ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber)

16 July 2015 (*)

(Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Lis pendens — Manifest inadmissibility)

In Case T‑69/15,

NK Rosneft OAO, established in Moscow (Russia),

RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO, established in Moscow,

RN-Shelf-Dalniy Vostok ZAO, established in Yuzhniy-Sakhalin (Russia),

RN-Exploration OOO, established in Moscow,

Tagulskoe OOO, established in Krasnoyarsk (Russia),

represented by T. Beazley QC,

applicants,

v

Council of the European Union, represented by S. Boelaert and B. Driessen, acting as Agents,

defendant,

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP of 4 December 2014 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, and Decision 2014/659/CFSP amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 58), and Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 of 4 December 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, and amending Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 20), in so far as those acts concern the applicants,

THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber),

composed of G. Berardis (Rapporteur), President, O. Czúcz and A. Popescu, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

 Facts, procedure and form of order sought

1        One of the applicants, NK Rosneft OAO, is a company incorporated under Russian law specialising in oil and gas. The other applicants, RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO, RN-Shelf Dalniy Vostok ZAO, RN-Exploration OOO and Tagulskoe OOO, are also companies incorporated under Russian law within the Rosneft group of companies. The activities of Rosneft and the Rosneft group include hydrocarbon exploration and production, upstream offshore projects, hydrocarbon refining, and crude oil, gas and product marketing in Russia and abroad.

2        Strongly condemning the unprovoked violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity by the Russian Federation and calling upon the Russian Federation to immediately withdraw its armed forces to the areas of their permanent stationing, the Council of the European Union adopted Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 16), whereby the Council imposed travel restrictions and an asset freeze.

3        In view of the gravity of the situation, on 31 July 2014, the Council adopted 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).

4        In this context, the Council prohibited transactions in certain financial instruments issued by certain state-owned Russian financial institutions or the provision of financing or investment services for those instruments, or dealing in those instruments. The Council also decided that Member States should prohibit the sale, supply, transfer or export to Russia, as well as procurement from Russia, of arms and related material of all types. Furthermore, it decided that the sale, supply, transfer or export of dual-use items for military use in Russia, as well as of certain sensitive goods and technologies when they are destined for deep water oil exploration and production, arctic oil exploration and production or shale oil projects should be prohibited.

5        Since some of the measures taken against the Russian Federation fell within the scope of the FEU Treaty, the Council adopted 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).

6        By Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 amending Decision 2014/512 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54), the Council considered it necessary to take further restrictive measures in response to Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, such as, inter alia, restrictions on access to the capital market in relation to certain Russian financial institutions, certain Russian entities in the defence sector, and certain Russian entities whose main business is the sale or transportation of oil, restrictions on the sale, supply or transfer of dual-use items to certain persons, entities or bodies in Russia and restrictions on the provision of services relating to deep water oil exploration and production, arctic oil exploration and production or shale oil projects.

7        Since some of the measures taken against the Russian Federation fell within the scope of the FEU Treaty, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 amending Regulation No 833/2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3).

8        By application lodged at the Court Registry on 9 October 2014 and registered as Case T‑715/14, the applicants sought partial annulment of Decision 2014/512, Decision 2014/659, Regulation No 833/2014, including the corrigendum to that regulation of 21 August 2014 (OJ 2014 L 246, p. 59), and Regulation No 960/2014.

9        On 4 December 2014, having considered that it was necessary to clarify certain provisions, the Council adopted Decision 2014/872/CFSP amending Decision 2014/512 and Decision 2014/659 (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 58), and Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 amending Regulation No 833/2014, and amending Regulation No 960/2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 20) (‘the Council acts of December 2014’).

10      By a supplementary pleading lodged at the Court Registry on 12 February 2015, via e-Curia, the applicants modified the form of order sought and the pleas in law of the action in Case T‑715/14 to include the Council acts of December 2014, while explaining that they had at the same time brought an action against the same acts on a precautionary basis.

