20 is not meant to apply per se to individuals who hold managerial positions in an entity listed in Annex VIII. In addition, Article 20 b) provides for this listing of individuals ‘that are engaged in, directly associated with, or providing support for, Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities’. By listing the applicant in Annex II without adducing any evidence that the applicant was providing an active and effective support to Iranian nuclear activities at the time of his listing in Annex II, the Council erred in law.

—

The applicant submits that in the case at hand no objective of general interest might justify that such stringent measures be imposed on individuals having held even for a brief period a managing position with the AEOI. Furthermore, even if the measures were considered as being justified by an objective of general interest, they would still be open to criticism by failing to respect a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved.