Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL COURT

25 November 2024 (*)

( Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Prohibition on providing access to ports and to locks in the territory of the European Union to any vessel registered under the flag of Russia, including replicas of historical ships - Application for interim measures - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Inadmissibility )

In Case T‑446/24 R,

EV,

EW,

EY,

represented by H. over de Linden, lawyer,

applicants,

v

Council of the European Union, represented by V. Piessevaux and E. Nadbath, acting as Agents,

defendant,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL COURT

makes the following

Order

1        By their application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicants, EV, EW and EY, seek suspension of the application of Article 4ha(3)(a) of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/1744 of 24 June 2024 (OJ L 2024/1744), and of Article 3ea(3)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2024/1745 of 24 June 2024 (OJ L 2024/1745) (together, ‘the contested acts’), in so far as those acts apply to the ship [confidential], (1) and of other interim measures.

 Background to the dispute and forms of order sought

2        The applicants are the owner, the captain and the manager of the traditional ship [confidential].

3        The applicants’ activities consist in training young sailors and participating in various international maritime festivals.

4        On 24 February 2022, the Russian Federation launched a military attack on Ukraine.

5        In response to that war of aggression, the Council of the European Union adopted a series of restrictive measures against the Russian Federation, in addition to those which had been adopted since 2014 in response to the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine.

6        On 8 April 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/578, amending Decision 2014/512 (OJ 2022 L 111, p. 70), and Regulation (EU) 2022/576, amending Regulation No 833/2014 (OJ 2022 L 111, p. 1).

7        The restrictive measures put in place by those acts include the prohibition on providing access to ports in the territory of the European Union to any vessel registered under the flag of Russia, as set out in the new Article 4ha, inserted in Decision 2014/512 by Decision 2022/578, and in the new Article 3ea, inserted in Regulation No 833/2014 by Regulation 2022/576.

8        On 6 June 2024, [confidential], which until then had been flying the Russian flag, adopted the flag [confidential].

9        On 24 June 2024, the Council adopted Decision 2024/1744, amending Article 4ha of Decision 2014/512, and Regulation 2024/1745, amending Article 3ea of Regulation No 833/2014, so that, for the purpose the application thereof, those provisions now provide that the term ‘vessel’ designates ‘a ship falling within the scope of the relevant international conventions, including replicas of historical ships’.

10      By application lodged at the Court Registry on 24 August 2024, the applicants brought an action for annulment of the contested acts in so far as they concerned [confidential].

11      By a separate document, lodged at the Court Registry on 11 September 2024, the applicants submitted the present application for interim measures, in which they claim that the President of the General Court should:

–        order the suspension of the contested acts in so far as they apply to [confidential];

–        confirm that the addition of the expression ‘replicas of historical ships’ to the text of the contested acts does not apply to replicas of historical ships which changed their flag prior to 24 June 2024;

–        adopt certain measures of organisation of procedure and provide for a derogation from the prohibition laid down in the contested acts, allowing [confidential] to have access to the ports and locks of the European Union until the Court has ruled on the action in the main proceedings;

–        grant, according to Article 157(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the application even before the observations of the opposite party have been submitted;

–        reserve the costs.

12      In its observations on the application for interim measures lodged with the Court Registry on 26 September 2024, the Council claimed that the President of the General Court should:

–        dismiss the application for interim measures as inadmissible or, in the alternative, as manifestly unfounded;

–        order the applicants to pay the costs.

 Law

13      It is clear from Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 256(1) TFEU, that the judge hearing an application for interim measures may, if the judge considers that circumstances so require, order that application of an act challenged before the Court be suspended or prescribe any necessary interim measures, in accordance with the rules on admissibility provided for in Article 156 of the Rules of Procedure.

14      The first sentence of Article 156(4) of the Rules of Procedure provides that applications for interim measures must state ‘the subject matter of the proceedings, the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the interim measures applied for’.

