# C_2010346EN.01005701.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/57

---

Action brought on 20 October 2010 — Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft v Council

(Case T-509/10)

()

2010/C 346/111

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft Co., Tehran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: F. Escalatine and S. Perrotet, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the Council Decision of 26 July 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Council Decision of 26 July 2010;

| — | annul, in its entirety, Council implementing Regulation No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in its entirety, Council implementing Regulation No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010;

| — | order the Council to pay all of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a commercial undertaking trading in the oil industry sector, is seeking the annulment of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) and of Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation, inasmuch as the name of the applicant has been included on a list of persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources have been frozen pursuant to that provision.

1

2

In support of its action, the applicant submits eight pleas in law:

| — | a breach of the duty to give reasons, as the Council relied on vague and imprecise factors which cannot be verified; |
| --- | --- |

—

a breach of the duty to give reasons, as the Council relied on vague and imprecise factors which cannot be verified;

| — | a breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights, in so far as (i) the applicant was obliged, in order to defend itself, to prove a negative, namely, that it has not contributed to the Iranian nuclear programme, (ii) the applicant was granted a very short period within which to file a request for a review and (iii) the applicant has been deprived of its right to effective judicial protection and of its right to property, as it has not had access to the information contained in the dossier on it; |
| --- | --- |

—

a breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights, in so far as (i) the applicant was obliged, in order to defend itself, to prove a negative, namely, that it has not contributed to the Iranian nuclear programme, (ii) the applicant was granted a very short period within which to file a request for a review and (iii) the applicant has been deprived of its right to effective judicial protection and of its right to property, as it has not had access to the information contained in the dossier on it;

| — | a lack of competence, as the Council is not competent to adopt measures accompanying UN Security Council Resolution 1929 (2010), as that resolution lays down no measure referring to the oil industry; |
| --- | --- |

—

a lack of competence, as the Council is not competent to adopt measures accompanying UN Security Council Resolution 1929 (2010), as that resolution lays down no measure referring to the oil industry;

| — | a misuse of power inasmuch as the contested decision would freeze all the transactions carried out by the applicant in the European Union, including acquisitions of non-essential equipment, thus going beyond what is covered by Article 4 of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

a misuse of power inasmuch as the contested decision would freeze all the transactions carried out by the applicant in the European Union, including acquisitions of non-essential equipment, thus going beyond what is covered by Article 4 of the contested decision;

| — | an error of law, as the sale of dual-use goods cannot justify a measure against an entity freezing its funds, where that entity does not actually contribute to the Iranian nuclear programme; |
| --- | --- |

—

an error of law, as the sale of dual-use goods cannot justify a measure against an entity freezing its funds, where that entity does not actually contribute to the Iranian nuclear programme;

| — | a material factual inaccuracy, inasmuch as the applicant has not acquired any goods likely to be of interest to the Iranian nuclear programme; |
| --- | --- |

—

a material factual inaccuracy, inasmuch as the applicant has not acquired any goods likely to be of interest to the Iranian nuclear programme;

| — | a manifest error of assessment, since the restrictions imposed on the applicant’s right to property and its right to carry on an economic activity are not justified by any public interest ground and are disproportionate in the light of the objective pursued; |
| --- | --- |

—

a manifest error of assessment, since the restrictions imposed on the applicant’s right to property and its right to carry on an economic activity are not justified by any public interest ground and are disproportionate in the light of the objective pursued;

| — | no legal basis for the contested regulation as a consequence of the annulment of the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

no legal basis for the contested regulation as a consequence of the annulment of the contested decision.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39).

1

(2)  Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25).

2

---