Appeal brought on 2 August 2016 by Bank Mellat against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Case T-160/13: Bank Mellat v Council

(Case C-430/16 P)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Bank Mellat (represented by: S. Zaiwalla P. Reddy, Z. Burbeza, Solicitors, M. Brindle QC, R. Blakeley, J. MacLeod, Barristers)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Council of the European Union,

European Commission,

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Form of order sought

The appellant claim that the Court should:

Set aside the Judgment;

Annul Article 1(15) of Regulation 1263¹ either in its entirety or insofar as it applies to the Bank;

Declare that Article 1(6) of Decision 635² is inapplicable to the Bank; and

Order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. The Appellant, Bank Mellat (the “Bank”), appeals against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 in Case T-160/13 Bank Mellat v Council EU:T:2016:331 (the “Judgment”). In summary, the Bank contends that the General Court erred in failing to uphold its application to annul or declare inapplicable to the Bank various measures constituting a “Financial Embargo” on the Bank, namely:

(1) Article 1(15) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012.

(2) Article 1(6) of Decision 2012/635/CFSP.

3. In particular, the Bank has identified three grounds of appeal concerning errors of law in the General Court’s assessment of the substance of the Bank’s application:

(1) The General Court erred in law in the interpretation and application of the requirement of “necessity” in Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) (1st Ground).

(2) The General Court erred in finding that the Financial Embargo was proportionate, entailing a number of further specific errors of law (2nd Ground).

(3) The General Court erred in holding that the Financial Embargo was compliant with other general principles of EU law (3rd Ground).

4. The Bank has also identified two broad grounds of appeal concerning errors of law in the General Court’s assessment of the admissibility of parts of the Bank’s application:

(1) The General Court wrongly severed elements of the Financial Embargo and held the Bank’s application in respect of them to be inadmissible (4th Ground).

(2) The General Court erred in finding in particular that there was no jurisdiction pursuant to Article 275 TFEU to determine the Bank’s challenge to Article 1(6) of Decision 2012/635/CFSP (5th Ground).

5. The Bank respectfully requests that the Court set aside the Judgment and make the order sought by the Bank.

____________

¹ Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran

OJ 2012 L 356, p. 34

² Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran

OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58