Case T‑160/13

Bank Mellat

v

Council of the European Union

‛Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Restrictions on transfers of funds involving Iranian financial institutions — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Action for annulment — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Whether directly concerned — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons — Legal safeguards as referred to in Article 215(3) TFEU — Legal certainty — Non-arbitrariness — Breach of fundamental rights’

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber), 2 June 2016

Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Restrictions on transfers of funds involving Iranian financial institutions — Judicial review of legality — Principles of legal certainty and equal treatment — No infringement

Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Restrictions on transfers of funds involving Iranian financial institutions — Judicial review of legality — Principle of proportionality — Restrictive measures not disproportionate

Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Restrictions on transfers of funds involving Iranian financial institutions — Judicial review of legality — Principle of proportionality — Necessity of the restrictive measures

Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Restrictions on transfers of funds involving Iranian financial institutions — Judicial review of legality — Principle of proportionality — Appropriateness of the restrictive measures — Restrictive measures pursuing a legitimate aim of the common foreign and security policy

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 — Act of general scope containing provisions directly affecting the applicant, without implementing measures — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review extending to the general principles of EU law

Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Legal basis — Restrictive measures provided for by a decision adopted on the basis of Article 29 TEU and by a regulation based on Article 215 TFEU — Necessity of the restrictive measures provided for by the said regulation — Assessment having regard to the decision adopted on the basis of Article 29 TEU

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time when the action was lodged — Action brought against an act providing for restrictive measures — Applicant covered by other, more severe, restrictive measures — Annulment of those more severe measures before the bringing of the action — Effects of the annulling judgment suspended until the decision on appeal — Admissibility

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Regulatory acts — Acts not comprising implementing measures and concerning the applicant directly — Conditions cumulative in nature — Act not directly affecting the applicant — Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Any act of general scope other than legislative acts — Council regulation of general scope adopted on the basis of Article 215 TFEU — Included

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 — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Act adopted under Article 215 TFEU — Included

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 — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Restrictive measures of a general nature, their scope being determined by reference to objective criteria — Not included

Article 1(6) of Decision 2012/635, amending Decision 2010/413 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, does not constitute, in itself, a decision providing for restrictive measures against natural or legal persons within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 275 TFEU, since the measures laid down by that provision are of a general nature, their scope being determined by reference to objective criteria and not by reference to identified natural or legal persons. It follows that the General Court does not have jurisdiction under Article 275 TFEU to rule on a plea of illegality in respect of Article 1(6) of Decision 2012/635, such plea having been raised in support of an action for annulment brought against Article 1(15) of Regulation No 1263/2012, amending Regulation No 267/2012 concerning the adoption of restrictive measures against Iran, since that latter provision is likewise not a decision providing for restrictive measures against natural or legal persons within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 275 TFEU. (see paras 33, 34, 36, 38)

The exception to the jurisdiction of the Courts of the European Union provided for in Article 275 TFEU cannot be interpreted as going so far as to preclude review of the legality of a measure adopted under Article 215 TFEU, such as Article 1(15) of Regulation No 1263/2012, that does not fall within the common foreign and security policy (CFSP), simply because the valid adoption of that measure is contingent on the prior adoption of a decision falling within the CFSP. Such an interpretation of the exception in question would collide both with the general jurisdiction conferred on the Court of Justice by Article 19 TEU and with the specific jurisdiction expressly conferred on it by the first, second and fourth paragraphs of Article 263 TFEU. (see para. 39)

Article 1(15) of Regulation No 1263/2012 constitutes a regulatory act within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU because, first, it is of general application, and, second, it was adopted on the basis of Article 215 TFEU and under the procedure provided for by that article, so that it does not constitute a legislative act. (see paras 48, 55)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 55-61)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 72-78)

It is clear from the wording, the scheme and the purpose of Article 215(1) TFEU that the concept of necessity referred to in that provision does not concern the relationship between the act adopted under Article 215 TFEU and the CFSP aim pursued, but the relationship between that act and the CFSP decision on which the act is based. Thus, the reference to ‘necessary measures’ is intended to ensure that the Council does not, under Article 215 TFEU, adopt restrictive measures that go beyond those laid down by the corresponding CFSP decision. (see para. 87)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 92)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 100-111)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 117-135, 144-152)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 161-179, 188-196)

Any restrictive economic or financial measure entails, ex hypothesi, consequences which could cause harm to parties who have not been found to be responsible for the situation giving rise to the measures in question. Given the prime importance of the preservation of international peace and security, which are the underlying ultimate objectives of the measures seeking to prevent nuclear proliferation and its funding, the disadvantages caused to an Iranian commercial bank by a restrictive measure against Iran providing for restrictions on transfers of funds involving Iranian financial establishments are not disproportionate in relation to the said aims of the said regulations. (see paras 204, 213)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 226-229)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 231-240)