Brussels, 28/05/2013 (Agence Europe) - In its decision of Tuesday 28 May (C-239/12 P), the European Court of Justice ruled that a person who was the subject of a measure freezing funds retains an interest in it being annulled by the Courts of the EU despite its repeal in the General Court. In effect, recognition of illegality can constitute a form of reparation for the non-material harm suffered. In October 2008, Mr Abdulbasit Abdulrahim's name was placed on the list drawn up by the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council, for involvement in fundraising on behalf of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and had held senior positions within the LIFG. Consequently, he was included on the EU list of persons and entities whose funds must be frozen, by virtue of a regulation imposing certain restrictive measures directed against persons associated with Usama bin Laden. In 2009 Abdulrahim brought an action before the General Court of the EU for annulment of this decision. He said that the Council and the Commission had not explained the reasons for his inclusion and that he had not been total of evidence used against him or heard in that regard. He argued that the freezing of funds, which infringed his right to property and to private life, was disproportionate. He denied that he had ever been associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al- Qaida network or the Taliban. In 2009, Abdulrahim's name was removed from the UN list and then, from the EU list, although the case was still being examined by the General Court. Considering application for annulment had therefore become devoid of purpose, the General Court, despite Abdulrahim's opposition, ruled by an order that there was no longer any need to adjudicate. In support of his appeal to the Court of Justice against the order, Abdulrahim submitted that the General Court erred in law in holding that he no longer had an interest in bringing proceedings because annulment of the regulation by which he had been included on the list at issue could not procure him any advantage. He argued in particular that he has a clear interest in a judicial decision being delivered in order to annul the measure. Specifically, his action for annulment before the General Court had the aim of ending the continuous breach of his right to private and family life, restoring his reputation, removing the obstacles to his employment and freedom to travel, and to put an end to the damaging effects of this decision on him and his family. The Court considered his arguments and annulled the ruling of the General Court. Drawing on its case law, it acknowledges that an applicant's interest in bringing proceedings does not necessarily disappear because the act being challenged has ceased to have effect in the course of proceedings. The Court points out that restrictive measures have concrete negative consequences on the rights and freedoms of the persons covered; the freezing of funds seriously disrupts their working and family life and impedes their freedom to conclude legal acts. Furthermore, restrictive measures result in opprobrium and social suspicion. Thus, despite removal of his name from the list, Abdulrahim retains an interest in having the decision concerning him annulled and in securing, should his action be upheld, his rehabilitation and, thus, some form of reparation for the non-material harm suffered. (FG/transl.fl)