Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2015:97
Date: 2015-02-12
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: External relations;Common foreign and security policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful;Action for annulment - inadmissible

summary examination by the court hearing the application for interim measures and in opposition to the express will of the Council, which has the right to bring an appeal against that order. 39 Since the condition relating to urgency is not satisfied in the present case, there is no justification for granting the interim measures requested. 40 That conclusion is not affected by the fact that – as the applicant stated when referring to similarities between the facts of this case and the case which led to the judgment of 8 June 2011 in Case T‑86/11 Bamba v Council [2011] ECR II‑0000 – the condition relating to a prima face case is satisfied, given that the reason for the designation of the applicant, stated in the contested measures, seems prima facie as vague and general as that which led the General Court to hold, in Bamba, that there was a breach of the duty to state reasons and, therefore, that the regulation and decision at issue before it should be annulled. 41 The condition relating to urgency and that relating to there being a prima facie case are cumulative, and consequently an application for interim measures must be rejected whenever one of them is not satisfied (see paragraph 15 above), given that the granting of interim measures by the court hearing the application for such measures is strictly exceptional (see paragraph 14 above). 42 Moreover, as the General Court stated in paragraph 58 of Bamba v Council, the second paragraph of Article 60 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union provides that decisions of the General Court declaring a regulation to be void are to take effect only as from the date of expiry of the period within which an appeal may be brought or, if an appeal has been brought within that period, as from the date of dismissal of the appeal by the Court of Justice. Further, in paragraph 59 of Bamba v Council, the General Court ensured that, on grounds of legal certainty, the effective date of annulment of the contested decision was in line with that of the contested regulation, since those two acts imposed identical measures on Mr Bamba. 43 It follows that that even an annulment of the contested measures at the conclusion of the main proceedings would not have the immediate and automatic effect of removing the name of the applicant from those measures, particularly if – as moreover occurred in Bamba v Council – the Council were to bring an appeal against the order for annulment. In the particular circumstances of these specific proceedings, governed by the second paragraph of Article 60 of the Statute of the Court, and taking into account the fact that interim measure proceedings are ancillary to the main proceedings (see paragraph 17 above), the existence of a prima facie case does not, therefore, justify, by itself, the grant of the interim measures requested. 44 For all the foregoing reasons, this application for interim measures must be dismissed. On those grounds, THE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL COURT hereby orders: 1. The application for interim measures is dismissed. 2. The costs are reserved. Luxembourg, 12 December 2011. E. Coulon M. Jaeger Registrar President * Language of the case: English.