Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/252

(Case C-801/24)

(C/2025/252)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: NKO AO National Settlement Depository (NSD) (represented by: A. Genko and É. Épron, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment under appeal;

—annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/878 (1) of 3 June 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, and Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/883 (2) of 3 June 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in their entirety insofar as they affect the appellant;

—annul the extensions of the appellant's individual measures in accordance with the appellant's submissions before the General Court;

—order the Council to pay the costs occasioned by these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.

First plea: error of law by a contradiction in reasoning, leading to insufficient justification regarding the failure to state reasons. Specifically, the General Court's contradictory findings are highlighted, as it acknowledged the absence of detailed information regarding when and how NSD assisted the Russian government, yet concluded that the reasoning was adequate.

Second plea: error of law by wrong interpretation of criterion F of the regulation. The Judgment under appeal is erroneous as it relies on a false interpretation of criterion F and has mistakenly granted the Council facilities regarding proof. According to the correct interpretation of criterion F, NSD does not provide material or financial support to the government, and the Court is therefore in a position to overturn the contested measure.

Third plea: error of law in holding that the restrictive measures complied with the EU principle of proportionality The General Court made an error of law in determining (i) that the restrictive measures complied with the EU principle of proportionality and (ii) that while assessing such compliance, the situation of NSD's users are not to be taken into account.

(1) OJ 2022, L 153, p. 15.

(2) OJ 2022, L 153, p. 92.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/252/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—