16.3.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/23

—

Annul Article 1(8) of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 in so far as it has amended Article 20(c) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP;

—

Annul Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 in so far as it includes NIGC in the list of entities to which the measures freezing funds referred to in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP are to apply;

—

Annul also Council Implementing Regulation No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 in so far as it includes NIGC in the list of entities to which the measures freezing funds in Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012 are to apply;

—

Declare that Regulation No 267/2012, Decision 2010/413/CFSP, as amended by Decisions 2012/35/CFSP and 2012/635/CFSP in their provisions inserting then amending Article 20(c) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP and adding the applicant to the list in Annex II does not apply to NIGC;

—

And, in the alternative, should Article 1(8) of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012, in so far as it has amended Article 20(c) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP, not be annulled, declare that it does not apply to the National Iranian Gas Company;

—

Order the Council to pay all the costs.

1.

First plea in law, alleging the inapplicability of Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) as inserted and amended by Decisions 2012/35/CFSP (2) and 2012/635/CFSP, (3) and the unlawfulness of Article 1(8) of Decision 2012/635/CFSP amending Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP, those decisions being based on imprecise and indeterminate notions, contrary to the right to property and to the principle of proportionality.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an irregularity in procedure and the Council’s lack of powers to act alone under Article 215 TFEU.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons, since the Council took as its basis vague and imprecise factors which cannot be verified.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights, since the applicant is deprived of its right to effective judicial protection and of its right to property, since the contested decision is vitiated by insufficient reasoning which does not enable the applicant effectively to defend itself or the Court to carry out a review. The applicant submits that it has not had access to documents in its file before the Council.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a lack of evidence against the applicant, since the Council has taken as its basis mere allegations.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an error of law, since the Council deduced from the fact that the applicant was a public undertaking that it gave financial support to the Iranian Government.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging material inaccuracies in the facts, since the applicant is not a company held and managed by the State and the applicant has not given financial support to the Iranian Government.

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of the principle of proportionality, since the restrictions on the applicant’s right to property and its right to exercise an economic activity are disproportionate having regard to the objective pursued. The applicant submits that the freezing of its funds does not meet the objective pursued since it is not involved in the implementation of the nuclear programme of which the Iranian Government is accused.

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging a lack of legal basis for Implementing Regulation No 945/2012. (4)

10.

Tenth plea in law, alleging that Implementing Regulation No 945/2012 is vitiated by lack of powers and a lack of reasoning.