ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber)
11 September 2015 (*)
(Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — Lis pendens — Manifest inadmissibility)
In Case T‑248/15,
Serhiy Vitaliyovych Kurchenko, residing in Chuhuiv (Ukraine), represented by B. Kennelly, J. Pobjoy, Barristers, and M. Drury, Solicitor,
applicant,
v
Council of the European Union,
defendant,
APPLICATION for partial annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 25), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant, and, in the alternative, a plea of illegality seeking a declaration that Article 1(1) of Decision 2014/119, as amended, and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1), as amended, are inapplicable, in so far as those acts concern the applicant,
THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber),
composed of G. Berardis (Rapporteur), President, O. Czúcz and A. Popescu, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Facts, procedure and form of order sought
1 The applicant, Mr Serhiy Vitaliyovych Kurchenko, is a Ukranian businessman.
2 On 5 March 2014, the Council of the European Union adopted Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26) and Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1). Those acts provide, inter alia, that the applicant is to be subject, under the conditions laid down in them, to restrictive measures.
3 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 15 May 2014 and registered as Case T‑339/14, the applicant sought partial annulment of Decision 2014/119 and Regulation No 208/2014.
4 On 5 March 2015 the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 amending Decision 2014/119 (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 25) and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 implementing Regulation No 208/2014 (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 1) (together ‘the Council acts of March 2015’). Those acts extend the restrictive measures in question, including with regard to the applicant, until 6 March 2016.
5 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 15 May 2015, the applicant brought the present action for annulment of the Council acts of March 2015.
6 By a supplementary pleading lodged at the Court Registry on the same day, the applicant modified the form of order sought and the pleas in law of the action in Case T‑339/14 to include those Council acts, while explaining that he had brought the present action at the same time on a precautionary basis.
7 The present action was lodged, via e-Curia, a few minutes before the supplementary pleading was lodged, in essence, at the same time.
8 In his application, the applicant explained that the pleas in law raised in the present action were the same as those raised in the supplementary pleading and that the action was brought on a precautionary basis.
9 The applicant claims that the Court should:
– annul the Council acts of March 2015, in so far as those acts concern him;
– in the alternative, declare that Article 1(1) of Decision 2014/119 and Article 3(1) of Regulation No 208/2014, as amended, are inapplicable, in so far as those acts concern him;
– order the Council to pay the costs.
Law
10 Under Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure, where it is clear that the General Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine an action or where the action is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, the General Court may, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur, at any time decide to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings.
11 In the present case, the Court considers that it has sufficient information available to it from the material in the file and has decided to give a decision without taking further steps in the proceedings.
12 According to settled case-law, an action which is between the same parties and has the same purpose, on the basis of the same submissions, as an action brought previously must be dismissed as inadmissible (see, to that effect, orders of 21 June 2012 in Hamas v Council, T‑531/11, EU:T:2012:317, paragraph 15 and the case-law cited, and 7 January 2015 in Cham and Bena Properties v Council, T‑ 607/14, EU:T:2015:12, paragraph 17 and the case-law cited).
13 Since the applicant is also the applicant in Case T‑339/14, the Court must of its own motion consider whether the present action is inadmissible by reason of lis pendens (see, to that effect, order in Cham and Bena Properties v Council, cited in paragraph 12 above, EU:T:2015:12, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited).
14 It must be stated that the modification of the form of order sought effected by means of a document lodged at the Court Registry in the course of proceedings, in circumstances such as those in the present case, constitutes a procedural step which, without prejudice to any subsequent decision of the Court on admissibility, is equivalent to the bringing of an action by means of an application (see order in Hamas v Council, cited in paragraph 12 above, EU:T:2012:317, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited).
15 In the present case, it is clear that the heads of claim and the pleas in law raised by the applicant, in his application, against the Council acts of March 2015 are identical to the heads of claim and the pleas in law raised by the applicant in his supplementary pleading in Case T‑339/14 against the same acts.
16 The present action is therefore between the same parties and has the same purpose, on the basis of the same submissions, as the action, as modified, in Case T‑339/14 concerning the Council acts in question.
17 It follows that the present action, which was brought on the same day as the supplementary pleading was lodged in Case T‑339/14, must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible, and there is no need to serve it on the Council.
Costs
18 Since this order has been made before service of the application on the Council and before the latter could have incurred any costs, it is sufficient to decide that the applicant must bear his own costs, in accordance with Article 133 of the Rules of Procedure.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
2. Mr Serhiy Vitaliyovych Kurchenko shall bear his own costs.
Luxembourg, 11 September 2015.