ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)
14 January 2013 (*)
(Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation – Freezing of funds – Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned – No need to adjudicate)
In Case T‑497/10,
Ali Divandari, residing in Teheran (Iran), represented initially by S. Gadhia, S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister, and subsequently by R. Blakeley, S. Zaiwalla, F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, and M. Brindle QC,
applicant,
v
Council of the European Union, represented by M. Bishop and A. Vitro, acting as Agents,
defendant,
supported by
European Commission, represented by S. Boelaert and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents,
intervener,
APPLICATION for annulment of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25), Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1) in so far as those measures concern the applicant,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber),
composed of I. Pelikánová (Rapporteur), President, K. Jürimäe and M. Van der Woude, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Background to the dispute
1 The applicant, Mr Ali Divandari, is an Iranian national. He is the Chairman and Managing Director of Bank Mellat, an Iranian commercial bank. He is also Chairman of Persia International Bank plc, a United Kingdom commercial bank.
2 On 26 July 2010 the applicant was named on the list of persons and entities involved in nuclear proliferation in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39).
3 Consequently, the applicant’s name was listed in Annex V to Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1), by means of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25).
4 The listing of the applicant’s name in Annex II to Decision 2010/413 was maintained by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81).
5 Since Regulation No 423/2007 was repealed by Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), the applicant’s name was inserted by the Council of the European Union in Annex VIII to the latter regulation.
6 The listing of the applicant’s name in Annex II to Decision 2010/413 and in Annex VIII to Regulation No 961/2010 was not affected by the entry into force of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11).
7 Since Regulation No 961/2010 was repealed by Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), the applicant’s name was inserted by the Council in Annex IX to the latter regulation.
8 By means of Council Decision 2012/457/CFSP of 2 August 2012 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2012 L 208, p. 18), the applicant’s name was withdrawn from the list in Annex II to Decision 2010/413. By means of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 709/2012 of 2 August 2012 implementing Regulation No 267/2012 (OJ 2012 L 208, p. 2), the applicant’s name was also withdrawn from the list in Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012.
Procedure
9 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 7 October 2010, the applicant brought the present action.
10 By document lodged at the Registry of the Court on 14 January 2011, the European Commission sought leave to intervene in the present case in support of the form of order sought by the Council. By order of 8 March 2011, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court allowed that intervention.
11 By letter of 13 August 2012 the applicant informed the General Court that his name had been removed from the lists in Annex II to Decision 2010/413 and Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012.
12 By letter of 26 September 2012 the Council stated that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the action, since the applicant’s name had been removed from the lists in Annex II to Decision 2010/413 and Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012. The Council considers that there is no longer any reason for the applicant to be named on those lists. The Commission has stated that it shares the Council’s view.
13 By letter of 8 November 2012 the applicant stated that he did not oppose the Council’s position that there was no need to adjudicate on this action and that the Council should be ordered to pay the costs. The applicant also requested that he be paid compensation for the harm suffered by him as a result of the adoption and maintenance of the restrictive measures affecting him.
Law
14 Under Article 113 of its Rules of Procedure, the General Court may at any time, of its own motion, after hearing the parties, decide whether there exists any absolute bar to proceeding with an action or declare that the action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no need to adjudicate on it.
15 In the present case the Court considers itself sufficiently informed by the documents in the file to give a decision without taking further steps in the proceedings.
16 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 to 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).
17 In the present case, by means of Decision 2012/457 and Implementing Regulation No 709/2012, the Council removed the applicant’s name from the list of persons subject to the 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. That removal entails the revocation of the contested measures, in so far as they concerned the applicant.
18 That revocation amounts to leaving the applicant with the result he desires and giving him complete satisfaction, given that he is no longer subject to the restrictive measures which adversely affected him (see, to that effect, order of 6 July 2011 in Case T‑160/11 Petroci v Council, not published in the ECR, paragraph 17).
19 Admittedly, in accordance with settled case-law, in the context of an action for annulment, the applicant may retain an interest in seeking annulment of a measure revoked in the course of the proceedings, if the annulment of that measure, per se, is capable of having legal consequences (see the order in Fellah v Council, paragraph 16 and case‑law cited).
20 However, in the present case, the applicant has stated that he is not opposed to a decision that there is no need to adjudicate (see paragraph 13 above). It follows that the applicant no longer has any interest in seeking annulment of the contested measures.
21 As regards the application for compensation made by the applicant, it must be observed that the object of this action is solely the annulment of the contested measures, under Article 263 TFEU. Consequently, it cannot have the outcome that damages are awarded to the applicant. If the applicant considers that he is entitled to compensation for damage from the Council, it is for him, under Articles 268 TFEU and 340 TFEU and Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, either to bring an action before the General Court or to send a prior application to the Council.
22 In light of the foregoing, there is no longer any need to adjudicate on this action.
Costs
23 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.
24 In the particular circumstances of this case, the Court considers that the Council should be ordered both to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.
25 In that regard, the Court considers, in particular, that no criticism can be made of the applicant for having brought an action for annulment of measures of the European institutions which caused the inclusion of his name on lists with the result that his funds were frozen, a fortiori when it is only in the course of proceedings before the Court that the Council provided, in reply to measures of organisation of procedure, clarification of the reasons why the applicant was named on the lists concerned. Further, the fact that the action is now devoid of purpose is a consequence of the removal of the applicant’s name from those lists on the initiative of the Council, but the Council has not provided any specific reasons for that removal.
26 In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 87(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission is to bear its own costs.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on this action.
2. The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Ali Divandari.
3. The European Commission shall bear its own costs.
Luxembourg, 14 January 2013.