EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CN0348
Case C-348/12 P: Appeal brought on 16 July 2012 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 April 2012 in Case T-509/10 Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft v Council
Case C-348/12 P: Appeal brought on 16 July 2012 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 April 2012 in Case T-509/10 Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft v Council
Case C-348/12 P: Appeal brought on 16 July 2012 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 April 2012 in Case T-509/10 Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft v Council
SL C 287, 22.9.2012, p. 27–28
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
22.9.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 287/27 |
Appeal brought on 16 July 2012 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 April 2012 in Case T-509/10 Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft v Council
(Case C-348/12 P)
2012/C 287/53
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)
Other parties to the proceedings: Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft Co., Tehran; European Commission
Form of order sought
|
— |
Set aside the judgment delivered on 25 April 2012 by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-509/10; |
|
— |
Give a final ruling in the dispute and dismiss as inadmissible the action brought by Kala Naft against the acts of the Council at issue or, in the alternative, dismiss the action as unfounded; |
|
— |
Order Kala Naft to pay the costs incurred by the Court at first instance and on appeal. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Council submits that the judgment of the General Court in the abovementioned case is vitiated by two errors and that, in consequence, the judgment should be set aside.
Firstly, the Council is of the opinion that the General Court erred in law by failing to dismiss the action brought by Kala Naft as inadmissible, given that, in the Council’s submission, that undertaking is an entity of the Iranian Government.
Secondly, the Council argues that the General Court erred in law in holding that one of the grounds justifying the imposition of restrictive measures against Kala Naft was not sufficient to satisfy the duty to state reasons and that the Council was required to adduce evidence to support another of those grounds. The Council also submits that the General Court erred in law by holding that the fact that Kala Naft markets equipment for the oil and gas sectors which is liable to be used in the Iranian nuclear programme cannot be regarded as ‘supporting’ nuclear proliferation, without placing that fact in context with the other justifying grounds.