CJEU - T-207/15 / Judgment

National Iranian Tanker Company v. Council of the European Union
Policy area
Foreign and security policy
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
14/09/2016
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:T:2016:471
  • CJEU - T-207/15 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Res judicata — Right to an effective remedy — Error of assessment — Rights of the defence — Right to property — Proportionality

    Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:

    THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber) hereby:

    1. Dismisses the action;
    2. Orders National Iranian Tanker Company and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter
    1. In the third place, as regards the right to an effective remedy, under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the European Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal. In this connection, it must be pointed out that the right to an effective remedy before the Courts of the European Union in the field of restrictive measures would be illusory if the legal order of the European Union allowed a judgment given by those courts to remain inoperative to the detriment of a party. It follows that the execution of a judgment of the General Court must be regarded as an integral part of the ‘trial’ for the purposes of the abovementioned provision (see, to that effect, ECtHR, 19 March 1997, Hornsby v. Greece, CE:ECHR:1997:0319JUD001835791, paragraphs 40 and 41).
    1. It must be recalled that the effectiveness of the judicial review guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights requires, inter alia, that, as part of the review of the lawfulness of the grounds which are the basis of the decision to list or to maintain the listing of a given person, the Courts of the European Union are to ensure that that decision is taken on a sufficiently solid factual basis. That entails a verification of the factual allegations in the summary of reasons underpinning that decision, with the consequence that judicial review cannot be restricted to an assessment of the cogency in the abstract of the reasons relied on, but must concern whether those reasons, or, at the very least, one of those reasons, deemed sufficient in itself to support that decision, is substantiated (judgment of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 119).
    1. Lastly, as regards the principle of effective judicial protection, it must be recalled that that principle is a general principle of EU law to which expression is now given by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. That principle means that the European Union authority which adopts an act imposing restrictive measures against a person or entity is bound to communicate to that person or entity the grounds on which it is based, so far as possible, either at the time when that measure is adopted or, at the very least, as swiftly as possible after it has been adopted, in order to enable that person or entity to exercise its right to bring an action, within the time limits (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 November 2011, Bank Melli Iran v Council, C‑548/09 P, EU:C:2011:735, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited).