—

The Council infringed the applicant’s right to effective legal protection and in particular the obligation to state reasons because it failed to provide sufficient reasons for including the applicant in the annex to the contested implementing regulation;

—

The Council infringed the applicant’s right to a hearing by denying him the possibility which is provided for in Article 12(2) of Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 (1) to present observations regarding inclusion in the sanctions list and thereby to have the Council review its decision.

—

The reasons given by the Council for the applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions list do not reveal upon what legal basis the Council actually relied in that respect;

—

The Council clearly misinterpreted the facts by including the applicant in the list in the annex to the implementing regulation in question;

—

In particular, the one specific reason given by the Council in the sanctions list cannot justify including the applicant in that list.

—

The one specific reason given by the Council for the applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions list has already been the subject of a sanction by the UK media supervisory authority;

—

The Council does not claim that notwithstanding that sanction or following its imposition other infringements occurred which would justify inclusion in the sanctions list.

—

The applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions list represents an unjustified and disproportionate infringement of his right to freedom of reporting by media and freedom of opinion and aims in particular to create obstacles for him or the broadcaster for which he works in reporting from and to Europe;

—

The applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions list is an unjustified and disproportionate infringement of further protected fundamental rights (right to property, right to exercise a profession, right to freedom of movement).