Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2024/6245

28.10.2024

(Case C-595/24 P)

(C/2024/6245)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Dmitry Arkadievich Mazepin (represented by: D. Rovetta, M. Campa, M. Moretto and V. Villante, avvocati, T. Marembert and A. Bass, avocats)

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;

—annul:

—Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 149), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 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 (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 1) and of the letter of 15 September 2022 by which the Council decided to maintain the appellant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies covered by the restrictive measures provided for by Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 16), as amended, in so far as those acts maintain the name of Dmitry Arkadievich Mazepin on the lists annexed to those acts;

—Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75I, p. 134) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75I, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the name of Dmitry Arkadievich Mazepin on the lists annexed to those acts;

—Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/811 of 13 April 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 101, p. 67) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/806 of 13 April 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 101, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the name of Dmitry Arkadievich Mazepin on the lists annexed to those acts;

—Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 September 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 226, p. 104), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765 of 13 September 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 226, p. 3) and the letter of 15 September 2023 by which the Council decided to maintain the appellant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies covered by the restrictive measures provided for by Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 16), as amended, and Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6), as amended, in so far as those acts maintain the name of Dmitry Arkadievich Mazepin on the lists annexed to those acts.

—as a subordinate to the above, to set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court;

—order the Council to bear the appellant’s costs both concerning the first instance and present appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on the eight grounds of appeal.

First, the General Court exceeded the scope of its judicial review, committing several errors of law and distortions of facts.

Second, the General Court erred in law in interpreting criterion (g) in the sense that by the expression ‘providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation’, it is the economic sectors and not businesspersons that are referred to. Failure to state reasons.

Third, infringement and misinterpretation of Article 2(1)(g) of Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329, as well as of Article 3(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, as amended by Council Regulation 2022/330. As a subordinate, plea of illegality and inapplicability under Article 277 TFEU of Article 2(1)(g) of Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329, and of Article 3(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, as amended by Council Regulation 2022/330. The General Court disregarded the scope of its jurisdiction concerning the new Criterion (g) and breached the principle of legal certainty.

Fourth, infringement and misinterpretation of the concept of ‘source of revenue’ and ‘substantial source of revenue’ under Article 2(1)(g) of Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329, as well as of Article 3(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, as amended by Council Regulation 2022/330. Distortion of facts and evidence. Breach of essential procedural requirements and of the duty to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU and Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice through insufficient and contradictory grounds. Reversal of the burden of proof.

Fifth, the General Court has manifestly misinterpreted and thus violated the principle of proportionality assessing the legality of Article 2(1)(g) of Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329, as well as of Article 3(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, as amended by Council Regulation 2022/330, with regard to the fourth plea at first instance and unduly limited the appellant’s right to judicial review.

Sixth, infringement of the obligation to state reasons. The judgment under appeal is founded on contradictory motives.

Seventh, the judgement under appeal fails to address the plea relating to the third part of criterion (g), as amended. Breach of essential procedural requirements and of the duty to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU and Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice through insufficient and contradictory grounds; violation of the principle of legal certainty.

Eighth, the judgement under appeal distorted the first plea and failed to rule on a decisive argument relied on by the appellant at first instance, breaching the obligation to state reasons. Infringement and misapplication of the right to a sound administration and of the requirement of impartiality. Misapplication of the principles governing the burden of proof.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6245/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—