Oil Turbo Compressor Co. (Private Joint Stock) v Council of the European Union.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Court: General Court (European Union)
• Date: 26 October 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)

26 October 2012 ( *1 )

‛Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based’

In Case T-63/12,

Oil Turbo Compressor Co. (Private Joint Stock), established in Tehran (Iran), represented by K. Kleinschmidt, lawyer,

applicant,

v

Council of the European Union, represented by M. Bishop and Z. Kupčová, acting as Agents,

defendant,

ACTION for annulment of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 17),

THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of I. Pelikánová, President, K. Jürimäe (Rapporteur) and M. van der Woude, Judges,

Registrar: K. Andová, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 11 July 2012,

gives the following

Judgment

Background to the dispute

1 The applicant, Oil Turbo Compressor Co. (Private Joint Stock), is a company established in Iran, which carries out production, research and service activities in the gas, petrochemical and energy sectors. In particular, it produces and markets turbines and turbocompressors adapted specifically to the needs of its clients.

2 On 26 July 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39). Article 20(1) of Decision 2010/413 provides for the freezing of the funds and economic resources of the persons and entities mentioned on the list in Annexes I and II thereto.

3 On 25 October 2010, following the adoption of Decision 2010/413, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1). Article 16(2)(a) of Regulation No 961/2010 provides that all funds and economic resources of the persons, entities and bodies listed in Annex VIII to that regulation are to be frozen.

4 On 1 December 2011 the Council adopted Decision 2011/783/CFSP amending Decision 2010/413 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71; ‘the contested decision’), whereby, inter alia, it added the applicant to the list of persons and entities set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413.

5 On the same day, the Council adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), by which it added the applicant’s name to the list in Annex VIII to Regulation No 961/2010.

6 In the contested decision, the Council gave the following reasons for the freezing of the applicant’s funds and economic resources: ‘Affiliated to EU-designated Sakhte Turbopomp va Kompressor (SATAK) (a.k.a. Turbo Compressor Manufacturer, TCMFG).’

7 By letter of 5 December 2011, the Council informed the applicant that it had been added to the list of persons and entitles in Annex II to Decision 2010/413 and in Annex VIII to Regulation No 961/2010. That letter was returned to the Council with ‘not at this address’ stamped on it by the Iranian postal services.

8 By letter of 9 February 2012, the applicant requested the Council to re-examine the decision to include it on the list of persons and entities in Annex II to Decision 2010/413 and Annex VIII to Regulation No 961/2010.

Procedure and forms of order sought

9 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 13 February 2012, the applicant brought the present action.

10 By separate document lodged at the Court Registry on the same day, it applied for the case to be decided under an expedited procedure in accordance with Article 76a of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

11 By decision of 13 March 2012, the General Court (Fourth Chamber) granted that application.

12 At the hearing held on 11 July 2012, the parties presented their oral arguments and answered the oral questions asked by the Court.

13 The applicant claims that the Court should: — annul the contested decision in so far as that decision concerns it; — adopt a measure of organisation of procedure, under Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure, ordering the Council to produce all the documents in connection with the contested decision in so far as they concern it; — order the Council to pay the costs.

14 The Council contends that the Court should: — dismiss the action as unfounded; — order the applicant to pay the costs.

Law

15 In support of its application, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law. The applicant alleges, first, a manifest error of assessment of the facts on which the contested decision is based; second, infringement of the right to a fair trial and to effective judicial protection; third, breach of the principle of proportionality; and, fourth, breach of the duty to state reasons on which a decision is based and of the right to be heard.

16 Under the first plea, first of all, the applicant claims that it...