Action brought on 8 January 2013 - NICO v Council
(Case T-6/13)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl (Pully, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, G. Pandey, P. Gjørtler, D. Rovetta, 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 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran
2, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012, implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as the contested acts include the Applicant in the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures; and
Order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant submits five 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 grounds, violation of the right of defence, manifest error of assessment, 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, especially in relation to the imposition on current contractual engagements. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Council failed to supply a sufficient statement of reasons, which has been confirmed by the Council to the applicant, while requests for access to documents were not replied to. The applicant states that by these omissions, the Council violated the right of defence of the applicant, who was denied the possibility of effectively arguing against the findings of the Council, as these findings were withheld from the applicant. Contrary to the claim of the Council, the applicant claims that it is not a subsidiary of NICO Ltd, as this company no longer exists in Jersey, and in any case the Council has not substantiated that even it were a subsidiary, this would entail an economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the aim of the contested decision and regulation. Finally, the applicant finds that 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.
____________1 - OJ 16.10.2012, L 282, p.582 - OJ 16.10.2012, L 282, p. 16