11      By application lodged at the Court Registry on the same day, via e-Curia, a few minutes after the supplementary pleading was lodged, the applicants brought the present action for annulment of the Council acts in question, while explaining that the pleas in law raised in the present action were the same as those raised in the supplementary pleading and that the present action was brought on a precautionary basis.

12      By document lodged at the Court Registry on 11 March 2015, the applicants submitted an application for a stay of the proceedings in the present case and in Case T‑715/14, pending the final decision by the Court of Justice in Case C‑72/15, Rosneft, concerning a request for a preliminary ruling made by the High Court of Justice of England & Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional Court) regarding the validity and interpretation of certain provisions of Decision 2014/512, Decision 2014/659, Regulation No 833/2014, including the corrigendum to that regulation of 21 August 2014, and Regulation No 960/2014.

13      By order of 26 March 2015, the President of the Ninth Chamber of the General Court stayed the proceedings in Case T‑715/14, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 77(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 2 May 1991, pending delivery of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C‑72/15.

14      By letter of 9 April 2015, the Court invited the parties to submit their observations on the situation of lis pendens that may result from the bringing of the present action, in the light of the action, as modified, in Case T‑715/14. The parties replied within the prescribed time-limit.

15      In their observations of 27 April 2015, the applicants argued that the lis pendens issue should not be decided at the present stage of the proceedings and that the Court should order the present proceedings to be stayed, as it had done in Case T‑715/14. The Council maintained, in its observations of 17 April 2015, that the conditions of lis pendens with regard to the action in Case T‑715/14 were fulfilled and that the action in Case T‑69/15 was therefore inadmissible.

16      The applicants claim in their application that the Court should:

–        annul the Council acts of December 2014, in so far as those acts concern them;

–        order the Council to pay the costs.

 Law

17      Under Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure, where it is clear that the General Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine an action or where the action is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, the General Court may, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur, at any time decide to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings.

18      In the present case, the Court considers that it has sufficient information available to it from the material in the file and has decided to give a decision without taking further steps in the proceedings.

19      According to settled case-law, an action which is between the same parties and has the same purpose, on the basis of the same submissions, as an action brought previously must be dismissed as inadmissible (see orders of 21 June 2012 in Hamas v Council, T‑531/11, EU:T:2012:317, paragraph 15 and the case-law cited, and 7 January 2015 in Cham and Bena Properties v Council, T‑607/14, EU:T:2015:12, paragraph 17 and the case-law cited).

20      It must be stated that the modification of the form of order sought effected by means of a document lodged at the Court Registry in the course of proceedings, in circumstances such as those in the present case, constitutes a procedural step which, without prejudice to any subsequent decision of the Court on admissibility, is equivalent to the bringing of an action by means of an application (see, to that effect, order in Hamas v Council, cited in paragraph 19 above, EU:T:2012:317, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited).

21      In the present case, it is clear that the heads of claim and the pleas in law raised by the applicants, in their application, against the Council acts of December 2014 are identical to the heads of claim and the pleas in law raised by the applicants in their supplementary pleading in Case T‑715/14, against the same acts.

22      The present action is accordingly between the same parties and has the same purpose, on the basis of the same submissions, as the action, as modified, in Case T‑715/14 concerning the Council acts in question.

23      It follows that the present action, which was lodged on the same day as the supplementary pleading in Case T‑715/14, must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible, and there is no need to grant the application for a stay of proceedings submitted by the applicants.

 Costs

24      Since this order has been made before the lodging of the Council’s defence and given the fact that the latter, in its observations on the issue of lis pendens, did not apply for the applicants to be ordered to pay the costs in the event that the Court declares the present action inadmissible, it is sufficient to decide that the applicants must bear their own costs, in accordance with Article 133 of the Rules of Procedure.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber)

hereby orders:

1.      The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2.      NK Rosneft OAO, RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO, RN-Shelf-Dalniy Vostok ZAO, RN-Exploration OOO and Tagulskoe OOO shall bear their own costs.

Luxembourg, 16 July 2015.

* Language of the case: English.