Case T‑24/11

Bank Refah Kargaran

v

Council of the European Union

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

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber), 6 September 2013

1.      Judicial proceedings — Decision replacing in the course of proceedings a contested decision since withdrawn — Admissibility of new pleas — Limits — Hypothetical acts not yet adopted

2.      Judicial proceedings — Measures repealing and replacing the contested measure in the course of proceedings — Application to amend pleas for annulment formulated in the course of the proceedings — Lawfulness

(Art. 263 TFEU)

3.      EU law — Fundamental rights — Scope ratione personae — Legal persons constituting emanations of non-member States — Included — Responsibility of the non-member State for compliance with fundamental rights in its own territory — Irrelevant

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

4.      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 — Obligation to communicate the reasoning to the person concerned — Limits — Safety of the Union and the Member States or conduct of their international relations — Single reason giving no detail as to how the applicant took over illicit banking operations — Infringement of the duty to state reasons

(Art. 296, second para., TFEU; Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, Art. 24(3); Council Regulations No 423/2007, Art. 15(3), No 961/2010, Art. 36(3), and No 267/2012, Art. 46(3))

5.      Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Limitation by the Court — Restrictive measures against Iran — Annulment at two different times of two acts containing identical restrictive measures — Risk of serious undermining of legal certainty — Maintenance of the effects of the first of those acts until the taking effect of annulment of the second

(Art. 264, second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 56, first para., and 60, second para.; Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, Annex II; Council Regulation No 267/2012, Annex IX)

6.      Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Partial annulment of a regulation and a decision on the adoption of restrictive measures against Iran — Annulment of regulation to take effect only as from the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal or from the date of dismissal of the appeal — Application of that period to when the annulment of the decision is to take effect

(Arts 264, second para., TFEU and 280 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 56, first para., and 60, second para.; Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, Annex II; Council Regulations No 961/2010, Annex VIII, No 1245/2011 and No 267/2012, Annex IX)

1.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 31, 32)

2.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 47, 49)

3.      Neither the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union nor the Treaties contain provisions which state that legal persons which are emanations of States are not entitled to the protection of fundamental rights. Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a procedural provision which is not applicable to procedures before the Courts of the European Union; the aim of that provision is to ensure that a State which is a party to the ECHR is not both applicant and defendant before that court. Moreover, the fact that a State is the guarantor of respect for fundamental rights in its own territory is of no relevance as regards the extent of the rights to which legal persons, which are emanations of that same State, may be entitled in the territory of other States. Finally, neither the fact that a State owns the majority of a legal person’s share capital, nor the fact that the banking services provided by it are necessary to the operation of a State’s economy confers on those activities the status of a public service or implies that such a legal person participates in the exercise of governmental powers.

(see paras 57, 59, 61, 65)

4.      Unless there are compelling reasons touching on the security of the European Union or of its Member States or the conduct of their international relations which prevent the disclosure of certain information, the Council is required to inform the entity covered by restrictive measures of the actual and specific reasons why it considers that those measures had to be adopted. It is not necessary for the statement of reasons to specify all the relevant matters of fact and law, since the question whether the statement of reasons is adequate must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question.

In those circumstances, a single reason justifying the entry of the applicant on the list of entities assisting nuclear proliferation, which has resulted in the applicant’s funds and economic resources being frozen, namely that the applicant has taken over ongoing operations from another legal person already entered on such lists and also forming the subject-matter of such restrictive measures, is not sufficiently precise, inasmuch as it does not specify how ‘taking over’ is to be construed with regard to banking operations, or which of that bank’s operations the applicant has allegedly taken over, or who were the third parties whom the transactions at issue were ultimately to benefit.

(see paras 72, 73, 77, 80)

5.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 86, 89, 90)

6.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 87, 88)