Case C-124/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Bank Melli Iran v Telekom Deutschland GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commercial policy — Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 — Protection against the effects of the extraterritorial application of legislation adopted by a third country — Restrictive measures taken by the United States of America against Iran — Secondary sanctions adopted by that third country preventing persons from engaging, outside its territory, in commercial relationships with certain Iranian undertakings — Prohibition on complying with such a law — Exercise of the right of ordinary termination)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Iran, United States, application of the law, economic sanctions, extra-territoriality, international sanctions, legal person, national law, termination of a contract, trade policy








C_2022084EN.01000801.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/8






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Bank Melli Iran v Telekom Deutschland GmbH
(Case C-124/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Commercial policy - Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 - Protection against the effects of the extraterritorial application of legislation adopted by a third country - Restrictive measures taken by the United States of America against Iran - Secondary sanctions adopted by that third country preventing persons from engaging, outside its territory, in commercial relationships with certain Iranian undertakings - Prohibition on complying with such a law - Exercise of the right of ordinary termination)
(2022/C 84/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bank Melli Iran

Defendant: Telekom Deutschland GmbH

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The first paragraph of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2014, and by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1100 of 6 June 2018, which amended the Annex to Regulation No 2271/96, must be interpreted as prohibiting persons referred to in Article 11 of Regulation No 2271/96, as amended, from complying with the requirements or prohibitions laid down in the laws specified in the annex to that regulation, even in the absence of an order directing compliance issued by the administrative or judicial authorities of the third countries which adopted those laws;










2.


The first paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation No 2271/96, as amended by Regulation No 37/2014 and Delegated Regulation 2018/1100, must be interpreted as not precluding a person referred to in Article 11 of that regulation, as amended, who does not have an authorisation within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 5 of that regulation, as amended, from terminating contracts concluded with a person on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List, without providing reasons for that termination. Nevertheless, the first paragraph of Article 5 of the same regulation, as amended, requires that, in civil proceedings relating to the alleged infringement of the prohibition laid down in that provision, where all the evidence available to the national court suggests prima facie that a person referred to in Article 11 of Regulation No 2271/96, as amended, complied with the laws specified in the annex to that regulation, as amended, without having an authorisation in that respect, it is for that same person to establish to the requisite legal standard that his or her conduct was not intended to comply with those laws;










3.


Regulation No 2271/96, as amended by Regulation No 37/2014 and Delegated Regulation 2018/1100, in particular Articles 5 and 9 thereof, read in the light of Article 16 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding the annulment of the termination of contracts effected by a person referred to in Article 11 of that regulation, as amended, in order to comply with the requirements or prohibitions based on the laws specified in the annex to that regulation, as amended, even though that person does not have an authorisation, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 5 of the same regulation, as amended, provided that that annulment does not entail disproportionate effects for that person having regard to the objectives of Regulation No 2271/96, as amended, consisting in the protection of the established legal order and the interests of the European Union in general. In that assessment of proportionality, it is necessary to weigh in the balance the pursuit of those objectives served by the annulment of the termination of a contract effected in breach of the prohibition laid down in the first paragraph of Article 5 of that regulation, as amended, and the probability that the person concerned may be exposed to economic loss, as well as the extent of that loss, if that person cannot terminate his or her commercial relationship with a person included in the list of persons covered by the secondary sanctions at issue resulting from the laws specified in the annex to that regulation, as amended.






(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.