Brussels, 28/11/2013 (Agence Europe) - On 28 November, the European Court of Justice upheld the appeal (C-348/12 P) on the validity of the acts of the Council of the EU freezing the funds of Kala Naft in the context of anti-nuclear proliferation measures taken against Iran. It did, however, dismiss (C-280/12 P) the Council's appeal against the judgment of the General Court annulling the inclusion of Fulmen and Mr Mahmoudian on the list of those whose funds are frozen. The two companies and Mr Mahmoudian brought actions before the General Court for annulment of the acts of the Council freezing their funds on the basis of their being involved in nuclear proliferation. In two separate judgments the General Court annulled the acts of the Council in so far as they concerned Kala Naft (T-509/10) and of Fulmen and its CEL, M Mahmoudian (T-439/10 and T-440/10), in nuclear proliferation. The Council then requested that the Court annul these judgements. The Court found in the Council's favour with regard to the Kala Naft company and maintains a freeze on the company's funds. It finds that the General Court was mistaken to seek a direct link between the activities of Kala Naft and nuclear proliferation and failed to take into account the changes in EU legislation concerning restrictive measures, in particular after UN Security Council Resolution 1929 (2010), which clearly points out that “sanctions must be applied to those engaged in, directly associated with, or providing support for Iran's nuclear activities, including through involvement in the procurement of prohibited goods and technology”. The UN resolution states that merely exporting equipment and technology for the oil and gas industry can be considered as support for Iran's nuclear activities. In these conditions, the Council was right to consider that, as the central purchasing agency for the national oil industry, Kala Naft was contributing to the acquisition of prohibited goods and technology. In a second ruling, the Court upholds, on the other hand, the decision of the General Court cancelling the freeze on the funds of Fulmen and Mr Mahmoudian. It considers that, given that the Council was unable to communicate some elements of proof to the interested parties for security reasons, it should have at least explained the specific reasons that would have allowed such a communication to be opposed and to provide the General Court with a summary of the confidential information in question. Instead of this, the General Court had to base its decision on the single element sent to it: the allegation contained in the claim made in the statement of reasons for the acts concerned. The Court of Justice therefore finds that the General Court was right to rule that the Council had not proved the alleged involvement of Fulmen and Mr Mahmoudian in nuclear proliferation. (FG/transl.fl)