# C_2017030EN.01002801.xml

| 30.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/28

---

Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by National Iranian Tanker Company against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 September 2016 in Case T-207/15: National Iranian Tanker Company v Council of the European Union

(Case C-600/16 P)

(2017/C 030/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: National Iranian Tanker Company (represented by: T. de la Mare QC, M. Lester QC, J. Pobjoy, Barristers, R. Chandrasekera, S. Ashley, C. Murphy, Solicitors)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2016 in National Iranian Tanker Company v Council of the European Union, (Case T-207/15); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2016 in National Iranian Tanker Company v Council of the European Union, (Case T-207/15);

| — | determine the case before the General Court and in particular to:






  — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/236 of 12 February 2015 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/230 of 12 February 2015 (2), insofar as each applies to the Appellant; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

determine the case before the General Court and in particular to:

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/236 of 12 February 2015 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/230 of 12 February 2015 (2), insofar as each applies to the Appellant;

1

2

| — | alternatively, declare that (a) Article 20(1)(c) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 (3) (as amended) and (b) Article 23(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 (4) (as amended), are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the Appellant by reason of illegality; and |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, declare that (a) Article 20(1)(c) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 (3) (as amended) and (b) Article 23(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 (4) (as amended), are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the Appellant by reason of illegality; and

3

4

| — | order that the Respondent pay the costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the Respondent pay the costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/236 of 12 February 2015 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/230 of 12 February 2015 did not infringe the principles of res judicata, legal certainty, legitimate expectations and finality, or the right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the EU Charter. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/236 of 12 February 2015 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/230 of 12 February 2015 did not infringe the principles of res judicata, legal certainty, legitimate expectations and finality, or the right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the EU Charter.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the criteria for designation were satisfied as regards the Appellant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the criteria for designation were satisfied as regards the Appellant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the interference with the Appellant’s fundamental rights was proportionate. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the interference with the Appellant’s fundamental rights was proportionate.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in rejecting the Appellant’s alternative argument that a broad interpretation of the designation criterion would render it disproportionate. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in rejecting the Appellant’s alternative argument that a broad interpretation of the designation criterion would render it disproportionate.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/236 of 12 February 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran

1

OJ L 39, p. 18

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/230 of 12 February 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran

2

OJ L 39, p. 3

(3)  2010/413/CFSP: Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP

3

OJ L 195, p. 39

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010

4

OJ L 88, p. 1

---