Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/2188

22.4.2025

(Case C-179/25 P)

(C/2025/2188)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Marina Tauber (represented by: L. Marchal, T. Bontinck, avocats, C. Zatschler, Senior Counsel)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1.set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 December 2024, T-493/23, including the order that the appellant is to pay the costs;

2.dispose of the action on the merits and annul the contested decision in so far as they include and maintain the appellant on the lists annexed to those acts, namely:

(a)Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1047 of 30 May 2023 amending Decision (CFSP) 2023/891 concerning restrictive measures in view of actions destabilising the Republic of Moldova (OJ L 114, 2.5.2023, p. 15) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1045 of 30 May 2023 (OJ L 140, 30.05.2023, p. 1-6) implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/888 concerning restrictive measures in view of actions destabilising the Republic of Moldova (OJ L 114, 2.05.2024, p. 1);

(b)Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/1242 of 26 April 2024 amending Decision (CFSP) 2023/891 concerning restrictive measures in view of actions destabilising the Republic of Moldova (OJ L 2024/1242, 29.4.2024) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1243 of 26 April 2024 implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/888 concerning restrictive measures in view of actions destabilising the Republic of Moldova (OJ L 2024/1243, 29.4.2024).

3.in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for it to:

(a)examine the genuine purpose of the restrictive measures regime at issue, where appropriate ordering the measures of inquiry requested by the appellant;

(b)rule on the inclusion and maintenance of the appellant’s name on the lists at issue on the basis of criterion iii).

in any event:

4.refer the case back to the General Court to rule, under Article 268 TFEU, on the non-material damage she has suffered as a result of those decisions;

5.order the Council to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In the context of its appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds relating to errors of law and distortions of the facts by the General Court in its examination of the pleas put forward by the appellant in the proceedings at first instance concerning, in essence:

The illegality of Decision (CFSP) 2023/891 and Regulation (EU) 2023/888 because of an infringement of Articles 2, 8 and 21(1) TEU, the lack of adequate legal basis and a misuse of power. In essence, the General Court merely verified that specific measures such as those at issue could, in principle, be adopted in the context of the CFSP. The General Court, by contrast, does not even attempt to establish the genuine purpose of the restrictive measures regime as regards the context of which it forms part, the way it has been implemented and its effects on the democratic process in Moldova. According to the appellant, the Council’s measures are contrary to the fundamental values of the European Union and undermine the democratic political process of a neighbouring country.

The unreliability of the evidence produced by the Council and the incorrect interpretation of the scope of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Charter and the incorrect application of the criterion provided for in Article 1(1)(a)(ii) of Decision 2023/891 referring to the organisation of violent demonstrations.

The infringement of fundamental rights.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2188/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—