Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/4058

28.7.2025

(Case T-357/25)

(C/2025/4058)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Albert Alikovich Avdolyan (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: T. Bontinck, M. Brésart and F. Patuelli, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/528 of 14 March 2025 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it maintains the name of the applicant on the list set out in the annex to that decision; and

—annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/527 of 14 March 2025 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it includes the applicant’s name on the list set out in Annex I to that regulation;

—order the Council to make a provisional payment of EUR 100 000 in compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant;

—order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.

The applicant claims that the contested acts were adopted without the Council having exercised its own decision-making powers, by relying exclusively on its preparatory bodies. That de facto delegation constitutes an infringement of the substantive procedural rules laid down by the Treaties.

2.Second plea in law, alleging unlawfulness of criterion (g).

The applicant claims that the Council applied an imprecise and excessively broad designation criterion, making it possible to sanction any person active in an economic sector in Russia. That criterion fails to comply with the principles of legality, legal certainty and proportionality.

3.Third plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons and infringement of the right to an effective remedy.

The applicant claims that the grounds for listing are vague, general and unsubstantiated, which prevents him from understanding the grounds for the measure and effectively disputing its legality. The Council failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging error of assessment.

The applicant claims that the evidence produced by the Council is out of date, unverified or unreliable. No specific link is established between the applicant and the facts complained of, which vitiates the contested acts by manifest errors of assessment.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the principle of proportionality.

The applicant submits that the measures adopted are inappropriate and excessive in the light of the objective pursued. They disproportionately undermine the applicant’s rights, in particular his philanthropic activities and reputation.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of fundamental rights.

The applicant alleges unjustified interference with his freedom of movement, as a European citizen, and with his right to property. Those restrictions do not comply with the conditions laid down by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4058/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—