Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62013CN0176

Case C-176/13 P: Appeal brought on 9 April 2013 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2013 in Case T-496/10: Bank Mellat v Council of the European Union

OJ C 171, 15.6.2013, p. 20–21 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

15.6.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/20

Appeal brought on 9 April 2013 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2013 in Case T-496/10: Bank Mellat v Council of the European Union

(Case C-176/13 P)

2013/C 171/41

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Bishop, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Bank Mellat, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2013 in Case T-496/10;

—

give a definitive ruling on the case and dismiss the application brought by Bank Mellat against the contested measures;

—

order Bank Mellat to pay the costs incurred by the Council in the proceedings at first instance and in this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Council considers that the judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2012 in Case T-496/10, Bank Mellat v. Council, is vitiated by the following errors of law:

1.

The General Court was mistaken to rule, with regard to the admissibility of the action, that Bank Mellat was entitled to rely on fundamental rights protections and guarantees regardless of whether it could be considered as an emanation of the Iranian State;

2.

The General Court was wrong to hold that certain of the reasons given for imposing restrictive measures against Bank Mellat were insufficiently precise;

3.

The General Court erroneously applied the case-law concerning the communication of information on the Council's file;

4.

The General Court erroneously considered that the reasons given for imposing restrictive measures against Bank Mellat did not satisfy the conditions for designation in the relevant legal acts and were not substantiated, insofar as:

—

it failed to pay due respect to a finding by the United Nations Security Council concerning Bank Mellat's facilitation of transactions for Iranian nuclear, missile and defence entities;

—

it failed to take due account of the fact that the evidence for Bank Mellat's support to Iran's nuclear activities comes from confidential sources;

—

it wrongly considered that Bank Mellat's admitted provision of banking services to an entity involved in Iran's nuclear proliferation activities before that entity's designation by the UN Security Council was insufficient to justify the imposition of restrictive measures against Bank Mellat.
Top