Order — ECLI:EU:T:2016:433
Date: 2016-07-12
Language of the case: English
Subject matter: External relations;Common foreign and security policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful

Summary — Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber), 12 July 2016 1. European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Ambit of the review — Proof the measure well-founded — Obligation on the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the grounds held against the persons or entities concerned well-founded (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP; Council Regulation No 208/2014) 2. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Death of a natural person who was the addressee of a decision of an EU institution — Action for annulment capable of being brought by the heir (Art. 263 TFEU) 3. Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action brought against an act imposing restrictive measures on the applicant — Repeal of the contested act in the course of the proceedings — Declaration that no need to adjudicate — Not permissible — Applicant maintaining an interest in obtaining recognition that the contested act unlawful (Art. 263 TFEU) 4. Judicial proceedings — Pleas in the application — Modification in the course of proceedings — Assimilation to the bringing of an action by means of an application — Admissibility — Assessment by reference to the situation at the time the statement of modification lodged — Document lodged after the applicant’s death — Inadmissibility 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 48, 57, 58) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 67) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 68-71) 4. The admissibility of an action must be assessed by reference to the situation prevailing at the time when the application was lodged. If at that time the conditions which must be satisfied to enable an action to be brought are not fulfilled, the action is therefore inadmissible. Such considerations may be applied to situations in which an applicant, through a statement of modification, seeks annulment of a new measure replacing or modifying a measure with the same aim and which is already the subject of an application for annulment. A document lodged at the Court Registry, during the proceedings, modifying the application constitutes a procedural document which, without prejudice to a subsequent decision of the Court on admissibility, is equivalent to the bringing of an action by means of an application. Consequently, a statement of modification lodged at the Court Registry by the representative of the applicant after the applicant’s death must be dismissed as inadmissible. (see paras 80, 82-84, 89)