EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/41

Appeal brought on 11 July 2016 by Sharif University of Technology against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2016 in Case T-52/15: Sharif University of Technology v Council of the European Union

(Case C-385/16 P)

(2016/C 335/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Sharif University of Technology (represented by: M. Happold, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 April 2016 in Case T-52/15 Sharif University of Technology v Council of the European Union;

— grant the forms of order sought by the Appellant in the proceedings before the General Court: and

— order the Council to pay the Appellant’s costs of both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant requests the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court, to annul the acts at issue (the Annexes to Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP (1) and to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1202/2014 (2), and of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (3) and Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (4) (as amended, respectively, by Article 1 of Decision 2014/776/CFSP and Article 1 of Implementing regulation (EU) No 1202/2014)) insofar as they designate the Appellant as an entity subject to restrictive measures under Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, to award it compensation for the damage sustained to its reputation by virtue of the Council’s acts, and to order the Council to pay the costs incurred by it at first instance and on appeal.

The Appellant puts forward the following two pleas in law in support of its claim that the judgment of the General Court was vitiated by legal error, and that the Court of Justice should set it aside and decide the case for itself:

First, that the General Court wrongly failed to rule that the Council failed to comply with an essential procedural requirement and/or made a manifest error of assessment when adopting the decision to list SUT because it failed to undertake the decision-making exercise it was obliged to undertake.

Secondly, that the General Court wrongly interpreted the legal criterion of ‘support’ to the Government of Iran in Article 20(1)(c) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (as amended) and Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 march 2012 (as amended) relied upon by the Council as justifying the Appellant’s designation as subject to restrictive measures with the result that it wrongly concluded that the evidence presented by the Council supported the Appellant’s listing.

(1) Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP of 7 November 2014 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran

OJ L 325, p. 19

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1202/2014 of 7 November 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran

OJ L 325, p. 3

(3) Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP

OJ L 195, p. 39

(4) Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010

OJ L 88, p. 1