CELEX: 62017CN0225
Language: en
Date: 2017-04-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-225/17 P: Appeal brought on 27 April 2017 by Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL), Khazar Sea Shipping Lines Co., IRISL Europe GmbH, IRISL Marine Services and Engineering Co., Irano Misr Shipping Co., Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines, Shipping Computer Services Co., Soroush Sarzamin Asatir Ship Management, South Way Shipping Agency Co. Ltd, Valfajr 8th Shipping Line Co. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 17 February 2017 in joined Cases T-14/14 and T-87/14: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council of the European Union

17.7.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 231/15
            
         Appeal brought on 27 April 2017 by Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL), Khazar Sea Shipping Lines Co., IRISL Europe GmbH, IRISL Marine Services and Engineering Co., Irano Misr Shipping Co., Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines, Shipping Computer Services Co., Soroush Sarzamin Asatir Ship Management, South Way Shipping Agency Co. Ltd, Valfajr 8th Shipping Line Co. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 17 February 2017 in joined Cases T-14/14 and T-87/14: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-225/17 P)
   (2017/C 231/20)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellants: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL), Khazar Sea Shipping Lines Co., IRISL Europe GmbH, IRISL Marine Services and Engineering Co., Irano Misr Shipping Co., Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines, Shipping Computer Services Co., Soroush Sarzamin Asatir Ship Management, South Way Shipping Agency Co. Ltd, Valfajr 8th Shipping Line Co. (represented by: M. Taher, Solicitor, M. Lester QC, Barrister)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 in Joined Cases T-14/14 and T-87/14
            
         
               —
            
            
               determine the case before the General Court and in particular:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           annul the ‘October 2013 measures’ (Council Decision 2013/497 (1) amending Decision 2010/413 (2) and Council Regulation 971/2013 (3) amending Regulation 267/2012 (4)) and the ‘November 2013 measures’ (Council Decision 2013/685 (5) amending Decision 2010/413 and Council Implementing Regulation 1203/2013 (6) implementing Regulation 267/2012) insofar as those restrictive measures against Iran concerned the appellants;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           alternatively, declare the October 2013 measures inapplicable insofar as they apply to the appellants by reason of illegality; and
                        
                     
         
               —
            
            
               order that the respondent pay the costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the appeal in relation to the declaration of inapplicability, the appellants rely on the following pleas in law:
   
               1.
            
            
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the October 2013 measures had a valid legal basis.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the October 2013 measures did not infringe the principles of res judicata, legal certainty, legitimate expectations and ne bis in idem, or the right to an effective remedy.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the respondent had not misused its powers in enacting the October 2013 measures.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the respondent had not infringed the appellants’ rights of defence.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred finding that the October 2013 measures were not an unjustified and disproportionate interference with the appellants’ fundamental rights.
            
         In support of the appeal in relation to the application for annulment, the appellant relies on the following pleas in law:
   
               1.
            
            
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in failing to find that the respondent made a number of manifest errors of assessment in finding that the listing criteria in the November 2013 measures were fulfilled as regards each of the appellants.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the respondent had not infringed the appellants’ rights of defence in re-listing them in the November 2013 measures.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that re-listing the appellants in the November 2013 measures did not infringe the principles of res judicata, legal certainty, legitimate expectations and ne bis in idem, or the right to an effective remedy.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred finding that the November 2013 measures were not an unjustified and disproportionate interference with the appellants’ fundamental rights.
            
         
      (1)  Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013, L 272, p. 46).
   
      (2)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010, L 195, p. 39).
   
      (3)  Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013, L 272, p. 1).
   
      (4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012, L 88, p. 1).
   
      (5)  Council Decision 2013/685/CFSP of 26 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013, L 316, p. 46).
   
      (6)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1203/2013 of 26 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013, L 316, p. 1).