Middle East Bank, Munich Branch v Commission (Commercial policy - Protection against the effects of the extraterritorial application of legislation adopted by a third country - Restrictive measures taken by the United States against Iran - Judgment) French Text [2025] EUECJ T-518/23 (10 December 2025)

Executive summary

The Tribunal reviewed a challenge by Middle East Bank, Munich Branch to two Commission implementing decisions that authorized Clearstream Banking AG to comply with specified U.S. laws in relation to certain securities and funds held for the bank under Regulation 2271/96. The source text describes the dispute, the U.S. Iran sanctions backdrop, and the parties’ claims and procedural posture, but it does not include the Tribunal’s operative holding on the merits in the excerpt provided.

Key points

• Applicant: Middle East Bank, Munich Branch; defendant: European Commission; intervenor: Clearstream Banking AG.
• Challenge concerned Commission authorizations under Article 5, second paragraph, of Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 (the EU blocking statute).
• U.S. sanctions against Iran are described as including secondary sanctions affecting EU persons’ dealings with SDN-listed entities.
• The bank argued against the Commission’s authorizations, including a later authorization for certain securities and funds under Clearstream’s custody.
• The excerpt frames the legal issue as protection against the extraterritorial application of third-country law, not as an EU sanctions listing case.

Why it matters

This is a blocking-statute case sitting at the intersection of EU anti-extraterritoriality policy and U.S. Iran sanctions pressure. For sanctions and sovereign-risk analysts, it is relevant because Commission authorization to comply with foreign sanctions can materially affect the treatment of Iranian counterparties’ assets held in the EU.

Implications

For compliance teams, the case underscores that custody/settlement firms facing Iran-related U.S. sanctions exposure may seek Commission authorization under the blocking statute before acting on foreign-law constraints. For litigators, the excerpt signals that the legality, scope, and timing of such authorizations—and their impact on blocked securities or funds—are central leverage points in disputes over access to assets and compliance with extraterritorial sanctions regimes.