You are here:
Key facts of the case:
  1. The General Court of the European Union has recently adopted a number of orders declaring that there is no need to adjudicate on the basis that the names of the applicants have been removed from the lists imposing restrictive measures. (2)
  2. This is an appeal against the order of the General Court of 28 February 2012 in Case T‑127/09 Abdulrahim v Council and Commission (‘the order under appeal’) by which the General Court ruled, in particular, that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the action for annulment which Mr Abdulrahim had brought against Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, (3) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 of 22 December 2008, (4) or the latter regulation.
  3. The issue at the heart of this appeal is that of whether or not applicants have a continuing interest in bringing proceedings where the restrictive measure to which they are subject has been revoked in the course of the proceedings. (5)
  4. In this Opinion, I shall explain why I consider that the General Court erred in law by holding that there was no longer any need for it to adjudicate on Mr Abdulrahim’s action for annulment because he had failed to retain an interest in bringing proceedings.
Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:
 
In the light of all the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should:
  1. set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 28 February 2012 in Case T-127/09 Abdulrahim v Council and Commission, in so far as the General Court of the European Union ruled that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment;
  2. Refer this case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule on Mr Abdulrahim’s action for annulment and reserve the costs.