Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62015TN0524

    Case T-524/15: Action brought on 7 September 2015 — NICO/Council

    OJ C 371, 9.11.2015, p. 34–35 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    07/09/2015
    Date lodged:
    07/09/2015
    Author:
    General Court
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    English
    Type of procedure:
    Action for annulment

    9.11.2015   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 371/34

    Action brought on 7 September 2015 — NICO/Council

    (Case T-524/15)

    (2015/C 371/35)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl (Pully, Suisse) (represented by: J. Grayston, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

    Defendant: Council of the European Union

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    order the Council, under measures of organization of the procedure, to disclose the full version of Annex 1 to document 7228/14 EXT 1 of 23 January 2015 concerning ‘I/A ITEM NOTE’ from the General Secretariat of the Council to the Permanent Representative Committee as well as any other document concerning the applicant,

    —

    annul the decision of the Council contained in the letter of 26 June 2015, addressed to the applicant’s lawyers, concerning review of the list of designated persons and entities in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as amended by Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012, and in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012, in so far as the contested decision constitutes a refusal to remove the applicant from the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures,

    —

    order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging a violation of the rights of defence and right to be heard, a breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and a breach of the principle of sound administration

    —

    The applicant during the review procedure has only just been informed that a negative decision against it has already been adopted by the Council. It has not been given any possibility to comment and rely on its rights of defence. Instead, it has only been given a deadline by which to send comments which, far from being taken into account before deciding, the Council will only examine in a separate, future administrative review delisting process.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging an insufficient statement of reasons

    —

    The review decision does not contain a proper statement of reasons which would allow the applicant to understand why its administrative application for delisting has been refused.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and a breach of essential procedural and substantive requirements

    —

    The Council clearly relied upon documents and evidence related to previous phases of the administrative proceedings in order to justify the challenged decision.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of essential procedural and substantive requirements, a breach of article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and a lack of competence of the person signing the challenged decision.

    —

    The challenged Council letter of 26 June 2015 containing the decision not to delist it is formally defective. Such defects in the form of the act at issue also give rise to substantive breaches of the applicant’s rights.

    (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 Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

    Top