ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)
18 February 2013 (*)
(Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted against Syria – Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned – No need to adjudicate)
In Case T‑336/12,
Yousef Klizli, residing in Damascus (Syria), represented by Z.A. Garkova‑Lyutskanova, lawyer,
applicant,
v
Council of the European Union, represented by A. Vitro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents,
defendant,
APPLICATION for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 9) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant,
THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber),
composed of H. Kanninen, President, S. Soldevila Fragoso and G. Berardis (Rapporteur), Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Background to the dispute
1 In view of the political situation in Syria, the Council of the European Union adopted Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 11) and Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 1), pursuant to which the funds and economic resources of the persons and entities included in the lists annexed to those acts were frozen.
2 Those acts were replaced, respectively, by Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56) and by Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1).
3 By Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 9) and by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 3), other persons and entities were added to the lists of those subject to the restrictive measures annexed respectively to Decision 2011/782 and to Regulation No 36/2012.
4 The applicant, Yousef Klizli, is one of the persons covered by Implementing Decision 2012/256 and by Implementing Regulation No 410/2012.
Procedure and forms of order sought
5 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 1 August 2012, the applicant brought the present action, by which he claims that the Court should annul Implementing Decision 2012/256 and Implementing Regulation No 410/2012 (‘the contested acts’), in so far as they apply to him, and order the Council to pay the costs.
6 By letter of 25 October 2012, the Council lodged a request for an order that there is no need to adjudicate on the ground that, by Council Decision 2012/634/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 50) and by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 944/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 9), the applicant’s name had been removed from the lists of persons covered by the contested acts. In addition, the Council requested that the parties be ordered to pay their own respective costs.
7 In his observations on the application for an order that there is no need to adjudicate, lodged at the Court Registry on 29 November 2012, the applicant acknowledged that he had no further interest in pursuing the procedure for annulment of the contested acts since such annulment would have no legal effect other than that which had already been achieved. In those observations, the applicant maintained his request that the Council be ordered to pay the costs.
Law
8 Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court provides that the Court may at any time declare that the action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no need to adjudicate on it, at the request of one of the parties and after the other parties have been heard. In the present case, the Court considers that the information in the file is sufficient to enable it to give a decision on the action without taking further steps in the proceedings, pursuant to Article 114(3) of the Rules of Procedure, to which Article 113 refers.
9 In accordance with settled case-law, the interest in bringing proceedings must continue until the final decision, failing which there will be no need to adjudicate, which presupposes that the action must be likely, if successful, to procure an advantage for the party bringing it (Case C‑362/05 P Wunenburger v Commission [2007] ECR I‑4333, paragraph 42, and order of 7 December 2011 in Case T‑255/11 Fellah v Council, not published in the ECR, paragraph 12).
10 In the present case, by Decision 2012/634 and Implementing Regulation No 944/2012, the Council removed the applicant’s name from the list of persons covered by the contested acts. Such removal entails the repeal of the contested acts in so far as they concerned the applicant.
11 That repeal leads, for the applicant, to the desired outcome and gives him full satisfaction in so far as he is no longer subject to the restrictive measures which adversely affected him (see order of 3 July 2012 in Case T‑543/11 Ghreiwati v Council, not published in the ECR, paragraph 11 and the case-law cited).
12 However, in accordance with settled case-law, in the context of an action for annulment, the applicant may retain an interest in securing the annulment of a measure which has been repealed in the course of the proceedings if the annulment of that measure may in itself have legal consequences (see order in Ghreiwati v Council, paragraph 12 and the case-law cited).
13 In the present case, however, the applicant has not claimed that, despite their repeal, he retained an interest in securing the annulment of the contested acts. On the contrary, the applicant expressed the view that there was no further need to adjudicate (see paragraph 7 above). It follows that the applicant has no further interest in pursuing the procedure for annulment of the contested acts.
14 Consequently, there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.
Costs
15 Under Article 87(6) of the Rules of Procedure, where a case does not proceed to judgment, the costs are to be in the discretion of the Court.
16 In the particular circumstances of the present case, the Court takes the view that the Council must be ordered to pay the costs.
17 The applicant cannot be criticised for having brought an action seeking annulment of Council acts pursuant to which his name had been included in lists resulting in the freezing of his funds. Moreover, the disappearance of the subject-matter of the dispute is attributable to the Council’s removal of the applicant’s name from those lists, without any explanation by the Council as to its reasons for doing so.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.
2. The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.
Luxembourg, 18 February 2013.