Case C‑600/16 P

National Iranian Tanker Company

v

Council of the European Union

(Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Annulment of a listing by the General Court — Re-listing — Evidence dating from before the first listing — Facts known before the first listing — Res judicata — Scope — Legal certainty — Protection of legitimate expectations — Effective judicial protection — Reasons for the listing relating to logistical support to the Government of Iran — Scope — Activity of transporting crude oil)

Summary – Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 29 November 2018

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures against Iran – Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation – Support for Iran’s nuclear activities posing a risk of proliferation – Meaning – Material, logistical or financial support – Quantitative or qualitative importance of the support

EU law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Right to effective judicial protection – Restrictive measures against Iran – Freezing of funds or persons, entities or bodies supporting the Iranian Government – Decision to re-list an applicant on the basis of reasons other than those justifying the initial listing, or on the basis of an identical reason, based on other evidence – No right to prevent the adoption of the new act adversely affecting that applicant, based on different reasons

Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Annulment of acts concerning the adoption of restrictive measures against Iran – Decision to re-list an applicant on the basis of reasons other than those justifying the initial listing, or on the basis of an identical reason, based on other evidence – Judicial review – No infringement of the principle of res judicata

Annulment judgments given by the EU Courts have the force of res judicata as soon as they become final. This applies not only to the operative part of the judgment annulling a decision, but also to the grounds which are its essential basis and are inseparable from it. However, the force of res judicata extends only to the matters of fact and law actually or necessarily settled by a judicial decision. With regard to a judgment by which the EU Courts annulled acts providing for the applicant’s initial inclusion on a list of those covered by restrictive measures as a result of the lack of information provided by the Council in support of the factual basis of those acts, it cannot be inferred from the finding of a lack of information provided by the Council, to which the authority of res judicata extends, that the Council could not then rely on other evidence intended to attest the veracity of the reasons relied upon, in particular the existence of financial support to the government in question, or to form the basis of another type of support to that government. The complaint that the Council was obliged to use all of the information at its disposal and the legal classifications capable of justifying the imposition of restrictive measures at the time of the applicant’s first listing, annulled by a decision having the force of res judicata, cannot lead to a finding of an infringement of the principle of res judicata, given that, since the information and legal classifications were not taken into account by that decision, by definition, they cannot constitute matters of law or fact actually or necessarily settled by that decision. (see paras 42, 43, 45, 48)

The right to rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations extends to any person whom an institution of the European Union has caused, by giving him precise assurances, to entertain justified hopes. By contrast, a person may not plead breach of that principle unless he has been given those assurances. A decision to include an entity on a list of persons and entities whose assets are to be frozen does not provide that entity with precise assurances that the Council does not have any reason concerning that entity other than what is in the statement of reasons for that decision or any other evidence capable of justifying the imposition of restrictive measures on it. (see paras 50, 51)

The principle of effective judicial protection cannot prevent the Council from reinstating a person or entity on the lists of persons and entities whose assets are to be frozen on the basis of reasons other than those on which the initial listing was based, or for the same reason based on other evidence. The purpose of that principle is to ensure that an act adversely affecting an entity may be challenged before the courts, and not to prevent the adoption of a new act adversely affecting that entity, based on different reasons or evidence. Thus, where a decision of an EU institution being challenged in court is annulled, it is deemed to have never existed, and that institution, which intends to take a new decision, is entitled to undertake a full review and rely on reasons other than those on which the annulled decision was based. It follows that an unlawful measure established at the time the applicant was first included on the lists of persons and entities whose assets are to be frozen does not prevent the Council, following a re-examination of the applicant’s situation, from adopting new restrictive measures on the basis of evidence that is already in existence or available. (see paras 54-56)