Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2024/7156

(Case C-612/24 P)

(C/2024/7156)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Vladimir Rashevsky (represented by: G. Lansky, P. Goeth and A. Egger, Rechtsanwälte)

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 under appeal;

—pass final judgment in the matter to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/429 (1) of 15 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine as well as Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/427 (2) of 15 March 2022 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 they concern the Appellant, and to order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs, including the costs of the proceedings before the General Court; or alternatively

—refer the case back to the General Court for judgment in accordance with the decision of the Court of Justice on points of law and reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

First plea in law relating to the General Court’s holdings on the Appellant’s plea of error of assessment: The General Court erred in law when holding that the Council of the European Union made no error of assessment in so far as it was directed in case T-309/22 at the Contested Measures when it:

—qualified the Appellant a ‘leading businessperson[] […] involved in economic sectors providing substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation […]’ within the meaning of the listing criterion provided by Article 2 (1) (g) and, in essence, Article (1) (1) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2014/145 as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 (3) of 25 February 2022 and of Article 3 (1) (g) of the Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014 as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 (4) of 25 February 2022 (the ‘(g) criterion’);

—found that the CEO position is sufficient to justify the listing of the Appellant under the (g) criterion;

—refrained from taking into account the contributions of revenues generated by EuroChem to the budget of the Russian Federation.

Second Plea related to violations of fundamental rights, proportionality, legality and foreseeability of the contested measures against the Appellant: The General Court erred in law when it erroneously:

—failed to address the matter of manifestly inappropriate and disproportionate violation of several principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

—refrained from assessing the matter of proportionality and the sufficiently implied question of illegality of the contested measures.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7156/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

JUDGMENT OF 6. 3. 2025 – CASE C-41/24 WALTHAM ABBEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

*

Language of the case: English

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

15

—