Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/1086

(Case C-868/24)

(C/2025/1086)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Lupicinio Rodríguez Jiménez (represented by: J.L. Iriarte Ángel, abogado, F. Rodríguez González and M. Casado Abarquero, abogadas)

Other parties to the proceedings: ACE-Avocats, ensemble, Council of the European Union, Republic of Estonia, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 October 2024 in Case T-828/22;

—give a final ruling in the matter and uphold the claims of the intervener, now the appellant, in the proceedings at first instance; that is to say:

—declare admissible and well-founded the action for annulment in part of the contested regulation (Regulation (EU) 2022/1904 of 6 October 2022) (1), in Article 1(12) thereof, amending Article 5n(1), (2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014;

—annul Article 1(12), amending Article 5n(1), (2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

—in the alternative, set aside the judgment and refer the case back to the General Court;

—order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on five errors of law.

1.Error of law in so far as the judgment under appeal wrongly found that the Council had fulfilled its obligation to state reasons.

2.Error of law in so far as the judgment under appeal wrongly found that M. Rodríguez Jiménez was relying on new grounds for annulment, whereas he was relying on infringement of Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and implicitly his right to property, and that those arguments must therefore be rejected.

3.Error of law in so far as the judgment under appeal wrongly found that there was no breach of the right of lawyers to be provided with legal advice.

4.Error of law in so far as the judgment under appeal wrongly found that M. Rodríguez Jiménez raised new grounds for annulment by relying on the breach of the principle of legal certainty.

5.Error of law in so far as the judgment under appeal wrongly found that there had been no infringement of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1904 of 6 October 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 259I, p. 3).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1086/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—