ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (the judge hearing the application for interim measures)
13 June 2012 (*)
(Application for interim measures – No need to adjudicate)
In Case T‑656/11 RII,
Morison Menon Chartered Accountants, established in Dubai (United Arab Emirates),
Morison Menon Chartered Accountants – Dubai Office, established in Dubai,
Morison Menon Chartered Accountants – Sharjah Office, established in Sharjah (United Arab Emirates),
represented by H. Viaene, T. Ruys and D. Gillet, lawyers,
applicants,
v
Council of the European Union, represented by M.-M. Joséphidès and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents,
defendant,
APPLICATION for the suspension of operation of, first, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and second, Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), to the extent that they add to the list of persons and entities whose funds and economic resources are to be frozen the entity designated as ‘Morison Menon Chartered Accountant’,
THE JUDGE HEARING THE APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES,
replacing the President of the General Court, in accordance with Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court,
makes the following
Order
Facts and procedure
1 The applicants, Morison Menon Chartered Accountants, Morison Menon Chartered Accountants – Dubai Office and Morison Menon Chartered Accountants – Sharjah Office, are three firms providing consulting services in the United Arab Emirates.
2 These proceedings arise from the inclusion by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11) and Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71) (‘the contested measures’) of ‘Morison Menon Chartered Accountant’ in the list of entities whose funds and economic resources are to be frozen, in the context of the body of restrictive measures introduced in order to apply pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran to end proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities and the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems.
3 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 29 December 2011 the applicants brought an action for the annulment of the contested measures in so far as those measures concern them.
4 By separate document, lodged at the Registry of the Court on the same day, the applicants brought a first application for interim measures, in which they asked the judge hearing the application for interim measures, in essence, to order that the operation of the contested measures be suspended until the General Court rules on the action seeking their annulment.
5 By order of 16 February 2012 in Case T‑656/11 R Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others v Council, not published in the ECR, the judge hearing the application for interim measures rejected the first application for such measures.
6 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 15 March 2012, the applicants made a further application for interim measures, based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU and Articles 105(2) and Article 109 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
7 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 25 April 2012, the Council informed the Court that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 350/2012 of 23 April 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 110, p. 17) and Council Decision 2012/205/CFSP of 23 April 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 110, p. 35) had withdrawn ‘Morison Menon Chartered Accountant’ from the entities whose funds and economic resources are to be frozen.
8 Consequently, there is no longer any need to adjudicate on this application for interim measures.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (the judge hearing the application for interim measures)
hereby orders:
1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.
2. The costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 13 June 2012.