Action brought on 19 August 2013 – IOC-UK v Council

(Case T-428/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Iranian Oil Company UK Ltd (IOC-UK) (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, M. Gambardella, D. Sellers and N. Pilkington, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 (OJ 08.06.2013, L156/10), amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 (OJ 08/06/2013 L156/3), implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as the contested acts include the Applicant; and

Order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Applicant submits seven grounds of challenge concerning infringement of an essential procedural requirement, as well as infringement of the Treaties and of rules of law relating to their application: violation of the right of hearing; insufficient statement of reasons; violation of the right of defence; manifest error of assessment; breach of the fundamental principle of proportionality; breach of the fundamental principle of equal treatment and nondiscrimination; and breach of the 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. Furthermore, the Council has provided an insufficient statement of reasons. The Applicant's requests to expand on the statement of reasons, and for access to documents, have not as yet been replied to, apart from a brief letter acknowledging receipt. By these omissions, the Council has violated the right of defence of the Applicant, who has been denied the possibility of effectively arguing against the findings of the Council, as these findings have been withheld from the Applicant. Moreover, the Council has not substantiated that indirect control of the Applicant by NIOC would entail an economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the aim of the contested decision and regulation. In relation to the reasons given for its listing the Applicant considers these either insufficient or vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. Furthermore, taken overall, a comparison of the objectives of the listing decision and the practical impact of this decision for the Applicant demonstrates that the decision is disproportionate. Finally, the Council has violated the basic right of property by taking measures for which the proportionality cannot be ascertained.