25.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 147/23

(Case T-156/13)

2013/C 147/41

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Petro Suisse Intertrade Co. SA (Pully, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, N. Pilkington and D. Sellers, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—Annul Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 (OJ 22.12.2012, L 356, p.71), amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 (OJ 22.12.2012, L 356, p. 55), implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as the contested acts include the applicant; and,

—Order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits six grounds of challenge concerning infringement of an essential procedural requirement, as well as infringement of the Treaties and of rules of law relating to their application: violation of the right of hearing, violation of the obligation to give proper notice, insufficient statement of grounds, violation of the right of defence, manifest error of assessment, and breach of the fundamental right to property.

The applicant finds that the Council failed to perform a hearing of the applicant, and that no contrary indications would justify this. Furthermore, the Council failed to properly identify the applicant as the subject of the decision and regulation and also to properly identify the applicant in its letter of notification, and in any case these acts contained an insufficient statement of reasons. Requests by the applicant to confirm the identification, to expand on the statement of reasons, and for access to documents were not replied to, apart from a brief letter acknowledging receipt. By these omissions, the Council violated the right of defence of the applicant, who was denied the possibility of effectively arguing against the findings of the Council, as these findings were withheld from the applicant. Contrary to the claim of the Council, the applicant is not a front company controlled by the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), and in any case the Council has not substantiated that control of the applicant by NIOC would entail an economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the aim of the contested decision and regulation. Finally, by restricting the ability of the applicant to form contracts, the Council has violated the basic right of property by taking measures for which the proportionality cannot be ascertained.