- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-156/25 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2025 by Dmitry Konov against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 11 December 2024 in Case T-326/22, Konov v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025CN0156
62025CN0156
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C series
—
C/2025/2064
14.4.2025
(Case C-156/25 P)
(C/2025/2064)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Dmitry Konov (represented by: F. Bélot, avocat)
Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (First Chamber) of 11 December 2024, T-326/22, in part in so far as it dismissed the claim for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 September 2023, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765 of 13 September 2023, Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2456 of 12 September 2024 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2455 of 12 September 2024, including in so far as it ordered the appellant to bear his own costs;
—rule on the substance and annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 September 2023, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765 of 13 September 2023, Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2456 of 12 September 2024 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2455 of 12 September 2024 in so far as those measures include and maintain the appellant on the lists annexed to those acts;
—order the Council to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single ground.
The appellant submits that the General Court made errors in its interpretation of the evidence submitted by the appellant, arbitrarily applied the rules on evidence and dealt with the allocation of the burden of proof in a manifestly disproportionate and abusive manner. That led to a distortion of the appellant’s evidence and to an incorrect assessment of his situation.
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2064/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—