This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015TN0024
Case T-24/15: Action brought on 19 January 2015 — NICO v Council
Case T-24/15: Action brought on 19 January 2015 — NICO v Council
Case T-24/15: Action brought on 19 January 2015 — NICO v Council
IO C 89, 16.3.2015, p. 35–36
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
16.3.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 89/35 |
Action brought on 19 January 2015 — NICO v Council
(Case T-24/15)
(2015/C 089/42)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl (Pully, Suisse) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, 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:
|
— |
annul Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP of 7 November 2014, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1202/2014 of 7 November 2012, implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (2), in so far as these acts include the applicant in the category of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures; |
|
— |
order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law: violation of the right of hearing, insufficient statement of grounds, violation of the right of defence, manifest error of assessment, and breach of 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, especially in relation to the imposition on current contractual engagements. Furthermore, the Council failed to supply a sufficient statement of reasons. By these omissions, the Council violated the right of defence of the applicant, including the right to effective judicial protection. Contrary to the claim of the Council, the applicant is not a subsidiary of NICO Ltd as designated by the Council, as this company no longer exists in Jersey and does not exist in Iran; and in any case the Council has not substantiated that even if it were a subsidiary, this would entail an economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the aim of the contested acts. Finally, by imposing on the property rights and current contractual engagements managed by the applicant, the Council has violated the basic right of property by taking measures for which the proportionality cannot be ascertained.