Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/1083

(Case C-865/24)

(C/2025/1083)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles, Orde van Vlaamse Balies, Bernard Derveaux, Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophones de Belgique, Marie Dupont, Stéphane Gothot, Emmanuel Plasschaert, Pierre Sculier, Xavier Van Gils (represented by: P. de Bandt, T. Ghysels, T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Maurice Krings, Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer, Ordre des avocats de Genève, Council of the European Union, Republic of Estonia, European Commission, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—declare the appeal admissible and well-founded, and consequently,

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2024 in Case T-797/22, Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles and Others v Council in its entirety; and

—give final judgment in the dispute at issue and uphold the form of order sought at first instance by the appellants seeking the annulment of:

—Article 1(12) of 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 (1) and Article 1(13) of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/2474 of 16 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, (2) in so far as they replace and amend, respectively, paragraphs 2 and 4 to 12, then paragraphs 2 and 4 to 11 of Article 5n of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, as regards legal advisory services, and

—Article 1(13) of Council Regulation (EU) 2023/427 of 25 February 2023 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, in so far as it inserts Article 12b(2a) into Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine;

—order the Council to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants put forward four grounds of appeal.

The first ground of appeal alleges infringement of Articles 7 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in the light of Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, and of the obligation to state reasons in so far as the General Court held that the provision at issue does not give rise to interference with the fundamental right of every person to consult a lawyer in order to obtain legal advice.

The second ground of appeal alleges infringement of Articles 7 and 47 of the Charter, read in the light of Article 2 TEU, and of the obligation to state reasons in so far as the General Court considered that the prohibition at issue does not give rise to interference with the rights guaranteed by those provisions.

The third ground of appeal alleges infringement of Articles 7, 47 and 52(1) of the Charter, Article 2 TEU, the general principle of proportionality and the obligation to state reasons in so far as the General Court held that, even if the provision at issue does give rise to interference with the rights guaranteed by Articles 7 and 47 of the Charter or with a lawyer’s independence, that interference satisfies the requirements of Article 52(1) of the Charter.

The fourth ground of appeal alleges breach of the principle of legal certainty, read in the light of Article 2 TEU, and of the obligation to state reasons in that the General Court held that the provision at issue does not give rise to an interference therewith.

(1)

(2)

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1083/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

JUDGMENT OF 6. 3. 2025 – CASE C-41/24 WALTHAM ABBEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

must be interpreted as meaning that where, in the context of a screening procedure carried out under that provision, a third party has provided the competent authority with objective evidence as regards the potential significant effects of that project on the environment, in particular on a species protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013, that authority must ask the developer to provide it with additional information and take that information into account before deciding whether or not an environmental impact assessment is necessary for that project. However, where, despite the observations submitted to that authority by a third party, the competent authority is able to rule out, on the basis of objective evidence, the possibility that the project in question is likely to have significant effects on the environment, that authority may decide that an environmental impact assessment is not necessary, without being required to ask the developer to provide it with additional information.

Gratsias

Passer

Smulders

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 6 March 2025.

Registrar

President of the Chamber

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

15