Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/3926

21.7.2025

(Case T-339/25)

(C/2025/3926)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vladimir Petrovich Evtushenkov (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: A. Bass, lawyer)

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, (1) in so far as it maintained the applicant in the list of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures;

—Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) (EU) 2025/527 of 14 March 2025 implementing Regulation (EU) 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (2) in so far as it maintained the applicant in the list of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures;

—Order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment – the applicant is not a ‘leading businessman’ further to Articles 1(1)(e) and 2(1)(g) of Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 (3) and Article 3(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 (4) (‘criterion (g), first leg’).

2.Second plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 29 TEU and 215(2) TFEU; lack of a legal basis.

—Should the General Court construe ‘leading’ as ‘important’, it will set aside criterion (g), first leg, for lack of legal basis.

3.Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty requiring foreseeability of the effects of legal rules, breach of the right to property and breach of the freedom to conduct a business – criterion (g), first leg.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty – criterion (g), first leg.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment – the applicant is not a ‘leading businessperson’, further to criterion (g), first leg, even if the Court were to construe it as targeting any ‘important businesspersons’ in Russia.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 29 TEU and 215(2) TFEU; lack of a legal basis – the category of ‘businesspersons involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the government of the Russian Federation’, referred to in criterion (g), third leg, does not satisfy the ‘sufficient link’ requirement.

7.Seventh plea in law, alleging a plea of illegality based on breach of the principle of legal certainty requiring foreseeability of the effects of legal rules, breach of the right to property and breach of the freedom to conduct a business – criterion g), third leg.

8.Eighth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty – criterion (g), third leg.

9.Ninth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment – the applicant is not ‘involved in a sector providing substantial revenues to the government of the Russian Federation’ further to criterion (g), third leg.

—

(1) OJ L 2025/528.

(2) OJ L 2025/527.

(3) Council 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 L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 16). [The consolidated version can be consulted online.]

(4) Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 6). [Consolidated version online.]

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3926/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—