Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2013:453
Date: 2013-09-16
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: External relations;Common foreign and security policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Germany;United Kingdom;Malta

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber), 16 September 2013 1. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Limits — Safety of the Union and the Member States or conduct of their international relations — Obligation to communicate the reasoning to the person concerned at the same time as the measure adversely affecting him — Correction of an error of reasoning during the proceedings before the Court — Not permissible (Art. 296, second para., TFEU; Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, Art. 24(3); Council Regulations No 423/2007, Art. 15(3), No 961/2010, Art. 36(3), and No 267/2012, Art. 46(3)) 2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Restrictive measures based on alternative criteria — Decision falling within a context known to the person concerned, enabling him to understand the scope of the measure taken in his regard — Admissibility of reasoning based on evidence provided by other bodies or institutions (Art. 296, second para., TFEU; Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, Art. 24(3); Council Regulations No 423/2007, Art. 15(3), No 961/2010, Art. 36(3), and No 267/2012, Art. 46(3)) 3. European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Restrictive measures against Iran — Measures in the context of the fight against nuclear proliferation — Ambit of the review 4. Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — No conduct corresponding to support for such proliferation — Risk of support for nuclear proliferation in the future — Not sufficient to justify a fund-freezing measure (Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, Art. 20(1)(b); Council Regulations No 423/2007, Art. 7(2), No 961/2010, Art. 16(2)(a), and No 267/2012, Art. 23(2)(a)) 5. Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Obligation to extend that measure to entities owned or controlled by such an entity 6. Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Limitation by the Court — Restrictive measures against Iran — Partial annulment at two different times of two acts comprising identical restrictive measures — Risk of legal certainty being seriously affected — Maintenance of the effects of the first of those acts until the taking effect of annulment of the second (Art. 264, second para., TFEU and 280 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 60, second para.; Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP; Council Regulation No 267/2012) 7. Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Partial annulment of a regulation and a decision on the adoption of restrictive measures against Iran — Annulment of regulation to take effect only as from the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal or from the date of dismissal of the appeal — Application of that period to when the annulment of the decision is to take effect (Arts 264, second para., TFEU and 280 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 60, second para.; Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP; Council Regulation No 267/2012) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 28, 29, 31) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 30, 33, 35, 37, 39) 3. See the text of the decision. (see para. 42) 4. The wording used by the legislature in Article 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413, concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140, in Article 7(2) of Regulation No 423/2007, concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in Article 16(2)(a) of Regulation No 961/2010, on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 423/2007 and in Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 267/2012, on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010, implies that the adoption of restrictive measures against a person or an entity on account of the support which that person or entity has allegedly given to nuclear proliferation presupposes that that person or entity has actually done so. By contrast, the mere risk that the person or entity concerned may in the future provide support for nuclear proliferation is not sufficient. Moreover, the adoption and maintenance of restrictive measures cannot validly be based on a presumption which has not been laid down by the relevant legislation and does not correspond to its objective. In that regard, if the Council considers that the relevant legislation does not enable it to intervene sufficiently effectively in order to combat nuclear proliferation, it is permissible for it to adapt that legislation in its role as legislator, subject to review of legality by the EU judicature, in order to enlarge the hypotheses in which restrictive measures may be adopted. On the other hand, the desire to ensure that the restrictive measures have the broadest possible preventive effect cannot result in the legislation in force being interpreted contrary to its clear wording. Therefore, even if it appears appropriate to regard the fact that an entity has been involved in incidents concerning the shipment of military material in breach of the prohibition laid down by a UN Security Council resolution as increasing the risk that that entity may also be involved in incidents relating to the shipment of material linked to nuclear proliferation, that does not, as the relevant legislation now stands, justify the adoption and maintenance of restrictive measures against it. (see paras 48, 57, 59, 62, 64-66) 5. See the text of the decision. (see para. 75) 6. See the text of the decision. (see paras 81, 83) 7. See the text of the decision. (see para. 82)