13.4.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/16

—

(Case C-45/15 P)

(2015/C 118/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. (represented by: A. Bahrami, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

For the reasons set out in the present appeal Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. submits that the European Court of Justice should:

1.Set aside in part the judgment of the General Court issued by the General Court on 25 November 2014 in Case T-384/11 in sofar as it:

—Failed to recognize and award the material damage suffered by Safa Nicu Sepahan Co.;

—Recognized that Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. suffered non-material damage but awarded an arbitrarily low amount of EUR 50 000 as the sole compensation for that damage.

2.Exercise its full jurisdiction and, based on the elements available to it:

Principally

—Award Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. an amount of EUR 5 6 62 737,40, plus interest, for the material damages suffered as a result of a serious breach of a rule of law and illegal conduct by the Council of the European Union.

—Award Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. an amount of EUR 2 0 00 000, plus interest, for the non-material damages suffered as a result of a serious breach of a rule of law and illegal conduct by the Council of the European Union.

—Order the Council of the European Union to pay the appellant’s legal and other costs incurred in connection with this appeal, including those incurred in connection with the initial procedure before the General Court, plus interest.

Alternatively

—Award Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. an amount determined ex aequo et bono, plus interest, for the material damages suffered as a result of the serious breach of a rule of law and illegal conduct by the Council of the European Union.

—Award Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. an amount determined ex aequo et bono, but not less than EUR 50 000, plus interest, (as already awarded by the referenced judgment of the General Court), for the non-material damages suffered as a result of the serious breach of a rule of law and illegal conduct by the Council of the European Union.

—Order the Council of the European Union to pay Safa Nicu Sepahan Co.’s legal and other costs incurred in connection with this appeal, including those incurred in connection with the initial procedure before the General Court, plus interest.

More alternatively

3.Refer the Case back to the General Court in order to re-examine the quantum of damages and issue a new judgment in favour of Safa Nicu Sepahan Co.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant raises two grounds of appeal against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 25 November 2014, with several pleas in law for each ground:

—Under the first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 93 to 149 of the judgment under appeal by dismissing the appellant’s claim for compensation in respect of material damages in their totality, despite the fact that the General Court had acknowledged and admitted that the appellant had effectively suffered material damages as a result of the serious unlawful conduct by the Union, based on the following pleas in law:

—The judgment has failed to award any damage caused by the Union and its servants in violation of Article 340 (2) TFEU and Article 41(3) CFREU, both of which postulate the principle of ‘full indemnity’;

—Furthermore, by failing to award any material damages the existence of which was recognized, the judgment violates the principles of proportionality, equitable evaluation and commits a denial of justice;

—The judgment further violates the law through manifest distortions of the facts and evidence, and its rejection of the totality of Appellant's damages is based on defective, illogical and contradictory reasoning.

—As for the second ground of appeal, the Appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 92 and 149 of the judgment under appeal by considering that an award of EUR 50 000 would constitute an appropriate compensation. The General Court has thus committed a breach of the duty to state reasons, a breach of the principle of proportionality and violation of the principle to pay compensation in respect of actual damage and costs, which led to an arbitrary and unlawful result.

—