ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber)
13 December 2023 (*)
(Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken against Libya – List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Removal of the applicant’s name from the list of persons concerned – Action which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate)
In Case T‑629/22,
Libyan African Investment Company (LAICO), established in Tripoli (Libya), represented by A. Bahrami and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers,
applicant,
v
Council of the European Union, represented by M.-C. Cadilhac, acting as Agent, and by B. Maingain, lawyer,
defendant,
THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber),
composed of D. Spielmann (Rapporteur), President, R. Mastroianni and I. Gâlea, Judges,
Registrar: V. Di Bucci,
having regard to the written part of the procedure,
makes the following
Order
1 By its application under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Libyan African Investment Company (LAICO), seeks annulment, first, of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/1315 of 26 July 2022 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2022 L 198, p. 19), in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name on the list of entities set out in Annex IV to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP (OJ 2015 L 206, p. 34), and, secondly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1308 of 26 July 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2022 L 198, p. 1), in so far as that regulation maintains the applicant’s name on the list of entities set out in Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 (OJ 2016 L 12, p. 1) (‘the contested measures’).
Background to the dispute
2 The applicant is a Libyan joint stock company established in 1990. Initially known as the Libyan Arab African Investment Company (LAAICO), it is registered in the Commercial Register of Tripoli (Libya).
3 Pursuant to Decision 2015/1333 and Regulation 2016/44, the applicant’s name was included in the lists set out in, respectively, Annex IV to Decision 2015/1333 and Annex III to Regulation 2016/44 (‘the lists at issue’).
4 Pursuant to Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/1137 of 30 July 2020 implementing Decision 2015/1333 (OJ 2020 L 247, p. 40) and Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1251 of 29 July 2021 amending Decision 2015/1333 (OJ 2021 L 272, p. 71), the applicant’s name was maintained on the list of entities set out in Annex IV to Decision 2015/1333.
5 In addition, pursuant to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1130 of 30 July 2020 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation 2016/44 (OJ 2020 L 247, p. 14) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1241 of 29 July 2021 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation 2016/44 (OJ 2021 L 272, p. 1), the applicant’s name was maintained on the list of entities set out in Annex III to Regulation 2016/44.
6 By judgment of 28 September 2022, LAICO v Council (T‑627/20, not published, EU:T:2022:590), the Court annulled the measures cited in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, in so far as they concern the applicant.
Procedure and forms of order sought
7 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 10 October 2022, the applicant brought the present action seeking annulment of the contested measures.
8 By Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/2543 of 21 December 2022 implementing Decision 2015/1333 (OJ 2022 L 328, p. 107) and by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2525 of 21 December 2022 implementing Regulation 2016/44 (OJ 2022 L 328, p. 64), the applicant’s name was removed from the lists at issue.
9 By letter of 22 December 2022, the Council of the European Union informed the applicant that its name was no longer included in the lists at issue.
10 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 6 March 2023, the applicant submitted an application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate, considering that, after the removal of its name from the lists at issue, the action had become devoid of purpose. Thus, it requested that the Court, first, hold that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action and, secondly, order the Council to pay all the costs relating to the present proceedings.
11 In its observations concerning the application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate, lodged at the Court Registry on 24 March 2023, the Council states that it shares the applicant’s conclusions as to the loss of purpose of its action and that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it. As regards the costs, the Council contends that each of the parties must be ordered to bear its own costs, considering that, contrary to the applicant’s claims, the Council’s conduct could in no way be disputed, bearing in mind in particular that, by letter of 22 December 2022, the Council had immediately informed the applicant that its name had been removed from the lists at issue.
Law
12 Pursuant to Article 130(2) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, if a party so applies, the Court may declare that the action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no longer any need to adjudicate. In the present case, since the applicant has applied for a declaration that the action has become devoid of purpose and, in essence, that there is no longer any need to adjudicate, the Court, considering that it has sufficient information available to it from the material in the file, has decided to rule on the applicant’s application without taking further steps in the proceedings.
13 It is apparent from settled case-law that the purpose of the action must continue, like the interest in bringing proceedings, until the final decision, failing which there will be no need to adjudicate, which presupposes that the action must be liable, if successful, to procure an advantage to the party bringing it (see judgment of 7 June 2007, Wunenburger v Commission, C‑362/05 P, EU:C:2007:322, paragraph 42 and the case-law cited).
14 If, in an action for annulment, the subject matter of the action disappears in the course of the proceedings, the Court cannot rule on the substance, since such a Court decision cannot procure an advantage for the applicant. The disappearance of the subject matter of the proceedings can inter alia result from the withdrawal or replacement of the contested act in the course of the proceedings (see order of 12 January 2011, Terezakis v Commission, T‑411/09, EU:T:2011:4, paragraphs 14 and 15 and the case-law cited).
15 In the present case, after the lodging of the application, by means of Implementing Decision 2022/2543 and Implementing Regulation 2022/2525 the Council removed the applicant’s name from the lists at issue. Such removal entails the repeal of the contested measures, in so far as they concerned the applicant.
16 It follows from the case-law that the interest in securing the annulment of the contested act is retained where its annulment is such as to procure an advantage for the applicant (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 May 2013, Abdulrahim v Council and Commission, C‑239/12 P, EU:C:2013:331, paragraph 80). It is apparent also from the case-law that it is for the applicant to prove its interest in bringing proceedings, which is the essential and fundamental prerequisite for any legal proceedings (judgment of 4 June 2015, Andechser Molkerei Scheitz v Commission, C‑682/13 P, not published, EU:C:2015:356, paragraph 27; see also, to that effect, order of 24 November 2020, Camerin v Commission, T‑367/19, not published, EU:T:2020:569, paragraphs 47 and 51).
17 In the present case, however, the applicant has not claimed that, despite their repeal, it retained an interest in securing the annulment of the contested measures. The applicant, on the contrary, stated that the action had become devoid of purpose and that, in essence, there was no longer any need to adjudicate (see paragraph 10 above). It follows that the applicant no longer has any interest in seeking the annulment of the contested measures.
18 Consequently, there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.
Costs
19 According to Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure, where a case does not proceed to judgment, the costs are to be in the discretion of the Court.
20 In the present case, the applicant cannot be criticised for having brought an action for annulment against measures of the Council which maintained its name on the lists at issue entailing the freezing of its funds. Furthermore, the action has become devoid of purpose as a result of the removal of the applicant’s name from those lists on the Council’s initiative (see paragraph 8 above), which was after the lodging of the application and following the judgment of 28 September 2022, LAICO v Council (T‑627/20, not published, EU:T:2022:590), which annulled the measures referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, in so far as they maintained the applicant’s name on the lists at issue.
21 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court considers that it will make an equitable assessment of the circumstances of the present case in holding that the Council is to pay all the costs.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (First 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, 13 December 2023.