Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62012CN0280

Case C-280/12 P: Appeal brought on 6 June 2012 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-439/10 and T-440/10 Fulmen and Mahmoudian v Council

OJ C 235, 4.8.2012, p. 10–11 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

4.8.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/10


Appeal brought on 6 June 2012 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-439/10 and T-440/10 Fulmen and Mahmoudian v Council

(Case C-280/12 P)

2012/C 235/19

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Fulmen, Fereydoun Mahmoudian, European Commission

Form of order sought

Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-439/10 and T-440/10;

Give a final ruling on the dispute and dismiss the actions brought by Fulmen and Mr Mahmoudian against the measures of the Council at issue;

Order Fulmen and Mr Mahmoudian to pay the costs incurred by the Council at first instance and in connection with the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Council submits that the judgment of the General Court in the abovementioned cases is marred by errors of law and that that judgment should therefore be set aside by the Court.

The Council maintains that the General Court erred in law in holding that it had to adduce evidence to substantiate its statement of the reasons for the imposition of restrictive measures against the company Fulmen, namely that that company was involved in the installation of electrical equipment on the Qom/Fordoo (Iran) nuclear site.

In that regard, the Council submits, first, that the General Court erred in law in holding that it had to require the Member State which proposed designating Fulmen to present evidence and information although that evidence comes from confidential sources. Secondly, the Council submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that that Court could take account of confidential evidence which is not communicated to the lawyers of the parties concerned, although Article 67(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court does not provide for that possibility.


Top