EU Court annuls EU freezing orders on Iranian bank – and Wikileaks again

30 January 2013 by

bank_mellat-2Bank Mellat v Council of the European Union (supported by EU Commission), EU General Court, 29 January 2013 read judgment

In October 2009, Bank Mellat, an Iranian bank, was effectively excluded from the UK financial market by an Order made by the Treasury, on the basis that it had or might provide banking services to those involved in Iran’s nuclear effort. The Bank challenged the Order, and the challenge failed in the Court of Appeal, albeit with a dissent from Elias LJ: see Rosalind English’s post and read judgment.  The Bank’s appeal to the Supreme Court is due to be heard in March 2013; it raises some fascinating issues about common law unfairness, Article 6, and the right to property under A1P1 , given that the Bank was not told of the intention to make the Order prior to its making. 

The current case concerns an EU set of measures initiated in 2010, which led to the freezing the Bank’s assets on essentially the same grounds, namely involvement with the Iranian nuclear effort. And the EU General Court (i.e. the first instance court)  has just annulled the measures – for lack of reasons, lack of respect for the rights of the defence, and for manifest error. So keep an eye on these two parallel cases, in the Supreme Court and in the EU Court of Justice on appeal from this decision.

The EU Council and Commission ran, with the greatest respect to them, an extraordinary preliminary point. The Bank sought to rely on fundamental rights protections and guarantees. Oh no, said the EU, it cannot do that, because the Bank is an emanation of a foreign non-EU state. The EU institutions relied on two connected non-sequiturs before the Court, in their claims that this mattered

(1) Governments cannot go to Strasbourg as victims, ergo they cannot complain of rights abuses in EU Courts and

(2) Governments guarantee rights in their own territories, and therefore cannot complain of infringements elsewhere.

So if this were right, it would follow that even if the EU had ridden roughshod in freezing the Bank’s assets, the Bank could do or say nothing about it. Fortunately, not least for the rule of law, the General Court had little time for this argument.

Now to the points of substance. At [49] the Court summarised the purpose of giving reasons in EU law:

first, to provide the person concerned with sufficient information to make it possible to determine whether the measure is well founded or whether it is vitiated by an error which may permit its validity to be contested before the Courts of the European Union and, secondly, to enable the latter to review the lawfulness of that measure. The obligation to state reasons therefore constitutes an essential principle of European Union law which may be derogated from only for compelling reasons. The statement of reasons must therefore in principle be notified to the person concerned at the same time as the act adversely affecting him, for failure to state the reasons cannot be remedied by the fact that the person concerned learns the reasons for the act during the proceedings before the Courts of the European Union (see, to that effect, Case T-390/08 Bank Melli Iran v Council [2009] ECR II-3967, paragraph 80 and case-law cited).

The reasons in fact given by the Council were pretty bald. To give two examples, they stated that the Bank “engages in a pattern of conduct with supports and facilitates Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missiles programme” without saying what conduct was being referred to; and they said that the Bank had facilitated the movement of millions of dollars for the nuclear programme, without identifying the transactions in question. In short, in these and other respects, the Council  provided no evidence to the Bank to which the Bank could sensibly respond.

Errors of substance were also made. One reason originally given was that the Bank was a state-owned bank.  This was wrong. It was a merger of 10 private banks; the Iranian Government exercises voting rights over 20% of the shares in the Bank – according to the evidence in the UK proceedings. As the Court indicated, this error suggested that no checking of the information provided to the EU had been carried out. Allegations were made that the Bank acted for the Iranian Atomic Energy Agency, but even some time later in these proceedings, the Council could produce no evidence or information in support of this allegation. In this regard there are certain similarities between this case and the Fulmen case on which I posted in March 2012

What led to the making of the Order? The Bank made its view clear at [98], though this was not accepted by the Court. Diplomatic cables which had been Wikleaked showed that member states were subject to pressure from the US Government to ensure that these measures were adopted. This , said the Bank, cast doubt on the lawfulness of the measures and the procedures underlying them. The Court said it did not follow that the Council which adopted the measures was affected by any pressure exerted on member states.

As I have said, it is highly likely that this case will go further in Europe. But it stands as a salutary reminder that decisions such as these capable of paralysing a major economic institution cannot be taken on somebody’s say-so. The EU has to provide evidence and proper reasons to justify its action.

Robert Wastell from 1 Crown Office Row is junior counsel for HM Treasury in the forthcoming Supreme Court hearing. He played no part in the writing of this post.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts


  1. jim says:

    One More ! The Court has ruled against the Council in another case involving ‘Bank Saderat’
    The Court said the Council has failed to provide sufficient evidence that ‘Bank Saderat’ was involved in the Iranian nuclear program.
    Curious to know how the EU is going to deal with all these cases.

    @Frack: there is another post related to this case. You should move your comment to this on:


  2. Frank says:

    Thank you David for this post! This is making the case clear for the layman that I am.
    As you mentioned there are some similarities with Cases T-439/10 and T-440/10 in which there has been a new development since the Council decided to appeal the judgment of the General Court. That’s also what is likely to happen with the case of ‘Bank Mellat’.
    What I understand of their arguments is that the appellant believes the court is not entitled to demand that the Council adduce evidence of its allegations!

    Has the appellant any chance to succeed before the court? If so, does it mean that under cover of confidentiality, no authority is empowered to control the Council’s decisions? Isn’t it a violation of article 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights with regard to the right to a fair trial and to an effective remedy? What about the presumption of innocence for natural persons such as Mr. Mahmoudian who is by the way a French citizen?
    Would you be so kind as to help me clarify this case?
    Thanks in advance

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: