Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2024/4861

12.8.2024

(Case T-296/24)

(C/2024/4861)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Igor Albertovich Kesaev (Usovo, Russia) (represented by: R. Moeyersons, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/847 of 12 March 2024 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/849 of 12 March 2024 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (2) in so far as they concern him;

—order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on the following grounds:

1.First plea in law: defence of illegality.

—Infringement of the presumption of innocence and breach of the rights of the defence (Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union), as all leading Russian businessmen and women were found guilty of supporting and profiting from the Russian government;

—Breach of the prohibition of discrimination (Article 21 of the Charter and Article 19 TFEU) because of social origin (‘leading businesspersons’) is used as a criterion in the context of EU sanctions;

—Breach of the principle of proportionality (Article 5(4) TFEU);

—The contested acts breach the principle of proportionality. First, on the basis of the criterion of ‘businessmen active in sectors of the economy that serve as a significant source of income’, non-leading businessmen can now also be sanctioned, which is not proportionate to the objective of the restrictive measures. Secondly, sanctioning businesspersons who are not at the source of the relevant sources of income on the basis of the criterion of ‘businesspersons operating in’ is disproportionate to the intended objective of the restrictive measures. Thirdly, the criterion of all ‘leading businesspersons operating in Russia’ no longer distinguishes between leading businesspersons. Fourthly, the disproportionality also arises from the inflation of measures.

—Breach of the principle of legal certainty and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

—The continued, almost arbitrary changes and extensions to the grounds for sanctions have made the rules unpredictable and it has become impossible for businesspersons to adapt their behaviour accordingly. In addition, the restrictive measures are not based on clear and objective criteria, even though they have a very profound impact on those affected.

2.Second plea in law: breach of the obligation to provide reasons, as the reasons for including the applicant in the sanctions list were factually incorrect and/or irrelevant.

—The tobacco sector is not an area which provides a significant source of income for the Government of the Russian Federation;

—The applicant is not active in the tobacco sector, since the company concerned, Megapolis, is active in the distribution sector;

—The mere fact that the applicant has considerable assets is not sufficient to consider him a leading businessperson;

—The applicant is not chairman of the Mercury Group.

3.Third plea in law: breach of the principle of proportionality (Article 5(4) TFEU) because the decision to place the applicant on the sanctions list and to maintain him therein was disproportionate since the sanctions were not aimed at the applicant.

4.Fourth plea in law: breach of the prohibition of discrimination (Article 21 of the Charter – Article 18 TFEU): the decision to place the applicant on the sanctions list and to maintain him therein was motivated by the applicant’s nationality.

(1)

(2)

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4861/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—