# C_2010080EN.01001001.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/10

---

Appeal brought on 23 December 2009 by Bank Melli Iran against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 14 October 2009 in Case T-390/08 Bank Melli Iran v Council

(Case C-548/09 P)

2010/C 80/17

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Bank Melli Iran (represented by: L. Defalque, avocate)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, French Republic, European Commission

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment delivered on 14 October 2009 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case T-390/08 Bank Melli Iran v Council, served on the appellant on 15 October 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment delivered on 14 October 2009 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case T-390/08 Bank Melli Iran v Council, served on the appellant on 15 October 2009;

Bank Melli Iran

Council

| — | grant the forms of order sought by the appellant in the proceedings at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the forms of order sought by the appellant in the proceedings at first instance;

| — | order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies, principally, on three pleas in law and, in the alternative, on three other pleas.

By its first ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the Court erred in law by not finding the obligation of individual notification in Article 15(3) of Regulation 423/2007 (1) to be an essential procedural requirement, non-compliance with which entails annulment of the measure. The communication of the fund-freezing decision to the appellant’s Paris branch by the French banking commission instead of by the Council does not satisfy the notification requirements provided for by the regulation and constitutes an infringement of a Community public policy rule.

1

By its second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the Court erred in law in its interpretation of the legal bases of Regulation 423/2007. By accepting that that regulation and the decision at issue were adopted by a qualified majority on the basis of Articles 60 EC and 301 EC alone, the Court infringed the essential procedural requirements of the Treaty. Since that regulation and the decision concern entities which are engaged in, associated with or provide support for nuclear proliferation, those items of legislation are not covered by Article 60 EC and 301 EC and should also be based on Article 308 EC, which requires a unanimous vote.

By its third ground of appeal, Bank Melli Iran submits that the Court erred in law in its interpretation of the concept of the rights of the defence and of the principle of effective judicial protection in so far as it considered that it had sufficient information to carry out its review, without having received any evidence from the Council supporting the statement of reasons for the decision at issue, either before or after the proceedings were initiated.

In the alternative, the appellant complains, first, that the Court erred in law and in its assessment of the facts in so far as it took the view that the Council has an autonomous discretionary power under Article 7(2) of Regulation 423/2007, whereas its power is limited by the adoption of restrictive measures by the United Nations Security Council.

The appellant states, second, that the Court made an error of assessment of law with regard to the appellant’s right to property in so far as it held that the importance of the objectives pursued by the legislation at issue — maintaining international peace and security — justified a restriction of fundamental rights, including the right to property and the right to carry on economic activity.

Lastly, the appellant submits that the Court made a manifest error of assessment of the facts by including it in the list of entities whose assets were to be frozen, since the appellant has not engaged in the Iranian nuclear programme and is not associated with entities which have engaged in it.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1).

1

---