Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62019TN0580

Case T-580/19: Action brought on 20 August 2019 – Borborudi v Council

OJ C 357, 21.10.2019, p. 40–41 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

21.10.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/40

Action brought on 20 August 2019 – Borborudi v Council

(Case T-580/19)

(2019/C 357/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sayed Shamsuddin Borborudi (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: L. Vidal, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

cancel the decision taken by the Council on 27 May 2019, pursuant to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/855, to maintain the applicant on the Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No. 267/2012;

—

order the Council to remove the applicant from the Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No. 267/2012;

—

order the Council to pay all of 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 that the Council has not respected the standard of proof to sanction persons and entities in adopting and maintaining the applicant on the EU sanctions lists as the contested measures are not supported by any legitimate ground.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has committed an error of fact as Mr. Borborudi does not work for the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran anymore (the ‘AEOI’), as the AEOI is not a UN sanctioned entity anymore and that the AMAD plan was halted in 2003.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has committed an error in law as it has not qualified the quantitative or qualitative significance of the alleged support of Mr. Borborudi to the Iranian nuclear program.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated its obligation to substantiate the restrictive measure it has adopted against the applicant as it has not communicated the elements that would prove the ground on which he has been sanctioned.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated its obligation to communicate the documents supporting the motive, even after the applicant had asked for them.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed the principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles the European Union must abide to.
Top