The appellants are Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (
Judgment of
Council Decision 2013/685/CFSP of
Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of
See eighth recital and paragraph 2. For a brief overview of international law applicable in the context of nuclear proliferation, see judgment of
The Security Council also authorised all the States to seize and dispose of items prohibited under its previous resolutions; prohibited provision of bunkering services to Iranian owned or contracted vessels; requested States to communicate any information available on transfers or activity by IRISL that might be undertaken in order to evade its resolutions; and stipulated that States were to require their nationals to exercise vigilance when doing business in particular with IRISL and any related entities.
Annex II to the conclusions of the European Council of that date (document number EUCO 3/10).
Emphasis added.
They did so together with six other applicants who are not party to the proceedings in the present case and whose names I shall therefore not reproduce here.
Judgment in Case
Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of
…
Hafize Darya Shipping Co., Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Co. and Hoopad Darya Shipping Agency were listed on the grounds that they were Khazar Sea Shipping Lines Co., IRISL Europe and Valfajr Shipping Line Co. were listed on the grounds that they were Qeshm Marine Services & Engineering Co. and Marine Information Technology Development Co. were listed on the grounds that they were Irano Misr Shipping Co. was listed on the grounds that it Rahbaran Omid Darya Ship Management Co. was listed on the grounds that it both
The General Court also dismissed as inadmissible the actions for annulment of the 2013 criteria. The appeal does not challenge the judgment under appeal in that respect.
See Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1861 of
See points 11 and 30 above.
Recital 9 of Decision 2015/1863.
Recitals 5 and 6 of Regulation No 2015/1861.
Recital 14 of Decision 2015/1863.
The criteria for assessing the interest
In such a case, the Court must assess the applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings in the light of the specific circumstances, taking account in particular of the consequences of the alleged unlawfulness and of the nature of the damage claimed to have been suffered. See judgment of
Following the annulment of
See, by analogy, judgment of
See judgment of
See judgment of
See, to that effect, judgment of
See judgment of
I note that at that time the proceedings before the General Court were ongoing. It is surprising that, whereas the judgment under appeal postdates the entry into force of those measures, the General Court made no mention of those measures or of their effect on the legal situation of the appellants and in particular on the existence of their continuous interest in pursuing proceedings. That, however, in itself does not vitiate the judgment under appeal in relation to the interest of the appellants, since that judgment is necessarily, even if implicitly, based on the premiss that the appellants justified such an interest throughout the proceedings.
See judgment of
IRISL and Irano Misr Shipping Co. were listed on the basis of the additional criteria, whilst the remaining appellants were listed on the basis of the previously existing criteria. Moreover, Rahbaran Omid Darya Ship Management Co. was also listed on the basis of a newly created criterion.
See, to that effect,
Judgment of
See, to that effect, judgment of
See paragraph 63 of the judgment under appeal.
See
Pursuant to Article 3(5) TEU, in those relations the EU should contribute to peace, security and to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter. The CFSP should include support for the principles of international law (Article 21(2)(b) TEU), preserving peace, preventing conflicts and strengthening international security, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter (Article 21(2)(c) TEU).
See point 4 et seq. above.
See, to that effect,
Initially, the criterion was that such persons and entities must have been engaged in or be directly associated with nuclear activities in Iran (Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of
See Recital 2 of Council Decision 2013/497 and Recital 2 of Council Regulation No 971/2013.
See, by analogy,
See, judgments of
See judgment of
See paragraph 67 of the judgment under appeal.
Judgment of
See
Judgment of
See, by analogy,
See, by analogy,
See points 20 to 27 above. I note that while the wording of the relevant criterion contained in Council Regulation No 971/2013 is clear and unequivocal, the wording of Council Decision 2013/497 (to which the former measure is supposed to give effect)
See, to that effect, judgment of
See,
See points 14 to 19 above. Although the General Court held that the 2010 listing of IRISL was illegal, it maintained that listing in force until
It is true that Recital 7 of that decision provides grounds for the listing criterion, laid down in Article 20(1)(a) of that decision, allowing the Council to freeze assets of
See, inter alia, judgments of
See, to this effect, judgments of
See points 4 to 19 above.
See the 2013 General Court judgment, paragraph 67.
