Joined Cases T‑14/14 and T‑87/14
Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others
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 — Plea of illegality — Legal basis — Misuse of powers — Rights of the defence — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Ne bis in idem — Res judicata — Proportionality — Manifest error of assessment — Fundamental rights)
Summary — Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber), 17 February 2017
1. Judicial proceedings — Absolute bar to proceeding — To be considered of the Court’s own motion
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 129)
2. Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Decision to freeze funds — Judicial review of legality — Scope — Article 1(2) of Decision 2013/497 — Not included
(Art. 29 TEU; Arts 256(1) TFEU, 263, fourth para., TFEU and 275, second para., TFEU; Council Decisions 2010/413/CFSP, Art. 20(1)(b), and 2013/497/CFSP, Art. 1(2))
3. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Plea raised for the first time at the reply stage — Inadmissibility
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 84(1))
4. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Council Regulations adopted in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and providing for restrictive measures against Iran — Acts not comprising implementing measures within the meaning of Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Person concerned not affected directly and individually — Inadmissibility
(Arts 256(1) TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulations No 267/2012, Art. 23(2)(e), and No 971/2013, Art. 1(c))
5. Plea of illegality — Scope — Measures the illegality of which may be pleaded — General measure providing the basis of the contested decision — Need for a legal connection between the contested measure and the contested general measure
(Arts 263 TFEU and 277 TFEU)
6. Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Prohibition on the acquisition of arms and related material from Iran — Lawfulness — No breach of principle of proportionality
(Council Decisions 2010/413/CFSP and 2013/497/CFSP; Council Regulations No 267/2012 and No 971/2013)
7. Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of entities held or controlled by an entity recognised as participating in nuclear proliferation — Restriction of the right to property and the free exercise of an economic activity — No breach of principle of proportionality
(Council Regulation No 423/2007, Art. 7(2)(a), (b) and (d))
8. Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Acts instituting restrictive measures to be applied to entities owned or controlled by an entity covered by the freezing of funds — Annulment, for non-compliance with the general listing criteria, of the restrictive measures covering that latter entity — EU judicature able to suspend the effects of the annulment to allow rectification of the defects found
(Council Decisions 2010/413/CFSP and 2013/497/CFSP; Council Regulations No 267/2012 and No 971/2013)
9. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Misuse of powers — Concept
10. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — No right to be heard prior to the adoption of such measures
(Art. 29 TEU; Art. 215 TFEU; Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP; Council Regulation No 971/2013)
11. 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
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decisions 2013/497/CFSP and 2010/413/CFSP; Council Regulations No 267/2012 and No 971/2013)
12. Judicial proceedings — Burden of proof — Documentary evidence — Probative value — Assessment by the EU judicature — Criteria
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 85)
13. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Obligation to communicate new inculpatory evidence — Scope
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP; Council Regulation No 971/2013)
14. Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Scope — Absolute authority of res judicata — Scope
(Art. 266 TFEU)
15. EU law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions — Specific assurances given by the authorities
16. EU law — Principles — Legal certainty — EU rules — Requirements of clarity and foreseeability
17. Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Nature of those measures — Purely protective measures — No criminal character — No infringement of the ne bis in idem principle
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 50)
18. EU law — Principles — Equal treatment — Concept
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 20 and 21)
19. Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Right to property and reputation adversely affected — No breach of principle of proportionality
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 17; Council Decisions 2010/413/CFSP and 2013/497/CFSP; Council Regulations No 267/2012 and No 971/2013)
1. See the text of the decision.
(see para. 34)
2. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 37-39)
3. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 45, 46)
4. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 48-50)
5. See the text of the decision.
(see para. 55)
6. With regard to judicial review of compliance with the principle of proportionality, the EU legislature must be allowed a broad discretion in areas which involve political, economic and social choices on its part, and in which it is called upon to undertake complex assessments. Thus, the legality of a measure adopted in those fields can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue.
In the context of the fight against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, Resolution 1747 (2007) of the UN Security Council is intended to ensure that the Iranian nuclear programme serves exclusively peaceful purposes and to constrain Iran’s development of sensitive technologies in support of its nuclear and missile programmes.
The purpose of the restrictive measures against Iran is not only to prevent the funding of nuclear proliferation in Iran but more generally to bring pressure to bear on Iran to end its proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems.
The criterion introduced by Decision 2013/497, amending Decision 2010/413 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Regulation No 971/2013 amending Regulation No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, providing as it does for the freezing of funds of persons who, in breach of Resolution 1747 (2007), have been engaged in the supply, sale or transfer to Iran of arms or related material, forms part of a legal framework that is clearly delimited by the objectives pursued by the legislation governing restrictive measures against Iran.
Consequently, the criterion relating to non-compliance with Resolution 1747 must be considered appropriate to the objective of combating nuclear proliferation pursued by Decision 2010/413 and Regulation No 267/2012 and thus complies with the principle of proportionality.
(see paras 62, 67, 69-71)
7. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 75-77)
8. In the context of annulment by the EU judicature of restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities with a view to preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran, the General Court may prescribe a period during which the effects of an annulment of a measure will be suspended in order to enable the Council to remedy the infringements identified by adopting, as appropriate, new general criteria for inclusion on the list of persons or entities subject to restrictive measures and new restrictive measures intended to freeze the funds of the entity concerned for the future. However, neither those new general listing criteria nor those new restrictive measures enable measures found to be illegal by a judgment of the General Court to be rendered lawful .
(see para. 84)
9. See the text of the decision.
(see para. 92)
10. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 97, 98)
11. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 110, 111)
12. See the text of the decision.
(see para. 122)
13. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 168-172)
14. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 183-185)
15. See the text of the decision.
(see para. 191)
16. See the text of the decision.
(see para. 192)
17. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 197, 198)
18. See the text of the decision.
(see para. 200)
19. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 204-207)