Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/388

27.1.2025

(Case C-769/24)

(C/2025/388)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: OT (represented by: J.-P. Hordies and P. Blanchetier, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 11 September 2024, OT v Council (T-286/23, EU:T:2024:606), in accordance with Article 169 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice;

—annul Council Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (1) in so far as it concerns the appellant;

—annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (2) in so far as it concerns the appellant;

—in accordance with Article 170 of the Rules of Procedure, if the appeal is declared well founded, uphold the form of order sought before the General Court and as a consequence, order the Council to remove the appellant’s name from the annexes to Decision 2023/572/CFSP and from Implementing Regulation 2023/571;

—order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the appellant.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds.

The first ground of appeal consists of four parts, based on different errors of law committed by the General Court in the judgment under appeal:

1.As regards the admissibility of the document of 15 April 2022 relating to the disposal of the appellant’s shares, it is alleged that the General Court erred in law by holding that the appellant had not produced the document when the action was brought, thereby reversing the burden of proof, contrary to the applicable legal principles.

2.As regards the status of the owner of the shares concerned as an independent third-party, the General Court erred in law by stating that the document produced by the appellant did not answer the question raised on the independence of the transferee, while it was for the Council to prove that there was no independence. By rejecting that document, the General Court created a probatio diabolica, requiring the appellant to prove there was no link, thereby shifting the burden of proof.

3.As regards the company Rosvodokanal, the General Court erred in law by rejecting the relevance of the certificate of 5 April 2022 which proves that the company Rosvodokanal had left CTF Holdings. That certificate shows that Rosvodokanal is no longer linked to Alfa Group by its main holding company. Furthermore, the Council did not provide any evidence of the existence of an alternative link between Rosvodokanal and the Consortium.

4.As regards the substantial economic activity criterion, the General Court erred in law by considering that Rosvodokanal operated in an economic sector generating substantial revenue for the Russian Government, when the activity of that sector as a whole represents only 0.05 % of that Government’s revenue, according to the Council’s own evidence.

The second ground of appeal, also consisting of four parts, alleges that the General Court infringed EU law.

1.As regards the carrying out of an economic activity, the General Court infringed EU law by rejecting the judgment in X (C-651/11), relied on by the appellant in order to prove that the mere holding of shares is not equivalent to an ‘economic activity’, by holding that that judgment had been given in a legal context specific to VAT.

2.As regards the probative value of the evidence produced by the appellant, the General Court failed to observe the principle of equality of arms by downplaying the probative value of the appellant’s evidence, while holding that the weak and uncorroborated evidence put forward by the Council was sufficient.

3.As regards the appellant’s status as a shareholder, the General Court infringed EU law by considering the appellant’s status as a main shareholder to be central in justifying retaining the appellant on the list, in conflict with its own case-law, which excludes the mere status as a shareholder as evidence of support for Russian decision-makers.

4.As regards the absence of amendments or significant changes in the grounds of the implementing regulations and the CFSP decisions of the Council, the General Court infringed EU law by acknowledging that the grounds of the contested measures had not been amended or reassessed, while it was for the Council to carry out an updated evaluation of the restrictive measures.

(1)

(2)

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/388/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

* * *

Language of the case: French.