Judgment of
See judgment of
See the 2013 General Court judgment, paragraph 21.
See point 13 above.
Judgment of
Order of
Judgment of
See my Opinion in
I shall examine that argument in greater detail as regards the second ground of appeal in points 117 to 128 below.
Judgment of
Judgment of
Judgment of
See point 18 above.
See paragraph 80 of the judgment under appeal.
See paragraph 77 of the 2013 General Court judgment.
See paragraph 82 of the judgment under appeal. I examine the question of whether those principles prevented the Council from relisting some of the appellants on the basis of the
See, to that effect, judgment of
See, to that effect, judgments of
In 2013, IRISL was listed on the basis of the new criterion relating to violation of the Security Council resolutions. Irano Misr Shipping Co. and Rahbaran Omid Darya Ship Management Co. were listed on the basis of the new criterion relating to providing essential services to IRISL. In the latter’s case, that new criterion was relied on in parallel with the
Judgment of
The Court observed, in particular, that various provisions of the acts providing for asset-freezing measures in the context of Iran’s nuclear proliferation programme are worded in general terms and make no reference to
Judgment of
Judgment of
See paragraph 192 of the judgment under appeal, where the General Court refers to paragraph 77 of judgment of
Those measures are imposed on the basis of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of
See, to that effect, my Opinion in
See points 110 to 112 above.
That principle, enshrined in Article 49(1) of the Charter, is a specific expression of the principle of legal certainty in the context of application of criminal sanctions.
That principle is a corollary of the principle enshrined in Article 49 of the Charter, that the criminal offences and penalties must be laid down by law.
See paragraph 191 of the judgment under appeal citing the judgment of
See also, for example, judgment of
See, to that effect, judgment of
See, for example, judgment in
See paragraphs 80 to 83 of the 2013 General Court judgment.
Judgment of
See points 67 and 68 above.
I examined those questions under the first ground of appeal (see point 72 et seq. above).
Judgment of
See judgment of
See, to that effect, judgment of
See, to that effect, judgment of
See, to that effect,
See paragraphs 101 and 102 of the judgment under appeal.
For general considerations in this respect, see point 71 et seq. above. Point 78 above examines that question more specifically in relation to the former criterion, whilst points 82 and 83 above do so in relation to the latter.
See, in relation to reputation, judgment of
See point 50 above.
See
See judgment of
See, inter alia, judgment in
See judgment of
Depending on the particular circumstances of the case, the Council may sometimes, but not necessarily always, be required to adduce new evidence. See, to that effect, judgment of
See paragraph 117 of the judgment under appeal.
See paragraphs 116 to 132 of the judgment under appeal.
See paragraphs 135 to 164 of the judgment under appeal.
See paragraph 117 of the judgment under appeal. See, to that effect, judgment of
See, to that effect, judgment of
See judgment of
See paragraphs 170 to 180 of the judgment under appeal.
See footnote 78 above.
See point 107 et seq. above.
See point 93 et seq. above.
See points 117 to 128 above.
Concerning the standard of judicial review of the substantive legality in that regard, see judgment of
See judgment of
See the case-law cited in footnote 114 above.
See my analysis of the effects of the 2013 General Court judgment in points 103 to 106 above. The situation is thus fundamentally different from that analysed by Advocate General Tanchev in his Opinion in
See, to that effect, judgment of
See, to that effect, judgment of
See judgments of
See points 140 and 141 above.
See, by analogy, judgment of
See judgment of
See point 50 above.
See judgment of
See points 67 and 68 above.
See
See point 159 et seq. above.
In relation to the
See points 174 and 175 above.
See, to that effect, by analogy,
uphold the first ground of appeal with regard to the criterion referring to persons and entities (i) owned or controlled by IRISL, (ii) acting on behalf of IRISL, or (iii) providing essential services to IRISL, provided for in Articles 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413 and 23(2)(e) of Regulation No 267/2012; set aside the judgment of the General Court of declare that criterion to be invalid; annul Council Decision 2013/685/CFSP of dismiss the reminder of the appeal as unfounded; order Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines to bear its own costs; order the Council to bear its own costs and those of the appellants other than Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines; and order the Commission to bear its own costs.