Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/393

(Case C-818/24 P)

(C/2025/393)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Belarusian Potash Company AAT (represented by: V. Ostrovskis, advokatas, B. Evtimov, advokat, C. Cauvin, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Republic of Latvia

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment under appeal;

—issue a final judgment annulling the contested measures with respect to the appellant, namely: Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/881 of 3 June 2022 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (1); Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/876 of 3 June 2022 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (2); Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/421 of 24 February 2023 amending Decision 2012/642 (3) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/419 of 24 February 2023 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (4), or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for further adjudication in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice;

—order the Council to bear all costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings and those in the procedure before the General Court; and

—order Latvia and any other intervener to bear their own costs in the appeal procedure as well as in the procedure before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

First, the General Court erred in law by finding that the Council complied with its duty to state reasons

Second, the General Court erred in law by infringing the principle of legality and related principle of proportionality.

Third, the General Court erred in law by failing to perform effective judicial review, thereby allowing errors in legal qualification of factual situations. Precisely:

—the General Court failed to conduct proper judicial review of the Council’s reasoning regarding Belarusian Potash Company’s prior monopoly rights;

—it applied the erroneous legal qualification ‘preferential treatment’ to the available evidence;

—it conducted an unbalanced assessment of the evidence presented, infringing the principle of equality of arms and applied the erroneous legal qualification ‘exporting arm’ to the available evidence;

—it wrongfully qualifies the payment of taxes and dividends as ‘financial support’;

—it failed to carry out an effective judicial review by attributing to the appellant the conduct of another listed entity; and

—it exceeded the scope of its judicial review in applying the circumvention criterion for designation to the appellant.

*

Language of the case: English.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/393/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—