Order — ECLI:EU:C:2017:258
Date: 2017-04-04
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: External relations;Common foreign and security policy
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Action for damages

summary of reasons underpinning the acts at issue, in order to review whether those reasons, or, at the very least, one of those reasons, deemed sufficient in itself to support those acts, is substantiated (see, to that effect, judgments of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraphs 119 and 120; of 28 November 2013, Council v Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft, C‑348/12 P, EU:C:2013:776, paragraph 73; of 21 April 2015, Anbouba v Council, C‑630/13 P, EU:C:2015:247, paragraph 45; and of 21 April 2015, Anbouba v Council, C‑605/13 P, EU:C:2015:248, paragraph 45). 72 In the present case, in paragraphs 77 to 98 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court examined the agreement concluded between the appellant and the AIO for the production of satellites, the evidence relating to cooperation with the Iranian Ministry of Defence and the IRGC concerning smart boat competitions and the agreement between the appellant and the IRGC air force, which are among the reasons, given in the acts at issue, to justify the re-inclusion of Sharif University of Technology on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures. It follows from that detailed examination of the facts, which the General Court undertook on the basis of the evidence produced by the Council, that the General Court did not infringe the rules of law relating to the burden of proof. 73 It follows from all of the foregoing that the appellant has not established that the General Court erred in law in the interpretation or application of the criterion at issue, with the result that the second ground of appeal must be rejected as being manifestly unfounded. 74 Consequently, the appeal must be dismissed. Costs 75 In accordance with Article 184(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where the appeal is unfounded, the Court is to make a decision as to costs. 76 Under Article 138(1) of those Rules of Procedure, applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1) thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 77 Since the Council has applied for costs to be awarded against Sharif University of Technology, and since the latter has been unsuccessful, Sharif University of Technology must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council. On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby orders: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. Sharif University of Technology shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. Luxembourg, 4 April 2017. A. Calot Escobar A. Prechal Registrar President of the Seventh Chamber * Language of the case: English.