Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) in the case T-649/25 dated 8 October 2026

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)

8 October 2026 ( * )

( Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine – List of vessels which are banned from accessing Member States’ ports and locks and from receiving a broad range of services related to maritime transport – Removal of the name of the vessel owned by the applicant from the list of vessels concerned – Action which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate )

In Case T‑649/25,

Karabakh Shipholdings Afezco SA, established in Baku (Azerbaijan), represented by L. Catrain González and C. Thomas, lawyers,

applicant,

v

Council of the European Union, represented by B. Driessen and I. Demoulin, acting as Agents,

defendant,

supported by

European Commission, represented by F. Aguettant and Á. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado, acting as Agents,

intervener,

THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber),

composed of K. Kecsmár, President, L. Madise (Rapporteur) and U. Öberg, Judges,

Registrar: T. Henze, Acting Registrar,

makes the following

Order

1 By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Karabakh Shipholdings Afezco SA, seeks annulment 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) 2025/1495 of 18 July 2025 (OJ L, 2025/1495), and 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) 2025/1494 of 18 July 2025 (OJ L, 2025/1494) (together, ‘the contested acts’), in so far as they include the vessel owned by the applicant on the lists in Annex XVI to Decision 2014/512 and in Annex XLII to Regulation No 833/2014 (‘the lists at issue’).

Facts and procedure

2 The applicant is a company established under Azerbaijani law that owns the vessel Karabakh , which sails under the flag of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

3 By the contested acts, the vessel Karabakh was included on the lists at issue.

4 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 22 September 2025, the applicant brought the present action.

5 By Council Decision (CFSP) 2026/508 of 23 April 2026 amending Decision 2014/512 (OJ L, 2026/508) and by Council Regulation (EU) 2026/506 of 23 April 2026 amending Regulation No 833/2014 (OJ L, 2026/506), the name of the vessel owned by the applicant was removed from the lists at issue. By letter of 13 May 2026, the Council of the European Union informed the applicant that the vessel Karabakh was no longer included on those lists.

6 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 18 May 2026, the scope of which was clarified by letter of 16 June 2026, the applicant submitted an application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate on the action. It claimed that each party should be ordered to bear its own costs.

7 In its observations on the application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate, which were lodged on 29 June 2026, the Council did not object to the application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate. In respect of costs, the Council stated that, since the contested acts were untainted by any illegality, the applicant should in principle be ordered to pay the costs. It nevertheless indicated that it would accept, ex gratia , that, in the present case, each party should bear its own costs.

8 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 6 July 2026, the European Commission stated that it had no comments on the application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate.

Law

9 Under Article 130(2) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, if a party so requests, the Court may declare that the action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it.

10 It is important to bear in mind that an applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings must, in the light of the purpose of the action, exist at the stage of lodging the action, failing which the action will be inadmissible. That purpose must, like the interest in bringing proceedings, continue to exist until the final decision, failing which there will be no need to adjudicate, which presupposes that the action must be liable, if successful, to procure an advantage for the party bringing it (see judgment of 21 January 2021, Leino-Sandberg v Parliament , C‑761/18 P, EU:C:2021:52, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).

11 In addition, if an applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings ceases to exist during the proceedings, a decision on the merits by the Court cannot procure any advantage for that applicant. Moreover, according to settled case-law, the withdrawal of the contested act by the defendant institution, or, in certain circumstances, its repeal, eliminates the subject matter of the action for annulment, since, for the applicant, it leads to the desired outcome and gives full satisfaction (see order of 21 February 2024, VY v Parliament , T‑224/23, not published, EU:T:2024:118, paragraphs 14 and 15 and the case-law cited).

12 The repeal of the contested acts, in so far as they concerned the vessel owned by the applicant, has the effect that the applicant is no longer subject to the restrictive measures which adversely affected it (see, to that effect and by analogy, order of 24 November 2025, Qisda Optronics (Suzhou) v Council , T‑139/25, not published, EU:T:2025:1073, paragraph 15 and the case-law cited).

13 In addition, the applicant is not arguing that, despite the repeal of the contested acts, it still has an interest in obtaining their annulment. It states in fact that, since the vessel owned by it is no longer on the lists at issue, the purpose of its action has been achieved.

14 It follows from the foregoing that the present action has become devoid of purpose during the proceedings and that there is therefore no longer any need to adjudicate on it.

Costs

15 Under Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure, where a case does not proceed to judgment, the costs are to be in the discretion of the Court.

16 In the present case, the applicant cannot be criticised for bringing an application for annulment of the contested acts, by which the name of the vessel owned by it had been included on the lists at issue. Furthermore, the fact that there is no need to adjudicate results from the removal of the name of the applicant’s vessel from those lists on the initiative of the Council, after the application was lodged.

17 Therefore, in the circumstances of the present case, in accordance with the form of order sought by the applicant, to which the Council does not object, it is appropriate to order each main party to bear its own costs.

18 The Commission shall bear its own costs in accordance with Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)

hereby orders:

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.

2. Karabakh Shipholdings Afezco SA and the Council of the European Union shall each bear their own costs.

3. The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

Luxembourg, 8 October 2026.

T. Henze

K. Kecsmár

Acting Registrar

President

* Language of the case: English.