ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)
17 June 2013 (*)
(Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation – Freezing of funds – Removal of the persons concerned from the list – No need to adjudicate)
In Case T‑71/12,
Mohammed Reza Meskarian, residing in London (United Kingdom), represented by S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister,
applicant,
v
Council of the European Union, represented by B. Driessen and I. Rodios, acting as Agents,
defendant,
APPLICATION for (i) annulment of point 13 of Table A in the Annex to 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), point 13 of Table A in the Annex to 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 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, and (ii) a declaration that Article 20(1)(b) 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) and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation 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) are not to apply to 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 Mohammed Reza Meskarian, is Chairman of Persia International Bank plc, a United Kingdom commercial bank.
2 On 1 December 2011, pursuant to Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), the applicant’s name was included in the list of persons and entities involved in nuclear proliferation set out in Annex II to 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).
3 Accordingly, pursuant to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), the applicant’s name was included in the list in Annex VIII to 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).
4 When 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 included by the Council in Annex IX to the latter regulation.
5 Under Council Decision 2012/457/CFSP of 2 August 2012 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2012 L 208, p. 18), the applicant’s name was removed from the list in Annex II to Decision 2010/413. Under 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 removed from the list in Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012.
Procedure
6 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 17 February 2012, the applicant brought the present action.
7 On 20 September 2012, the General Court asked the parties to submit their observations on the likely consequences for the present case of the removal of the applicant’s name from the list in Annex II to Decision 2010/413 and the list in Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012.
8 By letter of 3 October 2012, the Council stated that, following the removal of the applicant’s name from the lists in question, there was no need to adjudicate on the action. It asked that each party be ordered to pay its own costs.
9 By letter of 4 October 2012, the applicant indicated that he was not opposed to the Court taking no further steps in the proceedings, provided that the Council would be ordered to pay the costs.
Law
10 Under Article 113 of the 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.
11 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.
12 According to settled case-law, an 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 for the party bringing it (Case C‑362/05 P Wunenburger v Commission [2007] ECR I‑4333, paragraph 42, and Order of the General Court of 7 December 2011 in Case T‑255/11 Fellah v Council, not published in the ECR, paragraph 12).
13 In the present case, under Decision 2012/457 and Implementing Regulation No 709/2012, the Council has deleted the applicant’s name from the list of persons to which the restrictive measures, which were 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, apply. That deletion entails repealing the contested measures, in so far as they concern the applicant.
14 It is true that, in principle, the interest of an applicant in bringing proceedings is retained despite the removal of his name from the lists of persons to which restrictive measures apply, for the purpose of having the Courts of the European Union recognise that he should never have been included on those lists or that he should not have been included under the procedure which was adopted by the European Union institutions (Case C‑239/12 P Abdulrahim v Council and Commission [2013] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 71).
15 However, in the present case, the applicant expressly indicated that he was not opposed to the Court taking no further steps in the proceedings (see paragraph 9 above). Thus, the applicant has himself admitted that he no longer has an interest in the annulment of the contested measures.
16 In the light of all of the foregoing, there is no need to adjudicate on the present action.
Costs
17 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 General Court.
18 In the particular circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that it is appropriate to order the Council to bear the costs.
19 In that regard, the Court considers, inter alia, first, that the applicant cannot be criticised for having brought an action for annulment against acts of the European Union institutions which included his name on lists entailing the freezing of his funds, and, second, that the action has become devoid of purpose as a result of the applicant’s name being deleted from those lists on the Council’s initiative, without that institution giving any specific reasons for that deletion.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. There is no need to adjudicate on the action.
2. The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.
Luxembourg, 17 June 2013.