# C_2015371EN.01003401.xml

| 9.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/34

---

Action brought on 7 September 2015 — NICO/Council

(Case T-524/15)

(2015/C 371/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl (Pully, Suisse) (represented by: J. Grayston, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | order the Council, under measures of organization of the procedure, to disclose the full version of Annex 1 to document 7228/14 EXT 1 of 23 January 2015 concerning ‘I/A ITEM NOTE’ from the General Secretariat of the Council to the Permanent Representative Committee as well as any other document concerning the applicant, |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council, under measures of organization of the procedure, to disclose the full version of Annex 1 to document 7228/14 EXT 1 of 23 January 2015 concerning ‘I/A ITEM NOTE’ from the General Secretariat of the Council to the Permanent Representative Committee as well as any other document concerning the applicant,

| — | annul the decision of the Council contained in the letter of 26 June 2015, addressed to the applicant’s lawyers, concerning review of the list of designated persons and entities in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as amended by Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012, and in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012, in so far as the contested decision constitutes a refusal to remove the applicant from the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Council contained in the letter of 26 June 2015, addressed to the applicant’s lawyers, concerning review of the list of designated persons and entities in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as amended by Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012, and in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012, in so far as the contested decision constitutes a refusal to remove the applicant from the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures,

1

2

| — | order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of the rights of defence and right to be heard, a breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and a breach of the principle of sound administration






  — | The applicant during the review procedure has only just been informed that a negative decision against it has already been adopted by the Council. It has not been given any possibility to comment and rely on its rights of defence. Instead, it has only been given a deadline by which to send comments which, far from being taken into account before deciding, the Council will only examine in a separate, future administrative review delisting process. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of the rights of defence and right to be heard, a breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and a breach of the principle of sound administration

—

The applicant during the review procedure has only just been informed that a negative decision against it has already been adopted by the Council. It has not been given any possibility to comment and rely on its rights of defence. Instead, it has only been given a deadline by which to send comments which, far from being taken into account before deciding, the Council will only examine in a separate, future administrative review delisting process.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an insufficient statement of reasons






  — | The review decision does not contain a proper statement of reasons which would allow the applicant to understand why its administrative application for delisting has been refused. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an insufficient statement of reasons

—

The review decision does not contain a proper statement of reasons which would allow the applicant to understand why its administrative application for delisting has been refused.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and a breach of essential procedural and substantive requirements






  — | The Council clearly relied upon documents and evidence related to previous phases of the administrative proceedings in order to justify the challenged decision. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and a breach of essential procedural and substantive requirements

—

The Council clearly relied upon documents and evidence related to previous phases of the administrative proceedings in order to justify the challenged decision.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of essential procedural and substantive requirements, a breach of article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and a lack of competence of the person signing the challenged decision.






  — | The challenged Council letter of 26 June 2015 containing the decision not to delist it is formally defective. Such defects in the form of the act at issue also give rise to substantive breaches of the applicant’s rights. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of essential procedural and substantive requirements, a breach of article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and a lack of competence of the person signing the challenged decision.

—

The challenged Council letter of 26 June 2015 containing the decision not to delist it is formally defective. Such defects in the form of the act at issue also give rise to substantive breaches of the applicant’s rights.

---

(1)  Council Decision 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 Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

2

---