Case T‑161/13

First Islamic Investment Bank Ltd

v

Council of the European Union

(Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Proportionality)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber), 22 September 2015

1.      Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Measure entailing restrictive measures against a person or body — Measure published and notified to the addressees — Address of the person concerned known at the time the measure was adopted — Time-limit starting to run as from the date of individual communication — Burden of proof

(Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 102(2); Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, Art. 24(3); Council Regulation No 267/2012, Art. 46(3))

2.      European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Restrictive measures against Iran — Measures in the context of the fight against nuclear proliferation — Ambit of the review

(Council Decisions 2010/413/CFSP and 2012/829/CFSP; Council Regulations No 267/2012 and No 1264/2012)

3.      Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Minimum requirements

(Art. 296 TFEU; Council Decisions 2010/413/CFSP and 2012/829/CFSP; Council Regulations No 267/2012 and No 1264/2012)

4.      EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Right of access to documents — Right subject to request for access being made to the Council — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Infringement — Consequences

(Council Decisions 2010/413/CFSP and 2012/829/CFSP; Council Regulations No 267/2012 and No 1264/2012)

5.      Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Restriction of the right to property and the free exercise of an economic activity — No breach of principle of proportionality

1.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 23-29)

2.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 42-44)

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 69-74)

4.      As regards restrictive measures against Iran, such as the freezing of funds of entities providing support to the Iranian Government, when sufficiently precise information has been communicated, enabling the entity concerned effectively to state its point of view on the evidence adduced against it by the Council, the principle of respect for the rights of the defence does not mean that the Council is obliged spontaneously to grant access to the documents in its file. It is only on the request of the party concerned that the Council is required to provide access to all non-confidential official documents concerning the measure at issue.

In that regard, in the absence of an exact deadline set by the applicable legislation, the Council is obliged to provide access to the documents concerned within a reasonable period. That being said, when considering the reasonableness of the elapsed period, it should be borne in mind that, in so far as the person or entity concerned is not afforded the opportunity to be heard before the initial inclusion of its name on the lists of persons and entities concerned by restrictive measures, access to the file is the first opportunity for it to be made aware of the documents used by the Council in support of that listing and, accordingly, is of particular interest for its defence.

However, lack of communication or belated disclosure of a document on which the Council has relied in order to adopt or maintain the restrictive measures concerning an entity does not constitute a breach of the rights of the defence that would justify the annulment of the acts concerned unless it is established that the restrictive measures concerned could not have been lawfully adopted or maintained if the undisclosed document had had to be excluded as inculpatory evidence.

(see paras 79, 80, 84)

5.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 94-99)