# C_2013171EN.01002002.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/20

---

Appeal brought on 9 April 2013 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2013 in Case T-496/10: Bank Mellat v Council of the European Union

(Case C-176/13 P)

2013/C 171/41

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Bishop, Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Bank Mellat, European Commission

Other parties 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 (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2013 in Case T-496/10; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2013 in Case T-496/10;

| — | give a definitive ruling on the case and dismiss the application brought by Bank Mellat against the contested measures; |
| --- | --- |

—

give a definitive ruling on the case and dismiss the application brought by Bank Mellat against the contested measures;

| — | order Bank Mellat to pay the costs incurred by the Council in the proceedings at first instance and in this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Bank Mellat to pay the costs incurred by the Council in the proceedings at first instance and in this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Council considers that the judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2012 in Case T-496/10, Bank Mellat v. Council, is vitiated by the following errors of law:

| 1. | The General Court was mistaken to rule, with regard to the admissibility of the action, that Bank Mellat was entitled to rely on fundamental rights protections and guarantees regardless of whether it could be considered as an emanation of the Iranian State; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The General Court was mistaken to rule, with regard to the admissibility of the action, that Bank Mellat was entitled to rely on fundamental rights protections and guarantees regardless of whether it could be considered as an emanation of the Iranian State;

| 2. | The General Court was wrong to hold that certain of the reasons given for imposing restrictive measures against Bank Mellat were insufficiently precise; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The General Court was wrong to hold that certain of the reasons given for imposing restrictive measures against Bank Mellat were insufficiently precise;

| 3. | The General Court erroneously applied the case-law concerning the communication of information on the Council's file; |
| --- | --- |

3.

The General Court erroneously applied the case-law concerning the communication of information on the Council's file;

| 4. | The General Court erroneously considered that the reasons given for imposing restrictive measures against Bank Mellat did not satisfy the conditions for designation in the relevant legal acts and were not substantiated, insofar as:






  — | it failed to pay due respect to a finding by the United Nations Security Council concerning Bank Mellat's facilitation of transactions for Iranian nuclear, missile and defence entities; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

The General Court erroneously considered that the reasons given for imposing restrictive measures against Bank Mellat did not satisfy the conditions for designation in the relevant legal acts and were not substantiated, insofar as:

—

it failed to pay due respect to a finding by the United Nations Security Council concerning Bank Mellat's facilitation of transactions for Iranian nuclear, missile and defence entities;

| — | it failed to take due account of the fact that the evidence for Bank Mellat's support to Iran's nuclear activities comes from confidential sources; |
| --- | --- |

—

it failed to take due account of the fact that the evidence for Bank Mellat's support to Iran's nuclear activities comes from confidential sources;

| — | it wrongly considered that Bank Mellat's admitted provision of banking services to an entity involved in Iran's nuclear proliferation activities before that entity's designation by the UN Security Council was insufficient to justify the imposition of restrictive measures against Bank Mellat. |
| --- | --- |

—

it wrongly considered that Bank Mellat's admitted provision of banking services to an entity involved in Iran's nuclear proliferation activities before that entity's designation by the UN Security Council was insufficient to justify the imposition of restrictive measures against Bank Mellat.

---