15      The judge hearing an application for interim relief may order suspension of application of an act and other interim measures, if it is established that such an order is justified, prima facie, in fact and in law, and that it is urgent in so far as, in order to avoid serious and irreparable harm to the applicant’s interests, it must be made and produce its effects before a decision is reached in the main action. Those conditions are cumulative, and consequently an application for interim measures must be dismissed if any one of them is not satisfied. The judge hearing an application for interim relief is also to undertake, when necessary, a weighing of competing interests (see order 2 March 2016, Evonik Degussa v Commission, C‑162/15 P‑R, EU:C:2016:142, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited).

16      Furthermore, under Article 156(5) and Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure, an application for interim measures must, inter alia, be made by a separate document, indicate the subject matter of the proceedings and contain a summary of the pleas in law and arguments relied on.

17      It follows from a combined reading of Article 156(4) and (5) and Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure that an application for interim relief must be sufficient in itself to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the judge hearing the application to rule on it, where necessary, without other supporting information. In order to ensure legal certainty and the proper administration of justice, it is necessary, if such an application is to be admissible, that the essential elements of fact and law on which it is founded be set out coherently and comprehensibly in the application for interim measures itself. While the application may be supported and supplemented on specific points by references to particular passages in documents which are annexed to it, a general reference to other written documentation, even if annexed to the application for interim measures, cannot make up for the absence of essential elements in that application (see order 4 December 2015, E-Control v ACER, T‑671/15 R, not published, EU:T:2015:975, paragraph 8 and the case-law cited).

18      Moreover, point 284 of the Practice rules for the implementation of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court (OJ L 2024/2097) expressly states that the application for interim measures must be intelligible in itself, without necessitating reference to the application lodged in the main proceedings, including the annexes thereto.

19      Since failure to comply with the Rules of Procedure constitutes an absolute bar to proceedings, it is for the judge hearing the application for interim measures to consider at the outset of the proceedings, if necessary of his or her own motion, whether the applicable provisions of those rules have been complied with (see order of 14 February 2020, Vizzone v Commission, T‑658/19 R, not published, EU:T:2020:71, paragraph 11 and the case-law cited).

20      In the present case, it must be noted that, in the application for interim measures, the applicants make no argument in respect of the condition relating to a prima facie case.

21      The applicants merely state, in paragraph 48 of the application for interim measures, that they are confident in the fairness of the Court and expect the Court to issue a positive ruling on the action in the main proceedings.

22      Such an absence of arguments does not enable the judge hearing the application for interim measures to make a legal assessment of whether the pleas for annulment relied on in the action in the main proceedings are prima facie well founded.

23      It follows that the application for interim measures is not intelligible in itself, without reference to the application lodged in the main proceedings.

24      That absence of sufficient explanation, in the application for interim measures, of the constituent elements of a possible prima facie case cannot be compensated for by a reference to the application lodged in the main proceedings.

25      In that regard, it is sufficient to recall that it is not for the judge hearing the application for interim measures to seek, in place of the party concerned, those matters contained in the annexes or in the main application which would support the application for interim measures. For such an obligation to be imposed on the judge hearing the application for interim measures would, moreover, render ineffective the provision of the Rules of Procedure which requires that applications for interim measures be made by a separate document (see order of 29 July 2010, Cross Czech v Commission, T‑252/10 R, not published, EU:T:2010:323, paragraph 15 and the case-law cited).

26      It follows that, as regards the condition relating to a prima facie case, the present application for interim measures does not comply with the requirements laid down in Article 156(4) of the Rules of Procedure and that, therefore, it must be dismissed as inadmissible.

27      In accordance with Article 158(5) of the Rules of Procedure, the costs are to be reserved.

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, 25 November 2024.

*      Language of the case: English.

1      Confidential information redacted.

© European Union
The source of this judgment is the Europa web site. The information on this site is subject to a information found here: Important legal notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.