ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)
30 June 2011 (*)
(Death of the applicant – Proceedings not resumed by the successors – No need to adjudicate)
In Case T-4/10,
Faraj Faraj Hassan Al Saadi, residing in Leicester (United Kingdom), represented by J. Jones, Barrister and M. Arani, Solicitor,
applicant,
v
European Commission, represented by M. Konstantinidis, T. Scharf and E. Paasivirta, acting as Agents,
defendant,
supported by
Council of the European Union, represented by R. Szostak and E. Finnegan, acting as Agents,
by
Italian Republic, represented initially by G. Palmieri, and subsequently by G. Albenzio, avvocati dello Stato,
and by
French Republic, represented by G. de Bergues, E. Belliard and L. Butel, acting as Agents,
interveners,
APPLICATION for the annulment in part of Commission Regulation (EC) No 954/2009 of 13 October 2009 amending for the 114th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002, imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, in so far as the applicant appears on the list of persons, groups and entities covered by those provisions (OJ 2009 L 269, p. 20),
THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber),
composed of N.J. Forwood (Rapporteur), President, F. Dehousse and J. Schwarcz, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1 By application received at the Registry of the General Court on 7 January 2010, Mr Faraj Faraj Hassan Al Saadi brought an action in his own name for annulment in part of Commission Regulation (EC) No 954/2009 of 13 October 2009 amending for the 114th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002, imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, in so far as the applicant appears on the list of persons, groups and entities covered by those provisions (OJ 2009 L 269, p. 20).
2 By e-mail of 5 September 2010, counsel for the applicant informed the General Court of the applicant’s accidental death.
3 By way of measures of organisation of procedure, on 17 November 2010 the General Court (Second Chamber) asked counsel for the applicant to inform the General Court of how succession to the applicant’s estate stood and of the intentions of any possible successors as regards resuming the proceedings.
4 By letter of 2 December 2010, counsel for the applicant informed the General Court that, following the latter’s death, his name had been removed from the list annexed to Regulation No 881/2002 and that, consequently, ‘there can be no successors as regards continuing the proceedings in this case’.
5 With regard to the costs, counsel for the applicant claim that they should be borne in their entirety by the European Commission. According to them, this course of action is justified by the specific circumstances of the case, a feature of which is the continuing and deliberate violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights by the Commission, in spite of and in defiance of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-399/06 P and C-403/06 P Hassan v Council and Commission [2009] ECR I-11393. The merits of this action are manifest in the light of the General Court’s judgment in Case T-85/09 Kadi v Commission [2010] ECR II‑0000.
6 By letter from the Registry of 13 December 2010, the other parties were requested to submit their written observations on that letter.
7 By letter received at the Registry on 24 January 2011, the Commission indicated its agreement to the request for an order that there is no need to adjudicate as set out in the letter in question.
8 With regard to the costs, the Commission objects to the claim that it should bear them in their entirety. Firstly, it rejects the alleged violations of the applicant’s fundamental rights. Secondly, it maintains that the circumstances of the present case are not identical to those in Case T-85/09 Kadi v Commission and that they would not necessarily have led to the same result, particularly because that judgment is currently under appeal.
9 By letter received at the Registry on 21 January 2011, the Council of the European Union also objects to the claim that all the costs should be borne by the Commission, for reasons identical to those relied on by the Commission and, moreover, in the light of the fact that the applicant was convicted, in 2008, by an Italian Court of various crimes related to terrorism.
10 Neither the Italian Republic nor the French Republic submitted observations within the prescribed period.
11 The General Court finds that, in view of the applicant’s death and the fact that his successors have not continued the action, the application has become devoid of purpose. It follows that there is no need to adjudicate (see order in Case T-81/98 Boyes v Commission [1999] ECR II-3501; order in Case T-143/93 Schumacher v Council and Commission [2002] ECR II-0000; and order in Case T-360/02 Graf Yorck von Wartenburg v Commission [2004] ECR II-0000).
Costs
12 Where a case does not proceed to judgment, Article 87(6) of the Rules of Procedure provides that the costs are to be in the discretion of the General Court.
13 In the circumstances of this case, and given the objections of the Commission and the Council which do not appear to be unfounded, in particular as regards the decision of the Italian court relied on by the Council, the General Court considers that the parties must be ordered to bear their own costs.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. There is no need to adjudicate on this action.
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
Luxembourg, 30 June 2011.