# C_2022011EN.01001001.xml

| 10.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Bank Sepah v Overseas Financial Limited, Oaktree Finance Limited

(Case C-340/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 - Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies recognised by the Council of the European Union as being engaged in nuclear proliferation - Concepts of ‘freezing of funds’ and ‘freezing of economic resources’ - Possibility of applying a protective measure in respect of frozen funds and economic resources - Claim pre-dating the freezing of assets and unrelated to Iran’s nuclear and ballistic programme)

(2022/C 11/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bank Sepah

Defendants: Overseas Financial Limited, Oaktree Finance Limited

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, read in conjunction with Article 1(h) and (j) of Regulation No 423/2007, Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 423/2007, read in conjunction with Article 1(h) and (i) of Regulation No 961/2010, and Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010, read in conjunction with Article 1(j) and (k) of Regulation No 267/2012, must be interpreted as precluding the implementation of protective measures, without prior authorisation from the competent national authority, in respect of funds or economic resources that have been frozen in the context of the common foreign and security policy, which establish a right to be paid on a priority basis in favour of the creditor concerned in relation to other creditors, even if such measures do not have the effect of removing assets from the debtor’s estate. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, read in conjunction with Article 1(h) and (j) of Regulation No 423/2007, Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 423/2007, read in conjunction with Article 1(h) and (i) of Regulation No 961/2010, and Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010, read in conjunction with Article 1(j) and (k) of Regulation No 267/2012, must be interpreted as precluding the implementation of protective measures, without prior authorisation from the competent national authority, in respect of funds or economic resources that have been frozen in the context of the common foreign and security policy, which establish a right to be paid on a priority basis in favour of the creditor concerned in relation to other creditors, even if such measures do not have the effect of removing assets from the debtor’s estate.

| 2. | The fact that the grounds for the claim for recovery from the person or entity whose funds or economic resources are frozen are unrelated to Iran’s nuclear and ballistic programme and pre-date United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737 (2006) of 23 December 2006 is not relevant to the answer to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The fact that the grounds for the claim for recovery from the person or entity whose funds or economic resources are frozen are unrelated to Iran’s nuclear and ballistic programme and pre-date United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737 (2006) of 23 December 2006 is not relevant to the answer to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling.

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.

---