National Iranian Tanker Company & Ors v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

Interim relief compelling a Minister to veto an imminent EU sanctions decision is exceptional. The court may review the exercise of the Royal prerogative in this context, but it must not itself invalidate an EU measure. Where the substance of the challenge concerns the legality of the eventual EU listing, the General Court’s annulment procedure is ordinarily the apt and adequate remedy. The availability of merits review, interim relief and compensation before the General Court is material to the balance of convenience. Relief should also ordinarily be refused where it would require the court to interfere with intensely political foreign-policy and national-security decisions, particularly sanctions directed at nuclear proliferation. A serious issue may nevertheless exist even though interim relief is refused.

National Iranian Tanker Company and Gholam Hossein Golparvar sought urgent interim declarations and prohibition orders preventing the Secretary of State from proposing, supporting or participating in their re-listing under EU sanctions measures concerning Iran.

The applicants had previously succeeded before the General Court in annulment proceedings. The Council then proposed revised listings. The applicants argued that the proposed decisions unlawfully relied on inadequate or previously rejected evidence, ignored new evidence, and breached domestic, EU and Convention rights. The central issues were whether the High Court had jurisdiction to grant the requested relief, whether the claims were seriously arguable, and how the balance of convenience and public interest should be assessed.

1. Jurisdiction. The Secretary of State’s exercise of the Royal prerogative in voting on EU sanctions was, in principle, susceptible to judicial review, and the court had power to enjoin a future ministerial decision. However, national courts could not themselves declare an EU measure invalid under Foto-Frost. The applicants’ arguments were substantially challenges to the EU re-listing process, although the court did not exclude relief at the jurisdictional stage because the precise limits of Foto-Frost remained unclear.
2. Arguability. The applicants established serious issues and, considered provisionally, arguable or prima facie cases. That conclusion did not imply that their claims were strong or likely to succeed.
3. Alternative remedy. The Article 263(4) TFEU annulment procedure before the General Court was the designated and adequate alternative remedy. It provided rigorous merits review, possible interim relief under Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure, and compensation under Articles 268 and 340 TFEU. The General Court’s procedure need not be equivalent in every respect to domestic judicial review to be adequate.
4. Public interest and political context. Compelling the Secretary of State to veto an EU sanctions decision would interfere with the considered positions of other Member States and risk harming sanctions policy and sensitive nuclear negotiations. In this field the court should exercise restraint, accord the decision-maker a large margin of judgment, and adopt a precautionary approach, consistently with Bank Mellat (No 2).
5. The applications for interim declarations and prohibition orders were refused.

First-instance applications for urgent interim relief. No prior appellate decision was stated in the judgment.