Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2013:331
Date: 2013-05-28
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Grand Chamber
Subject matter: External relations;Common foreign and security policy
Procedure: Action for annulment;Action for damages;Appeal - successful
Origin: United Kingdom

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 28 May 2013 1. Judicial proceedings — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate — Order made without designation of a Judge as Advocate General — Lawfulness (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 2(2), 18, 19, 113 and 114(4)) 2. Judicial proceedings — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate — Possibility of giving a decision without an oral procedure — Obligation to seek the views of the parties (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 113 and 114(3)) 3. Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Interest assessed at the time when the action was brought — Action against an act imposing restrictive measures in respect of the applicant — Repeal of the contested act in the course of the proceedings — Declaration that there is no need to adjudicate — Not permissible — Retention of the applicant’s interest in obtaining recognition of the contested act’s illegality (Arts 263 TFEU and 266 TFEU; Council Regulation No 881/2002, as amended by Commission Regulation No 1330/2008; Commission Regulation No 36/2011) 1. It is apparent from Article 114(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, read in the light of Articles 2(2), 18 and 19 thereof, first, that the designation of a Judge of the General Court as Advocate General is optional where the General Court sits as a Chamber and, second, that references to the Advocate General in those Rules of Procedure are to apply only where a Judge has in fact been designated as Advocate General. Where the General Court does not designate an Advocate General for the purpose of dealing with an action, there is no obligation to hear an Advocate General before declaring on the basis of Article 113 of its Rules of Procedure that there is no longer any need to adjudicate. (see paras 38, 39) 2. The application of Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court does not guarantee that an oral procedure will be opened, as the General Court may, under Article 114(3) of its Rules of Procedure, to which Article 113 refers, give its decision following a solely written procedure. However, under Article 113 of its Rules of Procedure the General Court is required to hear the parties before deciding whether there exists any absolute bar to proceeding with an action or before declaring that the action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no need to adjudicate on it. In accordance with that provision, if a party is requested to express his views in writing on the conclusions to be drawn from the adoption of the regulation at issue, especially in the light of the purpose of the action, he can expect that, in the event that the General Court considers that the action has become devoid of purpose, it will give its decision by means of an order, since that is one of the situations referred to in Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure, in which the General Court may give its decision at any time. Accordingly, there can be no question of an infringement of the right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights if the General Court has requested the person concerned to express his views on whether the action retains a purpose. (see paras 42-44, 48) 3. An applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings must, in the light of the purpose of the action, exist at the stage of lodging the action, failing which the action will be inadmissible. That purpose must, like the interest in bringing proceedings, continue 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 for the party bringing it. The question whether an applicant retains his interest in bringing proceedings must be assessed in the light of the specific circumstances, taking account, in particular, of the consequences of the alleged unlawfulness and of the nature of the damage claimed to have been sustained. In the case of an application for annulment of a Commission regulation including the applicant’s name on a list of persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al‑Qaida network and the Taliban, the fact that the contested act has ceased to have effect after the action was brought in that the applicant’s name has been removed from that list does not prevent an interest in bringing proceedings for annulment from being retained where recognition of the alleged illegality is such as to procure an advantage for the applicant. That is so where the restrictive measures adopted in respect of the applicant have had substantial negative consequences and a considerable impact on the rights and freedoms of the persons covered. Apart from a freezing of funds of broad scope which seriously disrupts both the working and the family life of the persons covered and impedes the conclusion of numerous legal acts, account must be taken of the opprobrium and suspicion that accompany the public designation of the persons covered as being associated with a terrorist organisation. In those circumstances, an applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings is retained so far as concerns the effects of the contested act between the date of its entry into force and that of its repeal, for the purpose of having the Courts of the European Union recognise that he should not have been included on the list or that he should not have been included under the procedure which was adopted by the European Union institutions. Indeed, whilst recognition of the illegality of the contested act cannot, as such, compensate for material harm or for interference with one’s private life, it is nevertheless capable of rehabilitating the applicant or constituting a form of reparation for the non-material harm which he has suffered by reason of that illegality, and of thereby establishing that he retains his interest in bringing proceedings. The interest in securing the annulment of an act is retained irrespective of whether it will be unnecessary or in practice impossible for the defendant institution to adopt measures under Article 266 TFEU to comply with the judgment annulling that act. (see paras 61, 65, 70-72, 79, 80, 82)