OJ:C_202590031:           Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in respect of Case T-676/24, Action brought on 23 December 2024 – Iran Air v Council (OJ C, C/2025/1542, 17.3.2025)

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard

The defendant infringed the right of the applicant to be heard before individual and adverse legal measures are adopted, as provided for under Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. (3) The applicant was not heard.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection

The defendant infringed its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and therefore the applicant’s rights of the defence and its right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union read in conjunction with Article 6(3)(a) and (b), Article 13 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The defendant did not state the individual reasons for the legal measures. A wording in identical and general terms was used to describe each sanctioned airline, which made considerably more difficult the defence against the allegations within the time limits prescribed under the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and Article 60 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. (4)

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to have access to the file, the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection

The defendant infringed its obligation to provide access to the file under Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and accordingly further infringed the applicant’s rights of the defence as well as its right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union read in conjunction with Article 6(3)(a) and (b), Article 13 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Further to the application for access to the file made by the applicant’s legal representatives, the defendant sent the applicant the compiled evidence, of which 7 of 22 documents did not, however, concern the applicant. Nevertheless, the applicant’s legal representatives had to deal with those documents which represented an infringement of the principle of the clarity of the file and accordingly an infringement of the right to effective judicial protection.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to the impartial gathering of evidence

The defendant infringed the right provided for under Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to the impartial gathering of evidence. The evidence concerning the applicant solely represented newspaper reports in respect of alleged evidence in the hands of third parties adversely affecting the applicant. The defendant blindly relied on those newspaper reports and did not conduct its own research, in particular it failed to search for evidence also in favour of the applicant.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to impartial assessment of the evidence

The defendant also infringed the applicant’s right provided for also under Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union concerning relevant evidence that is impartial and fair in accordance with the conditions laid down by the defendant in order to be classified as a sanction. According to the applicant, a properly conducted classification under the conditions laid down by the defendant would not lead to the conclusion, to which the defendant has been led, as the newspaper reports that were compiled provide no information as to the participation of the applicant with regard to the allegation made against it of having transported militarily relevant goods.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers

The defendant in all likelihood or at least predominantly pursued a purpose other than that officially provided in respect of the legal measures. Upon adopting the legal measures, the defendant itself started from the premise that the applicant was not guilty of the accusations made against it, that one could not thus seriously make an individual accusation against it, but rather that it should be considered in terms of politically motivated collective responsibility.