CELEX: 62010TN0492
Language: en
Date: 2010-10-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-492/10: Action brought on 7 October 2010 — Melli Bank v Council

4.12.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 328/53
            
         Action brought on 7 October 2010 — Melli Bank v Council
   (Case T-492/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/82
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Melli Bank plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Gadhia, S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Anderson, QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               annul paragraph 5 of Table B of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) in so far as it relates to the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul paragraph 3 of Table B of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 (2) in so far as it relates to the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               declare Article 7(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (3) inapplicable to the applicant; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Council to pay the costs of the application.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In the present case the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation No 668/2010 and of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision. Furthermore, the applicant applies, in accordance with Article 277 TFUE, for the inapplicability of Article 7(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007.
   The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in support of its claims.
   First, the applicant argues that the contested regulation and decision were adopted in violation of the applicant’s rights of defence and its right to effective judicial protection since the reasons given by the Council are insufficient for the applicant to understand the basis on which it has been designated and has consequently had its assets frozen. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Council has failed to provide it with the evidence and/or documents from the file on which the Council has relied and accordingly the applicant has been unable to make effective representations regarding its designation.
   Second, the applicant contends that the substantive criteria for its designation are not met and/or the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met. The applicant states that it is not ‘owned or controlled’ by an entity engaged in, directly associated with, or providing support for, Iran’s alleged proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or development of nuclear weapon delivery systems within the meaning given to the expression ‘owned or controlled’ in Melli Bank v Council Court’s judgment (T-246/08) (4).
   Third, the applicant argues that in so far as Article 7(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 and/or Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP are mandatory and require the Council to designate any subsidiary of a designated parent, the same are unlawful.
   Fourth, the applicant submits that the substantive criteria for the designation of its parent and therefore the applicant are not met and/or the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met. The applicant argues that in so far as its parent is successful in its challenges to Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2009 (5) (Case T-35/10) (6) and Council Decision 2008/475/EC (7) (Case T-390/08 (8)), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 and Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP must be annulled in so far as they apply to the applicant.
   Fifth, the applicant claims that its designation and the freezing of all its assets worldwide have no rational relationship with the aim being pursued by the Council and violates its right to property. Further it contends that the restrictive measures imposed are disproportionate in that they inflict considerable harm on the applicant and are not the least restrictive means that could have been employed.
   
      (1)  Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39
   
   
      (2)  Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25
   
   
      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1
   
   
      (4)  Joint Cases T-246/08 et T-332/08, Melli Bank v Council, [2009] ECR II-2629, currently under appeal as Case C-380/09 P, Melli Bank v Council, OJ 2009 C 282, p. 30
   
   
      (5)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2009 of 17 November 2009 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Decision 2008/475/EC, OJ 2009 L 303, p. 31
   
   
      (6)  Case T-35/10, Bank Melli Iran v Council, OJ 2010 C 100, p. 47
   
   
      (7)  Council Decision of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29
   
   
      (8)  Joint Case T-390/08, Bank Melli Iran v Council, [2009] ECR II-3967, currently under appeal as Case C-548/09 P, Bank Melli Iran v Council, OJ 2010 C 80, p. 10