ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SIXTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
6 June 2012(*)
(Legal aid – Application lodged before an action for annulment had been brought – Restrictive measures directed against certain officials of Belarus – List of persons subject to restrictions on entry into, and transit through, the territory of the European Union and to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources applies)
In Case T-646/11 AJ,
CD, residing in Minsk (Belarus),
applicant,
v
Council of the European Union, represented by F. Naert and M.‑M. Joséphidès, acting as Agents,
defendant,
APPLICATION for legal aid lodged before an action had been brought,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SIXTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
makes the following
Order
1 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 11 December 2011, the applicant, Mr CD, submitted an application for legal aid under Articles 94 and 95 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure with a view to bringing, against the Council of the European Union, an action for the annulment of Council Decision 2011/69/CFSP of 31 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 40), of Council Decision 2011/666/CFSP of 10 October 2011 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2011 L 265, p. 17), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 84/2011 of 31 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 17), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1000/2011 of 10 October 2011 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 265, p. 8), in so far as those contested decisions and regulations relate to the applicant.
2 In support of that application, the applicant claims, in particular, by producing a number of supporting documents, that he is in receipt of an average monthly salary of EUR 563, that his wife is in receipt of an average monthly pension of EUR 137 and that his mother, who has no income, is dependent on him.
3 As to whether his action appears to be well founded, for the purposes of Article 94(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the applicant claims, first, that the contested decisions and regulations do not state the grounds on which they were adopted, second, that the restrictive measures laid down by those decisions and regulations, to which the applicant is subject, are disproportionate and, third, that those decisions and regulations breach several of his fundamental rights.
4 By letter from the Registry of 17 January 2012, the General Court invited the Council to submit observations on the applicant’s request for legal aid.
5 In its observations, lodged at the Registry on 2 February 2012, the Council submits that the intended action for annulment of Decision 2011/69 and Implementing Regulation No 84/2011 is out of time. So far as the remainder of the application is concerned, the Council states that it leaves it to the Court to assess whether the information and supporting documents furnished by the applicant constitute sufficient evidence of his need for legal aid. The Council notes that the applicant has not provided any estimate of costs and that the intended action does not raise significant new issues. It takes the view that the amount of legal aid in the present case should not exceed EUR 10 000.
6 By letter of 4 April 2012, regularised by letter of 12 April 2012, Mr Michalauskas, a lawyer, informed the Court that he had been instructed by the applicant to represent him.
7 Article 94(1) of the Rules of Procedure states that, in order to ensure effective access to justice, legal aid granted for proceedings before the Court is to cover, in whole or in part, the costs involved in legal assistance and representation by a lawyer in proceedings before the Court. The Court’s cashier is to be responsible for those costs.
8 Under Article 94(2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure, the grant of legal aid is subject to the twofold condition, first, that the applicant is, because of his economic situation, wholly or partly unable to meet the costs involved in legal assistance and representation by a lawyer in proceedings before the Court and, second, that his action does not appear to be manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded.
9 Under Article 95(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the application for legal aid must be accompanied by all information and supporting documents making it possible to assess the applicant’s economic situation, such as a certificate issued by the competent national authority attesting to his economic situation.
10 Under Article 96(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the decision on the application for legal aid is to be taken by the President by way of an order which, if it refuses the aid applied for, must state the reasons on which it is based.
11 In the present case, it is apparent from the documents on the case-file relating to the applicant’s economic situation, and as set out at paragraph 2 above, that his application satisfies the first condition, referred to in Article 94(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
12 In respect of the second condition, referred to in Article 94(3) of those rules, without prejudice to the Court’s decision on the question whether the action that the applicant proposes to bring against Decision 2011/69 and Implementing Regulation No 84/2011 is out of time, it must be stated that the action in respect of which legal aid is sought does not appear to be manifestly inadmissible or unfounded so far as Decision 2011/666 and Regulation No 1000/2011 are concerned. Consequently, there is no reason to refuse legal aid under Article 94(3) of the Rules of Procedure, reserving the final decision on the amount of disbursements and fees, which will be fixed on the basis of a detailed account to be submitted to the Court at the conclusion of the case.
13 In view of the purpose and nature of the dispute, its significance from the legal point of view and the foreseeable difficulties of the case, the foreseeable extent of the work which the judicial proceedings represent for the parties, it must, however, be stated at this point, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 96(3) of the Rules of Procedure, that the disbursements and fees of the lawyer instructed to defend Mr CD’s interests during the proceedings which he intends to bring may not, in principle, exceed EUR 6 000 for the entire proceedings.
14 It is necessary to add that the provisions of Article 2 of Decision 2010/639, as amended by Decision 2011/69, prevent the Court, in principle, from paying any amount of money to Mr CD’s lawyer in respect of legal aid unless it is specifically established that a waiver has been granted to him for that purpose by the competent national authority of a Member State pursuant to Article 3 of Decision 2010/639, as amended (see the order of the President of the Court of 26 March 2012 in Case T-196/11 AJ AX v Council, not published in the ECR, paragraph 9 and the case-law cited).
15 To his letter of 4 April 2012, regularised on 12 April 2012, the applicant’s representative annexed a letter from the General Directorate of the French Treasury, which is competent under Article 3 of Decision 2010/639, as amended, as is apparent from Annex 2 to the letter of 4 April 2012, in which it is stated that the applicant will be entitled to receive the amount of the legal aid.
16 In view of the restrictive measures to which Mr CD is subject by reason of Decision 2010/639, as amended, and Regulation No 1000/2011 imposing a freeze on his funds and economic resources, the amount granted in paragraph 13 above will be paid directly to the lawyer who has been instructed to represent him.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SIXTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
hereby orders:
1. Mr CD is granted legal aid for the purposes of bringing an action against the Council of the European Union.
2. Mr Mažvydas Michalauskas is designated as the lawyer to represent Mr CD in Case T‑646/11.
3. The disbursements and fees of the lawyer instructed to represent Mr CD shall be fixed on the basis of a detailed account to be submitted to the Court at the conclusion of the case but may not, in principle, exceed a maximum of EUR 6 000.
4. That amount will be paid directly to the abovementioned lawyer.
Luxembourg, 6 June 2012.