Case C-266/15 P: Appeal brought on 3 June 2015 by Central Bank of Iran against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2015 in Case T-563/12: Central Bank of Iran v Council of the European Union
Date: 2015-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Iran, banking, central bank, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, international sanctions, law of states, nuclear weapon, rights of the defence








C_2015294EN.01002501.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/25






Appeal brought on 3 June 2015 by Central Bank of Iran against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2015 in Case T-563/12: Central Bank of Iran v Council of the European Union
(Case C-266/15 P)
(2015/C 294/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Central Bank of Iran (represented by: M. Lester and Z. Al-Rikabi, Barristers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant seeks the following orders:






—


An order setting aside the decision of the General Court of 25 March 2015 in case T-563/12;










—


An order annulling the Contested Measures in so far as they apply to the appellant; and










—


An order that the Council should pay the appellant’s costs both at first instance and of this appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Central Bank of Iran appeals against the judgment of the General Court in case T-563/12 of 25 March 2015, dismissing the appellant’s application for annulment of its inclusion in Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012
             (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012
             (2). The appellant puts forward four pleas in law in support of its appeal.

Ground A. The General Court erred in concluding that the Council had properly assessed whether any of the criteria for listing in the Contested Measures was fulfilled

The General Court erred in conflating the services provided by the appellant pursuant to the Monetary and Banking Law of Iran with ‘financial support’ for the Government of Iran within the meaning of the relevant designation criterion. The services provided by the appellant, as a Central Bank, such as holding accounts and clearing transactions, are not ‘financial support’ of such a qualitative and quantitative importance that it enables the Government of Iran to pursue a nuclear programme. Indeed properly and proportionately construed, those services do not amount to financial support at all.

Ground B: The General Court erred in holding that the Council had complied with its duty to give reasons in Article 296 TFEU

The existence of the Monetary and Banking Law of Iran, which sets out the appellant’s functions and powers as the Central Bank of Iran, does not (contrary to the General Court’s judgment) make it obvious what the Council means by ‘financial support’ in the statement of reasons. The General Court erred in holding that the Council was not required to provide concrete and specific reasons explaining how, and in what ways, it considered that the appellant had provided such support to the Government of Iran.

Ground C: The General Court erred in its finding that the Appellant’s rights of defence had been respected

The General Court also erred in holding that the Council had respected the appellant’s rights of defence. The Council failed to provide any evidence prior to its decision to re-list the appellant. The General Court erred in allowing the Council to supplement the statement of reasons through reliance on the provisions of the Monetary and Banking Law of Iran, which (contrary to the General Court’s judgment) were not obviously implied into the statement of reasons. The appellant was deprived of knowledge of the case against it and was unable to put forward a proper defence.

Ground D: The General Court erred in rejecting the appellant’s plea that the Council had infringed, without justification or proportion, the appellant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property and reputation

The General Court should have found that listing the appellant is disproportionate because it has caused serious hardship to the appellant and to the Iranian people, has no impact on the Government of Iran’s sources of revenue; and will not contribute to the aim of obliging the Government of Iran to end the development of its nuclear proliferation programme.


(1)  Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, OJ L 282, p. 58


(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, OJ L 282, p. 16