27.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/32

(Case T-207/15)

(2015/C 245/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: National Iranian Tanker Company (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: T. de la Mare, QC, M. Lester and J. Pobjoy, Barristers, R. Chandrasekera, S. Ashley and C. Murphy, Solicitors)

Defendants: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/236 of 12 February 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 39, 14.2.2015, p. 18) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/230 of 12 February 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 39, 14.2.2015, p. 3), insofar as each applies to the applicant;

—alternatively, declare that Article 20(1)(c) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 (as amended) (‘the Decision’) and Article 23(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 (as amended) (‘the Regulation’), are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the applicant by reason of illegality; and

—order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the Council has, by redesignating the applicant on the basis of the same factual allegations that were rejected by the General Court in Case T-565/12, NITC v Council (3 July 2014) (‘NITC v Council’), acted in violation of the principles of res judicata, legal certainty, legitimate expectations, and finality, and infringed the applicant’s right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to fulfil the relevant criterion for listing, namely that the applicant provides financial or logistical support to the Government of Iran. The financial support allegation was rejected by the General Court in NITC v Council. The applicant provides no financial benefit to the Government of Iran, and the Government of Iran derives no financial benefit from the applicant, through its shareholders, or otherwise. As held in NITC v Council, indirect financial support is not sufficient to satisfy this criterion. The logistical support allegation is no more than a recharacteristation of allegations already made in NITC v Council. In any event, there is not the requisite causal link between the activities of the applicant and nuclear proliferation, and any support provided by the applicant is at most indirect logistical support.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the applicant’s right of defence and the right to good administration and effective judicial review. In particular, the Council failed to (a) inform the applicant of the actual grounds for its redesignation or provide the evidence adduced against it; and/or (b) provide the applicant with an opportunity to make known its views on the actual grounds and/or the evidence adduced against it prior to its redesignation.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business and reputation. The impact of the Contested Measures on the applicant is far-reaching, both as regards to its business, and to its reputation and goodwill worldwide. The designation of the application will also have potentially devastating effects on the pension fund beneficiaries of the applicants’ shareholders, who are all innocent Iranian citizens, many of whom are retired. The Council has failed to demonstrate that the freezing of the applicant’s assets and economic resources is related to, or justified by, any legitimate aim, still less that it is proportionate to such an aim.

5.Fifth plea in law, in support of the application for a declaration, alleging that if, contrary to the arguments advanced in the second plea, Article 20(1)(c) of the Decision and Article 23(2)(d) of the Regulation are to be interpreted so as to capture (a) indirect financial support and/or (b) logistical support that has no link with nuclear proliferation, those criteria would be unlawful and disproportionate to the objectives of the Decision and Regulation. The arbitrary width and scope of the criteria that would result from this broader interpretation would exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to achieve those objectives. The provision would therefore be unlawful.