ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)
24 May 2012 (*)
(Actions for annulment – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken against Syria – List of persons and entities subject to the freeze of funds and economic resources – Lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings)
In Case T‑550/11,
Nizar Assaad, residing in Damas (Syria), represented by M. Lester, A. Sutton, Barristers, and G. Martin, Solicitor,
applicant,
v
Council of the European Union, represented by M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents,
defendant,
APPLICATION for annulment of Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 11), of Council 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), of Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273, and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 of 23 August 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 1),
THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber),
composed of H. Kanninen, President, N. Wahl and S. Soldevila Fragoso (Rapporteur), Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Background to the dispute
1 On 9 May 2011, the Council of the European Union adopted Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 11) and Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 1), which provide for restrictive measures directed at inter alia certain persons and entities responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria and the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies associated with them. The annexes to those two measures contain lists of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures.
2 By Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 20) and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 of 23 August 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 1), the Council added certain persons and entities to the lists of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures.
3 By letter of 16 September 2011, the applicant, Mr Nizar Assaad, made a request to the Council for his name to be removed from the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures. He stated that his name was not Nizar Al-Assad and that he was not related to the family of President Al-Assad.
4 By letter of 13 October 2011, the applicant asked the Council for a quick response to his first request, stating that he had been threatened.
5 By letter of 28 October 2011, the Council replied to the applicant, acknowledging that he was not covered by the list and informing him that a revised version would be published in order to clarify that the person concerned was a cousin of President Al-Assad.
6 By letter of 15 November 2011, the Council again informed the applicant that the restrictive measures were of no concern to him. It attached to its letter a copy of Council Decision 2011/735/CFSP of 14 November 2011, amending Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 296, p. 53), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 1150/2011 of 14 November 2011, amending Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 296, p. 1), which state that the entry concerning M. Nizar Al-Assad in the annexes thereto were replaced by the addition of that name in Arabic and the explanation that that person was a cousin of President Al-Assad.
Procedure and forms of order sought
7 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 21 October 2011, the applicant brought the present action.
8 By separate document lodged at the Registry of the Court on 27 December 2011, the Council raised a plea of inadmissibility under Article 114(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
9 The applicant lodged his observations on the objection of inadmissibility on 24 February 2012.
10 The applicant claims that the General Court should:
– annul Decision 2011/273, Regulation No 442/2011, Implementing Decision 2011/515 and Implementing Regulation No 843/2011 in so far as they concern him (‘the contested measures’);
– order the Council to pay the costs.
11 The Council contends that the Court should:
– dismiss the action as inadmissible;
– order the applicant to pay the costs.
Law
12 Under Article 114(1) of the Rules of Procedure, if a party so requests, the Court may make a decision on admissibility without going into the substance of the case. Pursuant to Article 114(3) of the Rules of Procedure, unless the Court otherwise decides, the remainder of the proceedings are to be oral. The Court finds that in the present case it has sufficient information from the case‑file not to open the oral procedure.
13 The Council raises a plea of inadmissibility in support of its forms of order sought, arguing that the applicant has no legal interest in bringing proceedings. The Council considers that the applicant has mistakenly understood the contested measures to refer to him and not the person actually covered by those measures.
14 The fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU provides:
‘Any natural or legal person may, under the conditions laid down in the first and second paragraphs, institute proceedings against an act addressed to that person or which is of direct and individual concern to them, and against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures.’
15 According to settled case-law, the admissibility of an action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person must be based on a genuine, certain interest in having the contested measure annulled (Case T‑16/96 Cityflyer Express v Commission [1998] ECR II‑757, paragraph 30).
16 The documents in the case-file show that the contested measures refer to Mr Nizar Al‑Assaad. Although that name is similar to the applicant’s, it is a different name designating a different person, as indicated by the Council to the applicant in the letters of 28 October and 15 November 2011.
17 Since the applicant was neither the addressee of the contested measures not directly concerned by them, he has no legal interest in bringing proceedings concerning them.
18 It follows from the foregoing that the application must be dismissed as inadmissible.
Costs
19 Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure provides that the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. As the applicant has been unsuccessful, he must be ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council, in accordance with the form of order sought by the latter.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
2. Mr Nizar Assaad shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council.
Luxembourg, 24 May 2012.