Central Bank of Iran v Council of the European Union.
Date: 2016-04-07
24


As the General Court recalled in, inter alia, paragraphs 53 to 58 of the judgment under appeal, the question whether the statement of reasons for a measure is sufficient must be assessed with regard to the context of that measure and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question, with the result that the reasons given for a measure adversely affecting a person are sufficient if that measure was adopted in a context which was known to that person and enables him to understand the measure concerning him (see judgment of 15 November 2012 in Council v Bamba, C‑417/11 P, EU:C:2012:718, paragraphs 53 and 54).
32


As the Court has previously held, in the case of an initial decision to freeze funds, the Council is not obliged to inform the person or entity concerned beforehand of the grounds on which that institution intends to rely in order to include that person or entity’s name on a list, whereas the adoption of a subsequent decision by which the inclusion on that list of the name of that person or entity is maintained must, in principle, be preceded by notification of the incriminating evidence and by allowing that person or entity an opportunity to be heard (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 December 2011 in France v People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, C‑27/09 P, EU:C:2011:853, paragraphs 61 and 62).
33


Accordingly, in the context of the adoption of a decision to maintain the name of a person or an entity on a list of persons or entities subject to restrictive measures, the Council must respect the right of that person or entity to be heard beforehand where that institution is including in that decision new evidence against that person or entity, namely evidence which was not included in the initial listing decision (judgment of 18 June 2015 in Ipatau v Council, C‑535/14 P, EU:C:2015:407, paragraph 26).
43


It should be borne in mind that the criterion of ‘support to the Government of Iran’ set out in Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2012/635, and Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation No 267/2012 relates to support which may be material, logistical or financial (see, to that effect, judgment of 1 March 2016 in National Iranian Oil Company v Council, C‑440/14 P, EU:C:2016:128, paragraph 79).
44


The purpose behind the addition of that criterion was to target the relevant person or entity’s own activities which, even if they have no actual direct or indirect connection with nuclear proliferation, are nonetheless capable of encouraging it by providing the Government of Iran with resources or facilities of a material, financial or logistical nature which allow it to pursue proliferation activities (see, to that effect, judgment of 1 March 2016 in National Iranian Oil Company v Council, C‑440/14 P, EU:C:2016:128, paragraphs 80 and 81).
45


As the General Court held in paragraph 108 of the judgment under appeal, Central Bank of Iran was providing the Government of Iran with financial services which were capable, by their quantitative and qualitative significance, of encouraging nuclear proliferation by providing that Government with support in the form of resources or facilities of a material, financial or logistical nature allowing it to pursue such proliferation (see, by analogy, judgment of 1 March 2016 in National Iranian Oil Company v Council, C‑440/14 P, EU:C:2016:128, paragraph 83). Services such as the holding of accounts, the performance and conclusion of financial transactions or the purchase and sale of bonds, constitute material, logistical and financial support to that State and, as a result, support to the Government of that State.
53


It should be pointed out that, in order to ascertain whether the principle of proportionality had been infringed, in paragraph 117 of the judgment under appeal the General Court took into consideration the public-interest objective pursued by the acts at issue. In paragraph 118 of that judgment, it acknowledged that those acts were causing harm to Central Bank of Iran, in that they were detrimental to its rights of property and to its reputation. However, in paragraph 119 of that judgment, the General Court took into account the objective of maintaining international peace and security, while observing that the acts at issue related to only part of Central Bank of Iran’s assets, that there were means of releasing funds in certain circumstances and that it was not alleged by the Council that the bank was itself involved in nuclear proliferation.